On March 17, 2008 a Quebec judge sentenced Transpave Inc. to a fine of $100,000 for criminal negligence causing the death of one of its employees and $10,000 for costs. The Crown and defence made a joint submission indicating to the judge that there was an agreement that this was an appropriate sentence. Although not binding on judges, such agreements are usually followed by the courts.
In imposing the fine, Judge Chevalier noted that since the crime, Transpave had spent half a million dollars to bring its plant up to European safety standards, higher than the prevailing North American standards.
Transpave is a paving stone manufacturer. Twenty-three year old Steve L'Ecuyer died when he was crushed by a machine that had been the subject of WCB safety infraction orders ignored by the company.
The French language version of the decision may be found at http://www.jugements.qc.ca/php/decision.php?liste=28455118&doc=575C44065A501B00
Friday, March 21, 2008
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Bill C-45 First Conviction
Following the disaster in the Westray Mine the Federal Government amended the Criminal Code to extend criminal liability to corporations for criminal negligence causing bodily harm or death. Bill C-45 also referred to as the "corporate killing law" or the "Westray disaster law" was made law in 2004.
The first conviction under Bill C-45 took place in December 2007 when a Quebec company entered a guilty plea on a charge of criminal negligence causing the death of a 23 year old worker who was crushed to death by a machine that stacks concrete blocks. WCB had earlier directed the company to fix the faulty machine but nothing had been done.
At the sentencing hearing late February 2008, the prosecution and the defence made a joint submission that a fine of $100,000 be imposed. The judge's decision on sentencing will be handed down on March 17, 2008. The case is being watched closely by the labour relations and occupational health and safety communities. I'll have more on this issue after the March 17 decision.
The first conviction under Bill C-45 took place in December 2007 when a Quebec company entered a guilty plea on a charge of criminal negligence causing the death of a 23 year old worker who was crushed to death by a machine that stacks concrete blocks. WCB had earlier directed the company to fix the faulty machine but nothing had been done.
At the sentencing hearing late February 2008, the prosecution and the defence made a joint submission that a fine of $100,000 be imposed. The judge's decision on sentencing will be handed down on March 17, 2008. The case is being watched closely by the labour relations and occupational health and safety communities. I'll have more on this issue after the March 17 decision.
Thursday, March 6, 2008
Is a union entitled to information about its members?
A union asks the employer to provide an up to date list of bargaining unit employees with contact information or information about their wages and benefits. Does the employer have to provide this informations?
1. During contract negotiations--yes
Governor and Company of Adventurers of England Trading into Hudson's Bay -and- UFCW Local 1518 BCLRB B226/2004
In a 2004 decision the Labour Relations Board ruled that refusing to provide a union with the list of employees and their wages and benefits was a breach of the duty to bargain in good faith. The union had requested the information during the course of collective bargaining and when the employer refused, alleging that the Personal Information and Protection of Privacy Act (PIPA) prevented it from doing so, it filed a complaint with the Labour Relations Board.
The Board agreed with the union and ordered that the information be provided. The decision can be found at:
http://www.lrb.bc.ca/decisions/B226$2004.pdf
2. During the term of a collective agreement --yes
In P. Sun's Enterprises (Vancouver) Ltd. (Hotel Grand Pacific), BCLRB No. B301/2003 the union had requested a list of employees and their home address and home telephone number. The employer refused arguing that the union had other ways that it could obtain the information. The Board was of the view that the in order to carry out its statutory obligation of representing its members a union has to have the ability to communicate with its members. Where it is relatively easy and inexpensive for an employer to provide the information requested and where the only reason for denying the information is concern about employee privacy, an employer must provide that information otherwise it risks committing an unfair labour practice.
The decision can be found at
http://www.lrb.bc.ca/decisions/B301$2003.pdf
For more information about employee personal information and obligations under BC privacy legislation, check out the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner website at: http://www.oipc.bc.ca/
1. During contract negotiations--yes
Governor and Company of Adventurers of England Trading into Hudson's Bay -and- UFCW Local 1518 BCLRB B226/2004
In a 2004 decision the Labour Relations Board ruled that refusing to provide a union with the list of employees and their wages and benefits was a breach of the duty to bargain in good faith. The union had requested the information during the course of collective bargaining and when the employer refused, alleging that the Personal Information and Protection of Privacy Act (PIPA) prevented it from doing so, it filed a complaint with the Labour Relations Board.
The Board agreed with the union and ordered that the information be provided. The decision can be found at:
http://www.lrb.bc.ca/decisions/B226$2004.pdf
2. During the term of a collective agreement --yes
In P. Sun's Enterprises (Vancouver) Ltd. (Hotel Grand Pacific), BCLRB No. B301/2003 the union had requested a list of employees and their home address and home telephone number. The employer refused arguing that the union had other ways that it could obtain the information. The Board was of the view that the in order to carry out its statutory obligation of representing its members a union has to have the ability to communicate with its members. Where it is relatively easy and inexpensive for an employer to provide the information requested and where the only reason for denying the information is concern about employee privacy, an employer must provide that information otherwise it risks committing an unfair labour practice.
The decision can be found at
http://www.lrb.bc.ca/decisions/B301$2003.pdf
For more information about employee personal information and obligations under BC privacy legislation, check out the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner website at: http://www.oipc.bc.ca/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
