A fight between paramedics in the County of Frontenac and their employer over the type of personal flotation devices (PFDs) provided has come to a close with an arbitrator ruling in favour of the employer.
The ruling, issued by arbitrator Eli Gedalof, determined that the County’s choice of standard recreation-style life vests for paramedics does not violate health and safety obligations despite union claims of restricted movement and safety hazards.
The core of the grievance revolved around the bulkiness and restrictive nature of the provided life vests, which the union argued posed health and safety risks to paramedics.
The union insisted that the Mustang Life Vest MD, a product recommended by the Joint Health and Safety Committee (JHSC) in 2015, would be a safer and more practical alternative. However, the County maintained that the current life vests were safe and met all necessary standards.
Background
Prior to 2015, paramedics relied on third parties such as the Fire Service to provide life vests when needed. The JHSC recommended that each ambulance be stocked with two Mustang Life Vests.
However, the employer opted for a more standard recreation-style life vest, lined with buoyant foam and fastened with three buckled straps.
The union argued that these vests, while effective in preventing drowning, were too bulky and restricted paramedics’ movements, creating additional hazards.
They claimed that the employer’s failure to provide the Mustang vests violated their health and safety obligations under the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA).
Arguments and evidence
The union’s primary argument was that the current vests were unsafe and that the Mustang vests were the appropriate and safe option. They alleged that the current vests restricted movement and could potentially create ergonomic hazards during emergency responses.
Conversely, the County argued that the current vests were safe, had been in use without incident for several years, and met the required standards. They also maintained that they were not obligated to provide the union’s preferred option as long as the provided equipment was safe.
The union’s evidence lacked specific instances of health and safety incidents directly related to the use of the current life vests. On the contrary, there had been no reported incidents or complaints about the vests over several years of use. The union did not provide substantial evidence that paramedics faced difficulties performing their duties due to the life vests.
The ruling
Arbitrator Gedalof found that the union failed to present a compelling argument supported by evidence that the current life vests posed a significant health and safety risk. The employer’s choice of life vests, while perhaps not the union’s preferred option, met the necessary safety standards and had been in use without incident, said Gedalof.
“There is, quite simply, no cogent evidence before me to support a positive conclusion that the current model is unsafe,” Gedalof stated in the ruling. He emphasized that while the Mustang vests might be an excellent option, mandating their use without clear evidence of the current vests’ inadequacy would be an inappropriate incursion into management rights.
Gedalof concluded that the employer had taken reasonable precautions as required by the OHSA and that the union’s claims of ergonomic hazards were not sufficiently supported by evidence. The arbitrator acknowledged that the current vests served their primary purpose of mitigating drowning risks and that any additional ergonomic concerns did not rise to the level of a significant safety hazard that necessitated the adoption of the Mustang vests.
Conclusion
The decision reaffirms that while employers must take reasonable precautions to ensure worker safety, they are not obligated to adopt the union’s preferred equipment in the absence of substantial evidence demonstrating a significant risk.
The grievance is dismissed, and the employer’s choice of life vests stands validated.
For more information, see Corporation of the County of Frontenac v Ontario Public Service Employees Union, 2024 CanLII 65893 (ON LA).
