This paper examines 272 Canadian arbitration and labor relations board decisions involving employees who, when they refused work on the grounds that the work was unsafe, were disciplined by their employers. The authors' hypothesis is that boards treat the right to refuse unsafe work as secondary to management's right to manage. The results of the study confirm that the right to refuse was very restricted. Employees had to satisfy many rigid conditions to qualify for protection from discipline. These conditions appear to have been based on the notions that health and safety are properly management's prerogative and that obedience to management authority is essential to efficient production.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AllenRobert E., and LinenbergerPatricia. 1983. “The Employee's Right to Refuse Hazardous Work.”Employee Relations Law Journal, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 251–75.
2.
BankstonEddie W.1976. “Value Differences between Attorney and Economist Labor Arbitrators.” Proceedings of the 29th Annual Winter Meeting. Madison, Wis.: Industrial Relations Research Association.
3.
BemmelsBrian. 1988a. “The Effect of Grievants' Gender on Arbitration Decisions.”Industrial and Labor Relations Review, Vol. 41, No. 2, pp. 251–62.
4.
BemmelsBrian. 1988b. “Gender Effects in Discipline Arbitration: Evidence from British Columbia.”Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 31, No. 3, pp. 699–706.
5.
BemmelsBrian. 1988c. “Gender Effects in Discharge Arbitration.”Industrial and Labor Relations Review, Vol. 42, No. 1, pp. 63–76.
6.
BemmelsBrian. 1990a. “Arbitrator Characteristics and Arbitrator Decisions.”Journal of Labor Research, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 181–92.
7.
BemmelsBrian. 1990b. “Gender Effects in Grievance Arbitration.”Industrial Relations, Vol. 29, No. 3, pp. 513–25.
8.
BemmelsBrian. 1991. “Gender Effects in Grievance Arbitration.”Industrial Relations, Vol. 30, No. 1, pp. 150–62.
9.
BemmelsBrian. 1991. “Attribution Theory and Discipline Arbitration.”Industrial and Labor Relations Review, Vol. 44, No. 3, pp. 548–62.
10.
BlockRichard N., and StieberJack. 1987. “The Impact of Attorneys and Arbitrators on Arbitration Awards.”Industrial and Labor Relations Review, Vol. 40, No. 4, 543–55.
11.
BrownRichard. 1983. “The Right to Refuse Unsafe Work.”University of British Columbia Law Review, Vol. 17, No. l, pp. 1–34.
12.
BrownDonald M., and BeattyDavid M.. 1993. Canadian Labour Arbitration. Aurora, Ont.: Canada Law Book.
13.
CaudillSteven B., and OswaldSharon L.. 1992. “An Alternative to Bemmels's Method of Investigating Biases in Arbitration.”Industrial and Labor Relations Review, Vol. 45, No. 4, pp. 800–804.
14.
CaudillSteven B., and OswaldSharon L.. 1993. “A Sequential Selectivity Model of the Decisions of Arbitrators.”Managerial and Decision Economics, Vol. 14, pp. 261–67.
15.
ChristieInnisEnglandGeoffrey, and CotterBrent. 1993. Employment Law in Canada. Toronto: Butterworths Canada.
16.
Commerce Clearing House Canadian Limited. 1991. Canadian Employment and Health Guide, Vols. 1–3. Don Mills, Ontario: C.C.H. Canadian Limited.
17.
DigbyCaroline, and RiddellW. Craig. 1986. “Occupational Health and Safety in Canada.” In RiddellW. Craig, ed., Canadian Labour Relations. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
18.
DrapkinLarry. 1980. “The Right to Refuse Hazardous Work after Whirlpool.”Industrial Relations Law Journal, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 29–60.
19.
EdenGenevieve. 1993. “Industrial Discipline in the Canadian Federal Jurisdiction.”Relations Industrielles, Vol. 48, No. 1, pp. 163–80.
20.
ElkouriFrank, and ElkouriEdna. 1987. How Arbitration Works. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of National Affairs.
21.
FortadoBruceTravisTimothy J., and JenningsKenneth M.. 1990. “Refusal to Accept a Work Assignment: How Arbitrators Rule in Discharge Cases.”Employee Relations Law Journal, Vol. 16, No. 2, pp. 205–16.
22.
GrossJames A.1967. “Value Judgments in the Decisions of Labor Arbitrators.”Industrial and Labor Relations Review, Vol. 21, No. 1, pp. 55–72.
23.
GrossJames A., and GreenfieldPatricia A.. 1985. “Arbitral Value Judgments in Health and Safety Disputes: Management Rights over Workers' Rights.”Buffalo Law Review, Vol. 34, pp. 645–91.
24.
HarcourtMark. 1995. “Arbitrators and the 1978 Ontario Occupational Health and Safety Act.” Paper presented at the 32nd Conference of the Canadian Industrial Relations Association, Montreal, June.
25.
HarcourtMark. 1996. “Health and Safety Reform: A Review of Four Different Approaches.”Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 38, No. 3, pp. 359–76.
26.
HolmesRichard A.RogowRobert, and MaynesS. Stuart. 1990. “A Multivariate Logit Analysis of the Outcomes of Arbitration Decisions in British Columbia.”Evaluation Review, Vol. 14, No. 3, pp. 247–63.
27.
JobsonJ. David. 1992. Applied Multivariate Data Analysis, Vol. 2. New York: Springer-Verlag.
28.
LeslieGenevieve. 1982. “The Statutory Right to Refuse Unsafe Work: A Comparison of Saskatchewan, Ontario, and the Federal Jurisdiction.”Saskatchewan Law Review, Vol. 46, No. 2, pp. 234–70.
29.
NashMichael Izumi. 1983. Canadian Occupational Health and Safety Law Handbook. Don Mills, Ont.: C.C.H. Canadian Ltd.
30.
NelsonW. B.1984. “Insubordination: Arbitral ‘Law’ in the Reconciliation of Conflicting Employer/Employee Interests.”Labor Law Journal, Vol. 35, pp. 112–22.
31.
PalmerEarl Edward. 1978. Collective Agreement Arbitration in Canada. Toronto: Butterworths.
32.
PonakAllen. 1986. “Discharge and Reinstatement in Grievance Arbitration.” Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Meeting of the Canadian Industrial Relations Association (Winnipeg, May 23–31), pp. 158–72.
33.
PonakAllen. 1987. “Discharge Arbitration and Reinstatement in the Province of Alberta.”Arbitration Journal, Vol. 42, No. 2, pp. 39–46.
34.
RodgersRobert C., and HelburnI. B.. 1985. “The Arbitrariness of Arbitrators' Decisions.” Proceedings of the 37th Annual Meeting. Madison, Wisconsin: Industrial Relations Research Association, pp. 234–41.
35.
SAS Institute Inc.1994. SAS/STAT User's Guide, Version 6, Vol. 1. Cary, N.C.
36.
SteinBruno. 1977. “Management Rights and Productivity.”Arbitration Journal, Vol. 32, No. 4, pp. 270–78.
37.
ThornicroftKenneth William. 1989. “Arbitrators, Social Values, and the Burden of Proof in Substance Abuse Discharge Cases.”Labor Law Journal, Vol. 40, pp. 582–93.
38.
ThornicroftKenneth William. 1994. “Do Lawyers Affect Grievance Arbitration Outcomes? The Newfoundland Experience.”Relations Industrielles, Vol. 49, No. 2, pp. 356–71.
39.
ThornicroftKenneth William. 1995. “Gender Effects in Grievance Arbitration … Revisited.”Labor Studies Journal, Vol. 19, No. 4, pp. 35–44.
40.
WaltersVivienne. 1991. “State Mediation of Conflicts over Work Refusals: The Role of the Ontario Labour Relations Board.”International Journal of Health Services, Vol. 21, No. 4, pp. 717–29.
