General Electric Workers Exposed to Toxic Chemicals for Decades

Between 1945 and 2000, General Electric’s factory in Peterborough was the epicentre for many work-related illnesses among employees and retirees, a study of chemical exposures at the plant reveals.

This, however, is nothing new. The community has been saying this for quite some time, and the 173-page report confirms this. GE’s plant workers built household appliances all the way to diesel locomotive engines and fuel cells for nuclear reactors. The workers were exposed to more than 3,000 toxic chemicals in the process, some of which include 40 to be cancer-causing. Workers were exposed to these chemicals at levels hundreds of times higher than what is now considered safe, says the report.

General Electric allowed workers in the past to handle the toxic substances without protective gear, which they were rarely offered. As they were paid by the piece and not by the hour in the 1980s, there was an incentive to cut corners. Seeing as about 500 lbs. of asbestos was used daily and workers did not have respiratory protection or proper ventilation, it is no wonder these employees have had trouble with their health after being exposed. The managers also knew the harm that these chemicals can cause to people without the proper protection, as early as the 1920s and 1930s.

The lead was another huge component that circulated the plant. Workers used about 40,000 lbs. in a week to produce PVC pellets until the 1980s, and also experience daily exposure to:

Solvents
Welding Fumes
Epoxy Resins
PCBs
Beryllium
Uranium

Daily exposure to the above without proper protection is extremely dangerous. However, around 2000 is when safety measures were being mandated, and since then, GE’s plant is a smaller operation, and spotless.

The report will be used to support occupational disease claims that were previously denied by Ontario’s Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (the “WSIB”). Hundreds have filed compensation claims, and unfortunately, Ontario’s worker compensation system does not allow employees to sue their employer when they have been given the ability to claim benefits when they are injured or fall ill because of work.

The WSIB has been given 660 compensation claims from GE workers since 2004, with 280 accepted, more than half withdrawn, abandoned or rejected because of insufficient evidence that the conditions were work-related.

“Workers that suffered from working within the plant were forced, for many years, to provide proof of their working conditions, only to be told this is anecdotal,” said Sue James, whose father worked at the plant for 30 years and died of lung and spinal cancer, believed to have been caused by exposure to the chemicals used in GE’s plant.

A former employee believes he developed colorectal cancer because he worked more than 22 years under asbestos-wrapped pipes, which would occasionally shed while he worked. This employee, Roger Fowler, was one of the former employees who worked on the report.

With this investigation drawing some attention, the provincial labour ministry announced it will be setting up an occupational disease response team by the end of the year to focus on chemical exposure prevention and help sick workers file compensation claims.

11 retirees worked as advisers on this report. Together, this committee along with health researchers Bob and Dale DeMatteo, interviewed over 75 former workers to gather information on working conditions and production processes.

The data collected from these workers was coupled with data from labour ministry inspection reports, joint health and safety committee minutes, company memos, industrial hygiene literature and other documents, gathered by the union.

At Devry Smith Frank LLP we provide a full range of services to suit any need. If you are seeking information or representation for a similar situation, please contact the lawyers of our Health and Safety and Employment Law Teams today. If you require more information please call us today at 416-449-1400.

“This article is intended to inform and entertain. Its content does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon by readers as such. If you require legal assistance, please see a lawyer. Each case is unique and a lawyer with good training and sound judgment can provide you with advice tailored to your specific situation and needs.”

Temporary Layoffs during COVID-19 Can Amount to Constructive Dismissal under Common Law | Devry Smith Frank LLP

Posted onMay 26, 2021June 24, 2024/ Marty Rabinovitch

Temporary Layoffs during COVID-19 Can Amount to Constructive Dismissal under Common Law – Coutinho v. Ocular Health Centre Ltd., 2021 ONSC 3076 (CanLII)

In earlier blog posts, which can be found here and here, we wrote about the implications of Regulation 228/20 (the “Regulation”), enacted pursuant to the Employment Standards Act, 2000(the “ESA”). The Regulation states that non-unionized employees who had their hours reduced or eliminated due to COVID-19 are deemed retroactively to be on Infectious Disease Emergency [...]

Microsoft Sales office. Microsoft plans for a future beyond the XBOX, Surface and cloud computing. | Devry Smith Frank LLP

Posted onFebruary 24, 2021February 24, 2021/ Marty Rabinovitch

Termination Provisions of Employee Stock Awards Agreement Found Unenforceable – Battiston v. Microsoft Canada Inc., 2020 ONSC 4286 (CanLII)

In 2018, an employee was terminated by his employer without cause following a tenure of nearly 23 years. In addition to his base salary, the employee’s compensation included performance-based cash bonuses and stock awards, which collectively accounted for approximately 30% of his income. The stock awards in question were awarded to the employee during his [...]

Temporary-Layoffs-During-COVID-19 | Devry Smith Frank LLP

Posted onSeptember 15, 2020September 29, 2020/ Marty Rabinovitch

Temporary Layoffs During COVID-19 – “COVID-19 period” extended until January 2, 2021

On May 29, 2020, Ontario passed Regulation 228/20 under the Employment Standards Act (“ESA”). As a result of this new regulation, non-unionized workers who had their hours reduced or eliminated due to COVID-19 are deemed retroactively to be on Infectious Disease Emergency Leave, which is an unpaid, job-protected leave under the ESA. The regulation applies retroactively from March 1, 2020, and initially [...]

Enforceability-of-Termination-Clauses-and-the-Latest-Blow-to-Employers | Devry Smith Frank LLP

Posted onAugust 26, 2020September 2, 2021/ Marty Rabinovitch

Enforceability of Termination Clauses and the Latest Blow to Employers – Waksdale v. Swegon North America Inc. (2020 ONCA 391)

Termination clauses are often relied upon by employers to define an employee’s severance entitlement when an employee is terminated without cause. These clauses are often drafted to limit an employee’s entitlement to their statutory minimums, which are significantly less than the employee’s entitlement at common law. If an employment contract contains no termination clause or [...]

Portrait of adult caucasian man businessman wearing shirt holding a box personal items stuff leaving the office being fired from work due recession economic crisis downturn losing job company shutdown | Devry Smith Frank LLP

Posted onJuly 20, 2020June 24, 2024/ Marty Rabinovitch

Employers Must Discharge Their Onus to Prove Failure to Mitigate

A recent 2020 decision of the British Columbia Supreme Court, Virk v. Satnam Education Society of B.C., was a reminder that in wrongful dismissal litigation, the employer has the burden to prove an employee’s failure to mitigate. When an employee has been wrongfully dismissed, they are obligated to act reasonably by taking steps to replace their [...]

LAWYER SEARCH