This text is part of the special booklet 33rd congress of the FTQ
In October 2021, the Act to modernize the occupational health and safety system was adopted by the National Assembly. This comes into force gradually in Quebec. However, employers are still reluctant to recognize certain aspects, according to the FTQ.
The FTQ’s occupational health and safety committee contributed to the reflection on this modernization of the law. “We feel a reluctance on the part of employers to recognize the equal aspect of the law, which means that we have representation of workers appointed by the unions, notes Annie Landry, director of the health service and occupational safety at the FTQ. In health and safety, one of the basic principles is parity. The purpose of the law is for workers to have an equal voice with employers when it comes to health and safety. It had been 40 years since we waited for the extension of prevention mechanisms to all. »
Between 1979 and 2021, the application of prevention mechanisms was done only for the groups considered as priorities, that is to say those considered to be the most dangerous, such as mines, heavy industry, blasting. The modernization of the law ensures that these prevention mechanisms are extended to all sectors.
“We see that parity is very upsetting to management, but we need this principle to improve workplaces. Employers tend to favor performance and short-term vision, whereas health and safety is a medium- to long-term investment and vision. But we see that it works. »
Psychosocial risks
The main novelty of this modern version is the addition of psychosocial risks. This includes mental health and workload.
“The law now protects people against an excessive workload,” says Annie Landry. Employers will need to ensure that the workload does not make people sick. They will have to be held accountable. In 1979, we mainly talked about ergonomics and toxic products. Today, by including psychosocial risks, this will make it possible to take into account predominantly female risks, such as health and education. »
However, in order to assess these risks and change working conditions, it is necessary to appoint representatives who observe what is happening in the field.
“The issue is that to do this representation work, we need release hours to be scheduled for health and safety representatives. In 1979, hours of release were planned and showed their effectiveness. Over the years, each time we have tried to broaden the application of prevention mechanisms, we have always come up against the refusal of the Treasury Board. For certain sectors, the initial law provided for levels of risk which provided for starving release hours, in certain workplaces. »
The role of these health and safety representatives is to inspect workplaces, identify risks and make recommendations to the employer, as well as to investigate accidents internally and suggest changes to prevent them from happening again. The law provides for the independence of these representatives to carry out their work without seeking authorization from the employer. They will therefore be trained according to a program whose parameters will be determined by the CNESST.
The FTQ has therefore mobilized to advance these demands, particularly with regard to the hours of release. She would like the number of hours of leave to allow everyone, including those who work in a non-unionized environment, to have a health and safety representative, but without really winning their case.
“The minister’s solution was to impose an interim regime,” says Annie Landry. Until 2025, approximately 25% of the hours provided for in 1979 apply for all workplaces. So we have a quarter of what we were asking for, and the file has now been forwarded to the regulatory work of the CNESST so that we can reach an agreement. In the meantime, what we fear is that the lack of will on the part of employers to participate in joint action means that the number of hours of leave will not allow the representatives to do their job well. »
This special content was produced by the Special Publications team of the To have to, relating to marketing. The drafting of To have to did not take part.
This special content was produced by Le Devoir’s special publications team, reporting to marketing. The editorial staff of Le Devoir did not take part.