View cases - Stewart McKelvey

[27] As a result of complaints by a number of recaust employees, and as a follow-up to hisMay 1993 inspection, Mr. Hynes re-visited the recaust department with Mr. Vatcher on March 9,1994. He saw Mr. Pannu working as a Recaust Operator. Mr. Hynes asked Mr. Pannu to put onan SCBA. Mr. Pannu did not put on the SCBA correctly, quite apart from his beard, although hetried for several minutes. Mr. Hynes testified that, with practice, a person could don an SCBA inunder a minute. In any event, Mr. Pannu’s beard meant that the SCBA could not seal with hisface.[28] As a result of his inspection, Mr. Hynes wrote a number of orders against Skeena (Ex. 3,Tab 1D). As Skeena required its Recaust Operators to be able to use SCBAs, Mr. Hynes orderedthat all Recaust Operators comply with WCB regulation 14.23(4) and be clean-shaven where therespirator seals with his face. Mr. Hynes also ordered all Skeena Recaust Operators to becompetent in donning and using an SCBA (WCB Reg 14.23(3)). Mr. Vatcher testified that theWCB imposed a fine of $4,000 on Skeena for its infractions of WCB regulations.[29] Mr. Pannu testified that, before his next shift, his supervisor, Dan Danroth, called him athome and told him that he could not work as a Recaust Operator unless he shaved. Mr. Pannuwas not willing to shave. The agreed statement of facts states that Skeena removed Mr. Pannufrom the Recaust Operator position on March 11, 1994.[30] On March 14, 1994, Mr. Pannu’s father died and Mr. Pannu took a two-day bereavementleave. While he was away, a pre-existing back problem flared up and Mr. Pannu was confined tohis bed. As it turned out, his back problem was serious and he could not return to work for manymonths. At that time, however, no one realized the severity of Mr. Pannu’s back problem.Everyone assumed that he would be able to return to work shortly and Skeena began looking foran alternative position for Mr. Pannu.[31] George Hines, Skeena’s loss prevention supervisor, met initially with Karl Sandhu, aUnion representative, on March 22 to discuss Mr. Pannu’s situation. They discussed theavailable jobs and Mr. Pannu’s position that he ought to be maintained at his Recaust Operatorrate of pay. Mr. Hines and Mr. Sandhu met again on March 28. At that time, Mr. Hines gaveMr. Sandhu a list of available positions to discuss with Mr. Pannu and agreed to provide himwith a list of all mill jobs for which respirators were not required. On March 29, Mr. Sandhu7