View cases - Stewart McKelvey

tacitly approved a less than acceptable level of safety by allowing Mr. Pannu to work as aRecaust Operator is not a reason that this state of affairs ought to continue after the WCBdetermined it was unacceptable.[84] With respect to the second point, the evidence establishes that the danger of a major gasleak is real. While the need to perform the emergency procedure may never arise, it issufficiently likely that the WCB ordered Skeena to create a formal emergency procedure, a pointthe Complainant does not contest. Since an emergency procedure is required, an important partof that procedure is necessarily the designation of who is responsible for doing it. It is clearlyundesirable that there be any doubt in an emergency about who should be doing what.[85] Skeena’s defence really turns on the third point in issue: would exempting Mr. Pannu betotally incompatible with the purpose of the emergency procedure or, if not, would exemptingMr. Pannu cause undue hardship to Skeena?[86] As I have said, the purpose of Skeena’s standard is to minimize or eliminate additionaldanger during a gas emergency. Designating the Recaust Operator and the ARO to perform theemergency procedure is reasonably necessary to achieve that purpose, as these are the two mostexperienced and knowledgeable people in the department. They are most likely to be able to“trouble-shoot” during an emergency, for example, if there is difficulty with the shut downbecause equipment is not working properly.[87] The parties agree that, if Mr. Pannu was exempted from the emergency procedure, theARO and Utilityman on his shift would have to do it. Skeena argues that designating these twopersons to perform the emergency shut down would be totally incompatible with the purpose ofminimizing dangers, because they (and especially the Utilityman) do not have the experience andknowledge of the equipment that would enable them to trouble-shoot in an emergency. There issome evidence to support this position in the testimony of Mr. Hynes of the WCB. He testifiedthat the WCB would have been concerned if Skeena’s emergency procedure had designated theUtilityman rather than the Recaust Operator because a safe shut down in an emergency calls forthe extensive job experience and training that a Recaust Operator has.21