md2000:
I’ve never had to learn the specific wording of the law - not my problem. But, as I understand it the rule is the danger has to be real and specific. You can’t refuse work because “it’s cold and wet outside and I might catch a cold”. Same with poor lighting. Unsavory characters hanging around the back parking lot? Call the police, report them for trespassing and if necessary, pay for security patrols. Poor lighting? Not sufficient to warrant refusal to work.
I suppose the ultimate arbiter would either be the union grievance arbitrator, or if not unionized, the judge in a wrongful dismissal case. You refuse to work; they fire you claiming it’s safe. The judge or arbitrator decides if the firing was appropriate or if they owe you back wages. In both cases, if the hazard is questionable then both sides are gambling the will win. If there’s a possibility the employer could lose, the case is not somewhat of a stretch, the employer will be motivated to fix the problem instead. An employee who gets himself fired and loses serves as an example to others.
Pretty much this…
As I think has already been said here…“it was unsafe” or “it was a recognised / acknowledged hazard” is not a get out of jail free card to do whatever you like (i.e refuse work, make up your own policies)