09.07.2015 Views

View cases - Stewart McKelvey

View cases - Stewart McKelvey

View cases - Stewart McKelvey

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

WCB’s requirement that persons who may be in gas-contaminated environments be clean-shavenin order to be able to wear SCBAs. The primary questions I must decide are whether theserequirements are bona fide and justifiable and whether the WCB and/or Skeena could haveaccommodated Mr. Pannu’s wearing of a beard without incurring undue hardship.FACTS AND EVIDENCEIntroduction[5] At the hearing, Mr. Pannu testified on his own behalf; Richard Hynes, an OccupationalSafety Officer with the WCB, testified for the WCB; Roy Vatcher, the recaust area supervisor,and Kathy Gomez, Skeena’s human resources supervisor at the relevant time, testified forSkeena.[6] The documents produced by Skeena and by the WCB at the outset of the hearing, as wellas an agreed statement of facts were admitted into evidence on consent.[7] There are few factual issues in this complaint. Both sides made significant concessions.The Complainant agrees that it is necessary to shut down the recaust equipment in the event of amajor gas leak. Although counsel for the Complainant appeared to resile from this concession atcertain points in his submissions, he also re-asserted this concession. Whether the parties agreeor not, I am satisfied that it is necessary to shut down the recaust equipment in the event of amajor emergency gas leak. Skeena’s evidence on this point was persuasive and uncontradicted:it would be dangerous to evacuate the area for an indeterminate amount of time, leavingpoisonous gases to burn in extremely hot kilns unsupervised.[8] The Complainant also agrees that Skeena had to comply with the WCB’s order that itinstitute safe emergency shut down procedures and he does not contest the validity of the WCBorder. He agrees that the persons performing an emergency shut down must be able to wearSCBAs and that a “buddy system,” whereby two people remain together in the contaminatedenvironment, is necessary in such circumstances. Finally, the Complainant concedes that thereare no respirators that would safely allow a bearded person to perform an emergency shut downof equipment in a gas-contaminated area.2

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!