When Can an Employee Refuse Unsafe Work and Expect to Be Protected from Discipline? Evidence from Canada

Mark Harcourt and Sondra Harcourt

ILR Review, 2000, vol. 53, issue 4, 684-703

Abstract: This paper examines 272 Canadian arbitration and labor relations board decisions involving employees who, when they refused work on the grounds that the work was unsafe, were disciplined by their employers. The authors' hypothesis is that boards treat the right to refuse unsafe work as secondary to management's right to manage. The results of the study confirm that the right to refuse was very restricted. Employees had to satisfy many rigid conditions to qualify for protection from discipline. These conditions appear to have been based on the notions that health and safety are properly management's prerogative and that obedience to management authority is essential to efficient production.

Date: 2000
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/001979390005300407 (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:sae:ilrrev:v:53:y:2000:i:4:p:684-703

DOI: 10.1177/001979390005300407

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in ILR Review from Cornell University, ILR School
Bibliographic data for series maintained by SAGE Publications ().