Sudbury building supplies company Evans Home Building Centre has been hit with five compliance orders from the Ontario Ministry of Labour, after an employee was electrocuted while delivering a load of roofing shingles to a customer’s home.

The incident occurred on September 30 at about 10:20 AM, when 51-year-old worker Daniel St Jacques was making the delivery to a home on the north end of Sudbury, and his boom truck made contact with an overhead power line and caught fire. It is unknown whether St Jacques was inside or outside the truck when it made contact, but some police on the scene speculate that he was electrocuted when he attempted to reenter the vehicle.

Of the five compliance orders issued by the MOL, four of them related to the boom truck’s future repair and inspection, while the fifth concerns documents that Evans Home Building Centre will be required to provide to the labour ministry, including; training records for employees who operate delivery equipment; the boom truck’s inspection records; St Jacques’ time sheets for the days leading up to the incident; and any relevant company safety policies.

According to the MOL’s own statistics, there have been more than 70 electricity-related deaths on the job in Ontario within the last decade, and that “metal ladders, raised dump-truck bodies and crane booms have been implicated in a number of electricity-related injuries at construction sites.” While the ministry does not keep specific statistics on incidents involving boom trucks coming into contact with power lines, a similar incident did occur in August, 2007, when two employees of Rockway Building Supplies were delivering shingles to a home in Guelph. One worker who was standing outside the delivery truck touched the vehicle and was thrown to the ground almost a metre away, when a conveyer used to move the shingles off the truck touched an 8,000-volt power line.

That worker survived, but Rockway Building Supplies subsequently pleaded guilty in September of 2008 for failing, as an employer, to ensure that no object was brought closer than three metres to an overhead electrical conductor with a rating of between 750 and 150,000 volts, contrary to Section 188(2) of the Construction Projects Regulation under the Occupational Health and Safety Act. As a result, that company was fined $45,000, in addition to the 25% victim fine surcharge.

Back on July 7, SNC-Lavalin Power Ontario Inc. pleaded guilty to a violation of the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA) and fined $300,000 after an accident in which a worker was killed. Now, a second company, Eastern Inc., a Brantford construction firm, was also fined $250,000 for the same incident.

The incident in question occurred on October 3, 2007, as Lockerbie & Hole was providing general site services for the construction of an electrical plant, in Toronto, for SNC-Lavalin Power Ontario Inc. While installing temporary lighting, an apprentice electrician was electrocuted when he opened a 600-volt electrical panel and contacted the taps of the live transformer.

While a Ministry of Labour investigation found that the company had an electrical lockout policy in place, requiring electrical installations to be done under lockout conditions, there was no record of the worker receiving detailed training in this policy. In any case, the written procedures that were in place made reference to out-of-province OH&S regulations, but not those applicable in Ontario.

Lockerbie & Hole Eastern Inc. pleaded guilty under the OHSA to failing as an employer to take every precaution reasonable in the circumstances for the protection of a worker. In particular, it failed to ensure its lockout procedure complied with the current legislative standards.

The fine was imposed by Justice Geraldine Sparrow. In addition to the fine, the court imposed a 25% victim fine surcharge, as required by the Provincial Offences Act. The surcharge is credited to a special provincial government fund to assist victims of crime.

Altogether, two companies are out $687,500 in fines and surcharges because they overlooked basic safety, and a worker died as a result. How much is worker safety worth to you?

A 23-year-old British Columbia flag woman is in critical condition after being hit by a SUV while working on Highway 10 in Delta last week. The accident happened just before 7 AM. The 29-year-old SUV driver remained at the scene and was taken in by police, although he was later released. The investigation is ongoing and a charge of dangerous driving causing bodily harm is being considered.

This incident underscores the dangers faced by road construction flaggers every day. Overall, the road construction industry is one of the most dangerous industries in British Columbia, and flaggers provide an easy target for distracted motorists. According to WorkSafeBC, since 1994 three flaggers have been killed. The number of fatalities is way down since 2003, when the province created a program to certify traffic control workers, but injury claims have remained steady, with 417 approved disability claims between 2004 and 2008.

Traffic control flaggers in British Columbia receive the highest level of training in Canada. Every flagger is required to complete an intensive two-day training and certification program, and must pass a written test covering job and safety precautions, devised by the Construction Safety Network, WorkSafeBC and BC Road Builders, before they can even begin the job. To date, more than 30,000 flaggers have completed the program.

But it’s not just the flaggers’ responsibility to keep themselves safe. Employers and drivers must do their part, as well.

As a supervisor, don’t just assume that a flagger is safe because he or she has been certified. Make sure the flagger has the temperament to take on the job, and is unlikely to freeze in an emergency. And make sure they’re fully equipped to do their job properly. Flaggers should obviously be equipped with a STOP/SLOW paddle that can be seen from a good distance away, but they should also be equipped with a whistle, a pencil and notepad, a two-way radio, drinking water and a jacket, in case the weather changes. If work is going on at night, be sure that flaggers are wearing reflective clothing, and are equipped with a flashlight and extra batteries. Be sure that the flagger station is located so that approaching drivers have enough distance to stop safely, and that sufficient warning signs and safety cones are placed well before the construction area, so that drivers have enough warning to be able to stop.

And drivers; pay attention. When you see a warning sign saying there’s a flagger ahead, assume there’s a worker standing in the middle of the road with a sign directing traffic and slow down. Put down the cell phone, stop changing the radio, and lighting the cigarette can wait a few minutes. According to industry officials, it is far too common for motorists to put flaggers at risk by disobeying, misunderstanding or ignoring the flagger’s actions. While flaggers have a responsibility to protect the other workers at the job site, drivers have a responsibility to proceed through a construction site with caution, to keep the workers, including the flaggers, safe. No one’s meeting is so important as to put the lives of others at risk. When in doubt, stop. When the flagger gives the okay to proceed, do so slowly. And that means SLOWLY.

Everyone has a responsibility to keep flaggers safe. Flaggers owe it to themselves to make sure they get and use comprehensive training. Employers and supervisors must make sure their flaggers are prepared for anything, and that everything possible is being done to protect them. And motorists, please remember; driving entails a responsibility to everyone along the way. Take responsibility, and keep everyone safe.

In the wake of a four-day inquest into the death of 65-year-old worker Ulderico Iannucci, who was killed three years ago in an accident at the Thomas Fuller construction site behind Parliament Hill in Ottawa, a six-member coroner’s jury has made six recommendations for safety measures to be used when operating a backhoe.

The accident happened on August 19, 2005, as Iannucci was using the rear bucket of the backhoe to compact trash. The machine suddenly engaged and crashed through a chain link fence before hitting a curb and careening toward a stone and wrought-iron retaining wall, on which several other workers had been sitting. Iannucci was standing and apparently trying to regain control of the machine at this point, when the front bucket and tires crashed through the stone wall, which sat atop a steep escarpment above the Ottawa River. The machine seemed to “stall” for a moment, as the rear wheels gained traction and sent the backhoe over the edge. Iannucci tried to escape from the backhoe’s rear window before it disappeared over the cliff, eventually landing on a public walkway below.

A forensic pathologist testified that the cause of Iannucci’s death was multiple traumas to the head and chest with a near separation of the brain and spinal cord. Most workers characterized Iannucci as a safe and conscientious worker, but while he was licensed to operate a boom truck, a supervisor noted that he did not have, nor was he required to have, a license to operate the backhoe.

Among the recommendations made by the coroner’s jury are; a requirement that backhoe operators be required to take a provincially certified operator course with an emphasis on safety procedures; a requirement that construction companies ensure all employees have the required certification to operate backhoes; that an emergency kill switch to disengage power be installed in all backhoes; that the seats of backhoes be put in a locked position and the operator’s seatbelt be fastened before the machine can move forward; and that the backhoe’s transmission must be in neutral before the boom can be operated.

The chief coroner of Ontario distributes the jury’s findings to people, agencies or ministries of government that may be able to implement them, but a coroner’s jury recommendations are not binding.

<!– /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:”Cambria Math”; panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:roman; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:-1610611985 1107304683 0 0 159 0;} @font-face {font-family:Calibri; panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:swiss; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:-1610611985 1073750139 0 0 159 0;} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-unhide:no; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:”"; margin-top:0in; margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:10.0pt; margin-left:0in; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:”Arial”,”sans-serif”; mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;} p {mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-margin-top-alt:auto; margin-right:0in; mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; margin-left:0in; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:”Times New Roman”,”serif”; mso-fareast-font-family:”Times New Roman”;} .MsoChpDefault {mso-style-type:export-only; mso-default-props:yes; font-size:10.0pt; mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt; mso-ascii-font-family:Arial; mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-font-family:Arial; mso-bidi-font-family:Arial;} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} –>

Perhaps they should be.

A young Alberta landscape worker was killed last week when he was struck by a vehicle just as he wrapped up a job in Edmonton. The accident happened just days short of his 19th birthday.

The accident happened as the employee of Land Tec Landscaping Contractors Ltd was picking up traffic pylons behind a company truck, according to Alberta Employment and Immigration (AEI). The truck was slowly backing up in the left northbound lane, close to a median that separated north and southbound lanes, when the worker was struck by a northbound vehicle and fatally crushed against the back of the landscape truck.

The Edmonton Police Service (EPS) is investigating the accident along with AEI. According to their preliminary investigation, the worker had just finished planting shrubs and trees and performing maintenance duties on the grassy median. Land Tec Landscaping Contractors had been contracted by the City of Edmonton to perform the work.

Of course, this accident occurred just before Alberta Transportation announced that the number of traffic fatalities decreased from 456 to 410 between 2007 and 2008, a reduction of about 10.5%, despite the fact that the number of traffic collisions increased 2.7% during the same period.

The Ontario Ministry of Labour has brought charges against Sunrise Propane Energy Group, nearly a year after a huge explosion that killed two people and left thousands temporarily homeless.

The two charges, alleging violations of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, are based the company’s failure to protect the health and safety of workers and to ensure their Downsview propane facility was operating in accordance with industry regulations. The company faces fines of up to $500,000 per charge, or as much as $1 million in total.

Last August 10, an early morning explosion at Sunrise Propane’s Murray Rd. facility sent mushroom clouds high into the sky, tossed people out of bed, blew open windows and doors, and forced thousands of residents to evacuate the surrounding neighbourhood.

As a result of their complex year-long investigation, the Ministry of Labour alleges that the company failed to provide instruction and supervision on “safe work practices and recognition of hazards associated with propane storage, dispensing and handling, and on appropriate emergency response to propane leaks,” and that they also “failed to take the reasonable precaution of ensuring that a propane facility was installed and operated in accordance with regulatory requirements and safe industry practice.”

The Ontario Fire Marshal’s office is still investigating the fire, and could possibly bring additional charges, as well. In addition to the possible fines, a $300 million class action lawsuit, representing 3,000 displaced residents against Sunrise Propane and Teskey Concrete Co. Ltd., the owner of the land, awaits certification by a judge.

Believe it; not following all applicable regulations, and failing to train your workers thoroughly can be very expensive indeed.

The fines are definitely getting more serious. WorkSafeBC has smacked two companies with fines totaling $315,343.71, among the highest ever imposed, stemming from an incident resulting in the death of a crane operator, who was killed while working on the Canada Line.

The incident happened on Jan. 21, 2008. Andrew Slobodian, a 22-year-old crane operator, was using a small carry-deck crane, as part of an ironworker crew installing bike path components onto the Vancouver side of the North Arm Bridge. As he attempted to move a load from the front deck of the crane to the bike path below by swinging it over the bridge guide-way, the crane tipped over on its driver side. Slobodian attempted to exit the rear of the crane, but he was pinched between the crane and the guide-way’s wall and was killed instantly.

A WorkSafeBC investigation released in 2008 found that Slobodian had not been sufficiently trained for the job he was doing. They also found that load weights were not clearly presented and there was no effective system to measure operating radius. Ironworkers Local 97, Slobodian’s union, disagreed with the findings of inadequate training and supervision, suggesting it was just a tragic accident.

Slobodian’s employer, SNC-Lavalin Constructors (Pacific) Inc. & Rizzani de Eccher Inc., a joint venture doing business as RSL Joint Venture, received a penalty of $233,535, while the project’s prime contractor, SNC-Lavalin Constructors (Pacific) Inc., was hit with a penalty of $81,808.

According to WorkSafeBC, the criteria for a discretionary penalty — a fatality arising from a high-risk violation committed willfully or with reckless disregard — were met in this case, which allowed for a larger penalty. And the penalty wasn’t as high as it could have been. The maximum penalty amount for a violation is adjusted yearly, and is currently $519,000.

In yet another sign that safety authorities are getting serious about hitting companies harder, financially speaking, gold exploration company Conquest Resources Ltd., was fined $130,000 last week for violations of the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA) in the death of a worker.

In December 2007, Conquest hired an independent contractor to build an ice road on Sturgeon Lake, two hours north of Toronto, in order to service the company’s drilling activities. The accident in question happened on Christmas Eve, when the worker drove onto the lake alone to begin plowing. He fell through the ice and drowned.

A Ministry of Labour investigation found the worker was not given any current, accurate information about the thickness of the ice.

Conquest Resources Ltd. pleaded guilty under the OHSA to failing, as an employer, to provide information, instruction and supervision to a worker to protect his health and safety. The $130,000 fine was imposed by Justice of the Peace Raymond Zuliani. In addition to that fine, the court imposed a 25% victim 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.

The next time you consider sending someone out to do a job without making sure he or she has all of the training and information they need, ask yourself if it’s worth the life of the worker and $162,500.

It would seem as though authorities are starting to issue heavier fines for safety violations. This past week, for example, SNC-Lavalin Power Ontario Inc., was fined $300,000 for a violation of the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA) after a worker was killed.

The incident that led to the fine occurred on October 3, 2007, as the company was building an electrical plant in Toronto. It had subcontracted another firm to provide carpentry, electrical and plumbing services. An apprentice electrician employed by the subcontractor was working with two journeyman electricians to install temporary lighting when the apprentice removed the inside cover panel of a live 600-volt transformer. The apprentice then contacted the taps within, and was electrocuted.

A Ministry of Labour investigation discovered that the electrical panel was not tagged or locked out, as was required under OHSA. In addition, inspectors found that, while both the company and subcontractor had lockout policies in place and SNC-Lavalin had conducted an orientation for subcontractors, company records did not demonstrate that the electrical crew had been given detailed training or a copy of either company’s policy. Of course, the investigation also concluded that the SNC-Lavalin site-specific policy was not fully implemented at the time of the incident, in any case.

SNC-Lavalin Power Ontario Inc. pleaded guilty under the OHSA to failing to ensure that its subcontractor implemented a tag out and/or lockout procedure to ensure workers were protected from shocks and burns. The fine was imposed by Justice Robert Bigelow. In addition to the fine, 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.

That’s $375,000 altogether, when you include the 25% victim surcharge, for not following the company’s policies, as well as OHSA regulations designed to keep everyone safe. If the size of this fine is indicative of what might happen in the future, companies should be asking themselves whether not paying proper attention to safety is worth a $375,000 hit.

A new report by the Transportation Safety Board of Canada (TSB) voices concerns about the safety management system (SMS) of Canadian National Railway Company (CN) in the aftermath of a derailment that occurred on June 29, 2006, when a locomotive and loaded lumber car failed to negotiate a sharp curve and a long, steep mountain grade. As a result of the accident, two men were killed and another seriously injured.

After a detailed investigation, the TSB has concluded that “no risk assessment was done before removing locomotives with dynamic braking from this extreme mountain territory.” The report notes two other recent TSB investigations involving CN trains in which it was also found that risks were not properly identified in the company’s SMS.

According to the report, “(CN’s) failure to identify and mitigate risks through effective SMS has again emerged as a safety deficiency… These three accidents strongly suggest that CN’s overall safety management practices do not ensure safe train operations on its network before operational changes are implemented.”

Based on the results of the investigation, the TSB has recommended that Transport Canada require CN “take effective action to identify and mitigate risks to safety as required by its safety management system.” Transport Canada has responded by claiming that the department issued a Notice and Order requiring CN to equip all trains that travel throughout the region with dynamic brakes, which enhances the braking system of trains travelling on such steep mountain grades. They issued that order just after the accident.

CN, for its part, defends the company’s safety record, claiming a 31 per cent reduction in main track accidents and a 24 per cent reduction in non-main track accidents compared to 2007. They claim a greater emphasis on improving their safety record. The company refuses to comment directly on the accident itself, because a civil lawsuit has been filed in Ontario provincial court by relatives of the two deceased workers.