Canadian Safety Reporter

3 Canadian HR Reporter, a Thomson Reuters business 2016 News | May 2016 | CSR Letter carrier oversteps dangerous work claim Canada Post employee claimed stairs on delivery route were dangerous, but there were alternatives BY JEFFREY R. SMITH A CANADA POST employee did not face a danger to his health and safety from a set of stairs on his delivery route, the Canada Occupational Health and Safety Tribunal has ruled. Robert Thibeault was a letter carrier for Canada Post in Sher- brooke, Que. His route included a neighbourhood with several steep slopes and Thibeault and other letter carriers in the area didn't carry bags on their shoulders. One building on Thibeault's route was on a steep slope and had a couple of flights of stairs leading to the mailbox. The low- er flight of stairs — consisting of six steps — had no banister and led up to a rest platform, where the stairs continued along the side of the building. The upper part of the stairs along the build- ing had a banister. Letter carrier worried about safety of stairway on his route On March 26, 2013, Thibeault made a complaint to Canada Post about the stairs on his route. He said climbing stairs without banisters to get to the mailbox posed a danger to his health and safety and he was exercising his right to refuse dangerous work under the Canada Labour Code. He made the work refusal before leaving the depot. An occupational health and safety (OHS) officer was dis- patched to investigate Thi- beault's work refusal and ex- amined his route, accompanied by the Canada Post workplace occupational health and safety committee co-chair, a union rep- resentative, and two other com- mittee members. The OHS officer found the stairs in question were not ob- structed and the weather was dry and sunny on the day of Thi- beault's refusal, though the tem- perature was slightly below freez- ing. He also found the lower stairs that had no banister weren't at- tached to the building and other nearby properties had landscap- ing with rock, concrete and other materials that made it possible to cross between the sidewalk and the main stairway beside the building with a banister. The OHS officer concluded that if bad weather conditions made the way to the building dif- ficult and unsafe to deliver mail, Thibeault could follow estab- lished Canada Post procedure entitled "Hazards and Obstruc- tions to Delivery," which allowed all employees to not deliver mail under dangerous circumstances such as bad weather conditions. However, since the weather wasn't bad the day of Thibeault's work refusal, he should have been able to deliver the mail safely. Thibeault appealed the deci- sion to the OHS Tribunal, argu- ing that Canada Post required building owners to install a handrail for stairways that had more than three risers above ground level to ensure mail de- livery. All letter carriers were aware of this directive and a property that breached it was a danger to them, said Thibeault. A 2012 Canada Post report on the stairs in question indi- cated the lower stairway didn't need a banister because it was less than 60 cm off the ground, but Thibeault argued that the height of the stairway should be measured from the street and the report ran counter to the di- rective aimed at protecting letter carriers. The tribunal noted that the code stipulated that a danger existed if "a hazard, condition or activity could reasonably be ex- pected to cause injury or illness to an employee, whether or not the effects are immediate, before the hazard or condition can be corrected or the activity altered." The code also indicated an in- jury didn't have to happen every time or at a specific time, as long as the dangerous circumstances "will occur in the future, not as a mere possibility, but as a reason- able one." The tribunal found that Thi- beault's regular work duties in- volved walking long distances and going up and down stairs to access mailboxes at various ad- dresses. At the time of his work refusal, there was no indication he had any condition that pre- vented him from performing his regular duties and required accommodation from Canada Post. In addition, Thibeault had already been delivering mail to the address in question for a few months before his work re- fusal and he had indicated that he often made a slight detour to avoid using the stairs that lacked a banister. Employer had procedure for bad conditions The tribunal also found that handrails were installed in stair- ways to help avoid falls. On the day of Thibeault's work refusal, the weather conditions were good and there were no obsta- cles or instructions such as snow or ice on the stairs that created a reasonable possibility that Thi- beault could fall that day. "I am not satisfied that, in the circumstances, the lack of a handrail alone can constitute a condition or hazard that could reasonably be expected to cause injury to an employee," said the tribunal. The tribunal agreed with the OHS officer's comments that if the weather deteriorated or any other changes to the delivery conditions increased the risk of falling on the stairs, Thibeault could follow the established procedure for Canada Post em- ployees. However, absent any such conditions, the tribunal determined there was no danger to Thibeault in delivering mail to the address in question. Thi- beault's appeal was dismissed. For more information see: • Thibeault v. Canada Post Corporation, 2015 CarswellNat 8411 (Can. OH&S Trib.). Credit: Paul Vasarhelyi (Shutterstock)

• Cover