for the concern to be reviewed through the formal refusal process with Safety, as that’s the
appropriate channel to assess the broader issues you've raised, including sampling
methodology and operating conditions.

Safety has already completed sound readings at workstation 3 and determined the levels to be
within an acceptable range. | was not present during the readings, so I’m not able to speak to
the specific methodology used. Any further questions about how the readings were taken or
under what conditions would be best addressed directly with Safety as part of that process.

From a training perspective, we can continue with interim measures to reduce prolonged
exposure during instruction while this is being reviewed.

Thank you for raising this and for being clear about where you're at. I'll ensure the refusal and
related concerns are communicated through the appropriate channels.

2026-01-25, 10:12 - Me

: Thanks for listening Instructor.

2026-01-25, 10:38 - Me: My point is, the sound may be below damaging levels, but they put
workstation 3 at disadvantage. | struggle to hear what's being said by you and by other
students. | can rarely fully hear any questions my classmates asks. Workstation 3 is at a
disadvantage, academically, compared to the other Workstations. Plus, it may not be
damaging, but is not a pleasant healthy sound. It is not healthy to have a server fan whining in
your ear all day. Eventually, the mental effects will develop in to physical. | would not be in
such an environment without hearing protection, even if is below 85db. Also working in a
server room, the servers are not constantly 2 feel away from your head. It is not an acceptable
place to be for long periods, without some kind of hearing protection. It is Loud. My noise
canceling ear buds can't fully eliminate it. The only thing that does are ear plugs and ear muffs.
What both me the most, is that before | came in the the classroom, this was a know issue.
Emails were sent, nothing was done. | walk into a classroom, not prepared 4 students. That
workstation should have been identified as a problem ans deems unacceptable for train. Then
cut the spots to 3, instead of 4. Put up a temporary wall to cut down on the noise at Bobby's
station. But instead, knowing about the extreme noise at workstations 3, it was decided to put
someone in that spot. And one person was found, who has particular sensitivity to noise
pollution. When is it appropriate in that situation to say something? The first day. We all knew it
was bad. What then? Back to guideway for another 3 months, or Sandeep gets bumped. Nota
good position to be. So | put up with it as long as | physical and mental could. But now | have
physical symptoms, which makes me think this needs to escalated beyond just a safety
concern. My reasoning behind work refusal, is that | do not want any other employees to suffer
from the noise. | want them to have informed consent as to whether they can sit there or not. |
did not have informed consent. | was knowing places in to an unhealthy situation. I'm looking
out for the next batch of trainees. And my self and our group later on.

2026-01-25, 10:44 - Me: Also, it doesn't have to be work refusal, but sometimes that seems to
be the only way to get action on something. Nothing was done before so will it get fixed now, or
we just continue to suffer with it. | have been placed in a position to get something done about it,
and that is now what | intend to do.