Sentences with phrase «mol investigations»

Employers and their management and leaders would be well - advised to ensure that the organization's health and safety program is robust and well - documented, and that MOL investigations and workplace incidents are addressed in a manner consistent with the possibility of even more significant OHSA liability.

The MOL investigation concluded that an inadequate demolition procedure was used.

Not exact matches

Recent scandals in television ministries and investigations of clergy accused of molesting children are signs of sexual addiction in the church.

the pope could say they will release all doc.uments proving such abusing and help the police in their investigations / prosecutions in order to put these monsters behind bars instead of letting them molest children at the next church.

He was originally accused of molesting nine boys, but that was reduced to eight when the boy whose letter to his girlfriend had launched the investigation died in a minibike accident.

The New York Times has identified at least 40 girls and women who say that Dr. Larry Nassar molested them between July 2015, when he first fell under FBI scrutiny, and September 2016, when he was exposed by an Indianapolis Star investigation.

A lawyer for Bernie Fine's wife asked a federal judge to force SU to turn over more documents from its investigation of molesting allegations against the former assistant basketball coach.

Scotland Yard has launched an investigation into claims the Lib Dem peer molested party activists.

After an investigation was done by the police and the Ministry of Labour (MOL), the worker was charged under the OHSA and received a fine of $ 3,500.00.

In part, the Crown explained that it decided to wait until the MOL's investigation was complete before proceeding with criminal negligence charges and argued that it acted expeditiously in the factual context of the case.

a new power to the Ministry of Labour (MOL) to order an independent workplace harassment investigation at the employer's expense.

Failure to complete an internal investigation at the time of the incident, or completing an investigation that is limited in scope, may result in significant prejudice to the employer should the MOL decide to commence a prosecution when it becomes aware of the alleged offence, which could, potentially, be years after the incident.

This is troubling for the reasons mentioned above but particularly because it does appear that the MOL could review the process after an employer has acted on its investigation.

Response: There have been no guidelines issued by the MOL in connection with the procedural and qualitative aspects of workplace harassment investigations — whether under current provisions or the Bill 132 amendments.

Historic matters believed to be long over may be actionable and an increasing number of workplace events are to be reported to the MOL for investigation.

Therefore, one of the significant potential consequences of Bill 132 is that employers may continually be called upon to defend their investigation process to the MOL and, if required, before the OLRB.

In light of this expansion to the limitation period, employers should be particularly diligent in completing a comprehensive internal investigation at the time that injuries occur in the workplace, regardless of whether the incident is reported to the MOL.

Higher penalties, prosecution of alleged historic or latent contraventions, and expanded notification obligations resulting in increased investigations by the MOL all appear to lie ahead.

Since part of the duty on the employer to protect workers from harassment is to ensure that an investigation, appropriate in the circumstances, is conducted, it appears that an MOL inspector could assess the appropriateness of the investigation and order an employer to re-do all or part of an investigation — even after corrective action has been taken.

For that reason, we do not believe that calling the police will have the effect of assisting the employer in dealing with the MOL and any determination an inspector may make about the appropriateness of an investigation.

Knowing that the MOL may evaluate the appropriateness of the investigation for the circumstances, our view is that an employer should consider engaging an external investigator by considering a number of factors.

The upshot of such a complaint would be a review of the investigation process by the MOL and a decision on whether the investigation complied with the OHSA or not.

Clearly, the MOL could require an employer to conduct an investigation (whether using internal resources or a third party) into a workplace harassment complaint if the employer has not investigated.

Regardless of what the MOL determines about the investigation process, the inspector's decision (to order a new investigation or not) could be appealed to the Ontario Labour Relations Board («OLRB»), pursuant to section 61 of the OHSA, by an aggrieved party wishing to press their position that the investigation was compliant or non-compliant as the case may be.

In our view, Bill 132 creates the possibility that a complainant or respondent in a workplace harassment complaint could participate in the employer's investigation but, if not satisfied with the outcome, they or their representative could complain to the MOL and assert that the investigation was not «appropriate in the circumstances».

We do not believe that the employer could be subjected to an order or requirement from the MOL arising from the Bill 132 changes, requiring it to implement specific measures in response to the findings of a workplace harassment investigation.