1. home and garden
2. home improvement and repair
3. locks and locksmiths

from the editors of
Insider
www.OHSInsider.com
MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT: How to Comply
with Lockout Requirements
Volume 7 - Issue 7
JULY 2011
FEATURES
Machinery/Equipment
1
How to ensure that your company complies
with lockout requirements.
What the Law Says (p. 5)
Know the Laws of Your Province (p. 6 & 7)
WHMIS
1
8 things to do now to prepare for
implementation of the GHS in Canada.
REGULARS
Test Your OHS I.Q.
8
Can One JHSC Represent Multiple
Workplaces?
continued inside ON PAGE 2
OHS Month in Review
9
Cases of the Month
9
ON Steps up Prosecution of Supervisors
Brief Your CEO
Why Senior Management Must Monitor
OHS Compliance
17
Managing Your OHS Program 18
7 Strategies for Making Your Ergonomics
Program a Success
Winners & Losers
When Can You Use 'Privilege' to Avoid
Disclosing Investigatory Reports?
20
TALK TO US
The Insider's goal is to help safety
professionals do their jobs better and
more easily. So tell us what you need!
For example, are you unsure what the
OHS laws require you to do for a certain
hazard? Need help training supervisors
on handling unsafe work refusals?
Share your pressing safety compliance
problems with us by calling (203) 9876163 or emailing [email protected]
Robin L. Barton
Editor
W
orkers can get hurt while performing maintenance and repairs on various
kinds of energized equipment, such as table saws, conveyors, mixers,
etc.
The
best way to protect
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Problem: Workers can get injured when repairing, maintaining,
workers is to ensure
testing or performing other work on energized machinery or
that the equipment
equipment.
The Law Says: Employers must ensure that energized machinery or
is in a zero energy
equipment is locked out before workers perform such work on it.
state while the work
5 Things to Do:
is conducted. De1. Develop a lockout policy;
2. Develop lockout procedures;
energization involves
3. Supply workers with personal locks;
4. Train workers on lockout policy and procedures; and
more than simply
5. Enforce and update the policy and procedures as necessary.
turning the power off.
Tools: Model Lockout Policy; Model Lockout Procedure.
WHMIS: 8 Things to Do Now to Prepare for
the GHS
C
anada intends to implement a new international system for classifying and
labelling chemicals called the Globally Harmonized System (GHS), which
will impact the current MSDS and label requirements under WHMIS.
(See the May 2009 issue for more details about the GHS.) The original goal of
implementing GHS by
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2008 obviously didn’t
happen. And the final
GHS implementation
date hasn’t been set
yet. But there are still
things that safety
coordinators can do
now to ensure that
their companies are
prepared when new
GHS rules do take
effect.
WHMIS Requires: Companies to use labels and MSDSs to inform
workers of the hazards posed by chemicals and other dangerous
substances in the workplace and how to protect themselves from those
hazards.
The Problem: Canada is preparing to implement the GHS, which will
change WHMIS label and MSDS requirements.
8 Things to Do Before the GHS Is Implemented:
1. Designate someone to be responsible for transition to the GHS;
2. Become familiar with the current edition of the GHS;
3. Follow progress of GHS adoption in US and Canada;
4. Provide feedback to the government;
5. Get substance level classifications for products;
6. Determine impact of classifications;
7. Develop plan for new SDSs and labels; and
8. Develop a GHS training program.
continued inside ON PAGE 14
2
SAFETY COMPLIANCE
INSIDER
Board of Advisors
Steps must also be taken to ensure that nobody turns the power back on, either
intentionally or inadvertently. In addition, stored energy could activate parts of
the machine while a worker is making repairs. That’s why the OHS laws require
energized equipment to be “locked out” before repair and maintenance work
can be done. Here’s what you need to do to comply with these requirements.
Andrew Cooper, CHSC
University of Alberta
Edmonton, AB
LOCKOUT POLICY & PROCEDURE:
Cheryl A. Edwards
Heenan Blaikie LLP
Toronto, ON
Go to the Insider's online partner website, www.OHSInsider.com, to download a
Model Lockout Policy and Model Lockout Procedure that you can adapt and use
in your workplace.
Norman A. Keith, CRSP
Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP
Toronto, ON
Ken Krohman
MacKenzie Fujisawa
Vancouver, BC
Defining Our Terms
Fred C. Leafloor, CRSP, CHSC
Safety First Intl. Services
Dartmouth, NS
This article focuses on lockout requirements for equipment operated by
electricity or another form of energy, as opposed to requirements for “electrical
equipment,” that is, equipment designed to generate, supply or transmit
electricity.
David G. Myrol
McLennan Ross LLP
Edmonton, AB
Yvonne O’Reilly, CRSP
O’Reilly Health & Safety Consulting
Toronto, ON
HOW TO COMPLY WITH LOCKOUT REQUIREMENTS
Wayne Pardy, CRSP
Q5 Systems
St. John’s, NL
The box on page 5 explains how each Canadian jurisdiction handles lockout
requirements in its OHS laws. The chart on pages 6 & 7 spells out when lockout
is and isn’t required. So how do you ensure that your company complies with
lockout requirements? Take these five steps:
Barbara Semeniuk, BSc, CRSP
Purcell Enterprizes
Edmonton, AB
Step #1: Develop Lockout Policy
Although the OHS laws don’t specifically require companies to have written
lockout policies, adopting such policies is still a good idea. At a minimum, a
lockout policy should cover:
Your Plain Language Guide to C-45, OHS & Due Diligence
www.OHSInsider.com
EDITOR:
ROBIN L. BARTON
Managing editor:
GLENN S. DEMBY, ESQ.
• The types of energized equipment that have to be locked out;
LAYOUT:
TRACY BRIGHTMAN
PRESIDENT AND CEO:
ROB RANSOM
• The activities that can’t be performed on such equipment until lockout is
effected, such as repairs, maintenance and activities that require removing
guards from or disabling other safety devices of a machine;
Safety Compliance Insider is published by Bongarde Holdings Inc. and is
intended for in-house use only – commercial reproduction is a violation of
our copyright agreement.
• The training workers must have to lockout machinery and equipment and
to work on locked out equipment;
This publication is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information
on the subject matter covered. It is sold with the understanding that
the publisher is not engaged in rendering legal, accounting or other
professional services. If legal or other expert assistance is required, the
services of a competent professional should be sought.
Publications Mail #40065442.
Printed in Canada.
WSLETTER
NE
&
1-800-667-9300. Fax 1-250-493-1970
or visit our website at http://www.
SafetyComplianceInsider.com
EL
EDITORIAL
EXCELLENCE
AWARD
WINNER
H
NDATIO
FO U
N
please call our customer service centre at
NIC PUB
TRO
LI
EC
S
S
ER
To order a subscription to Safety
Compliance Insider for $397/12 months -
• How lockout procedures will be developed, reviewed and updated; and
• How the lockout policy and procedures will be enforced.
Step #2: Develop Lockout Procedures
In contrast to lockout policies, the OHS laws in nearly all jurisdictions do require
companies to have written lockout procedures that cover the steps to be taken
For more safety compliance advice, visit us on the web at www.OHSInsider.com
3
to make sure machinery or equipment can’t be turned on,
intentionally or accidentally, while work is carried out on
them. Lockout procedures should include the steps to be
taken for work carried out by individual workers and by
groups of workers. Each set of lockout procedures should
address the following:
• Safely bringing and keeping a machine at “zero
energy”—that is, inoperable, isolated from any
energy source, such as electrical, thermal, hydraulic,
pneumatic, chemical, mechanical or steam sources and
with any residual energy in the system dissipated;
• Properly placing appropriate lockout devices on the
machine, including where and how they should be
placed;
• Verifying lockout effectiveness and testing for a zero
energy state;
• Notifying people that a machine has been locked out,
such as through the use of tags or signs;
• Making sure the area near the locked-out machine
is kept clear until the machine is repaired and reenergized again;
• Removing lockout devices, including who may remove
them, when and how; and
• Re-energizing the machine after lockout is no longer
needed.
safetyposter.com
15% OFF
All Labour Law
Compliance
Posters
Use Discount
Code 4884
LOCKOUT POLICY & PROCEDURE:
Go to the Insider's online partner website, www.OHSInsider.
com, to download a Model Lockout Policy and Model Lockout
Procedure that you can adapt and use in your workplace.
Step #3: Provide Workers with Personal Locks
For workers to comply with the lockout procedures, the
company will need to provide them with locks. To prevent
workers from circumventing the lockout, it’s essential that
only the worker who puts a lock on a piece of equipment
(or a supervisor) is able to remove it. For that reason, you’re
not allowed to use combination locks for lockout purposes.
The lock should also identify the worker to whom it
belongs with a unique mark or identification tag in case
supervisors or co-workers need to contact that person to
remove the lock, such as in an emergency or at the end of
a shift.
Step #4: Train Workers on Lockout Procedures
As with all safety procedures, it’s crucial to train workers
on the lockout procedures and ensure that they understand
this training. Who should get lockout training? All workers
should understand what lockout is in general, what the
locks/tags mean and the procedures to follow if they want
to operate equipment that’s been locked out. In addition,
any workers who may need to lockout a particular piece
of equipment should be trained in the written procedure
for that equipment. And if workers could be reassigned to
other equipment, they must be fully trained in the lockout
procedures for the alternate equipment. Also, workers who
may have to deal with any contractors, such as outside
service providers, who may be called in to repair equipment
or machinery must be trained on the lockout procedures
to ensure that those procedures are followed before
contractors begin work on the equipment or machinery.
Training should generally cover:
• The importance of lockouts;
• Legal requirements for lockouts;
Labour Law
Compliance
• Company policy on lockouts;
• The energy forms, hazards and procedures
(administrative and work-related) that must be
followed;
July 2011 © Bongarde
4
Safeguarding v. Lockout
Safeguarding and lockout are similar ways to protect workers from being harmed by energized
machinery and equipment. The differences:
• Safeguarding: the use of guards to prevent workers from contacting hazardous parts of
machinery and equipment is designed to protect workers operating such machinery and
equipment.
• Lockout: protects workers when machinery or equipment is shut down for maintenance,
including repairs and clearing jams.
BOTTOM LINE
• The importance of following lockout procedures;
• Lockout errors to be avoided, such as assuming the
equipment is inoperable or that the job is too small to
warrant a lockout;
Companies have a duty to protect workers both while using
equipment and machinery for their intended purpose and
when repairing and maintaining that equipment. A lockout
• The use and care of PPE; and
policy and procedures are essential to ensuring that your
• Proper use of all tools, including locks.
company fulfills that duty.
Step #5: Enforce and Update Policy as Necessary
Failing to comply with the company’s lockout procedures,
such as by not locking out equipment or removing someone
else’s lock, can have terrible consequences—both for
workers and the company.
Example: A worker was greasing a die machine when
he inadvertently stepped on a pedal that turned on the
machine. The die came down on his forearm, crushing
it. An Ontario MOL investigation found that the machine
hadn’t been locked out. The company pleaded guilty to a
lockout violation and was fined $60,000 [IMT Corporation,
Govt. News Release, Feb. 11, 2010].
Thus, it’s critical that you enforce the company’s lockout
policy and procedures by disciplining workers who violate it.
It’s also important to keep the policies and procedures upto-date. For example, you may need to revise the procedures
when new equipment is introduced into the workplace or
when the lockout requirements in your jurisdiction change.
Of course, any time you change the lockout procedures,
you must retrain workers.
safetyposter.com
10% Off
Topic Specific
Poster Packages
at
SafetyPoster.com
Use Discount
Code: PACK
For more safety compliance advice, visit us on the web at www.OHSInsider.com
Poster Packages
5
WHAT THE LAW
SAYS
All Canadian jurisdictions address lockout in their OHS regulations in either a dedicated lockout section or as
part of their general sections on machinery and equipment. In any event, the lockout requirements in the OHS
laws generally cover the following areas:
• When lockout is required, such as when doing repairs or maintenance on energized equipment or when a
guard is removed;
• Any exceptions to the lockout requirements;
• General lockout procedures;
• Requirements for individual workers, including issuance of personal locks;
• Group lockout requirements;
• How locked out equipment and machinery should be restored to operation, including removal of locks;
and
• Alternatives when lockout isn’t “practicable.”
DO YOU KNOW ABOUT OUR COMPLIANCE CENTERS?
At www.OHSInsider.com you’ll find Compliance Centers containing articles, tools, videos and other
resources to help you comply with requirements in key areas. Two new Compliance Centers have just
been added: heat stress and supervisors. Other centers focus on:
•
C-45
•
Ontario OHS Reform
•
Due Diligence
•
Pandemic & Flu Planning
•
Incident Response
•
WHMIS
•
The JHSC
•
Workplace Violence.

 HSInsider.com
O
A BONGARDE SITE
Save
$200...
Call 1.800.667.9300 to talk to a Bongarde representative and
find out more about OHS Insider.
Switch your Safety Compliance Insider subscription to a full OHS Insider
membership and get full access to all the tools, compliance centers, policy
builders and more at www.OHSInsider.com... and continue to receive the
print Safety Compliance Insider each month.
Offer valid until the end of July 2011. Ask your rep how you can get OHS Insider for $595.
July 2011 © Bongarde
6
KNOW THE LAWS OF YOUR PROVINCE
Here’s what your jurisdiction says about when locks are required—and when they’re not
JURISDICTION
LOCKS REQUIRED
LOCKS NOT REQUIRED
RELEVANT SEC. OF
THE OHS LAW
FED
When a guard has been removed from a machine
so that repair or maintenance work can be
performed on it.
No specified exceptions.
OHS Regs., Sec. 13.6(1)
No specified exceptions.
OHS Code 2009, Part 15
a. When machinery or powered mobile equipment
must be serviced, repaired, tested, adjusted or
inspected;
AB
b. When piping, a pipeline or a process system
containing a harmful substance under pressure
must be serviced, repaired, tested, adjusted or
inspected; and
c. When a safeguard for machinery has been
removed or made ineffective and the machinery
can’t be controlled by a worker.
Lockout isn’t required if:
BC
a. When the unexpected energization or start-up
of machinery or equipment or the unexpected
release of an energy source could injure a
worker; and
b. When machinery or equipment is shut down for
maintenance.
MB
a. the energy isolating device is under the exclusive
and immediate control of the worker at all times
while working on the machinery or equipment; or
b. a tool, machine or piece of equipment that gets
power through a readily disconnected source of
power, such as an electric cord or quick release
air or hydraulic line, is disconnected from its
power supply and its connection point is kept
under the immediate control of the worker at all
times while work is being done.
a. When a safeguard has been removed or made
ineffective; and
b. When a machine is serviced, repaired, tested,
cleaned, maintained or adjusted.
NB
When a machine must be cleaned, maintained,
adjusted or repaired.
OHS Reg., Part 10
No specified exceptions.
Workplace Safety and
Health Reg., Secs.
16.14-16.18
No specified exceptions.
OHS Reg., Secs. 239-240
Lockout isn’t required if:
NL
a. When the unexpected energization or start-up
of machinery or equipment or the unexpected
release of an energy source could injure a
worker; and
b. When machinery or equipment is shut down for
maintenance.
a. the energy isolating device is under the exclusive
and immediate control of the worker at all times
while working on the machinery or equipment;
or
b. a tool, machine or piece of equipment that gets
power through a readily disconnected source of
power, such as an electric cord or quick release
air or hydraulic line, is disconnected from its
power supply and its connection point is kept
under the immediate control of the worker at all
times while work is being done.
For more safety compliance advice, visit us on the web at www.OHSInsider.com
OHS Regs. 2009, Part IX
7
KNOW THE LAWS OF YOUR PROVINCE
Continued From Previous Page
JURISDICTION
NT/NU
NS
ON
PE
QC
LOCKS REQUIRED
LOCKS NOT REQUIRED
RELEVANT SEC. OF
THE OHS LAW
When machinery or equipment is shut down for
maintenance or repairs.
No specified exceptions.
General Safety Regs.,
Secs. 141-149
When work is performed on a machine,
equipment, tool or electrical installation and the
work is hazardous to a worker if the machine,
equipment, tool or electrical installation is or
becomes energized.
No specified exceptions.
Occupational Safety
General Regs., Part 6
When the starting of a machine, transmission
machinery, device or thing may endanger a
worker’s safety.
No specified exceptions.
Industrial
Establishments Reg.,
Sec. 76
No specified exceptions.
OHS Regs., Secs. 30.6
– 30.7
No specified exceptions.
Reg. on Health and
Safety, Secs. 185 - 186
No specified exceptions.
OHS Regs., Sec. 139
a. When machinery or equipment is shut down for
cleaning, maintenance or repairs; and
b. When a safeguard on machinery has been
removed or rendered ineffective and the
machinery can’t be directly controlled by the
worker.
a. Before any maintenance, repair or unjamming
work is performed in a machine’s danger zone;
and
b. When a worker must remove a protector or
protective device to access a machine’s danger
zone for adjustment, unjamming, maintenance,
apprenticeship or repair purposes.
SK
Before a worker undertakes the maintenance,
repair, testing or adjustment of a machine.
Lockout isn’t required if:
YT
a. When a worker could be injured by the
unexpected energization or start-up of
machinery or equipment or the unexpected
release of an energy source; and
b. When machinery or equipment is shut down for
maintenance work.
a. the energy isolating device is under the exclusive
and immediate control of the worker at all times
while working on the machinery or equipment; or
b. a tool, machine or piece of equipment that gets
power through a readily disconnected source of
power, such as an electric cord or quick release
air or hydraulic line, is disconnected from its
power supply and its connection point is kept
under the immediate control of the worker at all
times while work is being done.
OHS Regs., Part 3
July 2011 © Bongarde
8
test
your
OHSI.Q.
JHSCs: Can One JHSC Represent Multiple Workplaces?
SITUATION
An Ontario-based company owns and operates five plants throughout the province. Each plant has approximately 50 fulltime workers and
performs similar work involving the same machinery, equipment, materials and hazardous substances. The company has an extensive OHS
program that includes detailed safety rules and training. It has never been cited for a safety violation and its workers have suffered only minor
injuries. Ontario’s OHS Act requires employers to establish a JHSC in all workplaces with more than 20 fulltime workers. The company wants to
establish one JHSC to represent the workers of all five plants.
QUESTION
Can the company establish a multi-site JHSC?
A. Yes, because all of the plants taken together constitute one workplace
under OHS law.
B. Yes, provided that it gets permission from the MOL.
C. No, because one JHSC can’t adequately protect the workers.
D. No, because each plant has more than 20 fulltime workers.
ANSWER
B. The company can establish a multi-site JHSC—but
must first get the MOL’s permission.
EXPLANATIONS
In general, workplaces in Ontario (and most parts of Canada) must have
a JHSC for any site with more than 20 fulltime workers. But the MOL
can let an employer establish one JHSC for multiple workplaces rather
than establish a separate JHSC for each site based on:
• The nature of the work being done;
• The request of a constructor, employer, group of workers or trade
union(s) representing the workers;
• The frequency of illness or injury in the workplace or the
employer’s industry;
• The existence of safety programs and procedures in the workplace
and their effectiveness; and
• Anything else the MOL considers advisable.
In this case, considering that the work and hazards at each plant
are similar, the company has a solid OHS program and a good safety
compliance and injury history, it’s likely that the MOL would grant the
company permission to establish a single JHSC to represent all five of
its plants.
WHY WRONG ANSWERS ARE WRONG
A is wrong because the Ontario OHS Act defines “workplace” as “any
land, premises, location or thing at, upon, in or near which a worker
works.” (The OHS laws in other jurisdictions have similar definitions.) So
although all of the plants are owned and operated by the same company,
each plant would be considered a workplace under this definition and
need its own JHSC, unless the employer got the MOL’s permission to
establish a multi-site JHSC for all of the plants.
C is wrong because a multi-site JHSC could adequately protect workers
under certain circumstances reflected by the MOL factors. If the MOL
determines that a multi-site JHSC isn’t adequate, it may deny permission
to establish one or order the employer to disband it if one already exists
and establish separate JHSCs. That’s what happened to an Ontario
school district that included 94 workplaces with 20 or more employees.
An inspector rescinded the MOL order authorizing it to establish a multisite JHSC after finding that the JHSC was “dysfunctional” and had failed
to adequately address health and safety issues for at least a year. The
court upheld the order as reasonable and necessary to protect workers
[Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario v. MOL].
D is wrong but a true statement. Sec. 9(2) of Ontario’s OHS Act does
require a JHSC at a workplace in which 20 or more workers are regularly
employed. (Other jurisdictions have a similar requirement.) But Sec. 9(3.1)
says that the MOL, in writing, may permit an employer to establish one
JHSC for more than one workplace. Thus, the fact that each plant has
more than 20 fulltime workers doesn’t necessary mean that the company
can’t get permission to establish one JHSC for all of them.
SHOW YOUR LAWYER
Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario v. MOL, [2009] CanLII 7084
(ON S.C.D.C.), Feb. 17, 2009
For more safety compliance advice, visit us on the web at www.OHSInsider.com
9
OHS Month in Review
A roundup of important new legislation, regulations, government
announcements, court cases and board rulings
CASES OF THE MONTH
Ontario Steps up Prosecution of Supervisors
Supervisors have health and safety responsibilities under the OHS laws
just like companies, owners, contractors, etc. Thus, they also face the
risk of prosecution and fines for safety violations. In fact, supervisors are
being prosecuted and fined with increasing regularity across Canada.
Just look at three recent prosecutions of supervisors in Ontario.
THE CASES
In a matter of days, the Ontario Ministry of Labour announced the
following fines imposed on supervisors:
Supervisor fined $12,000 for OHS violation and lying to inspector.
At a construction project, a worker, who wasn’t wearing fall protection
fell from a pitched roof and broke his arm. The supervisor on site lied
about the incident by telling an MOL inspector that the worker had
tripped and fallen from a window opening. The supervisor pleaded
guilty to failing to ensure that a worker was adequately protected when
working from heights and knowingly providing false information to
an inspector. The court fined him $12,000 [Dustin Greer, Govt. News
Release, May 5, 2011].
Supervisor fined $4,000 for amputation of worker’s fingers. A
worker for a custom cabinet company was using a table saw to cut a
wooden part with help from his supervisor. When the worker noticed a
fragment of wood coming loose, he reached for it and his hand came
into contact with the saw blade, which amputated three of his fingers.
An MOL investigation found that the table saw was equipped with a
guard that wasn’t being used at the time. The company and supervisor
pleaded guilty to failing to ensure that the table saw was properly
guarded to prevent access to its moving blade. The court fined the
company $50,000 and the supervisor $4,000 [Elmwood Group Ltd. and
Jake Tissen, Govt. News Release, May 4, 2011].
Carpenter’s fall costs supervisor $3,000. At a condominium
construction project, a carpenter was cleaning a work surface that had
a hole in its floor. He lifted up a panel covering a hole in the floor and
walked forward, falling through the hole to concrete below. The MOL
concluded that the panel wasn’t secured or identified as covering an
opening. The construction company and a supervisor pleaded guilty to
failing to prevent a worker from falling through an opening by either
installing a guardrail or protective covering. The company was fined
$50,000 and the supervisor $3,000 [Resform Construction Ltd. and
Justin Lowes, Govt. News Release, May 2, 2011].
ANALYSIS
These three cases certainly suggest that Ontario isn’t shy about going
after supervisors for OHS violations. Typically, the MOL is charging
supervisors in addition to the employer but as the Greer case shows,
it may also charge supervisors on their own when they engage in
egregious conduct, such as lying to an OHS inspector.
Ontario isn’t the only jurisdiction targeting supervisors, although it
is the most aggressive. For example, in Saskatchewan, a supervisor
was fined for failing to ensure workers under his supervision worked
in compliance with OHS legislation while in a trench [Neal Basaraba,
Govt. News Release, Feb. 24, 2011]. At the Insider’s companion website,
www.OHSInsider.com, there’s a Supervisor Compliance Center that
contains articles, tools, videos and other materials you can use to
ensure that your company’s supervisors—including foremen, lead
hands and anyone with supervisory responsibilities, regardless of their
title—understand that they may face liability for safety violations and
are able to fulfill their OHS duties.
LAWS & ANNOUNCEMENTS
FEDERAL
April 20: Review of Nuclear Plants Underway
A task force of senior Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) experts is reviewing whether Canada’s nuclear power plants are ready for potential
disasters. It’ll examine the plants’ plans, procedures and guidelines for dealing with severe incident scenarios and recommend measures to address
any major problems, including design changes and changes to CNSC regulatory requirements, inspection programs and policies for new nuclear power
plants.
April 18: Studies out on Health & Safety of Migrant Workers
Results from two new studies indicate that many migrant farm workers in Canada don’t get proper safety training, live in hot and cramped quarters
without access to clean water and suffer health problems as a result. The papers, published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal, also state that
although these workers suffer from persistent back pain, eye and skin disorders and mental health problems, many don’t seek treatment because they
don’t know they’re entitled to it, work too much to get to a clinic or fear losing their jobs. And 45% indicated they were afraid of reporting concerns to
employers.
July 2011 © Bongarde
10
ALBERTA
LAWS & ANNOUNCEMENTS
CASES
May 1: Workplace Fatality Rate in 2010 Increased Almost 24%
According to the government, Alberta’s lost-time claim rate for 2010—1.41 injuries for every 100
full-time jobs—is the lowest in 20 years and has declined for 10 straight years. But its fatality rate
increased almost 24% to 78 fatalities per million full-time jobs. In 2010, there were 136 workplacerelated fatalities, up from 110 in 2009.
Awkward Use of Touchscreen Caused Worker’s
Shoulder Pain
Four days after putting in several hours a day using a
company’s new touchscreen and keyboard system,
a worker developed shoulder pain and tendonitis.
Her workers’ comp claim was denied. On appeal, the
Commission said her shoulder injury was work-related.
The touchscreen forced her to assume an awkward
position—she had to use it with her arm fully extended
at or above shoulder level while making repetitive
motions. Her pain disappeared when she used a mouse
instead of the touchscreen. Thus, the injury was covered
by workers’ comp [Decision No. 2011-317, [2011] CanLII
22857 (AB W.C.A.C.), April 18, 2011].
May 4: Safety Inspections to Focus on Young Workers
The second of three planned focused inspections for 2011 will target places where young
Albertans work. Young workers represent about 17% of the province’s workforce. Once the
focused inspections and re-inspections are done and the results tabulated, the government will
share the findings, including the total number of inspections and orders issued.
May 2: Study Says Underage Worker Violations Are Rampant
A recent study suggests potentially widespread labour violations involving children and
adolescents in Alberta, including kids working too many hours, receiving less than minimum
wage and working under age in prohibited occupations or performing prohibited tasks. The
study suggests that the province’s reliance on complaints to trigger enforcement of labour laws
is ineffective. Ignorance of worker rights and workplace practices, coupled with fear of potential
employer retaliation, are also influencing factors.
May 3: Results of Powered Mobile Equipment Inspections Released
A recent inspection campaign focused on forklifts and other powered mobile equipment involved
87 employers and 181 inspections, and resulted in 214 orders, including:
• 24 related to inspection and maintenance requirements
• 20 for failing to conduct a visual inspection before operating equipment
• 16 related to hazard assessment requirements
• 14 related to worker training, competency and proper supervision.
May 4: Presumptive Coverage for Firefighters Is Expanded
Four more cancers—prostate, breast, skin and multiple myeloma—were added to the list of cancers
with presumptive workers’ comp coverage for full-time firefighters. If a firefighter is diagnosed
with these or any of the other 10 cancers on the list and meets the exposure criteria, the cancer’s
presumed to be work related. And on May 10, a bill was introduced to apply the updated list of
cancers presumed to be work-related to volunteer, part-time and casual firefighters.
Employer Penalized $75,000 for Worker’s Arm
Amputation
A backhoe operator suffered serious injuries, including
the loss of his right arm, while working on a rotating drill
pipe. His employer pleaded guilty to an OHS violation.
The court fined it $2,500 and ordered it to pay $72,500
to the University of Alberta’s OHS Certificate Program to
facilitate delivery of two online courses, including one on
risk management and communication [Watts Projects
Inc., Govt. News Release, April 27, 2011].
Worker’s Crushing Costs Employer $75,000
An operator was crushed and held against a concrete
pillar by a finger assembly that had retracted while he
was under the machine performing maintenance. His
employer pleaded guilty to violating Sec. 189 of the
OHS Code by failing to secure equipment and materials
that could injure a worker. The court fined it $5,000 and
ordered it to pay $70,000 to the Hinton Fire/Rescue
Department [West Fraser Mills Ltd., Govt. News Release,
April 18, 2011].
LAWS & ANNOUNCEMENTS
April 18: Deaths of Two Highway
Workers Leads to Hazard Alert
WorkSafeNB issued a hazard alert on safe
work practices for traffic control zones after
two highway workers were killed. One was
hit by a truck while placing orange traffic
cones along the centre line of the road; the
other was struck by a van while helping a
co-worker clean up a pile of debris at the
end of a paving project.
April 28: Young Worker Safety Plan Announced
The Manitoba government launched an action plan to keep young workers safe, which
includes:
• A $20,000 grant program for Manitoba schools to develop innovative projects encouraging
and educating students on workplace safety
• An agreement to provide $105,000 a year to the Safe Workers of Tomorrow to support its
work helping educate young people about their safety and health rights and an additional
$50,000 for pilot projects
• A victim’s services co-ordinator position at the Manitoba Labour and Immigration
Workplace Safety and Health Division
• A $10,000 grant for Threads of Life.
May 11: Occupational Cancer Prevention Campaign Launched
The United Firefighters of Winnipeg, Local 867 and the WCB have partnered on an awareness
campaign promoting safe work practices and early detection and prevention of occupational
cancers. Early detection and screening are important for all workers but especially those
who work in occupations where they may be exposed to a high level of carcinogens, such as
firefighting.
For more safety compliance advice, visit us on the web at www.OHSInsider.com
LAWS & ANNOUNCEMENTS
NL
May 3: New Violence Regulations Planned for Healthcare Workplaces
The government is drafting regulations requiring all healthcare facilities to develop a violence
prevention policy and strategy, including ensuring emergency security assistance is immediately
available. Current OHS regulations apply to a wide range of workplaces and aren’t specific to the
healthcare setting. The government hopes to have the new rules in place by the end of August.
NB
MANITOBA
LAWS & ANNOUNCEMENTS
April 20: WCB Releases 2010 Annual Report
The WCB released its 2010 Annual Report. The province’s time loss injury rate has decreased
by 41% over the past decade, down to an estimated 3.3 per 100 full time workers in 2010. In
addition, injured workers spent less time off the job in 2010.
May 11: Results of National Brake Check
Day Released
The government announced the results
from this year’s National Brake Check
Day, which took place on May 4 and is
dedicated to improving commercial vehicle
brake safety. Department of Government
Services inspectors conducted 207
inspections. Results:
• 12% of trucks were taken out of
service specifically for brake systems
• 21.2% of trucks were removed from
service for all conditions, including
brakes.
11
BRITISH COLUMBIA
LAWS & ANNOUNCEMENTS
CASES
May 6: WorkSafeBC Releases 2010 Annual Report
According to WorkSafeBC’s annual report for 2010, the provincial injury rate decreased from 2.34 in
2009 to 2.27. But the rate of serious injury hasn’t declined as quickly. In 2009, serious injuries rose to
35% of the overall injury rate—and to 37% in 2010. And there were 143 fatalities in 2010 (121 in 2009).
More than 50% of those fatalities were related to occupational disease.
Operators and Mushroom Farm Plead Guilty in
Death of Three Workers
Two Vietnamese-Canadian workers at a mushroom
farm died after being overcome by toxic fumes when
a pipe carrying a compost mixture broke. Three
workers tried to rescue them—one died and the other
two were seriously injured (one is in a coma and
the other can no longer walk, speak or hear due to
severe neurological damage). Two companies and
three farm operators pleaded guilty to 10 charges
under the Workers Compensation Act and OHS
Regulations. Sentencing is scheduled for September
[A-1 Mushroom Substratum Ltd., H.V. Truong Ltd., Ha
Qua Truong, Van Thi Truong and Phinh Hwu Doan,
May 13, 2011].
April 13: New or Revised Guidelines Took Effect
The following guidelines were added or revised effective April 13:
• BC Safety Authorit y
• Jurisdiction over oil and gas operations
• Labour supply firms and client employers – Responsibilities
• Labour supply firms and construction employers – Responsibilities
• High angle rope rescue program
• Tilt-up construction
• Electrical protective equipment for low voltage electrical equipment
• Slope limitations - Safe work procedures.
June 1: New OELs for Three Substances Took Effect
The WorkSafeBC Board of Directors adopted the revised American Conference of Governmental
Industrial Hygienists Threshold Limit Values as BC occupational exposure limits (OELs) for cotton dust,
methyl isobutyl ketone and thallium and soluble compounds as Tl.
May 12: Report on Care Home Worker’s Shooting Blames Poor Communication
A report on WorkSafeBC’s investigation into the shooting of a care home manager indicates that poor
communication between Vancouver Coastal Health Authority agencies and with Christenson Village,
due to privacy concerns, left staff without the information they needed to recognize the potential for
violence. A care home resident shot the manager as he tried to evict her for violating facility rules. She
was convicted of attempted murder and eight firearms offences and sentenced to seven years.
Workplace Shooter Gets Life Sentence
A worker who shot his former boss to death at a
staff Christmas party was sentenced to life in prison
with no chance of parole for 15 years after being
convicted of second-degree murder. The 63-year-old
arrived with a gun at the party the day after he was
terminated. He opened fire, but no one other than
the boss was injured. During his trial, it came out that
he’d had a history of conflict in previous workplaces,
including swearing at supervisors, slamming and
kicking equipment and shoving a co-worker [Eric
Kirkpatrick, May 6, 2011].
SASKATCHEWAN
LAWS & ANNOUNCEMENTS
CASES
April 26: OHS Training Available Online Now
The government launched a web-based OHS training initiative. You can access the courses at
www.worksafesask.ca for a $10 registration fee. Two courses are currently available online:
•Saskatchewan Workplace Inspections explains how to prepare for and conduct inspections
to prevent work-related injury and illness
•Incident Investigations in Saskatchewan Workplaces provides an introduction and practical
approach to injury and incident investigations.
Contractor Fined $1,560 for Fall Protection &
Other Violations
Based on the findings of a routine inspection, a
contractor pleaded guilty and was fined $1,560 for
failing to:
•Ensure that workers use a fall protection system
where they may fall three metres or more
•Provide and/or require workers to use appropriate
protective headwear
•Ensure that all work at a place of employment was
sufficiently and competently supervised [G.M.
Construction Ltd., Govt. News Release, April 26,
2011].
April 21: WCB Released 2010 Annual Report
The WCB released its 2010 Annual Report indicating that it posted a $12.1 million surplus last
year, its seventh consecutive operating surplus. Continuing reductions in the workplace injury
rate were a factor in the surplus. For example, the injury rate dropped 9.3%, ending 2010 at
3.12%, which surpassed targeted reductions for both 2010 and 2011.
May 10: Easier to Register with WCB Now
New business owners can now register their businesses with the WCB, Corporate Registry and
the Saskatchewan Ministry of Finance through the new Business Registrations Saskatchewan
website using the Quick Link on the WCB homepage.
May 11: Esophageal Cancer Added to Firefighter Presumptions
The legislature passed a bill adding esophageal cancer to the list of cancers presumed to be
occupational diseases covered by workers’ comp when suffered by full-time, professional fire
fighters, unless there’s evidence to the contrary.
Contractor Fined $840 for Fall Protection
Violation
Based on the findings of a routine inspection, a
contractor pleaded guilty to failing to ensure that
workers at risk of falling three metres or more use a
fall protection system. The court fined it $840 [Laron
Builders Ltd., Govt. News Release, April 21, 2011].
LAWS & ANNOUNCEMENTS
PE
April 29: Revised Guide to Residential Construction Released
The WCB revised the Guide to Workplace Safety for Residential Construction Sites to provide up-to-date safety information and reduced its size so it fits in
workers’ tool belts.
May 10: School Health & Safety Inspections Done
Inspections of schools across the province to identify water infiltration are now complete. Reports indicate that most schools require minor repairs to be
carried out by custodial staff. Fifteen schools were deemed high priority. Following any remedial action, follow-up assessments will take place to ensure
actions taken have addressed the problems. The JHSCs at each school have or will soon receive a copy of their completed inspection report.
July 2011 © Bongarde
12
ONTARIO
LAWS & ANNOUNCEMENTS
CASES cont'd
May 4: Amended Bill 160 Sent for Third Reading
The Standing Committee on Social Policy sent an amended Bill 160 back to
the Assembly for third reading. Key changes made to the bill:
• Power to establish standards for and approve training programs and
providers moved from Minister to Chief Prevention Officer
• Minister must consult Chief Prevention Officer on “significant changes”
to OHS system
• Inspectors may appear before the Ontario Labour Relations Board in
worker reprisal cases
• MOL Directors no longer have the power to establish policies on the
interpretation, administration and enforcement of the OHS laws.
Guarding Violation Leads to $150,000 Fine
A machine made for shredding metal was shut down for maintenance. The
shredder’s dome lid was opened using a hydraulic system and secured with
a pin. After maintenance was done, one worker removed the pin while a
second activated the hydraulic controls to close the lid. The first worker left
and, when he returned, found the second worker trapped in the shredder
between the dome lid and base. According to the MOL, there were no
guards or devices in place to prevent access to a pinchpoint. In addition,
the company didn’t have a procedure to ensure that the shredder was clear
of equipment and workers before its lid was closed. The company pleaded
guilty to a guarding violation. Its fine: $150,000 [Triple M Metal Corp., Govt.
News Release, May 2, 2011].
May 1: Young Worker Safety Blitz Began
Ontario launched a four-month safety blitz to help protect new and young
workers who are often vulnerable to hazards on the job and confirm that
young workers are:
• Instructed, trained and supervised on jobs
• Using proper safety measures, equipment and procedures to prevent
injuries
• Meeting minimum age requirements for the work they’re doing.
Worker’s Injuries While Clearing Clog Lead to $120,000 Fine
A worker at a car manufacturing plant tried to clear a clog in a picker, a
machine with a large spiked roller. Although he locked out the machine
before opening an access window to reach the clog, the roller was still
moving. His hand got caught by the roller and he was drawn into the
machine, suffering serious injuries. The manufacturer pleaded guilty to
failing to ensure that the roller was cleaned or adjusted only when motion
that may endanger a worker had been stopped. The court fined it $120,000
[Rieter Automotive Mastico Ltd., Govt. News Release, May 13, 2011].
May 2: Low-Rise Residential Construction Safety Blitz Starts
The MOL’s May safety blitz focused on low-rise residential construction sites.
Ontario increased enforcement at such sites to ensure compliance with the
OHS Act and that workers are, among other things, properly protected from
any on-site hazards, such as trench or excavation cave-ins.
Construction Companies Fined $100,000 after Worker Died in Feller
Buncher
A construction company hired to cut trees where a new power line was
being installed hired a contractor for use of a feller buncher, which cuts
and gathers trees, and an operator for the equipment. After the feller
buncher operator had problems with its saw, a repair crew tried to fix
it. But a member of the crew was pinned between the feller head and
its tracks and was killed. An MOL investigation found that the arm and
feller head weren’t secured to prevent movement during the repair. Both
companies pleaded guilty to failing to ensure that a blocking system was
installed on the feller buncher while it was being repaired. The court fined
the construction company $65,000 and the contractor $35,000 [Moose
Band Development Corp. and Daak Enterprises Ltd., Govt. News Release,
May 10, 2011].
April 19: City Internal Auditor Sues over ‘Toxic Workplace’
Windsor’s lead internal auditor accused city council and top administrators
of creating an abusive and “toxic workplace,” which forced her to leave her
job. In a letter to the city’s executive HR director, she cited “a long and
terrible history” of workplace violence, harassment and “mobbing” and said
she reported “many concerns” that went ignored. As a result, she suffered a
work-related injury and so is filing a formal harassment complaint.
CASES
Worker Can’t Claim Reprisal Simply Because He Objects to Discipline
A worker was given a written warning for using an incorrect lifting fixture,
causing a rotor shaft he was moving to fall. He filed a grievance, claiming
that that fixture was the only one available and the one he’d been trained
to use for this job. But the union withdrew the grievance. So he filed a
complaint under the OHS Act. The Labour Relations Board dismissed the
complaint because the worker didn’t claim he’d been disciplined in reprisal
for exercising his OHS rights in violation of Sec. 50. He just didn’t think he
should have been disciplined, which was addressed through the grievance
process (although not to his satisfaction) [Gugliotta v. Electro-Motive Canada
Co., [2011] CanLII 21301 (ON L.R.B.), April 18, 2011].
Auto Parts Supplier Accommodated Injured Worker to Point of Undue
Hardship
A worker for an auto parts supplier injured her back on the job. For nearly
two years, she tried unsuccessfully to return to work. The supplier finally
said it didn’t have any suitable work for her. She claimed that it’d failed to
accommodate her. The arbitrator said the supplier had a “credible” early and
safe return to work program and had made genuine efforts to accommodate
the worker, such as preparing three return to work plans and providing
modified work. But her limitations were very restrictive and permanent. As
the worker can no longer perform productive work for the supplier, it had
accommodated her to the point of undue hardship, concluded the arbitrator
[Automodular Corp. v. CAW-Canada, Local 1256 (Petkovska Grievance),
[2011] CanLII 20787 (ON L.A.), April 7, 2011].
For more safety compliance advice, visit us on the web at www.OHSInsider.com
Prosecutors Don’t Have to Give Privileged Information to Defence
Based on violations an inspector found, prosecutors brought OHS charges
against a company and several individuals. A defence lawyer asked the
court to order the Crown to turn over all documentation of communications
between the inspector and the prosecutor so the defendants could
respond to and defend themselves against the charges. The court said the
documents were protected by privilege. This privilege could be set aside
if the defendants met the “innocence at stake test”—that is, if they can
show that they can’t get the information from any other source and the
information could raise a reasonable doubt as to their guilt. The court
reviewed the documents in question and concluded that the defendants
didn’t meet the test and refused to issue the order [Ontario (MOL) v. JR
Contracting Property Services, [2011] O.J. No. 1846, April 19, 2011].
Uniform Supplier Fined $60,000 for Worker’s Amputated Thumb
A worker tried to tie the drawstring on a laundry bag while walking with
it along the conveyor. But when the bag hit a sensor and was lifted up, his
thumb was entangled in the drawstring and he was lifted into the air with
the bag. The force amputated his thumb. An MOL investigation found that
the emergency stop button on the bag hoist was too high up for a worker
to reach in an emergency. The supplier pleaded guilty to an OHS violation
and was fined $60,000 [G&K Services Canada Inc., Govt. News Release,
April 19, 2011].
Worker Slips on Wet Floor and Breaks Arm
A worker for a pipe manufacturer opened a door, slipped on a wet surface
and fell to the ground, breaking his arm. The manufacturer pleaded guilty
to failing to ensure that the floor was kept free of hazards. The court fined
it $55,000 [Algoma Tubes Inc., Govt. News Release, May 2, 2011].
13
NOVA SCOTIA
LAWS & ANNOUNCEMENTS
CASES cont'd
May 5: New Website Provides Easy Access to Safety Information
Based on stakeholder feedback, the Department of Labour and Advanced Education
developed Knowledge Base, a new website that lets users easily locate OHS information
and contribute to or change what appears on the site. Highlights include a wiki-style FAQ
and comment section, an RSS feed to help track updates and changes and improved search
capability.
Workers’ Comp Covers Cancer Partly Caused by
Second-hand Smoke at Work
A construction worker, who didn’t smoke, filed a workers’
comp claim for cancer of the cell lining in his tonsils. The
claim was rejected as non-work related, so he appealed.
The Appeals Tribunal ruled that his cancer was workrelated. There was sufficient evidence that the disease
was caused, at least in part, by the worker’s exposure
to occupational carcinogens, particularly second-hand
smoke. Many of his co-workers smoked and did so in “job
shacks,” company vehicles and other areas of job sites
[WCAT #2010-112-AD, [2011] CanLII 26314 (NS W.C.A.T.),
May 10, 2011].
CASES
Drug Company Fined $47,000 for Chemist’s Death
A chemist died from lung failure after exposure to trimethylsilyldiazomethane (TMSD) in
a quality control laboratory. The fume hoods weren’t operating because of roof work. The
drug company pleaded guilty to failing to provide proper workplace ventilation. The court
fined it $47,000. A statement from the deceased chemist’s family expressed disappointment
that court proceedings didn’t explain why workers worked in the lab without adequate
ventilation and called the fine “a slap on the hand of a giant pharmaceutical company”
[Sepracor Canada, May 5, 2011].
Logging Company Liable for Failing to Thoroughly Inspect All Trailer Stakes
One of the metal stakes used to contain logs fell off the empty trailer of a logging truck and
went through the windshield of a van, causing it to roll over and injure the three people
inside. They sued the logging company for negligence under the Motor Vehicle Act. The
court ruled that the company didn’t do all it reasonably could to ensure that the vehicle was
safe and roadworthy. Its system for visually inspecting the stakes was inadequate because
the rear stakes couldn’t be visually inspected and needed to be removed to be examined.
Had these stakes been properly inspected, the defect in a safety chain that caused the
incident would’ve been caught [MacDonald v. Holland’s Carrier Ltd., [2011] N.S.J. No. 172,
March 31, 2011].
LAWS & ANNOUNCEMENTS
QUÉBEC
April 27: Coroner Recommends Improvements to OHS System
The coroner looking into three workplace deaths involving men who were working for
subcontractors on road or infrastructure work released his report. Recommendations
for the labour minister:
• Make developers and public agencies more responsible for the safety of workers
• Consider creating an agency or officer of workplace incident prevention independent
of the CSST to review and analyze fatal occupational incidents and advise the
minister on ways to ensure workplace safety
• Require all calls for tender and construction contracts to contain a section detailing
the equipment and techniques necessary for the work to be done according to
current safety standards and include a tally of related costs.
May 6: Worker Dies in Incident in Ontario
A west Québec worker was helping to secure a container on a trailer when he slipped.
He apparently tried to stop his fall by grabbing the container, but instead pulled it down
with him. When the police arrived, the worker’s boss had freed him from beneath the
container. But he died from his injuries in hospital. The police and the Ontario MOL are
investigating.
Steel Plant Can’t Blame Closure on OHS Regulator
The owner of a bankrupt steel plant closed the plant
down and then sued the Nova Scotia OHS regulator for
committing “torts” that caused the plant’s losses, including
issuing 48 compliance orders. The trial court dismissed
the lawsuit, ruling that although the regulator did have a
duty of care to the plant and had made some mistakes,
its failures didn’t cause the plant’s closing. An appeals
court upheld the dismissal but ruled that the regulator
didn’t owe the plant a duty of care. Such a duty would
conflict with its public duty under the OHS Act, which
doesn’t expressly or implicitly impose a private duty of
care [Cherubini Metal Works Ltd. v. Nova Scotia (Attorney
General), [2011] NSCA 43 (CanLII), May 12, 2011].
April 25: Agricultural Workers Killed, Injured in Van
Accident
Eight “chicken catchers” were travelling in a minivan when
it rolled over. Three workers were thrown from the vehicle;
one died. The seven other workers were injured. The Sûreté
du Québec’s investigation says that it’s “probable” that the
driver fell asleep at the wheel. The investigation is complicated
by the fact that the foreign workers only speak Spanish. A
number of other agencies are investigating, including the CSST,
Transport Canada and the Société de l'assurance automobile
du Québec.
CASES
Business Owner Crushed by Forklift
The owner of a metal company was crushed to death when
the forklift he was operating rolled over as he went around
a turn. The CSST concluded that the speed at which he was
driving the forklift and the height of its forks contributed to the
incident. The incident investigation report is available online
[Metal Inc., Govt. News Release, May 11, 2011].
LAWS & ANNOUNCEMENTS
April 28: Groups Work Together on
Fall Protection Awareness
The NWT Construction Association
and WSCC teamed up to boost
awareness on safety in the workplace,
focusing on fall protection in
particular. It was the first time the
two groups got together to try to
prevent injury among workers.
According to the WSCC, falls are the
leading cause of death and injury in
the construction industry.
May 12: Countries to Sign Arctic
Search & Rescue Agreement
Foreign ministers from Canada and
the world’s other Arctic countries were
expected to sign an internationally
binding agreement that will create
a coordinated emergency response
scheme for the Arctic ocean and
airspace, dividing the Arctic into
specific search and rescue areas, with
each Arctic state being responsible for
a specific territory.
NU
LAWS & ANNOUCEMENTS
May 16: Oil Spill Forces Relocation of
Students
A heating oil tank attached to a portable at a
high school leaked its entire contents, soaking
into the earth and leaving a large five-metre
puddle. The students who normally attend
class in the portable were relocated during
the clean-up process. The area was also
fenced off. The spill was caused by a cracked
supply line in the tank. An official said that
as long as students were kept away from the
spill, it posed no immediate danger.
NT
YT
LAWS & ANNOUNCEMENTS
July 2011 © Bongarde
14
WHMIS continued FROM PAGE 1
We’ll review what’s going on with GHS. And then with
help from Mike P. Moffatt, a safety and environmental
compliance expert, we’ll tell you eight things you can do
now to prepare for Canada’s eventual implementation of
GHS.
GHS: WHERE THINGS STAND
The idea for the GHS came about in 1992 at the United
Nations Conference on Environment and Development
Earth Summit. Many countries have systems for classifying
and labelling chemicals. Although national systems are
similar, there are enough significant differences to create
trade barriers, impede compliance and cause confusion. For
example, a company that manufactures a product containing
hazardous substances may need to create a different MSDS
for each country to which it ships that product.
The summit participants agreed that an internationallyharmonized system for classifying and labelling chemicals
would ensure that companies, workers and other end-users
have consistent and appropriate information on chemicals
and their hazards. This initiative is now known as the GHS.
A UN subcommittee formally adopted the first edition of
the GHS in 2002; a third edition of the GHS was published
in 2009.
Within this classification system, there are three major
hazard groups:
• Physical hazards;
• Health hazards; and
• Environmental hazards.
Each hazard group has “classes” and “categories” within
the classes. Each class or category is called a “building
block.” Countries can determine which building block(s) to
adopt. They must then use the GHS rules for classification
and communication corresponding to the block(s) they
adopt.
Communication of hazards. Once a chemical has been
properly classified, information about the hazards associated
with its classification must be effectively communicated
to anyone who may come in contact with the substance,
including workers. The GHS relies on two items for hazard
communication: labels and SDSs (the equivalent of MSDSs).
Thus, implementation of GHS will directly affect the
Canadian WHMIS system. All existing WHMIS requirements
will need to be adapted to reflect the new GHS hazard
classification criteria and communication rules, which means
changes to WHMIS labelling and MSDS requirements.
Health Canada is coordinating Canadian adoption of the
GHS with help from Environment Canada and Transport
Canada. The government must first identify which
parts of the GHS it wants to adopt and then amend the
existing laws to reflect the GHS requirements. It has held
technical consultations with multi-stakeholder groups on
implementation of the GHS. But a final implementation
date still hasn’t been set.
So where do things stand? Moffatt believes that Canada’s
final GHS regulations will be published sometime in 2012,
with full compliance required by 2014.
How the GHS Works
The GHS has two major elements:
Classification of chemical hazards. The GHS sets rules
or criteria for classifying both pure chemicals and mixtures.
For more safety compliance advice, visit us on the web at www.OHSInsider.com
SafetyTalks.com
A BONGARDE SITE
Need a quick talk? Visit
www.SafetyTalks.com.
BRAN
NEW D
!
Use discount
code SCI2010
to save 10%.
15
8 WAYS TO PREPARE FOR THE GHS
Moffatt suggests that Canadian companies do the following
now so they’ll be prepared when Canada adopts the GHS:
1. Designate Someone to Be Responsible for GHS
Transition
Someone in the company will need to spearhead efforts
to transition from WHMIS to the GHS, says Moffatt. That
person should probably be the safety or EHS coordinator.
However, that person may need to work with a team of
representatives from the affected parts of the company.
Transition to GHS will affect each company differently
depending on its operations. For example, the transition
will be more challenging for a company that manufacturers
chemical products than for a company whose workers
simply use a few chemical products in their jobs. Thus,
a chemical manufacturer may need a full blown GHS
transition team.
2. Become Familiar with the Current Edition of the
GHS
Whoever leads the GHS transition or transition team should
start becoming familiar with the current edition of the GHS,
especially its label and SDS requirements. The third edition
is available online. You can also order a hard copy or CDROM version.
3. Follow Progress of Adoption of GHS in US and
Canada
The US has made more progress in adopting the GHS
than Canada, which is taking a wait-and-see approach,
says Moffatt. And it’s likely that Canada will follow the
US’s lead in many respects, he adds. For example, it’s
expected that both the US and Canada will omit the entire
environmental hazard group because of issues as to how
environmental hazards are regulated in these countries. It’s
also likely that both countries will add hazard classes. So
the transition person needs to follow what’s going on with
GHS implementation in both the US and Canada.
4. Provide Feedback to the Government
The Canadian government has already held consultations
with stakeholders on the GHS and is expected to ask for
additional feedback as it develops GHS regulations. By
providing feedback on proposed GHS rules, you may be
able to influence how GHS is implemented in Canada
and reduce potential implementation costs. For example,
Moffatt believes that with enough industry feedback,
the government may agree to a longer timeline for
implementation of GHS regulations and staggered timelines
for pure substances and mixtures.
5. Get Substance Level Classifications for Products
To know what information to put on a GHS-compliant label
and SDS for a chemical or mixture, you’ll need to know its
classification. Classification of individual chemicals is pretty
straightforward. But classification of mixtures is based on a
variety of factors including:
• Human experience;
• Physical properties of mixture;
• Concentration of ingredients; and
• In vitro or animal test data.
Moffatt says that if your company manufactures chemical
mixtures, you’ll need a database of the GHS classifications
for each of the individual components in your mixtures
to properly classify them. And because the classification
process could be lengthy, start gathering this information
now, he advises.
As of Dec. 1, 2010, companies in the EU must have
compliant SDSs for substances and proposed “provisional
classifications” for 140,000 REACH pre-registered
components. You can use this EU information as the basis
for classifying your mixtures.
6. Determine Impact of Classifications
Once you’ve classified the chemicals and mixtures your
company makes, consider the impact of that classification.
For example, will you have to change a product’s marketing
materials or claims because of its classification? If so,
determine if you can reformulate the product so that it
falls into a less severe hazard category—or even exclude
it from the hazard class entirely. If the product can’t be
reformulated and the hazard category seems unreasonable,
consider having the product tested, suggests Moffatt.
In many classes, product testing data “trumps” general
ingredient-based classification rules, he explains.
July 2011 © Bongarde
16
7. Develop a Plan for New SDSs and Labels
If your company manufactures or supplies chemicals, you’ll
have to reclassify those chemicals under the GHS rules,
and generate GHS-compliant labels and SDSs. So start
figuring out the best plan to do so. For example, compare
the costs of creating new SDSs and labels internally versus
outsourcing the job.
You’ll also have to get updated SDSs for the chemicals
you use and ensure that new GHS-compliant labels are
on them. So develop a plan on how you’ll acquire GHScompliant SDSs and labels. And you’ll need to be prepared
to created GHS-compliant workplace labels for use, say,
when workers decant a chemical from its original container
into a smaller container.
8. Develop a GHS Training Program
Although the GHS doesn’t include specific training
requirements, under Canadian law, you’ll clearly have to
train workers who work with or near chemicals and mixtures
on the new GHS requirements. So start developing a GHS
training program now. At a minimum, such training should
cover:
Webinar on the GHS Available Online
At the Insider’s companion website, www.OHSInsider.com,
you can watch a webinar by Mike P. Moffatt on the GHS and
preparing for compliance with it.
• The new hazard classes and categories;
• The new format for SDSs; and
• Understanding the information on GHS-compliant
labels and SDSs.
BOTTOM LINE
Yes, it may take a while for the Canadian government to
finalize and implement the GHS. And the new requirements
will probably be phased in over time. But instead of waiting
until the GHS requirements officially become law and then
scrambling to bring your company into compliance, taking
the steps outlined in this article now will help smooth the
transition and make implementation easier.
INSIDER SOURCE
Mike P. Moffatt: Director of Communications, Nexreg
Compliance Inc., [email protected]; (866) 361-3032.
Current Newsletter Subscribers and OHS Insider Members
Save up to
$500
off the list price...
Call 1.800.667.9300 to talk to a Bongarde
representativeand find out more about the
OHS Summit 2011.
OHS Summit 2011
Due Diligence: Defining, Establishing & Demonstrating Your Record of Compliance
Oct 24th and 25th
Hyatt Regency, Toronto, ON
Conference Chair
Yvonne O'Reilly
O'Reilly Health & Safety Consulting
You are invited to participate in Canada’s leading networking and educational conference for OHS
professionals and in-house lawyers. Visit www.ohssummit.ca for more information.
For more safety compliance advice, visit us on the web at www.OHSInsider.com
17
BRIEF YOUR CEO
A monthly safety briefing to educate management
Why Senior Management Must Monitor OHS Compliance
During an inspection, a BC safety officer spotted workers for a houseboat building company welding without using proper respiratory PPE
or local exhaust ventilation. The officer ordered the company to comply with the welding and respiratory protection requirements but it
failed to do so. The company was charged with violating these requirements. The BC Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal ruled that
the company didn’t exercise due diligence and specifically criticized senior management for failing to properly monitor compliance with
safety requirements [WCAT-2010-00146].
THE PROBLEM
Keeping a company in compliance with the OHS laws requires
the participation of many individuals, including workers,
supervisors, middle and upper management. But ultimately,
the buck stops with you and your fellow officers and directors.
Although corporate leadership can leave the day-to-day details
of the safety program to the safety coordinator, it must oversee
and monitor the company’s compliance efforts and ensure that
all reasonable steps are being taken to satisfy its duties under
the OHS laws. The BC houseboat case is a good reminder of the
liability a company incurs when its senior management doesn’t
meet these responsibilities.
THE EXPLANATION
If workers aren’t using PPE or following safety rules and
supervisors can’t get them to do so, senior management needs
to know about the situation so that it can take steps to resolve
the issues and ensure compliance. Although you don’t have to
investigate each situation personally, you can’t passively wait for
someone to report a safety compliance problem before taking
action. No news isn’t necessarily good news. Rather, officers and
directors need to proactively monitor workers and supervisors to
spot compliance issues as soon as possible and before they get
out of control and lead to OHS violations.
The house boat company’s senior management dropped the
ball when it came to monitoring safety compliance. As a result, its
due diligence defence had several problems. First, the company
argued that it had provided the necessary ventilation equipment
and respiratory PPE but had trouble ensuring workers were
using this equipment at all times. The Tribunal wasn’t impressed,
explaining that it would have taken little effort to ensure that
workers used the required equipment appropriately.
The company also pointed its finger at the operations supervisor,
who didn’t inform senior management of the issues regarding
use of the ventilation equipment and PPE (it subsequently fired
this supervisor). But the Tribunal said it was no defence to say
that senior management wasn’t aware of these compliance
issues. Due diligence requires senior management to “remain
active and informed in relation to safety matters,” explained the
Tribunal. It attributed the fact that the compliance issues went
unresolved for so long directly to senior management’s failure to
actively monitor the workers and their supervisors.
THE LESSON
The BC houseboat case is a good reminder of what the courts
and other regulatory bodies expect of management when
it comes to safety compliance. No one expects officers and
directors to regularly walk the plant floor to ensure that workers
and supervisors are all fulfilling their safety compliance duties.
However, occasionally taking a walk around is a good idea. That’s
because ultimately, responsibility for the company’s compliance
with the OHS laws falls at the feet of senior management. So
you must implement some sort of system that allows you and
your fellow officers and directors to actively monitor safety
compliance efforts. This system can include:
• Regular safety reports;
• Briefings and meetings on safety issues, including violations,
training and new OHS requirements;
• Reviews of the minutes of the JHSC’s meetings, including
the results of workplace inspections; and
• Reviews of disciplinary measures imposed for safety
infractions. For example, if you see that several workers have
recently been disciplined for failing to use fall protection,
that pattern could signal a problem with the company’s fall
protection compliance efforts.
SHOW YOUR LAWYER
WCAT-2010-00146, [2010] CanLII 23379 (BC W.C.A.T), Jan.
18, 2010
July 2011 © Bongarde
18
MANAGING YOUR OHS PROGRAM
C
7 Strategies for Making Your Ergonomics Program a Success
arpal tunnel syndrome, tendonitis, lower back pain and
other musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) are among the
fastest growing and most expensive types of workrelated injury in Canada, accounting for approximately 40% of
workers’ compensation claims. Ergonomics programs that enlist
workers’ help in identifying the MSD hazards or risk factors in
their workplace have great potential to prevent such injuries. But
you need to implement such programs effectively to realize that
potential. The Institute for Work & Health (IWH) has looked at a
number of case studies on ergonomics programs and identified
seven strategies that you can use to increase the likelihood that
your ergonomics program will actually work.
Strategy #1: Address the Key Barriers to Success
According to the IWH’s guide to successful ergonomics programs,
there are three common barriers standing in the way of success:
•
Lack of support for the program from the organization,
including management, workers and the union;
•
Insufficient commitment of resources, including both time
and money, from the organization; and
•
Poor communication about the program.
If you’ve identified any of the above as barriers in your
workplace, take steps to address them, such as by ramping up
promotion of the ergonomics program.
CASE STUDY: In a transport company, management and
workers agreed to create an ergonomics team whose members
would get time to attend meetings and carry out team activities.
After the team was formed and trained, the manager who was
the most enthusiastic left the company. In addition, some team
members weren’t relieved of their regular work duties to attend
AT A GLANCE
team meetings. Because of their absences, the team couldn’t
gather information about hazards and make decisions about
adopting solutions, which delayed the process of addressing
MSDs and weakened the program’s effectiveness. Team members
later recognized that documenting the initial agreement and
the benefits of an ergonomics program might have improved
communication and formalized the management support that
was initially promised.
Strategy #2: Create an Ergonomics Team with
Appropriate Members
Create a team to manage the ergonomics program that includes
representatives from workers and supervisors. If possible, add
someone with expertise in ergonomics to the team. And having
a member of management on the team can help mobilize
the resources necessary to implement changes—and show
management support. Also consider someone from human
resources or the OHS department and technical specialists, such
as people in maintenance, engineers or skilled tradespeople
CASE STUDY: In a manufacturing setting, an ergonomics
change team was formed that didn’t include representatives from
the skilled trades. Although the team became adept at identifying
hazards and devising solutions, they were often difficult to
implement because the workplace’s production equipment
was complex. So there were delays in making changes, which
frustrated team members. After several months, the team got
skilled tradespeople to help it design workable solutions. Over
time, this approach enabled the team to design solutions to
hazards that could actually be adapted to the workplace.
Strategy #3: Define Team Members’ Responsibilities
Communicating everyone’s role can help your team function
well. By clearly explaining everyone’s responsibilities, it keeps
everybody in the loop and can help keep the program on track.
Responsibilities include:
1. Address the key barriers to success, such as poor
communication to workers about the program.
•
Identifying problems;
•
Developing solutions; and
2. Create an ergonomics team with appropriate
members.
•
Implementing changes.
3. Define the team members’ responsibilities.
4. Select someone to guide and promote the
program.
5. Provide ergonomics training for team members.
6. Get the whole company involved in the
program.
7. Make decisions about the program as a group.
CASE STUDY: A large food service company implemented an
ergonomics program. The team elected a chair and a person to
take minutes. The chair helped keep meetings focused and ensured
that each item on the agenda was addressed. The minute-taker
recorded team decisions, action items and the person responsible,
and then prepared and distributed the minutes after the meeting.
The minutes were a good record of what the team was working
on and ensured that members remembered their responsibilities
for the next meeting. Team members were enthusiastic about the
program because their own responsibilities were clear and they
didn’t want to be seen as letting the team down.
For more safety compliance advice, visit us on the web at www.OHSInsider.com
19
Strategy #4: Select Someone to Guide & Champion
the Program
To keep an initiative going, someone must lead the way. So
select someone to lead or captain the ergonomics program.
An ergonomist can be a great champion but many workplaces
don’t have one on site. However, anyone who’s interested in
ergonomics and enthusiastic about preventing MSDs would also
be suitable.
CASE STUDY: A pulp and paper mill was implementing an
ergonomics program with the help of an external ergonomics
consultant. After three months, the ergonomist moved on to a
new workplace. The mill kept its program’s momentum going
by finding a champion within the workplace to take over from
the ergonomist. This person provided leadership in terms of
coordinating ergonomics team meetings and raising awareness
about the program among managers and workers.
Strategy #5: Provide Ergonomics Training
Training in ergonomics is crucial in identifying hazards and
designing solutions. Training topics should include general
ergonomics concepts and organizational processes. General
ergonomics training typically covers:
•
How MSDs occur;
•
Risk factors;
•
Hazard identification;
•
Strategies for reducing hazards; and
•
Basic ergonomics principles.
Training in company processes helps teams navigate the
decision-making procedures in their workplace and could include
topics such as the steps required for purchasing equipment or
securing time from maintenance or facilities staff.
CASE STUDY: The same ergonomics program was
implemented in two sister plants but training was provided at
only one plant. There were dramatic differences in the abilities
of the two programs’ teams to investigate hazards and develop
solutions and in the overall effectiveness of their programs. For
example, team members with ergonomics training were able to
find the source of workers’ injuries quickly and correctly. They
also knew how to involve the purchasing department and a
senior manager if they wanted to make equipment purchases
of $500 or more. As a result, the plant that provided training
to the ergonomics team reported more success in implementing
changes—and decreases in worker reports of MSDs.
Strategy #6: Involve the Whole Company in the
Program
A successful ergonomics program involves more than just the
program team. You need support throughout the workplace to
implement solutions and maintain the program. For example,
you want workers from various departments to share information
about their work. The more staff members who are aware of
the ergonomics program and “buy in” to its purpose, the more
smoothly the program can be integrated into the workplace.
CASE STUDY: At a medium-sized manufacturing plant,
managers decided to address a rising number of MSD claims
by implementing an ergonomics program. Their team included
line workers and line managers. The remaining workers
weren’t involved with the team, but the entire process was
communicated to them with an explanation of how important
it was to have their input. As a result, other staff willingly filled
in for co-workers when they attended team meetings. They also
established a system that ensured non-team workers were able
to meet production goals without being overburdened due to
team member absences.
Strategy #7: Make Decisions as a Group
Let your ergonomics team make decisions as a group and then
present the team’s suggestions to management for approval.
Including the entire team in the decision-making process allows
different points of view to be represented. Teams should be
encouraged to make decisions about which problems to focus
on and which solutions to implement. Management may then
become involved when financial resources are required to
implement these solutions.
CASE STUDY: At a long-term care centre, managers initially
made all health and safety decisions. Team members only
provided management with general suggestions to consider
about MSD interventions and implementation of solutions. The
centre’s management noticed that the team was becoming less
engaged in the process. It began letting the team members work
together to decide which interventions to address and which
solutions were most appropriate. Team members only needed to
get management approval for solutions that cost more than $100.
As a result, the team members became much more involved in
the ergonomics program.
FEATURED TOOLS
Here are just a few of the tools recently
featured on www.OHSInsider.com:
1. Model First Aid Record
2. Hazard Assessment Form
3. Safety Talk on Inspecting Power Tools
4. Model Return to Work Weekly Assessment
Form
5. Medical Assessment for Fitness to Work
July 2011 © Bongarde
20
WINNERS & LOSERS
When Can You Use ‘Privilege’ to Avoid Disclosing Investigatory Reports?
When a safety incident occurs, you’ll investigate it and memorialize your findings and recommendations in a report. OHS, environmental and other
government officials looking into the incident may want to see your internal report to determine whether to charge your company or, if they’ve already
decided to lay charges, for evidence to use in their prosecution. But if the report is “privileged,” you won’t have to disclose it—even if an official asks
for it. An investigatory report can be protected from disclosure by either the solicitor-client or litigation privilege. Here are two cases in which courts
had to decide whether a report was privileged. (For a more detailed discussion on incident reports and privilege, see Insider, Aug. 2006, p. 1. )
REPORT ISN’T PRIVILEGED
REPORT IS PRIVILEGED
FACTS
FACTS
Ontario Ministry of Labour (MOL) investigators got a search warrant and
seized a report on a safety incident that occurred at a utility company.
The company claimed the report was protected by solicitor-client
privilege and that the MOL couldn’t use it at all against the company.
DECISION
The Ontario Court of Justice ruled that the report was privileged and
wouldn’t allow the MOL to use it against the company.
EXPLANATION
The company’s assistant general counsel asked workers to prepare a
report on the incident so he could provide legal advice to his client—that
is, the company. The report indicated that it had been prepared for the
assistant general counsel for the purpose of providing legal advice. And
the evidence supported the conclusion that the report had, in fact, been
prepared for that purpose. The report was also marked, “Privileged and
Confidential.”
Hydro-One Network Services Inc. v. Ontario (MOL), [2002] O.J. No.
4370, Nov. 8, 2002
An elderly customer slipped and fell in a grocery store, suffering minor injuries to
his hand, knee and foot. Later that day, a store executive told a worker to prepare
a report on the incident as per company policy. That report was then given to the
store’s claims administrator. Several weeks later, the customer sued the store for
damages and asked the court to order it to give him the incident report. The store
refused, arguing that the report was protected by litigation privilege.
DECISION
The Yukon Territory Supreme Court ruled that the report wasn’t privileged and
ordered the store to disclose it.
EXPLANATION
To be protected by litigation privilege, litigation must be a reasonable prospect
when the report’s created and use in litigation must be the dominant purpose for
its creation. In this case, the report was completed on the day of the incident as
a matter of company policy and not because of the incident’s facts or a specific
belief that a lawsuit was likely. In fact, the customer didn’t file his lawsuit until weeks
later. And although the store claimed that the incident report was predominantly
created for use in litigation, the court concluded that its real primary purpose was
to determine the cause of the incident and that any expected use in defending the
store in a legal action was secondary.
Fred v. Westfair Foods Ltd., [2003] Y.J. No. 102, Aug. 13, 2003
Lock-in the best value in compliance advice: renew or subscribe today.
Print
$397
Online
$397
• 12 print issues
• 12 online PDF issues
• Basic tools and analysis on
OHS Insider
• Online archive access
• Weekly email updates
• Weekly email updates
• Bonus: add online PDF and
archive access for just $48
• Bonus: add 12 print issues
for just $48 + S&H
• Basic tools and analysis
OHS Insider Professional
$795
• 12 issues in print and online PDF
• Searchable online archive
• Premium content, tools, and alerts
• Weekly email updates
• Free 1-1 legal advice, webinars, guides, and reports
• Bonus: 10% off all purchases at www.safetyposter.com
Call 1-800-667-9300 to subscribe now.
For more safety compliance advice, visit us on the web at www.OHSInsider.com