If you think the amount of time you’ve been at your job protects you if you choose to be unsafe at work, a recent arbitration case in Ontario should put that notion to rest.

The worker in question had worked 37 years for a lead recycler. Lead recyclers have very strict safety rules to follow as employers, according to the Ontario Occupational Health and Safety Act, including requiring the use of respirators and to monitor all workers for lead exposure.

According to the mediator, the employee had been written up seven times over the last year of his employment, most for safety violations. At the time the employer had decided to let their long-time worker go, they had to write him up twice in two days. The first time, the worker had chosen to work in the plant without a hard hat, safety glasses and mask. The very next day, he was caught working in the plant without a  respirator, and he wasn’t clean shaven for an effective mask seal. These two incidents came less than a month after the worker had been given a written warning and counselling for much the same type of health and safety violations, and just over four months after he had served a 25-day suspension for repeated violations over a six week period.

The arbitrator cited the fact that the worker had not “fully acknowledge(d) or accept(ed) responsibility for his misconduct on either April 30 or May 1, 2012. The company has reasonably concluded that its efforts to rehabilitate the grievor have been fruitless, and that it can no longer tolerate his presence in the workplace.”

In his decision, the arbitrator noted that the worker’s continuing safety violations, and the lack of a meaningful apology, are more meaningful than his many years of service. He noted that “workplace health and safety is a serious matter. … arbitrators (must) take the mutual responsibility of employers, unions, and employees to ensure workplace health and safety is very seriously . . . Lengthy service by itself has less mitigation currency in health and safety misconduct cases than it has in other kinds of cases.”

No matter how long you’ve worked at your job, safety is always an important concern.

If you think the amount of time you’ve been at your job protects you if you choose to be unsafe at work, a recent arbitration case in Ontario should put that notion to rest.

The worker in question had worked 37 years for a lead recycler. Lead recyclers have very strict safety rules to follow as employers, according to the Ontario Occupational Health and Safety Act, including requiring the use of respirators and to monitor all workers for lead exposure.

According to the mediator, the employee had been written up seven times over the last year of his employment, most for safety violations. At the time the employer had decided to let their long-time worker go, they had to write him up twice in two days. The first time, the worker had chosen to work in the plant without a hard hat, safety glasses and mask. The very next day, he was caught working in the plant without a  respirator, and he wasn’t clean shaven for an effective mask seal. These two incidents came less than a month after the worker had been given a written warning and counselling for much the same type of health and safety violations, and just over four months after he had served a 25-day suspension for repeated violations over a six week period.

The arbitrator cited the fact that the worker had not “fully acknowledge(d) or accept(ed) responsibility for his misconduct on either April 30 or May 1, 2012. The company has reasonably concluded that its efforts to rehabilitate the grievor have been fruitless, and that it can no longer tolerate his presence in the workplace.”

In his decision, the arbitrator noted that the worker’s continuing safety violations, and the lack of a meaningful apology, are more meaningful than his many years of service. He noted that “workplace health and safety is a serious matter. … arbitrators (must) take the mutual responsibility of employers, unions, and employees to ensure workplace health and safety is very seriously . . . Lengthy service by itself has less mitigation currency in health and safety misconduct cases than it has in other kinds of cases.”

No matter how long you’ve worked at your job, safety is always an important concern.

Documentation is the key element to prove your case!

According to the Saskatchewan Workers’ Compensation Board, last year was the worst in 30 years when it comes to workplace deaths in the province. Just as troubling is that the number was twice as high as it was in 2011.

When the board released its annual report for 2012 on April 9, the numbers told a disappointing story, as a total of 60 workers lost their lives on the job. Not only is it their worst performance in decades, but it makes Saskatchewan the second most dangerous province for workers, just behind Manitoba. In a message to start the report, the board said, ”It’s a heart wrenching, sobering statistic, and one that we must turn around.”

The industry with the greatest number of deaths was construction with 14 fatalities.

The number of young people who died on the job was five, all of which were related to vehicles. That number was more than twice the number- two – who died in 2011.  Nineteen of the workplace deaths had to so with occupational diseases, such as exposure to cancer-causing chemicals or materials such as asbestos, often from exposures occurring years earlier. There were 15 deaths from heart attack, which is three times the five who perished in 2011.

While the board can cite many reasons for the sharp increase, they note that there can be no excuses. The ministry is considering ramping up inspections and enforcement of occupational health and safety regulations and engaging in more educational programs. They say they will focus on construction sites, with a special emphasis on falls, ditches and those activities that result in “traumatic injuries,” until safety becomes second nature.

So, expect Saskatchewan safety officials to start taking a hard line on safety, to turn those numbers around.

In a bid to better protect workers who toil in physically demanding jobs with higher than normal risk of injury and illness, the Law Commission of Ontario has released a new report, entitled Vulnerable Workers and Precarious Work, containing lists of 47 recommendations for changes to laws, policies and programs relating to employment protections, health and safety and training and education.

The report notes that Ontario features fewer full-time, well-paid jobs with good benefits than in decades past, and that the number of low-security, low-paying jobs is increasing. And with those jobs comes little control over working conditions, and thus a greater risk of harm and exploitation.  The changes in employment conditions has created serious gaps in Ontario legislation — specifically with regard to the Employment Standards Act and the Occupational Health and Safety Act — that leave an increasing number of  workers unprotected.

The lack of protection brings with it a number of problems. Often, due to low wages, workers have to work at multiple jobs with long and irregular hours, which causes greater stress and exhaustion and other health issues, and the lack of benefits, especially sick days and health benefits, results in greater stress on the health care system.

In order to draft this report, the LCO formed an Advisory Group made up of academics, advocates and representatives of groups representing workers, employers, government and communities.  They did extensive research, including commissioning two research papers by noted academics and experts, and consultations with nearly 50 individuals and organizations.

An Ontario company and one of its supervisors have both been hit with fines, after they were found in violation of the Occupational Health and Safety Act twice within the same week for the exact same violation. The first violation resulted in the injury of a student worker, and the second occurred right in front of a Ministry of Labour inspector, as he was investigating the first. The company was Welland-based CRS Specialties Inc., a manufacturer of rebar bending equipment, who was fined $55,000, while a second fine of $4,000 was imposed on the supervisor in question.

The first incident occurred on March 23, 2011. The student had just finished up taking apart a fan and washing it in a Varsol bath, when he was start a welding task. At the time the student worker was wearing a polyester-blend sweatshirt over overalls. The supervisor did not supply him with a welding jacket, welding sleeves, neck shroud or flame-retardant clothing, even though polyester is very flammable, and should not be worn while welding. Predictably, the sweatshirt ignited and caught fire, causing the student to suffer second degree burns.

Unbelievably, a few days later, on March 28, 2011, a Ministry of Labour inspector who was on site investigating the first accident five days earlier, happened to witness another worker in the same workplace performing a welding task while wearing a polyester-blend sweatshirt and only one welding sleeve.

In the Ontario Court of Justice, CRS Specialties Inc. pleaded guilty to failing to ensure that a competent person was appointed as supervisor. In addition, the supervisor pleaded guilty to failing to ensure that a worker was wearing apparel sufficient to protect the worker from injury while welding.

The fines and the legally required 25% victim fine surcharge were imposed by Justice of the Peace B. Phillips on April 4. That means the supervisor will have to pay $5,000 out of his own pocket. How much can you afford for not ensuring the workers in your care are safe?

Late in the afternoon of March 23, a worker was taking down a pillar at the construction site of the Rideau Centre shopping mall expansion in downtown Ottawa, when the pillar broke apart and fell through to the floor below. That caused a wall to collapse in the process.  Thankfully, even though 11 demolition workers were on the scene, no injuries were reported.  Because bricks from the wall were pushed out into the walkway, police were forced to shut down part of the roads and sidewalk around the collapse for a time, as well.

As a result of the partial collapse, the Ministry of Labour and the developer ordered assessments of the structural integrity of the building. As a result of those assessments, city officials have called for a faster demolition process. Previously, the demolition had been complicated by the fact that part of the building, the former Ogilvy Department Store, had been designated a “heritage building” by the city. But the reports on the assessment recommended that the century-old building just be demolished as soon as possible and city officials accepted that recommendation.

After the collapse, the Ontario Ministry of Labour issued a stop-work order on the entire project until the investigations were complete. Now, according to the MoL, they will begin a  transition from “a controlled, selective demolition – which is a little more precise, and to move to a harder demolition, which is to just bring the building down a little bit faster.”

The Ontario Ministry of Labour has launched an investigation into the circumstances surrounding the accidental death of a construction worker who died on the job on March 12.

The accident occurred just before noon at a construction site managed by Rabcon Contractors Ltd., which is working under contract with the city of Toronto to install new sewer connections for an industrial building on the city’s northwest side.

The man was digging up the asphalt on a road adjacent to the building, when he slipped and fell 15 feet into a trench. Soon after that, a slab of concrete came loose and fell on him, trapping him inside the trench. Emergency crews arrived quickly, but they were unable to save him.

The Ministry of Labour was called immediately, and in a statement, the city of Toronto has promised to fully cooperate.  The statement also offered “its sincere condolences to the family and colleagues of this worker.”

New Brunswick found itself having to deal with some very cold temperatures last week, with Arctic air combining with high winds that resulted in wind chill values as cold as -41° in some parts of the province. In response, WorkSafeNB tried to remind both workers and their employers to be extra vigilant when it comes to protection from extreme cold, especially for those working in exposed industries.

Hypothermia and frostbite are real issues, and should be treated as such, especially in those industries where the risk is greater, like construction and trucking. For workers in those sectors, wearing appropriately warm clothing is just the first line of protection in combating the cold, according to WorkSafeNB. The agency recommends that workers dress in at least three layers. The first layer should snug-fitting and made of a material such as silk or polypropylene that absorbs moisture away from the skin. The middle layer should be loose and of a warm material, such as fleece, wool or down. The third, or outer, layer should be made of wind and waterproof material, such as nylon or Gore-Tex.

Because a lot of body heat can be lost through the head, workers should always wear a  warm knit hat, or a liner under a hard hat. Gloves or mittens are also a necessity in very cold weather. Because mittens are better for retaining heat, for jobs not requiring any sort of manual dexterity, they are safer. They should always be used when temperatures are below -17º. Otherwise, gloves are fine for light work in cold weather below 4ºC, and for moderate work at -7º. Footwear should be insulated, slip-resistant and waterproof.

WorkSafeNB is reminding everyone that, in cases where workers are required to work in extreme cold, it is an employer’s responsibility to ensure that they are properly attired and supervised. They have provided a Risk Alert, Surviving the Cold, to provide workers and supervisors with tips on how to work safely in extreme cold, including how to prevent and detect cold stress, and the proper clothing and personal protective equipment required in such weather conditions.

WorkSafeBC is reminding British Columbians that, when they hire people to work in your home for just about any reason, they are considered a residential employer and will usually have to register for WorkSafeBC insurance coverage.

This rule applies whether you hire a worker on a full-time, part-time, or casual basis, and applies to domestic workers, nannies, caregivers, landscapers or gardeners, or construction workers and contractors. The only time this rule doesn’t apply is if they work less than eight hours per week; work on a job that will be completed using less that 24 working man-hours, total; for child care less than 15 hours per week; or if the worker is registered with an agency or contractor that already covers the worker directly.

B.C. residents and homeowners can’t be sued for the costs of a work-related injury by someone they hired to work for them. The law requires WorkSafeBC to compensate all injured workers, even if their employer hasn’t registered with  WorkSafeBC. However, if you fail to register and pay premiums, the agency may charge for all compensation costs and unpaid premiums. That could be far more costly than following the law and paying the premiums.

Whenever you hire people to work in or around your home, always ask if they carry their own coverage and, if they claim coverage, get their WorkSafeBC account numbers and request a clearance letter from WorkSafeBC before they begin work. The clearance letter gives you assurance that you won’t be held responsible for someone else’s payments to WorkSafeBC.

For more information, check out the Registration FAQ at the WorkSafeBC website, or contact the Employer Service Centre at 1 888 922-2768 or 604 244-6181.

A recent court case should allow employers to heave a sigh of relief. The Ontario Court of Appeal (OCA) has overturned an Ontario Divisional Court decision in Blue Mountain Resorts Limited v. Ontario,in which they had ruled that an employer’s duty to report all workplace injuries, as required under the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA), extended to people who weren’t actually workers.

In December 2007, a guest of the Blue Mountain Ski Resort drowned in an unattended swimming pool. Blue Mountain officials didn’t report the incident to the Ministry of Labour, because it did not involve a worker. Ministry officials ordered them to do so, anyway, and declared that the entire resort – all 750 acres of it – was considered a “workplace,” requiring Blue Mountain to report every incident in which anyone was killed or injured.

The Divisional Court agreed with the Ministry of Labour, ruling that the employers’ duty under the OHSA was to report all fatal and critical injuries at any workplace, even when those injured were not workers. Their reasoning was that sometimes, members of the public are subject to the same hazards or risks as workers.

But the Justice Robert Blair of the OCA disagreed with that view:

“The interpretations (the Divisional Court and OLRB) gave to s. 51(1) of the OHSA would make virtually every place in the province of Ontario (commercial, industrial, private or domestic) a ‘workplace’ because a worker may, at some time, be at that place. This leads to the absurd conclusion that every death or critical injury to anyone, anywhere, whatever the cause, must be reported. Such an interpretation goes well beyond the proper reach of the Act and the reviewing role of the Ministry reasonably necessary to advance the admittedly important objective of protecting the health and safety of workers in the workplace. It is therefore unreasonable and cannot stand.”

So, the way things stand now, an incident does not have to be reported unless there is a reasonable relationship between the  hazard that caused the death and “a realistic risk to worker safety at that site.”