In this age of shrinking seats and expanding waistlines, not to mention taller people, would employees not be able to refuse to fly or require accommodation (read: PY or J) when required to fly? I had one employee suffer DVT and it's not nearly as lame as its portrayed to be. Incidentally she suffered this during a flight in PY.

Rights of Employees
The Canada Labour Code gives you the following rights:

Right to Know
You have the right to be informed of known or foreseeable hazards in the workplace and to be provided with the information, instructions, training, and supervision necessary to protect your health and safety.

I would say yes OHS regulations do apply. I would be surprised if you could find a way to construct an argument that Air Canada seats violate regulations.

The "Canada Labour Code" applied to a very small number of employers. Most employers in Canada are actually under the provincial rules.

Yep, given that most industries are under provincial regulation, typically the Federal labour code isn't applicable except for specific industries (such as working for an airline). On the assumption OP's industry is provincially regulated, you'd have to look at that province's OHS agency. For example in BC it's WorkSafeBC.

In Worksafe's prevention manual the closest specific thing I could find that relates to travel/seats is transportation of workers in Part 17 of OHS Regulation. Meeting the regulations isn't that hard given that the requirement is 16 inch wide seating and, what I read as, 26 inch pitch.

That said, a more relevant section would be Part 2 which covers undue risk to a worker from hazardous activity not covered by a specific section of regulation. Undue risk means a greater than normal probability continued exposure to the work, or working conditions, will result in an injury or adverse health effect.

I don't think it'd be hard for someone that has a higher risk of DVT to get a doctor's opinion they're in undue risk by flying in cramped seating. But that'd just open a whole new can of worms. The employer has to find someone else to do the traveling; change job descriptions; and alter the interview question(s) around employee travel "are you willing and able to travel (in a flying metal tube going 500 mp/h packed in like sardines because we only pay for Y)."

Is this a joke?
Now flying Y - which tens of thousands of people pay to do for both work and leisure - is a work hazard and your employer should pay for J???

She developed a dvt, which incidently also has a genetic factor. While travelling can increase the risk (as can sitting at your desk for hours), a walk up and down the aisle once an hour, seat stretches, or wearing compression stockings can significantly reduce that risk.

Come to think of it.... I'm still sitting for long flights in J, maybe I should demand a private jet so I don't suffer undue health hazards between take off and landing.

No joke. By the way I realize there are Federal and Provincial regulations. My question applies to all.

I think that reducing seat sizes in an era of growing body masses is a health hazard. I don't want to be sued, to be sure. So I am throwing this out there. Certainly the plane manufacturers don't recommend the tightening seats.

If one is 5'2" 110 lbs then the seats are perfect. But how does that apply to a 6'5" 260lbs traveller? Personally i spent 7 hours as a pretzel on ANA recently and I can tell you if I had a boss he or she would not be putting me in such a situation again. As it is, this was a self imposed attempt at misplaced frugality.

Most private jets aren't lie-flat anyway, so you'd really need one of the 747s from the Dubai Royal Flight...

I think it is an interesting and legitimate question. I suspect that there is some validity to this. I have seen some employees with blood conditions receive corporate policy exemptions--basically their risk of clotting was too great in an economy seat for long haul (6-8+ trips), and they had a "doctor's note" (not sure the actual format or content of this) so that they would only fly business class. In one particular case I have in mind, there was very clear evidence that the condition was a real and very significant health hazard. I obviously can't provide any specific guidance or experience on the height component, but I certainly believe the question is real and deserves real consideration. I would also guess that certain conditions (severe back pain, for example) might be a prerequisite of getting a policy exemption or some such--an employee in perfect health, or generally good health, would not be eligible. Wish I know who to point you to--not very many HR departments are going to be inclined to explore this with an open mind for obvious reasons.

This is a very interesting discussion. So I have a bad back, if I went to my physician to get a note which stipulated that I fly in J, can my employer then go around and say..."ok fine, you're grounded. Here's another job you can do for us".

Is this a possibility?

If you are 6'5" and 260lbs, you are FAT and should do something about it. But the answer to your question - NO. I'm 6'3", 195LBs with 36" legs and I do not have a problem with AC mainline seats, Rouge 767 seats or Rouge preferred(319) seats at all. Even the reg Y seats on the Rouge 319 somehow work on shorter flights.

As I said, I have no idea of the specifics, but... You would likely have to involve somebody more than just your GP. You would have to show that J was fine for you, Y was not. And your employer would have the option to reassign you to another role, with similar (but not identical) responsibilities (or retrain you) and similar compensation. I am neither a lawyer nor an HR specialist, but that is to the best of my knowledge the situation. In the specific case I know of, the employee simply opted to stop flying for work (we offered him a local role). As I said though, the health danger was very significant--life or death--and there was ample evidence that it was an urgent problem--he almost died on a flight. How significant back pain is, whether you incurred your injury during the course of your work duties, etc. all probably matter. Talk to your company's health and wellness manager if you are serious.

That's called constructive dismissal which, again, is another can of worms.

Not necessary. Constructive dismissal involves significant changes in compensation or working conditions. If the employee is given a new or modified position that is travel free and involves no change in salary and a similar level of responsibility there is no constructive dismissal.

It is the exact opposite. Constructive dismissal is when you create a hostile work environment that forces someone to quit.

If someone had a health reason why they can not travel anyone has an employer change their job duties to accommodate the situation that is not constructive dismissal.

If someone had a health reason why they can not travel anyone and the employer forces them to travel and they end up quitting as a result that sounds more like constructive dismissal.

I don't believe you understand the legal definition of constructive dismissal. Jagboi's description comes very close. If, however, you refuse to do the job that is assigned and the employer finds a compromise, I'm not sure that would constitute a significant change brought on by the employer. Even if it does not pay the same. That, is the gray in the law, though.

DVT can kill in F.

When it comes to employee health/safety, driving home after flying across several time zones without adequate rest would be more of a risk than DVT.