Following criticism that the provincial government has been lax with its investigations of problem employers, Alberta is shaking up its occupational health and safety department.

The shake-up began earlier this month, when executive director Dan Clarke left his post. The government is now advertising for a replacement, and it sees the replacement as part of a structural overhaul of occupational health to make it focus more on compliance and enforcement of safety rules in the workplace.  It hopes to have a new executive director by the end of the summer.

There are many who would say it’s about time. Alberta currently has one of the highest rates of worker deaths in Canada with 166 deaths in 2008 alone. This past April, an auditor general’s report said the department was lax on enforcement and even suggested they had hidden the true number of companies that refused to make safety improvements.  The review showed that the department had suspended compliance orders filed against dozens of companies with high injury rate for no apparent reason. But when they looked more closely, they discovered that many of them were suspended just to make its own statistics look better, and in a number of cases, the compliance orders were reopened in the next fiscal year with no evidence that the companies took any action to improve worker safety.

The auditor general also found that in many cases, companies that ignored safety violations were still getting rebates from the province under a program that rewards firms with good worker safety records. Violations that went unchecked for years ran the gamut, ranging from a lack of hearing and eye protection to fire and explosion hazards.

Alberta Employment Minister Thomas Lukaszuk  has promised to announce more details with regard to the overhaul in the coming weeks.

After one of the most dangerous years in the city’s construction history, Calgary’s manager of building regulations has called on Alberta provincial officials to increase fines significantly for those companies found guilty of safety-code violations especially those, such as failing to secure building materials, that not only endanger workers, but the public at large.  He notes that the maximum $15,000 penalty for potentially deadly violations is significantly lower than for breaches of other safety laws, and doesn’t reflect the seriousness of the incidents.

This call comes in the wake of a series of incidents of falling debris that have occurred in the last year at high rise construction sites throughout Calgary, including falling steel that killed 3-year-old Michelle Krsek and injured an uncle last August.

The latest case being investigated by the city involves an online video, recorded last October but just recently discovered and passed on to authorities that was forwarded to city authorities, depicting construction workers with Skyway Canada horsing around recklessly on a Beltline tower. In the video (which has been removed from the YouTube video site), one worker actually tosses a metal clamp across scaffolds and jokes about the potential disaster if the tool had fallen and struck a passer-by. After learning of the video, Skyway Canada suspended two of the workers seen in the video. A third worker visible in the video had already left the company.

In addition to increased fines, city officials would also like to see greater reporting of incidents to the city. Currently, when near-misses or injuries occur, companies are required to report to the provincial Occupational Health and Safety office, but not to the city.  The city would like to see mandatory reporting to the city. The Calgary city council doesn’t have the legal authority to require such a thing, so the city is currently forced to rely on a voluntary reporting program for the city’s construction industry.

It’s been a pretty hot summer so far, and we’re not even halfway through, so perhaps this is would be a good time to remind you to take special precautions on scorching hot summer days, in order to keep your workers safe and productive.  The higher the temperature goes, the less comfortable workers feel, which makes them more prone to accidents and also causes them to slow down a bit. But just as importantly, excessive heat can be extremely dangerous, and building a culture of safety requires that you keep your workers as safe as possible.

If possible, try to reduce the demand on each worker by reducing  the level of physical exertion such as excessive lifting, climbing, or digging. If possible, try to use relief workers or assign extra workers.  Try to reschedule the most strenuous activities jobs for the cooler part of the day and reserve the hottest part of the day for routine maintenance and repair work.

For those workers who must work outside during the hot part of the day, they should wear light, very loose-fitting clothing, with long sleeves and long pants, in order to avoid serious UV damage from the sun.  For areas of the body that are still exposed, such as faces, hands and necks, be sure to have adequate supplies of good quality sunscreen on hand as well.

Make sure all outside workers are provided with plenty of water. And that should be water, as sugary drinks and drinks with caffeine actually cause faster dehydration. They should also be given plenty of breaks during which they can drink the water. It is far more beneficial to drink small amounts of water at frequent intervals than to drink a lot of water all at once. If the work is particularly strenuous and is performed in direct sunlight, try to provide a shady area or tent, where workers can sit down, drink some water and recharge.

If your workers are toiling away in an area with a combination of high temperature and high humidity,  be aware of the increased risk to such workers of heat stroke or heat exhaustion. In addition to workers who don’t take adequate breaks or drink enough water, pay close attention to workers who take certain medications, older workers or workers who are not in peak physical condition, as they are especially susceptible to complications from heat-related stress.

Some of the warning signs for heat-related illness include headaches, lightheadedness, confusion, irrational behavior, loss of consciousness, abnormally high body temperature and hot, dry skin.  When a worker starts to complain that he or she isn’t feeling well, you would do well to take the complain seriously and sit that worker down in the shade with a cup of water and let them recover.

Other potential risks to the health of workers toiling outdoors in summer aren’t necessarily heat-related. It might be a good idea to have workers regularly check for ticks, which sometimes carry Lyme Disease. Be sure to watch out for mosquitoes, which can carry West Nile Virus, and plants, such as poison oak and poison ivy, that can cause skin rashes and make it difficult to work.

If you do business in Alberta and you have a poor safety record, you’d do well to take steps to improve it, and do so quickly. It seems your days of hiding from it may be numbered.

After a bloody Tuesday last week in which two Edmonton-area workers died at work sites and another was seriously injured in an elevator accident, Alberta Employment Minister Thomas Lukaszuk was livid, and took to the airwaves to vow that this fall would see the public release of the identities of those provincial employers with the worst safety records.

In a radio interview in which he was asked about those recent deaths, Lukaszuk revealed that Albertans will learn the names of the province’s worst safety performers within 3-4 months. The Conservative government had first promised to release such list eight years ago, but at that time the idea was shelved.

Lukaszuk said his staff is working on the list with the help of the Workers Compensation Board (WCB). When the list is complete, anyone will be able to look up the name of a company and see the number of man-work hours they have, see how many accidents they had, and determine how they compare to industry and provincial averages.

If Alberta actually follows through with its promise and releases such a list of poor safety performers, it will become just the second province to do so. Nova Scotia began publishing the names of companies with substandard safety record after their Supreme Court ruled in favour of their release in December 2008.

This type of list could have a negative effect in two ways. The obvious impact will be with prospective employees. How many of the best workers will want to come work for you if you have a lousy safety record? And how many of your customers will take their business to another company that takes the safety of its workers more seriously?

This might be a good time to look at your safety record and look at ways to improve. The impact to your bottom line could be enormous.

Is your workplace prepared for every possible emergency? Hopefully, you have policies, procedures and equipment in place to keep your workers safe from accidents and workplace violence. But what if a worker simply turns blue and collapses from a heart attack? Surely, you have at least a few workers who know CPR, but what if the CPR isn’t enough? Wouldn’t it be great if other employees were able to grab an automated external defibrillator (AED) and could revive that worker within minutes?

An AED is a small, portable device that assesses the heart of a person in cardiac arrest for a “shockable” rhythm. If such a rhythm is detected, a button is pressed to deliver a shock or series of shocks to the victim’s heart, which then allow the heart to return to a normal rhythm.

Several companies are making a push to see to it that such machines are available  everywhere, but at this point, AEDs are still relatively rare in workplaces throughout Canada, in part because Canada doesn’t mandate their use.

According to the Heart and Stroke Foundation, more than 40,000 people suffer  cardiac arrests in Canada each year. Fewer than 5% of those who suffer an attack outside a hospital survive — and roughly 70% of cardiac arrests occur outside a hospital. Their studies have shown that workplaces with 2,000 employees and an average age of 40 can expect at least one cardiac arrest incident every year.

Ontario’s Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) has reported that there have been 200 claims for workplace heart attacks over the last three years. Since not all heart attacks that occur in the workplace are job related, the WSIB considers each case on its own merits.

According to studies, keeping an AED onsite can increase the chance of survival from heart attack by 75% or more over CPR on its own. Defibrillation is more successful if performed within five minutes of cardiac arrest and survival chances decrease 10% for every minute that passes after the arrest.

Those who think the devices are just too expensive should know that prices have dropped dramatically in recent years, with units priced well under $2,000 now. Most units can be installed without professional assistance. AEDs are battery powered and the batteries are not rechargeable, so they don’t require a power supply.  For maintenance, they only require daily spot checks to ensure the status indicator light is on, and monthly checks to make sure the unit is in good working order. Batteries, which currently cost about $200-300, last 3-5 years. The pads, which currently run between $70-100 per pair, only have to be replaced when used.

It is necessary to train employees on how to use AEDs, but the training is not difficult or intensive. The Heart and Stroke Foundation suggests that anyone with a Grade 6 education can learn to use an AED in 20 minutes. In order to reduce liability risks, the Heart and Stroke Foundation recommends companies ensure operators have medical oversight, ensure certain members of staff are properly trained and that protocols for continued training, operation and equipment maintenance are in place. The Heart and Stroke Foundation recommends that all employees, if possible, have the skills necessary to perform CPR and the use of an AED.

You knew it was coming.

June 15th has come and gone, and Bill 168, which amends the Occupational Health and Safety Act with respect to violence and harassment in the workplace and other matters, is now law.

The purpose of the Bill 168 amendments is to protect workers from inappropriate behaviour at work, including everything from offensive remarks to outright violence, and to reduce incidences of workplace harassment. The new law requires employers to develop policies and programs covering these issues, to train employees to ensure that policies are followed, and to create mechanisms for employees to report incidents and a process for investigating and dealing with such incidents or complaints.

The Occupational Health and Safety Act defines workplace violence as the exercise of physical force by a person against a worker, in a workplace, that causes or could cause physical injury to the worker. Because the definition includes the phrase “could cause,” verbal or written threats of violence can fall under the new law. In addition, seemingly potentially violent action might require an employer to investigate and handle the situation. This might include one employee shaking his fist at another, throwing an object in another worker’s direction or kicking something that another worker is standing on.

Workplace harassment is also covered by the new law, and is defined as any behaviour that is known or that a reasonable person would consider to be unwelcome. Harassment may involve unwelcome words or actions commonly known to be offensive, embarrassing, humiliating or demeaning to a worker or group of workers. If behaviour is in any way considered Intimidating, isolating or discriminatory, it would qualify as harassing behaviour under the law. Such harassment often involves repeated actions or patterns of behaviour, and they can include mean jokes told at a worker’s expense, or the display of images that are inappropriate for the workplace.

Unfortunately, according to a survey conducted by The Human Resources Professionals Association (HRPA) of its members, nearly one-third of them were not ready to comply with the new law. HRPA surveyed 605 of its members between June 2 – 11, and found that 32% responded that their business would not meet its obligations before the June 15th deadline. The survey also revealed that 53% of respondents said the greatest challenge they faced would be to implement the legislation’s mandatory employee training and workplace violence reporting and investigation procedure requirements.  This despite the fact that, in a previous HRPA survey taken last summer, 75% of respondents supported the legislation.

If you are one of those companies that falls within that 32%, the Ministry of Labour wants to make it clear that they intend to enforce the new law, and suggest specific steps employers must take to comply, in order to protect workers from violence and harassment:

• Develop workplace violence and harassment policies, and develop and maintain programs to implement those new policies;
• Provide appropriate training to workers, so that they know these policies and programs and what they mean.
• Develop measures and procedures for calling for and receiving immediate assistance when workplace violence occurs or is likely to occur;
• Develop processes for reporting incidents ; and
• Conduct risk assessments and take steps to control those risks identified during the assessment.

If you need some assistance in understanding the new law, take a look at the following:

Workplace Violence and Harassment: Understanding the Law

http://www.labour.gov.on.ca/english/hs/pubs/wpvh/index.php

Preventing Workplace Violence And Workplace Harassment

http://www.labour.gov.on.ca/english/hs/sawo/pubs/fs_workplaceviolence.php

As just about any company who’s experienced them can tell you, workplace accidents can be devastating to your company.  Besides the obvious hit to the bottom line when they bring your  operation to a standstill and force your company to pay a fine, the results can be even more tragic, such as when they involve serious injury or even loss of life. The number one priority of any business should be to avoid accidents, and one of the best ways to do so is to conduct periodic safety audits.

A safety audit should examine the entire work area and should cover all activities required in that workplace in order to optimize safety, to make sure everything is up to government standards and complies to the company’s safety policy.. Everything should be checked and all workers should be involved, and encouraged to put their best effort into making sure that nothing is missed.

There are obviously many ways to approach safety audits. But there are a number of elements that should be included in any workplace safety audit.

First, you need a plan. Gather all relevant company safety information, and define the scope of the audit. Then assemble an audit team to review all company policies and procedures, legislation, standards, guidelines and practice codes relevant to your workplace. Be sure the audit team is equipped with all special tools, equipment and safety gear to conduct the audit effectively and safely, and put in place escort arrangements and make sure the team familiarizes themselves with the site before the audit. The team should also know all the key role players, clarify the audit objectives and nail down the approach to be followed during the audit.

The audit team should then review all incidents and accidents that occurred during the audit period. This is an essential aspect of understanding the uncontrolled risks in the workplace they plan to audit. They will also have to review documents, interview staff and conduct physical inspections to determine whether or not all safety management system elements are correctly implemented.

A truly successful safety audit should involve every employee. While it’s true that outsiders can provide some perspective that everyday workers might miss, the workers themselves are often the best judges of what is and isn’t safe, and they will know what needs to be changed. Often, workers are reluctant to participate in such audits if they feel they are being second-guessed or their opinion isn’t being properly respected, so be sure to encourage their participation in the process, stressing the importance of the audit and putting them at ease about their participation.

The value of a safety audit is that it evaluates workplace safety in real time. And once a report is issued, take it seriously, and correct areas of weakness as soon as possible. Many times, the audit report will recommend more comprehensive training and this should be scheduled quickly.

No company can sit on its record when it comes to safety, and periodic audits should be part of your overall safety strategy. Without a regular check of your system, weaknesses will develop and the likelihood of an accident will increase greatly.

Two Ontario companies, Ken Miller Excavating and Anchor Concrete Products Ltd, were issued a series of orders following an accident in which the boom of one of their trucks came into contact with overhead power lines and a worker was electrocuted and killed.  The worker was assisting boom trucks delivering concrete sections for storm sewers, but the exact circumstances surrounding the accident are currently under investigation by the Ministry of Labour.

Almost as soon as the worker was taken to Kingston General Hospital, where he was pronounced dead, Ken Miller Excavating was issued a series of orders requiring the company to provide documents related to: its health and safety policy and program; procedures regarding work done in close proximity to electrical conductors; its emergency plan; and of course, its safety training and workplace safety procedures. A stop work order was also issued on a 10-tonne off-loader, which was to undergo inspection to determine whether it can handle its rated capacity. The Ministry of Labor also issued three orders to Kingston-based Anchor Concrete Products Ltd, requiring documents related to its training and health and safety policy and program. Both companies were also ordered to provide a written report of the circumstances of the occurrence to the ministry and any applicable union.

According to an alert issued last May by the Electrical Safety Authority (ESA), fatal accidents involving equipment contacting overhead power lines is not uncommon in Ontario, and in fact have accounted for half of all electrocutions in the province over the last eight years.  The ESA recommends that workers follow a few safety precautions when working near overhead power lines:

• Always conduct a hazard assessment and know where a power line is before you start work.
• If it’s at all possible, once you locate a power line, try to work away from it. If this is not possible, stay as far away as possible, and remember; the higher the voltage, the farther away you need to be.
• If possible, call the local electric company and have them cut the power while work is ongoing.
• Mark the areas around the power lines with cones and/or signs to warn other workers of the danger.
• If a vehicle or other piece of equipment contacts a power line, stay in the vehicle and radio for help.

In the wake of a significant increase in rail accidents over the last ten years, many inside the federal government are pushing for stiff new penalties for railways caught violating safety rules; penalties that could cost a lot more than just dollars.

Minister of State for Transport Rob Merrifield recently announced that new legislation will include protection for whistleblowers, as well as much larger financial and legal penalties for violations. If passed, the law would require each railway company to designate one executive legally responsible for safety, and who might possibly face jail time if the company is convicted of breaking the rules.

Though it sounds as if the goal is to punish executives for breaking the rules, Merrifield insists that is not the case. “What we’re really wanting to do is to make sure that they have a culture of safety within the company and if you are saying there’s one person deemed to have that responsibility there’s a lot more chance that’s actually going to happen,” he has been quoted as saying.

The new changes are based on the results of two railway safety reviews, which were launched after deadly rail accidents in British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario and Quebec, and completed in 2008. The advisory panel responsible for the first report made 56 recommendations to improve safety, while in the second report, a Commons committee made 14 additional recommendations. The Commons committee report also concluded there was a lack of accountability regarding safety from both Transport Canada and the country’s railways, which hadn’t done enough to create a culture of safety.

A new report released by The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, an independent, non-profit research organization, calls into question the federal government’s efforts to ensure the health and safety of workers under their jurisdiction.

The report, Success is No Accident: Declining Workplace Safety Among Federal Jurisdiction Employers,  which can be found here, was issued after an exhaustive investigation, including interviews with labour affairs officers (LAOs) and federal  health and safety inspectors, and included in-depth analyses of key statistics, such as workplace injuries and fatalities. The report suggests that while the provinces have been quite successful with measures to bring about safer workplaces, the federal sector seems to be lagging, and their workplace injuries seem to be on the rise.  For example, while fatality and injury rates in the provincial sector declined 25% between 2002 and 2007, federal injury rates increased 5% over the same time period.

The report highlights the significant numbers of disabling injuries in the transportation and postal delivery sectors, and attributes these statistics to a failure in federal health and safety enforcement, specifically overburdened LAOs. According to the report, in 2008 only 128 LAOs were responsible for monitoring and inspecting the federal workplaces for more than one million workers. As a result of this chronic understaffing, only 16% of federal workplaces classified as very high risk were subject to two inspections per year and only 10% of those classified as high risk received the one inspection per year mandated by Labour Program guidelines.

The report details important systemic differences in the way federal workplaces are regulated to account for the disparity, and it recommends greater proactive enforcement and harsher penalties for federally regulated employers. The report notes that prosecutions in the federal jurisdiction under the code are relatively rare and occur primarily after very serious, often fatal, workplace accidents.  Not only that, but when they do actually prosecute and convictions are obtained, the penalties imposed are far smaller than those imposed in provincial jurisdictions.  Also, while decisions in provincial cases are prominently published, federal prosecutions are often difficult to find.