Be aware, Ontario workers and employers; Ontario’s Ministry of Labour (MoL) is planning another blitz, and this time, they plan to focus on Musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs).

This blitz, which is scheduled to run from September 1 to October 31, 2010, will concentrate on  several industries, including the construction and mining sectors.

The term “Musculoskeletal disorders” covers a wide variety of disorders, including repetitive strain injury, cumulative trauma, back strain and tendonitis. According to the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, such injuries represent 43% of all lost-time claims. In 2008, there were more than 33,000 lost-time claims attributed to MSDs, resulting in a loss of more than 1.2 million days and costing the province approximately $142 million. And unlike acute, traumatic or sudden injuries, MSDs tend to be slow and cumulative.

The construction aspect of the blitz will concentrate mainly on home building, and will focus on equipment maintenance and access to excavation sites, in order to make sure there are no obstacles, and that workers are walking while they carry materials.

When it comes to the mining industry, inspectors will examine large vehicle access and whether the equipment has enough clearance to compensate for body parts. They will also check to make sure that roadways in surface mines are well maintained, to minimize the whole-body vibration jarring that workers often suffer.

A coroner’s inquest was held late last month, looking into the death of worker Roger Hill, who died from severe injuries after being trapped in a rock crusher. The inquest determined that the tragedy was at least partly caused by missing and ineffective safety mechanisms on the rock crusher.

The accident happened late in the afternoon of January 21, 2008 at a Ridgemount Quarries site in Fort Erie, Ontario owned by Walker Industries in Thorold, Ontario, which had a contract with the now-defunct Hard Rock Group of Companies (the worker’s employer) to set up a portable crushing plant at the site.

According to coroner’s counsel Graeme Leach, at about 4 pm on that day, a massive rotor weighing several tons – with outer bars capable of spinning at 100 miles per hour – stopped working. Hill and two co-workers each took turns trying to get the machine restarted. Unfortunately, the clutch re-engaged while Hill and a supervisor were still in the impactor chamber.

According to Leach, several safety violations contributed to the accident. Lockout and tagout procedures were not followed and the engine in the impactor chamber was left running.  Also, while Hard Rock Group safety procedures mandated that a “safety bar” be placed between the bars of the rotor to prevent spinning,  the company had “two impactors, but only one bar, so the bar would be shared between the two and the bar was off-site on the day of the incident.”

The crusher was also equipped with a limit switch, which had become inoperable. “If it had been working properly, it should have automatically killed the fuel to the engine. … The evidence in my mind was unclear if it had been broken and just never repaired or had been deliberately tampered with.”

As a result of the inquest, the coroner’s jury issued nine recommendations, including:

• That the Ministry of Labour (MOL), Infrastructure Health and Safety Association and provincial safe work organizations (SWOs) continue to work together to educate workers, supervisors and employers on the “extreme importance” of compliance with ‘lock and tag‘ procedures and maintaining and testing equipment safety features by referencing the potentially tragic consequences of failing to do so;
• That MOL and SWOs review the effectiveness of the Internal Responsibility System and undertake an mandatory audit of surface mining operations to ensure that senior employer representatives conduct routine and regular safety checks on employees at remote workplace locations (with the results reported to SWOs when safety deficiencies are discovered);
• That the MOL and Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities work together to develop a system to track what mandatory OH&S training workers have and alert workers, employers and the MOL “when workers have not completed mandatory training within the required time periods;”
• That the MOL continue conducting regular spot checks of all safety features of dangerous equipment and consider imposing an obligation on employers to periodically certify that safety features have been tested and are in good working order;
• That the MOL investigate the feasibility that where ‘lock and tag’ equipment is deficient or absent, an immediate stop work order be issued.
• That all surface mining workers be required to have core training and, if mandated, specialty training modules prior to workers being permitted to commence work on a surface mine;
• That the number of inspectors for surface mining be increased; and, consider the requirement for a minimum number of workers before an oh&s committee or designation of a safety representative is mandatory.

The Ontario courts were busy last week, and in the space of four days, worker accidents cost three companies a lot of money.  Take a look at the details of each accident; every one of them was easily preventable with just some basic safety training and worker awareness.

1. In one case, elevator and escalator manufacturer Kone Inc. was fined $90,000 for a violation of the Occupational Health and Safety Act that caused a worker to be injured.

The fine was for an incident that occurred on September 11, 2008, when a worker was repairing an elevator circuit board at the University of Western Ontario. The worker stood on a ladder in the pit and shaft area of the elevator while the elevator’s power was still on. As if that wasn’t bad enough, the worker wasn’t using rubber gloves, mats, shields, or other equipment to protect against electrical shock. Of course, when the worker touched the back of the circuit board, the resultant electric shock caused him to fall to the concrete floor of the pit, resulting in wrist and facial fractures.

Kone Inc. pleaded guilty to failing to ensure the worker used rubber gloves, mats, shields and other protective equipment and procedures adequate to ensure protection from electrical shock and burns.

2.  In another case, a $60,000 fine was imposed on Tri City Materials Ltd., a company that works with aggregates, after it, too, pleaded guilty for a violation of the Occupational Health and Safety Act that caused an injury to a worker.

The incident that led to this fine occurred on December 30, 2008. A worker was cleaning out a trailer that acted as a hopper for various materials. Because the hopper’s chute needed power to stay open, the truck attached to the trailer was left running.  Unfortunately, when another worker shut off the truck during the cleaning process, the chute gate immediately closed and caught the worker’s leg.

A Ministry of Labour investigation found that the company’s procedure for safely cleaning the trailer required that it be locked out with its chute gate manually wedged open. They determined that the worker was improperly trained, and was unfamiliar with this procedure or the hazards associated with cleaning out the trailer.

Tri City Materials Ltd. pleaded guilty to failing to acquaint the worker with the hazards associated with cleaning out the trailer.

3. Within days of the above fines, Abitibi Consolidated Company of Canada, owner and operator of a paper mill in Fort Frances, was slapped with a $125,000 fine for their violation of the Occupational Health and Safety Act for an accident that injured two workers and a student.

That incident occurred on August 20, 2008, when two of the paper mill’s electricians were changing the power box for part of a paper machine. In this case, the power to the box itself was locked out, but the power to the cabinet containing the box was not shut off or locked out. As the electricians removed the power box, they noticed a cable inside the cabinet that needed to be moved, so one of them reached into the cabinet with a metal tool to remove a clamp holding the cable in place. In doing so, the tool made electrical contact with a live conductor inside the cabinet, creating an arc flash, which in turn caused another arc flash from the live conductors overhead.

The accident caused both electricians to suffer first, second and third degree burns. At the same time, a student who was standing nearby and watching them suffered first degree burns.

Abitibi Consolidated Company of Canada pleaded guilty to failing to ensure that a tool was not used near a live electrical installation to prevent electrical contact with a live conductor.

In addition to the $275,000 in fines in the three cases above, the court also 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. That puts the total cost to these three companies at more than $343,000, all for accidents that could have been prevented with a little health and safety awareness.

Proper health and safety training doesn’t cost. It pays.

The Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety (CCOHS) has created a new guide designed to introduce Canadians to the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labeling of Chemicals (GHS), to help prepare workplaces for anticipated changes, as the Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System (WHMIS) looks forward to adopting the GHS standards.

The purpose of GHS is create a universal set of rules for classifying hazards and the same format and content for labels and safety data sheets (SDS) to be adopted and used around the world. The new guide, entitled “WHMIS After GHS: Preparing for Change” will help organizations negotiate the anticipated changes, understand the new requirements and facilitate a successful transition to the global standard.

While the exact details of the changes won’t be known until the legislation is published in the Canada Gazette II, there is sufficient information available to encourage workplaces to begin preparation. The guide will:

• Provide an overview of the new Globally Harmonized System (GHS)
• Describe the changes to WHMIS that should be expected when GHS rules for classification, labelling, symbols/pictograms, and safety data sheets (SDSs) are adopted.
• Provide advice on steps that employers can take in order to transition successfully to WHMIS After adoption of GHS

A copy of  WHMIS After GHS: Preparing for Change can be purchased by clicking on the title.

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

The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal of British Columbia (WCAT) has granted an unnamed commercial construction company a stay of a decision that imposed an administrative penalty of nearly $40,000 on the company.

WCAT vice-chair Heather McDonald allowed the stay of a WorkSafeBC administrative penalty of $38,569.34 – which was upheld by a WorkSafeBC review officer – after ruling that paying the fine would likely cause serious financial harm to the company.

In the decision to stay the fine, McDonald wrote, “A stay is an extraordinary remedy. … The employer’s financial situation is very poor and the prospect of paying a significant penalty of over $30,000.00 will likely place the employer into bankruptcy. In all, I find that the circumstances of this case illustrate exceptional circumstances that justify granting the extraordinary remedy of a stay to the employer.”

The ruling granting the stay comes after a March 30, 2010 decision against the employer, which was the prime contractor on a multi-employer construction site in October, 2008, when a WorkSafeBC safety officer visited the work site and issued a series of orders relating to the company’s failure to: remedy workplace conditions that are hazardous to the health and safety of workers; establish a safety system; and, as prime contractor, ensure that the occupational health and safety activities of everyone at the workplace were coordinated. In addition, other orders were issued, involving specific violations, such as the presence of a number of damaged electrical cords; walkways obstructed by debris; and fall hazards.

The decision notes that, when determining whether or not to issue a stay, WCAT typically considers, among other factors: whether the appeal, on its face, appears to have merit; whether the applicant would likely suffer serious harm if the stay were not granted (for example, loss of a business); and, whether granting a stay would likely endanger worker safety. In its view, the employer provided convincing evidence that it is in an extremely difficult financial position currently, noting that the company’s year end June 30, 2009 net loss exceeded $350,000.00, and that paying the penalty at the current time would likely force the company to cease operations.  “This prospect of likely bankruptcy proceedings and closure of the business brings into the picture the factor of irreparable harm, not just serious harm,” the decision reads.

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.

A 90-day construction site safety blitz by the Ontario government that was conducted between January and April of this year uncovered a lot of problems, and the Ministry of Labour has promised to respond aggressively to the problems and will implement a host of new measures  to improve safety at construction sites.

The blitz revealed a construction industry rife with safety violations. Inspectors targeted high-risk companies and issued 784 stop work orders for fall-related hazards, 3,421 orders for fall-related hazards, 1,120 fall-related contraventions associated with stop work orders and 121 summonses for fall-related hazards.  More than half of the orders issued were for violations related to missing or improper use or maintenance of guardrails, scaffolds and fall protection systems, and close to 80% of summonses issued were to supervisors for a lack of adequate supervision. The level of non-compliance was so high, ministry officials have called the situation “unacceptable” and “simply inexcusable.”

The problems inspectors found ran the gamut, from worker training and records deficiencies, unsafe ladders, stairs and window cleaning. Most of the fall-related orders issued spanned the entire construction sector, from industrial and commercial to institutional and residential building projects.

Going forward, the province, which has already doubled its number of full-time inspectors to 430 since 2005, will increase enforcement, with inspectors targeting construction sub-sectors that demonstrate a higher rate of non-compliance and going after employers who repeatedly flout the law. In addition, the ministry will launch an awareness campaign urging people to report unsafe practices, and they have added a toll-free hotline for people to call if they spot what might be an unsafe labour practice in any Ontario workplace.

In addition, a panel has been set up to review worker safety in Ontario. Their recommendations are expected this fall.