Ah, springtime.

The icy grip of winter has thawed. Mother Nature, forgoing the usual power trip by snow in favour of fewer, but nastier, weather extremes, nonetheless imposed her big, bad thumb on great swaths of this land. But that time has passed.

It’s back to sweetness and light. Spring, a time of renewal, offers the unspoiled hope of the good that may come. And at spring’s hopeful end? Glorious summer.

But, then again, maybe not. The latest round of a court battle - which began with charges several years ago, followed by convictions and then appeals - was set to begin in May. An Ontario construction company was fined $100,000 two years ago after it was found guilty of two violations of the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

Beyond the convictions, which the company is still fighting, defence counsel reports that a lower court determined that the company’s post-accident improvements to workplace conditions (installation of guards) represented evidence of guilt.

And that is something that may take the spring out of everyone’s step. "The decision under appeal has a potential 'chilling effect’ on employers who want to make safety improvements after an accident has occurred at a workplace, but fear that such actions may be held against them," says a defence brief.

A second court had earlier concluded that this was not the case and upheld the convictions.

No one knows how all this will end, but it’s clear that the thaw is off and the big chill is on. That big, bad thumb looks to be bearing down once again but, this time, it may be workplaces that find themselves pinned to the wall.

Businesses that previously hoped a little acknowledgment (maybe even some forgiveness) would come with safety improvements following accidents could be on the verge of a winter of discontent. Beyond the moral and righteous, there will be no practical benefit to making changes - at least not until a case has been settled.

You roll the dice, you take your chances. But should it be that any potential for improvements - which would clearly help people who continue to work at a company in question - is all but snuffed out?

Sure, some will say truly responsible employers will acknowledge shortcomings and take preventive steps without expecting some form of quid pro quo. And they certainly should.

But ours is not a perfect world. Should any approach that encourages (eventually) doing the right thing be squandered? Good intentions may be for naught if there is no incentive to move quickly.

What will the future hold if the immediacy of an accident is buried and corporate memory is lost? What will be left but worker frustration because the chance for real change diminishes with each passing day?

The demonstrated remorse of a company - through safety improvements - is something that should be supported in the hopes of extending a positive reach beyond the fortunes of a specific workplace... to like workplaces... to all workplaces. All for one and one for all.

If upheld, the decision could leave potential improvements swirling the bowl and workplace parties asking what now constitutes an appropriate response.

This company’s convictions, in the grand scheme of things, are not the major concern. The concern is whether or not the language of the lower court infiltrates future rulings and puts a freeze on efforts to right past wrongs.

Back