캐나다 중대재해기업처벌법 "웨스트레이 법" 제정 2004년 이후 10년간 평가, 한국에 주는 교훈

정책비교/노동 2020. 12. 13. 06:26
반응형


캐나다 '중대재해기업처벌법 , 웨스트레이 법' 제정과 집행 사례의 교훈


중대재해기업 처벌법 (캐나다의 경우 , 웨스트레이 법) (영국의 경우, 기업 살인법)이 제정된 이후, 실질적인 일터 사고 사망자와 일터에서 얻은 '질병'으로 인한 사망 숫자를 줄이기 위해서 무엇이 필요한가? 다섯가지로 요약될 수 있다. 


첫번째, '50인 미만 사업장 4년 유예조치' 등 현재 민주당과 박주민 등이 '중대재해기업처벌법'을 약화시키는 정치적 방침을 철회시키고, 처벌 수위를 높이고, 범위 또한 넓혀야 한다. 


두번째, 중앙 행정부 지도자와 노동부의 강력한 의지가 있어야 한다.  


세번째, 경찰과 검찰 내부 '중대재해기업처벌법'을 실행할 전문적인 수사팀이 있어야 한다. 


네번째, 노동자들의 직접적인 참여가 필수적이다. 노동자와 노동자 조직이 지속적인 '일터 사망자 줄이기'  캠페인을 벌여야 한다. "노동자를 죽이면 감옥간다 Kill a worker, Go to Jail " 와 같은 운동을 펼쳐야 한다. 


다섯번째, 일터에서 사고로 죽는 노동자 뿐만 아니라, 위험한 물질에 노출되거나 과로처럼 노동현장의 노동착취로 인해 발생한 '질병'으로 죽는 노동자 숫자가 더 많다는 것을 알리고, '노동 과정의 안전'을 보장하기 위해는 노동자가 회사경영에 직접 참여해야 한다.







참고: 캐나다 웨스트레이 법안 

 https://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/legisl/billc45.html


1. 단순 비교.   '일터 사망자' 를 단순히 양적으로 비교하면, 한국은 캐나다에 비해 약 1.5배 정도많은 편이다. 3천 700만 인구 캐나다의 경우 1년에 990명, 인구 5천 100만 한국의 경우 1년에 2000명 넘는 노동자가 '일터 사고'로 '일터에서 얻은 질병'으로 사망한다. 


2. 2004년 캐나다판 중대재해기업처벌법 "웨스트레이 법" 제정 이후, 2014년까지 

10년간 검사 기소한 사례는 10회. 

2020년 최근 뉴스에 따르면, 캐나다 노동자들은 캐나다 정부가 '웨스트레이 법'을 보다 더 강력하게 실행해야 한다고 보고 있다. 


3.   아래 기사 작성자 놈 키쓰(Norm Keith)에 따르면, '웨스트레이 법'에 근거한 기소가 적었던 이유를 3가지로 분류하고 있다.


1) 캐나다 경찰과 검찰 내부에 중대재해기업처벌을 위한 전문적인 수사팀이 부족하다. 

2) 검찰의 소극적인 태도. 경찰이 기소해도 검사측이 '중대재해기업처벌'을 다루는 '웨스트레이 법'보다는 기존의 '일터 안전과 건강법  (occupational safety and health act)'이면 충분하다는 태도를 보임.

3) 캐나다 연방,주정부의 의지 부족 



'웨스트레이 법'에 근거한 '일터 사망자'에 대한 기소 숫자가 적었던 이유: 


첫번째 이유, 캐나다 경찰과 검찰이 기업살해법 B C-45 가 있는지 존재 여부를 잘 모른다. 기업 내 상위 책임자와 의사결정과정을 규명하는 게 중요한 수사 내용이다.

전문 수사 능력을 갖춘 경찰, 검사 부족.


두번째 이유는 경찰이 기소하려고 하는데, 검사는 이 사건은 '일터 안전과 건강법' 소관이라는 태도. 그러나 이러한 태도는 원래 입법 취지와 목표에 대한 무지.


 세번째 이유는, 캐나다가 Bill C-45를 강력하게 적용하지 않았다. 그 이유는 캐나다가 화이트 칼라 범죄를 강력하게 다루지 않기 때문이다. OECD도 이런 이유로 캐나다를 비판함. 


몇 가지 기소 사례


트란스페이브 Transpave : 10만 달러 벌금. 벌금 적어.


4명 노동자 사망 (메트론 건설 Metron )

메트론 회장를 비롯, 4명 책임자와, 메트론 기업 자체를 기소했다.


(2016년에 메트론 건설사 책임 매니저였던 바딤 카젠넬슨이 3년 6개월 실형을 선고받음. 2009년 12월 24일 토론토 13층 건물 공사중, 건축 비계가 추락하는 바람에, 6명 중 4명의 노동자가 추락해 사망한 사건.)


https://bit.ly/2Wh2CgI


참고 : 캐나다 '일터 안전과 노동자 건강법' https://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/sor-86-304/index.html



국 자료 : 


2019 june 동향분석 어업 재해 감소 대책.pdf

재난안전관리 분야별 현장 종사자의 직업능력 강화 방안.pdf




https://www.sudbury.com/local-news/names-of-48-workers-killed-on-the-job-read-at-day-of-mourning-601123


After 10 years, Bill C-45 yields few prosecutions


By Norm Keith


Opinion 23 Apr 2014


On March 31, 2014, Bill C-45 celebrated its 10th anniversary. This decade old law established, for the first time in Canadian history, a crime of occupational health and safety criminal negligence. Upon conviction, an individual may receive life imprisonment and a corporate defendant may receive an unlimited fine.

일터 건강과 안전 과실 범죄.


For the last 10 years, Canada has had one of the most strict criminal laws relating to workplace health and safety in the Western world. However, in these first 10 years, this law has not been strictly enforced nor has it been effective in reducing workplace accidents.


캐나다 2004년에 제정되어, 서구 국가 중 가장 강력하게 적용.


Bill C-45 was the Criminal Code amendment reaction to the Westray Mine disaster that occurred in May, 1992, causing the death of 26 miners in Plymouth, N.S. 


According to Greg Jost, one of the drafters of Bill C-45, the bill was a “made in Canada” solution to three perceived problems:


제정 계기 3가지


• the need for a new OHS crime to deal with a Westray Mine-scale workplace disaster

• a new approach to holding corporations accountable in criminal law

• new powers for courts to impose penalties and probation on organizations.


In the 10 years since Bill C-45 has been passed into law, there have only been 10 prosecutions. This is particularly concerning because the number of fatalities has not changed over that decade — the average number of fatalities has remained constant at about 990 every year for the last 10 years, according to the Association of Workers’ Compensation Boards of Canada.




In my view, there are at least three reasons why there have been so few prosecutions.


First, there has been very little education for both police and Crown attorneys on the existence of Bill C-45. The Bill C-45 amendments, especially for corporations, require an assessment of a company’s management structure to determine who is a “senior officer” and also its decision-making process. This is not the normal area of training, knowledge and expertise of the police and Crown attorneys who investigate and prosecute criminal charges under Bill C-45.



Second, some police officers who have recommended Bill C-45 charges have been told by Crown attorneys that they should “leave it to the occupational health and safety regulator” and not lay criminal charges. The police have been told by Crown attorneys that this is really not an area of concern for the police. This is completely contrary to the purpose of Bill C-45 and the intention of the federal government in passing it. However, Crown attorneys are provincially not federally appointed.


Third, Bill C-45 has not been aggressively enforced because Canada is “soft” on enforcing white-collar crime. Canada has been criticized internationally for not enforcing legislation such as the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act, with only four prosecutions since the law was passed in 1999. Canada has been publicly criticized at the G20, and at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development for being soft on white-collar crime. 



Prosecutions


There have been several high profile cases prosecuted under the Bill C-45 amendments.




The first corporation to be prosecuted was Transpavé. It actually pleaded guilty to a criminal charge under the amendments, but only faced a fine of $100,000. The fine, since it was a joint submission, was not challenged on appeal by the Crown. This was a remarkably low fine for a company convicted of a criminal offence that caused the death of a worker.


The most important — and still ongoing — case is the Christmas Eve fatality involving the death of four workers employed by Metron Construction in Toronto. It involved the prosecution of four individuals, including the president of Metron, and Metron the corporation itself.





On the day of the accident, five workers plus one supervisor, Fayzullo Fazilov, boarded a swing stage to travel from the 14th floor to the ground level. At the time, there were only two lifelines for six workers. The combined weight of the workers and the equipment caused the swing stage to collapse, opening like a drawbridge, where four workers fell to their deaths.


As part of the legal resolution, the charges relating to violations of Ontario’s Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA), and the regulation for construction projects were withdrawn. Metron agreed to plead guilty to one count of contravening Bill C-45. One of the critical admissions by Metron, as part of the plea bargain agreement, is that Fazilov was a “senior officer” of Metron Construction. This was an essential admission for the corporation to ensure its plea bargain be accepted by the trial court.


In other words, without the admission that Fazilov was a “senior officer,” even though he was only a first-line supervisor, the Crown could not have secured a conviction under the Bill C-45 amendments to the Criminal Code. A fine of $200,000 was imposed by the trial judge.


But the Court of Appeal held that the sentence was “manifestly unfit” and it increased the fine from $200,000 to $750,000, because of the nature and gravity of the events, the victims, the principle set forth in section 718 and the specific factors described in 718.2(1) of the Criminal Code. The appeal decision may be understood in light of the court’s concern to emphasize general deterrence for other construction companies and employers more so than just for Metron.


The greater risk under Bill C-45 is really for individuals rather than organizations.


For example, the first prosecution under Bill C-45 in 2004 was against Domenic Fantini of Vista Construction in King Township, Ont. He was charged under OHSA and Bill C-45 after a trench collapsed on employees under his supervision. He plead guilty to a lesser, regulatory offence under OHSA in exchange for a withdrawal of the criminal charges.


Another interesting and controversial prosecution arising in part from the Bill C-45 amendments to the Criminal Code was the trial and conviction of Karl-Heinz Lilgert. The pilot of the Queen of the North ferry was convicted of criminal negligence causing the death of two passengers, when the ferry struck an island off the coast of British Columbia and sank. The bodies of the two passengers were never recovered. Lilgert was convicted after a trial and given a substantial term in prison, which is currently under appeal. This case emphasizes the importance of Bill C-45 when workers fail to take reasonable steps to protect the public for which they have a responsibility.


One thing is very clear from the court decisions to date, and in particular the Court of Appeal’s decision in Metron: If employers are convicted of offences of OHS criminal negligence under Bill C-45 amendments, their punishment may be severe. One can only imagine the type of fine, in similar circumstances, that a much larger corporate employer may have faced. The other sobering fact is there is no upper limit to fines that may be imposed on a corporation when they are prosecuted under a Bill C-45 offence. The $750,000 fine and the bankruptcy of Metron may just be the beginning.


Bill C-45, 10 years later, has meant greater risk of criminal liability for companies and senior executives who fail to take every reasonable precaution to prevent bodily harm at the workplace. However, the simple truth is that police and Crown attorneys have not been aggressively enforcing this legislation. With about one case, on average, per year in the first 10 years, there is a statistical risk of 0.1 per cent that a Bill C-45 prosecution will be initiated when there is a workplace fatality.


If that same statistic was applied to homicide, sexual assault, robbery and commercial fraud, there would undoubtedly be public outcry.


However, the failed objectives of Bill C-45 have attracted little attention. Further, since workplace fatalities have remained at the same level for the last 10 years, Bill C-45 has had no meaningful deterrent effect on reducing workplace fatalities. Therefore, it remains to be seen whether the police, Crown attorneys and employers are taking the intention of Bill C-45 seriously.


Norm Keith is a partner at Toronto-based law firm Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP. He specializes in occupational health and safety, environmental, workers' compensation, and workplace risk management litigation. He advises and represents clients in regulatory and corporate criminal investigations and charges. Norm received his Canadian Registered Safety Professional (CRSP) designation in 1998, making him the first practising lawyer in Canada to achieve the CRSP designation.

반응형
Trackbacks 0 : Comments 0

Write a comment