A worker for an armoured car service initiated a work refusal, claiming the new “All Off” procedure in which both members of the two-man crew exit the armoured car, enter customer locations and then return to the vehicle together, was unsafe. An OHS official investigated and issued the employer a direction, ordering it to alter this procedure. The employer asked the OHS Tribunal to suspend the direction while it appealed. The Tribunal agreed to do so, subject to certain conditions. The foundation of the direction is that the “All Off” model is a danger and violates the Labour Code because it doesn’t adequately mitigate the risk created by the elimination of a third crew member staying in the armoured car. But the model is widely implemented in the industry and in this employer’s operations across the country. So the Tribunal concluded that the employer would suffer significant harm if it had to comply with the direction while its appeal was pending [Brink’s Canada Ltd. v. Childs and Unifor,  OHSTC 4 (CanLII), March 27, 2017].