View cases - Stewart McKelvey

[62] I conclude that it is not possible to exempt beard-wearers from Reg. 14.23 because anysuch exemption would be totally incompatible with the degree of safety set by the standard.[63] With respect to the Complainant’s argument, that the WCB ought to have delayedenforcing its orders in March 1994, I find that any further delay would have constituted unduehardship. As I have found that the rule could not admit of exceptions, it was the WCB’sresponsibility to enforce it. Moreover, Mr. Pannu had continued to work as a Recaust Operatordespite the fact that he could not safely comply with the emergency procedures written by Mr.Vatcher in 1993. While there is some evidence that Skeena tried to address the problem withMr. Pannu and with the union in late 1993, nothing had happened by March 1994 and workerswere complaining directly to the WCB. In these circumstances, it would have been irresponsiblefor the WCB not to enforce its regulation. In fact, it was the March 9, 1994 WCB order and finethat stimulated Skeena to finally act. Whether Skeena’s action was justifiable relates to thecomplaint against Skeena; it is not an argument that the WCB should not have acted when and asit did.[64] In conclusion, I find that Reg 14.23 is a BFOR and that the WCB acted appropriately inenforcing it in March 1994. The complaint against the WCB is dismissed.The Complaint against Skeena[65] The central issue in Mr. Pannu’s complaint against Skeena is the justifiability of theemergency procedure that Mr. Vatcher wrote in response to the WCB’s 1993 order. Asdescribed above, the procedure requires everyone to evacuate the area initially, an action that canbe performed with bite block respirators and for which Mr. Pannu’s beard does not pose anyadditional risk. The procedure then requires the Recaust Operator and ARO to put on SCBAsand return to the gas-contaminated area to shut down various equipment and test for gases in thecontrol room. These steps would take several minutes at a minimum and, depending on thenature and consequences of the emergency, might take considerably longer.[66] Counsel for Mr. Pannu conceded that gas emergency procedures are necessary in thatsomeone must shut down the equipment as described. He agreed that an SCBA is required ifthere is gas in the area and that a buddy system is also necessary. The only aspect of the16