I'm playing devil's advocate here.
There are several factors to consider here before going to the next level.
The MOL and the employer likely have slightly different views on the situation.
The employer would not have any strong views on the issue except to wish that the discussion just go away and everyone just go back to work.
The fact that MOL was brought in to make the decision would indicate that they really don't want the responsibility of making the final decision. Any activity to grant greater rights then outlined by the MOL decision would not be in their best interest unless mandated by another party such as the MOL.
Inertia can be a very good weapon but it is double edged.
Their view would be that the issue is closed and refer to the MOL decision in all cases relating to vaping. The only way to move them on this would be if the consequences of not doing so were greater then this incident. For instance, bad publicity in the media or if a lot more people complained then the handful involved in the original incident.
The MOL, on the other hand, would see this current decision as a good compromise and would not look favourably at the prospect of reversing itself on a decision they just made.
They would not like to take into account any new data you might provide as it might seem that the other decision could be flawed as it did not review all relevant data.
Their view would be to refer any questions on vaping in the workplace to the past decision. They would have very little incentive to re-open the issue unless there are greater external or internal pressures to do so (such as those already listed above).
There are several factors to consider here before going to the next level.
The MOL and the employer likely have slightly different views on the situation.
The employer would not have any strong views on the issue except to wish that the discussion just go away and everyone just go back to work.
The fact that MOL was brought in to make the decision would indicate that they really don't want the responsibility of making the final decision. Any activity to grant greater rights then outlined by the MOL decision would not be in their best interest unless mandated by another party such as the MOL.
Inertia can be a very good weapon but it is double edged.
Their view would be that the issue is closed and refer to the MOL decision in all cases relating to vaping. The only way to move them on this would be if the consequences of not doing so were greater then this incident. For instance, bad publicity in the media or if a lot more people complained then the handful involved in the original incident.
The MOL, on the other hand, would see this current decision as a good compromise and would not look favourably at the prospect of reversing itself on a decision they just made.
They would not like to take into account any new data you might provide as it might seem that the other decision could be flawed as it did not review all relevant data.
Their view would be to refer any questions on vaping in the workplace to the past decision. They would have very little incentive to re-open the issue unless there are greater external or internal pressures to do so (such as those already listed above).
