When it comes to the workplace safety olympics, B.C. Place Stadium isn’t exactly a gold medal winner, based on their current record.

In just the first five and a half months of 2009, WorkSafeBC cited Vancouver’s Olympics stadium for workplace safety violations a whopping 66 times. According to inspection reports on the stadium, which was first opened in 1983 and will be the site of the 2010 Olympics’ Opening and Closing Ceremonies, the site is failing to perform to even the most basic standards of safety.

Reports have, at various times, deemed the operators of the air-supported roof as poorly trained; reported the lack of a fall protection plan for areas in which workers were not protected by permanent guardrails; reported that a sound and lighting truss hanging from the roof was unsafe; reported that there was no risk assessment done for workplace violence; and reported that there was no plan in place to protect first aid workers and cleaning staff from contact with blood or bodily fluids. There were also numerous complaints of inadequate safety training, especially for younger workers.

Among the reports of injury included a worker who had been overcome by epoxy fumes in January and the near-electrocution of another worker in March.

In an attempt to correct the problems before the Olympics, stadium operations and engineering supervisors were fired June 25. On July 7, control room workers who were doubling as security guards were told to choose between the jobs, transfer to another department, or opt for a lump-sum severance package.

If Vancouver is to have a first class Olympic experience, they should work harder to make sure those working the games are properly trained for the safety of everyone involved.

NEWMARKET, ON, June 13 /CNW/ – A Concord, Ontario, company has been fined $120,000 in the Ontario Court of Justice in connection with an injury to a dump truck driver.

Justice of the Peace F. M. Camposano sentenced Con-Strada Construction Inc., on June 4, 2008, following a trial and conviction, October 31, 2007, on three violations of the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

Court heard that on February 5, 2003, a dump truck driver employed by Con-Strada lost an arm and suffered abdominal burns when the worker’s arm became caught in the rotating auger of a salt spreader on the back of a dump truck. The worker had returned to the workplace yard to dump a large quantity of salt from the dump truck at shift’s end. The worker shovelled the salt while the auger was running. The worker became caught in the machinery.

Con-Strada Construction Inc was found guilty, as an employer, of:

· Failing to ensure the auger was cleaned only when motion that endangered the worker was stopped, as prescribed by section 75 of Ontario Regulation 851. This was contrary to section 25(1)(c) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act;

· Failing to provide information, instruction and supervision to protect the health or safety of the worker in the cleaning of the auger, contrary to section 25(2)(a) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act; and

· Failing to ensure the auger was guarded by a guard or other devices that prevented access to the moving part, as prescribed by section 24of Ontario Regulation 851. This was contrary to section 25(1)(c) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

In addition to the fine, the court imposed a 25-per-cent victim fine surcharge on the total, as required by the Provincial Offences Act. The surcharge is credited to a special provincial government fund to assist victims of crime.

I met with a Health and Safety Rep of a large organization. During our meeting they explained that their organization had a very good training plan. They even mentioned that they work very closely with the Ministry of Labour rep for their area. When I asked one employee a question regarding the training they had received on the specific piece of equipment they were operating they said the only formal training they had received was from a person who operated it last year. The operator also said that they had wished they had received some guidance in the specific area of use on uneven terrain;

1. I witnessed several safety infractions, in a matter of minutes, and all within one specific location; and

2. I had a Supervisor tell me that they provide their staff with PP & E but they can’t make them wear it.

Is it true that once you have told your employees to wear their PP&E that if they choose not to use it that it is out of your hands????

Why take chances? Ask us about how we can help you develop new training programs focused on your specific requirements, or we can simply review your existing programs in order to ensure your staff is receiving the proper training from qualified instructors.

Check us out at:

www.groundforcetraining.com

I happened upon a group of individuals at a parking lot who appeared to be receiving training on a variety of riding mowers. I noticed several “City” trucks in the lot as well so, based on my previous related safety and training experience as well as my association with Ground Force Training Inc., I stopped to see what was transpiring. After observing the activities for approximately 20 minutes I was approached by the Supervisor in charge. He was curious as to my interest so I explained my background to him.

While discussing various aspects of the training, the Supervisor mentioned that this was his first attempt at providing training in this particular manner. I told him how impressed I was with his initiative and his program, especially after he mentioned his lack of formal experience in developing and delivering training. He did mention several points he wished to improve and then added that he would have appreciated having a company, such as ours provide the training, given the fact that all of our staff are fully qualified master instructors and we specialize in this, and many other, areas.

While the Supervisors intentions were very commendable, it must be remembered that an appointed trainer must be deemed competent as defined by the Ontario Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA), and that the training must be verified and measured by way of formal documentation. Employees and managers at all levels may be found criminally responsible in the event of a workplace accident or injury should negligence be determined as the direct cause. Improper training, provided by unqualified personnel, may be considered as negligent IAW the OHSA.

To his credit, this Supervisor expressed an interest in learning more about how Ground Force Training might be able to help him in the future. Thus, he was provided with a brochure of Ground Force Training’s “Operator Awareness Program”. This document outlines what we can do to help him and his specific department with future training.

Unfortunately, since the training has already been given, this Supervisor can now be held personally accountable in the event of an injury to one of his staff.

Is there a way of avoiding this situation in the future? Check out our website to see how we can help you avoid a similar problem.