As anyone who’s been paying attention to the news is aware, health officials in many countries, including Canada, are worried about an outbreak of H1N1 Swine Flu worldwide. This past week, the World Health Organization raised the virus’ threat level to a five on a preparedness scale, with 6 being a full-blown global pandemic.

While the jury is out regarding the actual threat of the illness to the world population, the WHO warns that this particular flu strain is very contagious, and that we have no immunity. The illness causes fever, coughs, body aches and respiratory problems. A large scale spread of the virus could have a major impact on workplaces all over Canada. But there are actually steps workers and their supervisors can take to minimize the threat to your workplace and your company’s productivity. If all workers take these steps, it should minimize the impact on your workplace, as well as many others.

· If you think you’ve been exposed to the virus, make sure you get immediate medical assistance.

· Wash your hands as often as possible with soap and warm water. If soap and water are not readily available on a particular job, wash your hands frequently with an alcohol-based hand sanitizer.

· Keep your hands away from your nose and mouth, and if you must sneeze or cough, do so into your sleeve, in order to avoid spreading germs to your hands.

· Practice social distancing, maintaining at least three feet of distance from others, whether or not you think they may have been exposed to the virus.

· Advise supervisors if you have been exposed to someone with the flu, or if you experience flu-like symptoms.

Supervisors should develop a plan of action, in order to ensure the safety of other workers and the public at large in the event of an outbreak. They should also encourage an increase in the frequency of cleaning and personal hygiene activities within the workplace, and should be proactive in distributing personal wellness information as it becomes available.

Taking a few simple, positive precaution could go a long way toward minimizing the impact of this potentially costly epidemic, should it get to that point. It could save everyone a lot of time, money and productivity.

This week (May 3-6, 2009) is North American Occupational Safety and Health Week. NAOSH was launched in June 1997, as a result of an agreement between Canada, the United States and Mexico to improve occupational safety under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The Canadian Society of Safety Engineering (CSSE) had been observing Canadian Occupational Health and Safety Week (COHS) during the previous ten years and found it to be quite successful at creating and increasing health and safety awareness, so during discussions between the three countries, the Canadian labor representative suggested the idea be shared by all.

NAOSHWeek is a great time to schedule meetings and events designed to create a greater awareness of and focus on safer workplaces and communities. Your workplace can participate by using this time to set new health and safety goals for your workplace; by creating and expanding awareness of these health and safety goals to people inside and outside your company, and by creating a comprehensive plan for accomplishing these goals.

For more information on how to use NAOSHWeek to help push forward a culture of safety in your workplace, visit the Canadian Society of Safety Engineering (CSSE) web site, and download NAOSHWeek planning materials, posters and other items.

According to Quebec’s workers’ compensation board, the Commission de la santé et de la sécurité du travail (CSST), gaps in training and a deficient occupational health and safety program was the main cause of an accident last year near James Bay that claimed the life of one young worker and seriously injured another.

The CSST report charged the employer, Fernand Gilbert ltée, with failing to protect the health and safety of its workers, in an incident that took place on January 11, 2008, while working on part of the $2 billion Rupert River diversion project. The two workers were replacing a rear wheel on a 50-ton dump truck in the company’s service area. They placed the wheel on its axle and partially filled the tire, then proceeded to fasten it with screws. Suddenly, the tire exploded, sending both workers flying. As a result, David Girard, 22, sustained fatal injuries to his head, while the other worker was seriously injured.

The CSST investigation found that even though replacing a truck tire requires high-level technical knowledge, the two workers had received very little training on the proper procedures, and had never received written instructions at any point. The workers were completely unaware of the dangers of inflating a tire that is less than 80 per cent full without first removing the wheel and inspecting it thoroughly.

The investigation also found that the employer was aware of the risks involved in replacing truck tires; its own safety program specified that a safety cage be used when replacing tires, although no cage was available on site. Fernand Gilbert has 30 days to contest the charges, after which a judge will decide on a fine between $5,000 and $20,000.

The Canadian government intends to make the transportation of dangerous materials safer and more secure, as Transport Minister John Baird has put forth amendments to the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992.

In a public statement, Baird said, “Our government continues to take action to ensure the safety and security of Canadians whenever dangerous goods are imported, handled or transported in Canada.” Public safety minister Peter Van Loan adds the proposed amendments represent “the necessary enhancements” to keep Canadians safe.

Under the amended act, the safe transport of dangerous goods would remain a shared responsibility among federal, provincial and territorial governments and industry, but the amendments would also require security training and personnel screening; draft regulations to track dangerous goods transport; require transporters to report the theft of any dangerous goods; strengthen the Emergency Response Assistance Program, which requires that related plans be in place should a dangerous goods incident occur; and clarify the definition of an importer to clarify who is subject to the requirements of the act and its regulations.

The proposed changes would require shippers to submit an Emergency Response Assistance Plan (ERAP) to Transport Canada before shipping dangerous substances. ERAPs would be required for the most potentially harmful substances, such as explosives, flammable substances and toxic gases, that could pose a widespread threat in the event of an incident. The plan outlines actions shippers would take in such an event, and how to assist local authorities.

Once upon a time, a mechanic had just hand washed some machine parts in solvent, and used a compressed air hose to dry them. Several minutes later, he was rushed to a hospital, after complaining to a supervisor that he felt his body was going to explode. It turns out the compressed air he was using had penetrated a cut on his hand, and had forced air bubbles into his bloodstream. The mechanic recovered, but if the air bubbles had worked their way to his heart, it could have been fatal.

Many workers use compressed air on a regular basis, for various purposes, and they tend to take it for granted, and ignore the hazards inherent in its use. As a result, compressed air actually causes quite a few injuries in the workplace.

While the danger of air bubbles entering the bloodstream is on the extreme side of the hazard spectrum, a compressed air stream can damage an eardrum or eye or inflate body parts.

Workers commonly use compressed air to blow dust and dirt from their clothing, body or hair, but even if the pressure is as low as 20 to 25 psi, if the air is directed toward openings in the skin or body, it can penetrate, causing serious injuries.

In order to prevent accidental injury when working with compressed air, here are some basic precautions to follow:

• It’s best to avoid using compressed air for any type of cleaning.

• If you have to use compressed air, examine all connections before operating the air hose, to make sure they’re tight and won’t come loose under pressure. Also, examine the hose for kinks and holes before turning on the compressor.

• Keep the compressor as clean as possible by covering it with a tarp, and clean it regularly. While cleaning it, make sure the hose is pointed away from others, to prevent dirt from flying at them. Only the operator should be in the immediate cleaning area.

• Hold the nozzle when turning the air on or off, and never kink the hose to stop the air flow.

• Always turn the air off at the control valve.

• When the job is finished, turn off the valves on both the tool and the air-line.

• Keep air hoses out of aisles, where they can be damaged by traffic or create a tripping hazard.

• Never point a compressed air hose nozzle at any part of your body or at another person, especially as a joke. A blast of air could startle another worker into the path of moving machinery, creating an extra hazard.

Obviously, all those working in the area of an air compressor should wear eye protection, and other necessary personal protective equipment.

Of course, air can look like fun, but the force of air coming from an air compressor is strong enough to constitute a hazard in the wrong hands. An air compressor is not a toy.

Less than a month after a March helicopter crash that killed 17 people en route to oilfields off the Newfoundland coast, the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board has begun the process of setting up an inquiry on worker safety.

They are currently looking at potential commissioners, and compiling terms of reference, in order to review any worker safety issues raised in the wake of the crash of a Sikorsky S-92A helicopter. Such an inquiry is mandatory if offshore activity “results in death or injury or danger to public safety or the environment,” according to the Atlantic Accord Act, but it will be a first for the petroleum board.

The board says it will not examine issues covered by the Transportation Safety Board of Canada’s investigation. Instead, it is reviewing the chain of events that led to the crash. The intent is to make the inquiry wide ranging enough to satisfy the victims’ families. They also note that some offshore workers’ concerns about the safety of the helicopters are valid.

In the meantime, RCMP investigators interviewed Robert Decker, the lone survivor of the crash last week, and Decker gave a “full account of the events surrounding the crash.” The information will be provided to the TSB and the petroleum Board.

“While the TSB is ongoing, and since there are privacy concerns, the RCMP will not be in a position to recount his story,” said a RCMP news release.

After extensive public consultation, the Alberta Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Code has been updated to keep workplace health and safety rules current and relevant, and Alberta employers have until July 1 to comply with the updates.

Among the updates to the Code are:

· new requirements for lift calculations, tag lines and personnel baskets

· new health care requirements specific to patient/client/resident handling;

· new rules clarifying the difference between ‘confined’ and ‘restricted’ spaces for entry permit systems;

· new requirements regarding respiratory protection from airborne biohazardous material;

· mobile equipment requirements, specifically for concrete pump trucks;

· new, more specific safety factors for rigging components; and

· updates to better reflect current mining practices.

The 2009 OHS Code can be found online here.

Beginning in June, an OHS Code Explanation Guide will be available at the Alberta government’s web site in June. Copies of the 2009 OHS Code can be purchased from the Queen’s Printer web site. Shipping of the printed copies will begin in late May.

In a reminder that workers and employers both have a responsibility regarding safety, the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal (WCAT) in British Columbia has ruled that an administrative penalty should be reduced by 20%, after it was determined that a worker’s actions partially contributed to the accident in which he was injured.

The decision alters a WorkSafeBC order from November, 2007 that imposed a $29,500 administrative penalty against the employer in question. The ordered reduction will reduce the penalty to about $23,500.

The accident in question occurred on September 8, 2006, when a worker’s arm was severed by an auger attached to a mobile concrete mixer at a construction site. The amputation occurred when the auger was activated while the worker, with his arm in the mechanism, was replacing wear plates.

The employer argued that the worker completed a four-hour orientation, including a review of the mixer’s safety manual. The worker also took part in a general safety meeting with the shop superintendant and received instruction on three procedures for isolating power to the auger. The employer contended that this was a classic case of a properly trained and supervised worker “engaging in an independent action.”

The ruling found that there was “a lack of adequate training and supervision, given the lack of clarity or certainty as to the nature of the job duties the worker was expected to perform.” At the end of each day, the worker had a variety of cleaning duties, including checking for worn wear plates by hand. The ruling found “some merit in (the employer’s) argument that the worker, as a journeyman working with the operator’s manual, should have been following the instructions in the manual.”

But the ruling said that the fact that the worker was an experienced mechanic “does not mean the employer was thereby relieved of responsibility for instruction, training and supervision.” The employer took steps following the accident to implement detailed safety work procedures and retained the services of an independent expert to provide a report to help prevent future accidents of this type.

Still, the worker “may be viewed as having shared in the responsibility” for the accident. The ruling found that “a downward variation in the amount of the penalty is warranted on the basis that the worker’s actions contributed to the accident.”

Once more, it’s clear; it’s not just the employer who pays when a worker is hurt. Workers have a responsibility to keep themselves safe, as well.

In a report released by the Transportation Safety Board last week, a derailment and explosion in a CN Rail marshaling yard in Prince George in August 2007 is being blamed on a lack of training among managers and rail cars that were too heavy. The report found that managers operating a remote control switching system when the explosion occurred weren’t properly trained for the duties they were performing.

According to a board investigator, although management employees were considered qualified for their jobs from a regulatory perspective, they were “inadequately trained and had no experience switching long, heavy cuts of cars on this particular piece of track.”

The accident occurred when a CN supervisor lost control of a 53-car remote controlled train, which struck another train pulling cars loaded with gasoline. The crash caused a derailment, explosion and fire.

Essentially, the excessive weight of the 53 cars, and the descending track gradient exceeded the braking capacity of the trains. While no one was hurt, 172,000 litres of gasoline and diesel spilled, most of which burned in the fire.

The company has denied the board’s finding that the employees were inadequately trained, and they claim to have been working diligently since the derailment to improve the safety of its railroad and employees, according to a spokesman.

The board also found that a risk assessment conducted immediately prior to the accident was inadequate to identify the hazards and mitigate the risks of switching long, heavy cuts of car sets on the pull-back track’s descending grade. While the board report made no formal recommendations, it said “the practice of temporarily assigning management employees to do the work of experienced operating employees may increase the risk of accidents.”

This time, it was only gasoline, apparently in the middle of nowhere. But what if the accident had occurred closer to a town, or even at a highway crossing? This is a great example of why training at all levels is an absolute necessity.

Stayana International Trading, a Toronto company that shreds plastic materials for recycling, was fined $60,000 on March 26 for a violation under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, after a worker was seriously injured. In addition to the company’s fine, Leonid Kofman, a sales manager for the company, was also fined $5,000.

The incident in question happened on August 28, 2007, when a worker at the company’s Flint Road industrial facility suffered a serious head injury after falling from a nearly 2-meters-high platform to a concrete floor below.

An investigation by the Ontario Ministry of Labour found that the platform had no guard rail, which may have prevented the worker from falling. Two days later, the ministry issued a stop-work order, and attached a stop-work tag to the main controls of the plastic grinder beside the platform.

Subsequently, a Ministry inspector went to the facility on September 19, 2007 to verify that the company had completed compliance measures and to lift the stop-work order, only to find that the stop work tag on the grinder had been removed and reattached. A worker then told the investigator that Mr. Kofman had removed the tag and authorized use of the grinder for a short time, until one of the company’s owners once again shut down the line and told workers they were not yet allowed to use the machine. When questioned by the inspector, Mr. Kofman denied removing the tag and authorizing use of the grinder, a claim that was later determined to be false.

Stayana International Trading, pleaded guilty to failing to ensure there was a guardrail on the open sides of the platform beside the grinder, and Mr. Kofman pleaded guilty to knowingly furnishing an inspector with false information. The fine was imposed by Justice of the Peace Lynette Stethem. In addition, the court imposed a 25% 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.