from the editors of Insider www.OHSInsider.com ELECTRICAL SAFETY: How to Comply Volume 8 - Issue 5 MAY 2012 with Group Lockout Requirements FEATURES Electrical Safety 1 How to comply with the requirements for group lockout. Know the Laws of Your Province (p. 5) Clean Air 1 How to maintain proper indoor air quality in your company's facilities. Know the Laws of Your Province (p. 16) REGULARS Brief Senior Management 7 Test Your OHS I.Q. 8 OHS Month in Review 9 Case of the Month 9 The Importance of the Company's 'Safety Culture' Must You Report a Workplace Death from Natural Causes? 20 Years Later: A Look Back at the Westray Mining Tragedy Safety Training 4 Tips for Making Safety Training More Engaging 17 Managing Your OHS Program 18 Implement a Fatigue Risk Management System Winners & Losers Can You Fire a Worker for Swearing on the Job? 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, including electrocuted, while adjusting or performing maintenance and repairs on various kinds of energized equipment, such as table saws, conveyors, mixers, EXECUTIVE SUMMARY etc. That’s why the OHS laws The Problem: Workers can get electrocuted or otherwise injured when repairing, maintaining, testing or performing require energized equipment to other work on energized machinery or equipment. But be “locked out” before repair sometimes an individual lockout procedure isn’t practical. and maintenance work can The Solution: Employers may use a group lockout procedure to ensure that energized machinery or equipment be done on it. But the use of is locked out before workers perform work on it. individual lockout procedures 5 Steps to Take: 1. Determine if group lockout is appropriate; isn’t always practical. So that’s 2. Develop group lockout procedures; why several jurisdiction’s OHS 3. Supply personal locks for workers and a lock box; laws permit so-called “group 4. Train workers on group lockout procedures; and 5. Enforce and update the procedures as necessary. lockout.” Here’s what you need Tools: Model Group Lockout Procedure to do to comply with group lockout requirements. continued inside ON PAGE 2 CLEAN AIR: Maintaining Proper Indoor Air Quality in Your Facility A ir pollution isn’t only an outdoor problem. The air inside your company’s facilities can also be polluted. In fact, the levels of some types of air pollution can be higher indoors than outdoors. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Maintaining good indoor The Law: Requires employers to protect workers from air quality (IAQ) is both an workplace hazards, including indoor air pollution. environmental and workplace To Maintain Proper Indoor Air Quality: 1. Control humidity levels and temperature; safety obligation. We’ll explain 2. Reduce the levels of airborne contaminants; the legal requirements for IAQ 3. Provide adequate ventilation; and and how to comply with them. Defining Our Terms 4. Implement procedures for investigating complaints about indoor air quality. Tools: Model General IAQ Inspection Checklist, Model Health Survey This article covers the IAQ requirements for workplaces in general, not the specialized requirements for workplaces such as mines and healthcare facilities or parts of workplaces, such as confined spaces or labs. continued inside ON PAGE 14 2 SAFETY COMPLIANCE INSIDER GROUP LOCKOUT PROCEDURE: Go to the Insider’s online partner site, www.OHSInsider.com, to download a Model Group Lockout Procedure that you can adapt and use in your workplace. Board of Advisors Andrew Cooper, CHSC University of Alberta Edmonton, AB Defining Our Terms This article focuses on group 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, which has its own lockout requirements. Cheryl A. Edwards Heenan Blaikie LLP Toronto, ON Norman A. Keith, CRSP Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP Toronto, ON Ken Krohman MacKenzie Fujisawa Vancouver, BC HOW TO COMPLY Fred C. Leafloor, CRSP, CHSC Safety First Industrial Safety Services Dartmouth, NS 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. The lockout requirements address individual workers locking out equipment using personal locks assigned to them. But under certain circumstances, using a group lockout procedure may be more effective or appropriate than an individual lock procedure. That’s why five jurisdictions—AB, BC, NB, NL and YK—have specific requirements for group lockout. Although there are some differences between jurisdictions, you should take these basic steps to comply with group lockout requirements: David G. Myrol McLennan Ross LLP Edmonton, AB Yvonne O’Reilly, CRSP O’Reilly Health & Safety Consulting Toronto, ON Wayne Pardy, CRSP Q5 Systems St. John’s, NL Barbara Semeniuk, BSc, CRSP Purcell Enterprizes Edmonton, AB Step #1: Determine if Group Lockout Is Appropriate All jurisdictions generally require employers to use lockout to ensure that machinery or equipment can’t be turned on, intentionally or accidentally, while work is carried out on it or when a guard must be removed. In addition, those jurisdictions with group lockout requirements specify when group lockout is permitted. (See the chart on page 5 for the details.) Your Plain Language Guide to C-45, OHS & Due Diligence www.OHSInsider.com EDITOR: ROBIN L. BARTON Managing editor: GLENN S. DEMBY, ESQ. So you must first determine if a particular situation warrants group lockout as opposed to standard lockout. In AB, BC, NL and YK, group lockout is permitted when: LAYOUT: TRACY BRIGHTMAN PRESIDENT AND CEO: ROB RANSOM 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. 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 E EDITORIAL EXCELLENCE AWARD WINNER NDATIO FO U N please call our customer service centre at RONIC PUBL CT IS H LE S ER To order a subscription to Safety Compliance Insider for $397/12 months - • A large number of workers (Yukon’s OHS law says three or more workers) is working on machinery or equipment that must be locked out; or • A large number of energy-isolating devices (Yukon’s OHS law says more than four) must be locked out. In New Brunswick, group lockout is permitted when the standard lockout procedure is inappropriate for the cleaning, maintenance, adjustments or repairs to be performed or is inadequate for the protection of a worker. According to the WHSCC, this rule is generally triggered when three or more workers or five or more energy isolating devices are involved in a lockout. For more safety compliance advice, visit us on the web at www.OHSInsider.com 3 Insider Says: Your standards for determining when group lockout is permitted should be included in your workplace’s general lockout policy. For more information on compliance with general lockout requirements, including creation of a lockout policy, see “Machinery & Equipment: How to Comply with Lockout Requirements,” July 2011, p. 1. Step #2: Develop Group Lockout Procedures If you determine that the circumstances warrant use of group lockout, you must develop written group lockout procedures that cover the steps to be used and the responsibilities of everyone involved in a group lockout. (New Brunswick calls it a “code of practice” for group lockout.) These procedures should be tailored to the specific machinery or equipment involved. Group lockout procedures should be developed by a competent person and may need to be developed in consultation with the JHSC. You should make these procedures readily available to workers at the location where they’ll be used, such as posting them by the machinery to which they relate. Group lockout procedures involve certain steps that must be performed by one or more “competent” or “qualified” workers, that is, workers who are knowledgeable about the work, the hazards involved and the means to control those hazards due to education, training, experience or some combination. These competent or qualified workers could be supervisors, lead hands or specially trained workers. The remaining steps are performed by “regular” workers. Insider Says: For more information on what makes a worker “competent” or “qualified,” see “Compliance 101: What Makes a Worker a ‘Competent Person’ under OHS Laws?” Sept. 2008, p. 11. A group lockout procedure will generally include certain steps. For example, first, the competent worker(s) will typically: • Confirm that all hazardous energy sources have been effectively isolated. Then, before individual workers begin work on the locked out equipment, they must apply their personal locks to the lock box. And when they’re done, they must remove their personal locks. When all of the personal locks have been removed and the competent worker(s) have determined that it’s safe to end the group lockout, they must remove their personal locks from the lock box and restore the machinery to its usual operation. GROUP LOCKOUT PROCEDURE: Go to the Insider’s online partner site, www.OHSInsider.com, to download a Model Group Lockout Procedure that you can adapt and use in your workplace. Step #3: Provide Personal Locks and Lock Box For workers to comply with the group lockout procedures, the company will need to provide them with personal locks, such as those used in a standard lockout procedure. These locks should not be combination locks. In addition, a personal lock should identify the worker to whom it belongs with a unique mark or identification tag in case a supervisor or co-workers need to contact that person to remove the lock, such as in an emergency or at the end of a shift. The employer will also need to provide a key securing system, such as a lock or key box, for use by the competent worker(s) in initially securing the machinery. Step #4: Train Workers on Group Lockout Procedures As with all safety procedures, it’s critical to train workers on group lockout procedures and ensure that they understand this training. Who should get group lockout training? Any workers who may need to participate in a group lockout for a particular piece of equipment should be trained in the written group lockout procedure for that equipment. Group lockout training should be included in your general lockout training, which should also cover: • Independently lock out the energy isolating devices; • The importance of lockouts; • Secure the keys for these locks, such as in a lock or key box; • Legal requirements for lockouts; • Complete, sign and post a checklist that identifies the machinery or equipment components covered by the lockout; and • Company policy on lockouts; • The energy forms, hazards and procedures (administrative and work-related) that must be followed; May 2012 © Bongarde 4 • The importance of following lockout procedures; US Group Lockout Requirements • Lockout errors to be avoided, such as assuming the equipment is inoperable or that the job is too small to warrant a lockout; Does your company have facilities in the US? If so, our sister site SafetySmartCompliance.com can tell you how to comply with OSHA’s group lockout requirements. • The use and care of PPE; and • Proper use of all tools, including locks. Step #5: Enforce and Update Procedures as Necessary Failing to comply with the company’s group lockout procedures can have terrible consequences—both for workers and the company. So it’s critical that you enforce the company’s group lockout procedures by disciplining workers who violate them. It’s also important to keep the procedures up-to-date. For example, you may need to revise them when new equipment is introduced into the workplace or when the group lockout requirements in your jurisdiction change. Of course, any time you change the group lockout procedures, you must retrain the workers who have to use them. while he cleaned it. His right arm came in contact with the spinning blade and was amputated below the elbow. The sawmill was convicted of several safety offences, including violating the lockout requirements. It appealed. Companies have a duty to implement lockout and group lockout procedures to protect workers while repairing and maintaining equipment and machinery. But unfortunately, lockout violations are all too common. The BC Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal ruled that the sawmill hadn’t exercised due diligence as to the lockout requirements. The sawmill was aware that lockout procedures were a “fundamental safety requirement” and yet neglected to implement them. For example, it didn’t have any specific lockout procedures for cleaning the edger saw or provide a personal lock to the worker to use to lock out the saw. If there had been a lockout procedure in place and the worker had been adequately trained, it’s unlikely that the incident would have happened, concluded the Tribunal [WCAT-2008-02347, [2008] CanLII 49973 (BC W.C.A.T.), Aug. 8, 2008]. Example: A sawmill worker in BC turned off the edger saw he was operating to clean it of sawdust and debris. But because he didn’t lock it out, the saw blade was still turning So it’s critical that safety coordinators ensure that their companies have lockout and group lockout procedures to ensure that they fulfill this duty. BOTTOM LINE What if Group Lockout Isn’t Adequate? In some circumstances, a lockout procedure may be so complex that even group lockout won’t be sufficient to adequately protect workers. That’s why AB and NB permit employers to use what Alberta’s OHS law calls a “complex group control” procedure. Such a procedure may be appropriate due to the: • Physical extent of the equipment or process being serviced; • Length of time equipment or processes will be isolated; or • Relative inaccessibility of the energy isolating devices; • Interdependence and interrelationship of the components in the system or between different systems. • Number of workers involved; • Number of energy isolating devices to be isolated; In both jurisdictions, employers must get permission from the government agency in charge of enforcing the OHS laws to use a complex group control procedure. For more safety compliance advice, visit us on the web at www.OHSInsider.com 5 KNOW THE LAWS OF YOUR PROVINCE According to the OHS law in your jurisdiction, group lockout is permitted: RELEVANT SEC. OF OHS LAW FED AB OHS regulations don’t include specific group lockout requirements. 1. If a large number of workers is working on machinery, equipment or powered mobile equipment or a number of energy-isolating devices must be secured [Sec. 215(1)]. b.relative inaccessibility of the energy-isolating devices; 2.In addition, a complex group control process is permitted if it’s not reasonably practicable to secure energy-isolating devices using group lockout because of the: d.number of energy-isolating devices involved; a. physical size and extent of the machinery, equipment, piping, pipeline or process system; c. number of workers involved in the work requiring hazardous energy control; e. extended length of time of the required isolation; or f. interdependence and interrelationship of the components in the system or between different systems [Sec. 215.1(1)]. BC If a large number of workers are working on machinery or equipment or a large number of energy isolating devices must be locked out [Sec. 10.9(1)]. MB OHS regulations don’t include specific group lockout requirements. NB NL NT/NU OHS Code 2009, Sec. 215 (Securing by a group) & Sec. 215.1(1) (Securing by complex group control) OHS Reg., Part 10.9 (Group Lockout Procedure) Where the standard lockout procedure spelled out in Sec. 139 is inappropriate for the cleaning, maintenance, adjustments or repairs to be performed or is inadequate for the protection of a worker [Sec. 240]. (Note: the OHS law requires the employer to develop a “code of practice” in these circumstances, which the WHSCC explains is a code of practice for group lockout.) OHS Reg., Sec. 240 (Code of practice where lockout procedure not appropriate) Where a large number of workers are working on machinery or equipment or a large number of energy isolating devices must be locked out [Sec. 134]. OHS Regs. 2012, Sec. 134 (Group lockout procedure) OHS regulations don’t include specific group lockout requirements. NS OHS regulations don’t include specific group lockout requirements. ON OHS regulations don’t include specific group lockout requirements. PE OHS regulations don’t include specific group lockout requirements. QC OHS regulations don’t include specific group lockout requirements. SK OHS regulations don’t include specific group lockout requirements. YT Where three or more workers are working on machinery or equipment that must be locked out or when more than four energy-isolating devices require lockout [Sec. 3.05]. OHS Regs., Sec. 3.05 (Group Lockout Procedure) May 2012 © Bongarde 6 Canada’s Premier Conference for OHS Professionals 1-800-667-9300 Venue Sheraton Centre Toronto 123 Queen Street Toronto, Ontario M5H 2M9 Integrating Change & Managing Risk to Improve Your OHS Program www.ohssummit.ca October 29-30, 2012 www.ohssummit.ca Summit Chair Dylan Short, CHSC, CRM Managing Partner The Redlands Group ohs_summit2012_ad_7.5x3.indd 1 3/7/2012 10:59:26 AM YOU MAKE THE CALL Was Residential Care Facility Worker’s Refusal Justified? What Happened A worker at a residential care facility for mentally disabled adults claimed to have a medical condition that made her more likely to suffer serious injury if physically attacked. While she was delivering juice and food, one of the residents hit her. The facility changed the rules so that two workers always went with the juice cart. But the worker asked to be excused from this job. When the facility said no, she initiated a work refusal. Question Was the worker’s refusal justified? Answer No. To read the reasons for the Labour Relations Board’s decision, see the second case under NOVA SCOTIA on page 13. UPCOMING WEBINARS Register at OHSInsider.com for our upcoming webinars, which cover topics such as: Balancing Bill health and safety with human rights (May 2) 160: Ontario OHS Reform (May 16) Aging workers & ergonomics (May 30) New worker orientations and training (June 7) Work refusals (June 20) Incident investigations (Aug. 2). Remember—OHS Insider Pro members can attend webinars for FREE! For more safety compliance advice, visit us on the web at www.OHSInsider.com 7 BRIEF SENIOR MANAGEMENT The Importance of the Company’s ‘Safety Culture’ On April 20, 2010, the Deepwater Horizon mobile offshore drilling unit located off the coast of the US in the Gulf of Mexico was drilling a well. A series of events led to two explosions and a fire that killed 11 workers and injured 16. It also resulted in the largest oil spill in US history, causing significant environmental damage in the Gulf region. The US Coast Guard participated in the government investigation into this incident. In its part of the final report, it criticized Transocean, the unit’s owner-operator, for, among other things, failing to instill a culture that emphasizes and ensures safety [US Coast Guard’s Deepwater Horizon Report]. THE PROBLEM Why should you care about a safety incident that happened in the US? Because the investigation into the Deepwater Horizon tragedy illustrates the impact of something over which senior management has direct control: the company’s “safety culture.” Although the term “safety culture” gets used a lot and may not have a precise definition, you should take the concept seriously. What senior management must understand is that a company’s safety culture has a real impact on the safety of its workers and its OHS liability. As the Deepwater Horizon case illustrates, government agencies investigating safety incidents will consider not only tangible things such as the company’s OHS program and its safety policies but also its less tangible safety culture. And failing to establish a corporate culture in which worker safety is a priority can have farreaching impacts. THE EXPLANATION A safety culture is essentially a mindset, a group of shared values among all stakeholders and a way of looking at the workplace and making safety a priority. According to a University of Illinois study, in a workplace with a safety culture, everyone values and prioritizes safety and: • Is committed to personal responsibility for safety; • Acts to preserve, enhance and communicate safety concerns; • Strives to actively learn, adapt and modify their behaviour based on lessons learned from safety errors and incidents; and • Is rewarded in a manner consistent with these values. The OHS laws don’t require employers to have safety cultures. But having a safety culture is an implied part of due diligence. Explanation: If the Crown proves that a company committed a safety violation, the liability of the company (and perhaps its senior management) will turn on whether it showed due diligence—that is, took all reasonable steps to prevent the violation. The court will consider the company’s safety culture—or lack thereof—in deciding if it met this standard. For example, when two refinery workers removed the locking pin from an overflow valve, steam and water were released, causing one of the workers to sustain severe burns. The court convicted the refinery, criticizing it for having a “complacent culture”—that is, “if there was no accident, the workplace was thought to be safe” [R. v. Petro-Canada, [2008] ONCJ 558 (CanLII), Nov. 5, 2008]. The Coast Guard found that Transocean lacked a safety culture because: • Workers were afraid of reprisals if they came forward with safety concerns or had a safety incident; • Company leaders failed to commit to compliance with the International Safety Management Code, creating a culture that could be described as “running it until it breaks,” “only if it’s convenient,” and “going through the motions”; • Emergency drills were held at the same time on the same weekday and conduct during them was unacceptable; and • Transocean failed to ensure that its onboard management team and workers had sufficient safety training and knowledge. For example, the master said the training he received on the Safety Management System simply consisted of viewing a PowerPoint presentation, whose content he couldn’t remember. The Coast Guard concluded that Transocean’s poor safety culture resulted in continued maintenance deficiencies, training and knowledge gaps, ineffective decision-making and emergency preparedness weaknesses. THE LESSON The development of a safety culture starts at the top. That is, senior management sets the tone for the workplace. So you should ensure that an effort is made to: • Communicate to supervisors and workers management’s commitment to safety; • Clearly communicate safety policies and procedures to workers and adequately train them on compliance with such policies and procedures; • Actively monitor whether policies and procedures are being obeyed; • Consistently enforce the rules including, when necessary, disciplining workers for infractions; and • Reward workers for compliance and safe work behaviours. INSIDER SOURCE “Report of Investigation into the Circumstances Surrounding the Explosion, Fire, Sinking and Loss of Eleven Crew Members Aboard the Mobile Offshore Drilling Unit DEEPWATER HORIZON,” US Coast Guard, April 2011 May 2012 © Bongarde 8 test your OHSI.Q. Must You Report a Workplace Death from Natural Causes? SITUATION A bank worker enters the bank’s bathroom and finds the manager, who has a history of heart problems, collapsed on the floor, unconscious and not breathing. He alerts his co-workers, who try to resuscitate the manager. The police and paramedics also try to save the manager. But he dies, apparently of a heart attack. At first, the bank decides not to report the manager’s death to the federal safety authorities. However, a week later, it changes its mind and reports the fatality. A federal health and safety officer cites the bank for failing to report a worker’s death within 24 hours in violation of federal OHS law. QUESTION Did the bank violate the workplace safety reporting requirements? A. Yes, because employers must report any incident for which the police are called. B. Yes, because the reporting requirements apply to any worker death in the workplace. officer must be notified of a worker’s death to fulfill the duty to investigate it. Thus, the Tribunal concluded that the manager’s death, which occurred in the workplace and while he was at work, triggered the reporting requirements. Insider Says: For more information on complying with the OHS reporting requirements, see “The Duty to Report: What Kinds of Workplace Incidents Must You Report?” Aug. 2008, p. 1. C. No, because the manager appeared to have died of natural causes. D. No, because the manager wasn’t working when he died. ANSWER B. The bank violated the reporting requirements, which apply to any worker’s death in the workplace, such as the manager’s death. EXPLANATIONS This situation is based on an actual federal case in which the OHS Tribunal upheld a federal health and safety officer’s citation to a bank for not reporting the death of its manager within 24 hours. Sec. 15.5 of the federal OHS Regulations requires an employer to report “the death of an employee” to a health and safety officer within 24 hours of becoming aware of the death. In addition, Sec. 125(1)(c) of the Canada Labour Code requires employers to report to the authorities all “accidents…and other hazardous occurrences known to the employer.” The bank argued that it didn’t have to report the manager’s death because it didn’t occur because of an accident or hazardous situation in the workplace. But the Tribunal disagreed. It noted that the OHS law requires health and safety officers to investigate every death of a worker that occurs in the workplace or while the worker is working. The ordinary meaning of this language includes deaths that are determined to be from natural causes. And a health and safety WHY WRONG ANSWERS ARE WRONG A is wrong because although the federal OHS law does require employers to report various types of incidents, it doesn’t require reporting of an incident just because the police were called. For example, in addition to worker fatalities, federally regulated employers must report: • A disabling injury to two or more workers; • A worker’s loss of a body member or a part thereof; and • A fire or explosion. C is wrong because the cause of a worker’s death is irrelevant. Federal health and safety officers must investigate all worker deaths, regardless of their cause. In addition, the cause of a worker’s death may not be immediately apparent. So what may seem to be a death by natural causes could, in fact, be workrelated. For example, in this case, although it appeared that the manager died of a heart attack, an investigation could’ve revealed that he’d been overcome by a toxic gas. D is wrong because although the manager wasn’t working at the very moment he died, he was in the workplace and on duty at the time. Thus, his death triggered the reporting requirements despite the fact it didn’t happen while, say, he was at his desk or speaking to a customer. SHOW YOUR LAWYER Re Royal Bank of Canada, [2012] OHSTC 5, Feb. 3, 2012 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 CASE OF THE MONTH 20 Years Later: A Look Back at the Westray Mining Tragedy Fatal safety incidents happen too often. Most don’t even make the news or do so in a merely trivial way. But sometimes a safety tragedy raises public awareness and changes the landscape of workplace safety. The Christmas Eve scaffolding collapse in Ontario that drove the ongoing Ontario OHS reform movement is a recent example. The Westray mining disaster in Nova Scotia is an older example. May 9th marks the 20th anniversary of Westray. Here’s a look back at this tragedy and its impact on workplace safety across Canada. THE CASE The Incident: On May 9, 1992 at 5:20 am, methane gas and then coal dust exploded in a Nova Scotia coal mine, killing 26 workers. For several days, mine rescuers searched for survivors in extremely dangerous conditions. After they discovered the bodies of 15 miners, the search and rescue mission was changed to a search and recovery operation. But when underground conditions worsened, they were forced to abandon recovery efforts, entombing the bodies of 11 miners deep in the mine. The Investigation: The Nova Scotia government conducted a Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Westray disaster and the related safety issues. The Commission found that the explosions were caused by sparks struck by the cutting bits of the continuous miner working in one section of the mine. But the Commission noted that the conditions at Westray were of greater significance to what happened than was the source of ignition. It concluded that had there been adequate ventilation, treatment of coal dust and training as well as “an appreciation by management for a safety ethic, those sparks would have faded harmlessly.” The inquiry’s 1998 report included numerous recommendations on, among other things, training, the role of the mine’s JHSC, incentive programs, ventilation, dealing with methane and coal dust, and mine rescue procedures. The Charges: The mining company was charged with 52 OHS violations, 34 of which were later dismissed by the court. In 1993, prosecutors dismissed the remaining safety charges out of concern that they might jeopardize future criminal charges. In fact, two of the mine’s managers were charged with 26 accounts of manslaughter and criminal negligence causing death. But almost four years after the disaster, these charges were stayed by the trial judge because prosecutors had deliberately failed to disclose key evidence to the defence. The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal ordered a new trial, which was upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada. However, prosecutors dropped the charges, claiming there wasn’t enough evidence to secure convictions. The Aftermath: Because of the failure to successfully prosecute the mine’s owners and managers and in light of the Commission’s recommendations, the government passed Bill C-45, which amended the Canadian Criminal Code to make it easier to hold companies and corporate managers and directors liable for criminal negligence for failing to protect a person doing work if this failure was the result of wanton or reckless disregard for life or safety and caused death or serious bodily harm to the worker or a person affected by the work. (For more information on C-45, go the OHS Insider’s C-45 Compliance Center.) ANALYSIS Frédéric Le Play, a French sociologist and inspector general of mines of France, once said, “The most important thing to come out of a mine is the miner.” It would be great if all mining companies shared this perspective but that’s not the case. There have been other mining tragedies in Canada since Westray, although none have had as many victims. But incidents in mines elsewhere have been as bad—or worse. For example, in China, 172 miners died in a coal mine flood in 2007 and a mine blast killed 214 miners in 2005. And in the US, an explosion in a West Virginia coal mine killed 29 workers in 2010. Arguably, mining in Canada has gotten safer since Westray. For example, the BC mining industry hasn’t experienced a mine operations fatality since Sept. 2009, the longest period of time without fatalities since 1898. Are these improvements tied to changes made in mining since Westray? It’s unclear. But what is clear is that improvements in workplace safety shouldn’t be driven by horrible tragedies. Companies must be proactive and take steps to prevent disasters like Westray from ever occurring. And safety professionals should be leading the way. May 2012 © Bongarde 10 LAWS & ANNOUNCEMENTS FEDERAL March 10: Changes Proposed to TDGA Regulations The government proposed changes to the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Regulations in Part 1 of the Canada Gazette. You have until May 24 to comment on the 11 proposals, which include: • Change in the definition of “person” and the addition of a definition for “organization” to align the Regulations with the TDGA • Clarification of requirements for outer packaging for aerosols in small quantities • More precise indication of filling requirements for standardized and non-standardized means of containment • Option of affixing dangerous goods safety marks required by the IMDG Code for the transport to or from a ship, harbour or sea terminal. Feb. 29: Small Business Study on Workers’ Comp Boards The Canadian Federation of Independent Business conducted a study on the impact of the country’s workers’ comp boards on small businesses. The study examined cost of premiums, claims management, experience rating, classification and assessment, coverage, long-term fiscal sustainability and customer service. PE’s board received the top overall score, followed by NB and BC. The ON and QC boards were at the bottom. March 6: Train Derailment Kills Three Workers Three workers were killed and 45 passengers were rushed to the hospital after a VIA Rail train derailed. The Transportation Safety Board reported that the train entered the crossover from one track to the other at approximately 67 mph—more than four times the maximum authorized speed. Transport Canada is also investigating the incident under the Canada Labour Code. Feb. 28: Safety Hazards at Medical Marijuana Grow-Ops Safety codes officers in Calgary have found many safety codes violations at a federally licensed medical marijuana grow operation, including evidence of a previous fire, illegal electrical wiring, serious mould growth, spider mite infestation on plants, and toxins and chemicals. Less than a month ago, an inspection at another Health Canada-licensed location also found multiple safety infractions. ALBERTA LAWS & ANNOUNCEMENTS CASES March 15: Report on Chopper Crash Cites Lack of Helmet Policy The Transportation Safety Board released its final investigation report into the crash of a helicopter on Lesser Slave Lake in which the pilot, who was the sole occupant, died from head injuries. The report noted that “the lack of regulations or policies requiring helicopter pilots to wear helmets places them at greater risk of incapacitation due to head injuries following a ditching or crash.” Employer Penalized $275,000 for Apprentice Mechanic’s Death A third-year apprentice heavy duty mechanic was run over by a disabled heavy haul truck while attempting to tow it to the maintenance shop. He died from his injuries. His employer was convicted of an OHS violation. The court fined it $2,500 and ordered it to pay $212,500 to Injury Alberta and $60,000 to the Alberta Worker’s Health Centre [Finning International Inc., Govt. News Release, Feb. 16, 2012]. May 26: Occupational Rehab Forum 2012 The Alberta Occupational Rehabilitation Forum—Improving Clinical and ReturnTo-Work Outcomes will take place in Edmonton on May 26, 2012. The Forum provides opportunities to share knowledge gained through research conducted with injured workers in Alberta and cultivate new projects aimed at improving their clinical and return-to-work outcomes. Labourer’s Conduct as to Drug & Alcohol Test Justified His Firing A labourer carelessly used a forklift to move a heavy and expensive toolbox, which fell and was destroyed. The employer told the labourer that he had to submit to a drug and alcohol test. He agreed to take it the next day. But at the lab, he was obnoxious, obscene, belligerent and aggressive. And he tried to sabotage the tests. So he was fired. The arbitrator upheld his termination. The labourer’s conduct was so offensive, an embarrassment to the employer’s representatives who were with him at the lab and detrimental to the employer’s image, that the employment relationship couldn’t be restored. In short, no employer should have to tolerate the kind of conduct he displayed, concluded the arbitrator [Finning (Canada) v. International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Local Lodge 99, [2012] CanLII 12066 (AB GAA), March 3, 2012]. Worker’s Left Shoulder Injury Not Tied to Work-Related Right Shoulder Injury A worker suffered a rotator cuff injury to his left shoulder. He claimed that the injury was caused by either a work incident in which he injured his right shoulder or the WCB-approved rehab he underwent for the right shoulder injury. The Appeals Commission disagreed. He didn’t complain about problems with his left shoulder until six months after the incident that injured his right shoulder. And the medical evidence doesn’t support his claim that he injured his left shoulder in that incident or while doing rehab for the right shoulder injury [Decision No.: 2012-229, [2012] CanLII 11166 (AB WCAC), March 8, 2012]. Worker’s Injury Caused by Ergonomically Incorrect Work Station A worker claimed that he suffered a strained neck and muscle spasms due to performing computer work at a station that wasn’t ergonomically correct. His claim was initially denied. But on appeal, the Commission ruled that his claim was covered by worker’s comp. The worker suffered a personal injury as a result of working at an ergonomically incorrect work station over a period of years [Decision No.: 2012-133, [2012] CanLII 7823 (AB WCAC), Feb. 8, 2012]. LAWS & ANNOUNCEMENTS QUÉBEC March 7: New Study on Styrene Exposure Released In a new study published by the IRSST, researchers found that styrene exposure in the fibreglass reinforced plastics industry sometimes exceeded the standards prescribed by the Regulation respecting occupational health and safety. They also found that volunteers exposed to styrene at average concentrations of 137 mg/m3 showed a frequency of irritation symptoms higher than the control group. March 15: Scaffolding Collapse Caused by Overloading As workers were dismantling the wall of a condo, the scaffolding collapsed. One worker died and three others were injured. The CSST determined that overloading was one of the causes of the incident. To avoid similar incidents, the CSST reminded contractors and employers to: • Evaluate the mass of various materials to be handled during dismantling and reconstruction • Know the load capacity of scaffolding • Develop a method of dismantling walls that meets the equipment’s capacities. For more safety compliance advice, visit us on the web at www.OHSInsider.com 11 LAWS & ANNOUNCEMENTS ONTARIO May 1: New Electrical Safety Code Took Effect An updated version of the Ontario Electrical Safety Code took effect May 1. The 25th edition of the code establishes safety standards for installing and maintaining electrical equipment, including the prevention of fire and shock hazards. All electrical installations in Ontario must comply with the code. March 13: New Fact Sheet on Preventing Infectious Diseases at Construction Sites The MOL released a fact sheet on preventing infectious diseases at construction projects. Construction workers are often at risk from exposure to infectious diseases due to poor sanitary conditions of toilets and clean-up facilities, which is a major cause of disease and can be a serious occupational health risk. Feb. 29: Union Calls for Criminal Charges in Mine Deaths The United Steelworkers is calling for criminal charges against officials and management for the deaths of two workers last year at the Stobie mine. It also demanded that the government immediately establish a commission of inquiry into mine safety. The union’s own investigation into these deaths concluded that Vale management ignored ongoing problems with flooding in the mine. The USW report made 165 recommendations to improve safety at Stobie and other Vale mines. March 9: WSIB Releases Strategic Plan The WSIB released its Strategic Plan for 2012-2016, which it hopes will help it become a modern organization. The WSIB’s 2012-2016 Strategic Plan aims to deliver better service to workers and employers in a financially responsible manner. The WSIB has refocused on supporting workers in early recovery and a return to their work and lives, while making it easy for employers to get back to business. Mar. 1: Construction-Focused Inspection Blitz Began Throughout March, MOL inspectors visited construction projects employing workers in high-rise and low-rise formwork, masonry, siding and built-up roofing work to ensure that: • Work areas were safe from hazards that cause dangerous slips, trips or falls • Workers were using fall protection systems properly and equipment such as ladders, platforms and scaffolds. CASES Two OHS Charges Against Fire Department Dismissed When volunteer firefighters responded to a restaurant fire, a woman said her boyfriend was trapped in the apartment upstairs. So two firefighters went inside. One of them “lost air.” They were unable to get out and had to be rescued. The MOL charged the department with three OHS violations under the general duty clause. The defence asked the court to dismiss the charges. The court agreed that there was no evidence to support two of the charges and dismissed them. But it refused to dismiss the charge relating to failure to set up an accountability system to track firefighters entering a burning building. So the trial will continue on that remaining charge [R. v. Meaford and District Fire Department, Court File No.: County of Grey 1060-999-10-396, Feb. 23, 2012]. Worker Develops Anxiety Disorder from Stress of Possible OHS Liability A worker developed an anxiety disorder from the stress of being the supervisor in charge of asbestos response and removal. She said the MOL had criticized her handling of asbestos removal projects and threatened her with a personal fine. When she tried to return from medical leave, she claimed her employer didn’t try to accommodate her mental disability. The Human Rights Tribunal found that the employer failed to fulfill its duty to reasonably accommodate the worker. Her doctor said she couldn’t handle a job with possible health and safety liability. But the employer didn’t make any effort to determine what kind of employment she was capable of and where the line between unacceptable and acceptability risk of liability lay. In addition, there were other supervisory positions it could’ve offered the worker but didn’t [Fair v. Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board, [2012] O.H.R.T.D. No. 336, Feb. 17, 2012]. Slapping Co-Worker Didn’t Justify Immediate Termination A worker slapped a co-worker and was fired despite having a clean record and no history of violence or anger management problems. He sued for wrongful dismissal. The court ruled that although workplace violence was a serious issue, it was difficult to see how the worker’s conduct justified outright dismissal. He’d never caused any other problems and was a conscientious worker. And the employer barred violence in its employee handbook but didn’t train workers on it. So the court ordered the employer to pay the worker more than $12,000 in damages [Shakur v. Mitchell Plastics, [2012] ONSC 1008 (CanLII), Feb. 13, 2012]. Arbitrator Reinforces Worker’s Duty in Accommodation Process A worker who asked her employer to accommodate her mental illness refused to provide the medical information it requested, claiming the requests violated her privacy rights and were harassment. An arbitrator said a worker may refuse to disclose confidential medical information but there may be consequences. An employer is entitled to information to determine whether the worker needs an accommodation and, if so, the appropriate accommodation. The worker has taken “a rigid and unrealistic view that she has an absolute right to the accommodation she has identified without full appropriate medical disclosure,” said the arbitrator. It concluded that the employer’s approach to the worker’s disability and accommodation was reasonable while it was unreasonable for the worker to refuse it access to her medical information for that limited purpose [Complex Services Inc. v. Ontario Public Service Employees Union, Local 278, [2012] CanLII 8645 (ON LA), Feb. 22, 2012]. Epilepsy Not Reason for Crisis Worker’s Termination A mental health association fired a probationary crisis worker who had epilepsy, saying that it wasn’t a good match. She claimed disability discrimination. The arbitrator dismissed her complaint. The employer asked the worker if she needed an accommodation because of her epilepsy and she said no. Based on her job performance, it was clear that she froze under pressure. Crisis workers can’t freeze under the stress that can arise during crisis hospital calls, an essential part of the worker’s job. Thus, the employer didn’t violate her rights and had a legitimate reason for terminating her employment [Canadian Mental Health Association v. Ontario Public Service Employees Union, Local 133, [2012] CanLII 7443 (ON LA), Feb. 21, 2012]. Worker’s Electrocution Costs Employer $100,000 Two workers in the mechanical room of a condo tower took down a large exhaust fan. As they were moving it, a light fixture hit the fan. Part of the light fixture was damaged, allowing its electrical charge to contact the fan. The worker who was holding the fan at the time was fatally electrocuted. The company pleaded guilty to failing to ensure that the fan was lifted, carried or moved in a way that wouldn’t endanger a worker and was fined $100,000 [New Water Plumbing Inc., Govt. News Release, March 5, 2012]. Village Fined $75,000 after Volunteer Fireman Dies During Training Members of a village’s paid volunteer fire department were participating in ice water rescue training. They were told to swim out to a moving sheet of ice, climb it and ride it down the lake. One fireman was pushed by the ice floe under its surface and trapped for about four minutes. He later died. An MOL investigation determined that there was no rescue equipment readily available to pull the worker onto shore. The village pleaded guilty, as an employer, to failing to ensure that adequate rescue equipment was available for the ice water rescue training exercise. The court fined it $75,000 [Corporation of the Village of Point Edward, Govt. News Release, March 6, 2012]. Collapse of Steel Form’s Wall Costs Employer $55,000 One worker was standing beside a steel form using a remote control to operate an overhead crane to pour buckets of concrete into it. Without warning, one side of the form detached and fell on him. He suffered multiple fractures and a punctured lung. The MOL found that the welds used to hold the form together were inadequate given the weight of the wet concrete being poured into it. The company pleaded guilty to failing to ensure that the form was designed and constructed to resist all loads and forces which were likely to be applied to it. The court fined it $55,000 [Con Cast Pipe Inc., Govt. News Release, March 15, 2012]. Manufacturer Fined $50,000 for Worker’s Hand Injury A worker at a manufacturer’s plant cleaning out a hopper reached a hand into it while an auger inside was slowly rotating. His hand was injured when it was caught by the auger and trapped against the hopper wall. The manufacturer pleaded guilty to failing to ensure that the auger had stopped rotating before the worker began cleaning the hopper. The court fined it $50,000 [Surteco Canada Ltd., Govt. News Release, March 15, 2012]. May 2012 © Bongarde 12 CASES LAWS & ANNOUNCEMENTS BRITISH COLUMBIA F eb. 28: 2011 OHS Penalties Exceeded $4.8 Million WorkSafeBC released its 2011 enforcement report, which indicates that last year, it imposed 352 administrative penalties totalling $4,883,489 against employers for OHS violations. It imposed these penalties, which ranged from $700 to $250,000, against 289 individual employers. Sixteen penalties involved workrelated deaths. March 5: Former Premier Faulted in Roofer’s Death A WorkSafeBC report says former Premier Gordon Campbell didn’t properly oversee safety measures at his summer home where a roofer fell to his death through a skylight opening. WorkSafeBC says although Campbell was considered the prime contractor on the job site, he didn’t meet that role’s responsibilities. The report also says the roofing contractor didn’t establish safe work procedures for roof openings or provide adequate supervision and enforcement. March 7: Injuries to New & Young Workers on the Decline According to WorkSafeBC’s Effectiveness Measures Report for the fourth quarter of 2011, injuries to new and young workers have been reduced since changes were made to the OHS Regulation in Jan. 2007 to require employers to provide all young or new workers with a safety orientation and training. From 2008 to 2009, there was a 28% decrease in injuries to young workers; from 2009 to 2010, the injury rate decreased by 12% for young males and 8% for young female workers. March 13: New Guideline on Traffic Paddles WorkSafeBC released a new guideline on the allowance of LED or other visible lights on traffic paddles. Such use is permitted as long as it doesn’t compromise the paddle’s visibility or effectiveness. Lighted paddles have been shown to improve visibility and safety. Case Will Continue Against Safety Trainer for Using Pictures of Naked Women A female worker claimed that during a safety training session in which she was the only woman, the instructor showed pornographic pictures of naked women. The Ministry of Forests removed him from the list of approved trainers but later reinstated him. So the worker filed a sexual harassment complaint against the instructor and the Ministry. The Human Rights Tribunal dismissed the complaint against the Ministry but ruled that the case against the instructor could proceed. He admitted using pictures he’d scanned from Playboy to “relax” the mainly male training class. Thus, the worker’s complaint had a reasonable likelihood of success [Pitcher v. BC (Ministry of Forests), [2012] BCHRT 70 (CanLII), March 12, 2012]. Worker Fired for Safety Violations—Not Being Gay or Disabled After a worker was fired, he claimed discrimination based on disability and sexual orientation (he’s gay). The Human Rights Tribunal noted that although the worker claimed the company president “hated” homosexuals, there was no proof of that bias or that the bias led to his firing. In fact, given that the worker had been married twice and had dated a female co-worker, his employer thought he was heterosexual. There was also no evidence that the worker’s injury played any role in his termination. The company provided proof that it had fired him for committing safety violations, including one the day he was canned. Thus, the Tribunal dismissed the complaint [Cote v. Cantest Solutions Inc., [2012] B.C.H.R.T.D. No. 46, Feb. 29, 2012]. NEW BRUNSWICK LAWS & ANNOUNCEMENTS CASES March 3: Preventing MSIs by Design WorkSafeNB released a pamphlet on ergonomics and how to prevent MSIs by design. Injured Assistant Was Canada Post Employee for Workers’ Comp Purposes An “ergonomic paid assistant” for Canada Post was injured on the job and filed a workers’ comp claim. Canada Post challenged her claim, arguing that she wasn’t its employee but an independent contractor. The Appeals Tribunal ruled that she was a Canada Post employee. And the Court of Appeal upheld that ruling. It was reasonable for the Tribunal to conclude that she was an employee because she had little control over her work environment and was under the direct control of a Canada Post employee [Canada Post Corp. v. Carroll, [2012] NBCA 18 (CanLII), Feb. 23, 2012]. Feb. 21: Hazard Alerts Issued WorkSafeNB issued three hazard alerts on: • Blocking Stand Jack s • Side Loads • Demolition Project s. March 11-17: Farm Safety Week In honour of Canadian Agriculture Safety Week, WorkSafeNB has a number of publications available related to farm safety, including: • Guidelines for Potato Growing Safet y • Farm Safety Guide • Worker Dies After Being Struck by Hay Bale (Hazard Alert) • Farm Accident Kills Worker (Hazard Alert). LAWS & ANNOUNCEMENTS NL March 9: Separate Offshore Safety Agency for NL under Consideration The federal government is still considering whether a separate offshore safety agency in Newfoundland and Labrador would be best for oil workers. The province has supported the call for safety oversight separate from the CanadaNewfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board. Nurse’s Illness Caused by Exposure to Mould at Work A nurse at a nursing home reported respiratory problems, headaches, fatigue and other symptoms. Her doctor concluded that her illness was from “chronic workplace mould exposure.” Her workers’ comp claim was denied. But on appeal, it was approved. The Appeals Tribunal ruled that there was no evidence to suggest that the nurse’s allergic reaction was created by anything other than toxic mould exposure in the workplace. Her symptoms increased when she entered known problems areas at the nursing home and quickly receded when she left work. Thus, it was more likely than not that the workplace caused her illness [Re: 20116278, [2012] CanLII 7255 (NB WHSCC), Feb. 6, 2012]. CASES Mining Company Charged in Fatal Fall Incident Two mining workers fell about seven metres from a platform near chains used to control the speed of ore flowing from the plant’s crusher to rail cars. One died; the other was injured. The Occupational Health and Safety Branch charged the mining company with five violations of the OHS Act for failing to ensure that adequate fall protection was in place, the equipment was safe and staff were properly trained and aware of potential hazards [Iron Ore Company of Canada, Govt. News Release, Feb. 23, 2012]. New Evidence of Worker’s Exposures Warranted Reopening Claim A worker claimed that he suffered from nasal polyps and sinusitis caused by exposure to coal and stone dust during his employment as a mechanic in a mine. His workers’ comp claim was denied. The worker then provided new information about his exposure to “shotcrete,” a cement-based product sprayed on the mine’s walls. The Tribunal ruled that this new evidence warranted reopening the decision on his claim. It found that his condition was an occupational disease covered by workers’ comp. The mine appealed. A court upheld the Tribunal’s decision. It was reasonable for the Tribunal to conclude that this case was appropriate for reconsideration and to find that the worker’s exposure to shotcrete caused his medical condition, said the court [Enterprise Cape Breton Corp. v. Southwell, [2012] N.S.J. No. 107, March 1, 2012]. For more safety compliance advice, visit us on the web at www.OHSInsider.com 13 NOVA SCOTIA LAWS & ANNOUNCEMENTS CASES May 12: New Environmental Regulations on Contaminated Sites The province introduced new regulations for cleaning up contaminated sites. The regulations, which will take effect in July 2013, address recommendations made by the auditor general in 2010 and meet a target in the Environmental Goals and Sustainable Prosperity Act. They: • Ensure that site professionals are qualified to do the work • Allow property owners to get a release from further enforcement once a site’s cleaned to provincial standards • Support creating an online registry of contaminated properties. Sole Proprietor Penalized $25,000 & Ordered to Do Volunteer Work for Fatal Fall A worker fell from a roof under construction and later died from his injuries. He’d been wearing a fall arrest harness but it wasn’t connected to his life line. His employer, the sole proprietor of the carpentry company, pleaded guilty to a fall protection violation. At sentencing, the court noted that the employer had made some attempts to comply with the fall protection requirements, including providing the harness and life line, and did show remorse. But the employer also had a prior fall protection violation. So it ordered him to pay a $10,000 fine and $15,000 to the Educational Trust Fund. It also ordered him to do 200 hours of volunteer work for Habitat for Humanity [R. v. Rusk, [2012] NSPC 17 (CanLII), March 16, 2012]. Worker’s Refusal Was Emotional—Not Based on Reasonable Grounds A worker at a residential care facility for mentally disabled adults claimed to have a medical condition that made her more likely to suffer serious injury if physically attacked. While delivering juice and food, she was hit by one of the residents. The facility changed the rules so that two workers always went with the juice cart. But the worker asked to be excused from this job. When the facility said no, she initiated a work refusal. An OHS officer investigated and ordered her to resume accompanying the juice cart. She appealed. The Labour Relations Board said the facility had implemented adequate measures to protect workers from violent residents. The Board concluded that the worker’s perception of the danger of manning the juice cart was emotional and not based on reasonable grounds [OHS-0342, [2012] NSLB 66 (CanLII), Feb. 21, 2012]. LAWS & ANNOUNCEMENTS March 2: Minimum Wage for Construction Workers to Rise Minimum wages for construction workers will go up 3% this year. Based on recommendations from the Construction Industry Wages Consultation Panel, wages for the industrial, commercial and institutional construction sectors will increase 3% on June 1 and again on Jan. 1, 2013. Wages in the heavy construction sector will see two consecutive annual increases of 3%, with the first raise taking effect on May 1. March 2: Welding Hazard Alert Issued In Sept. 2011, a small business operator suffered severe burns when his clothing caught fire while welding. So to raise awareness of the dangers of hot work and the precautions to take when using welding and cutting torches, the WCB issued a hazard alert for welders. LAWS & ANNOUNCEMENTS SASKATCHEWAN March 3: Funding for Farm Safety Initiatives Announced The government announced new funding to the Saskatchewan Association of Agricultural Societies and Exhibitions (SAASE) for agriculture safety and education programs. $30,000 in annual funding over the next three years will go to Farm Safety Day Camps, which promote safety on the farm and train students on how to respond to injuries while on the farm. Another $15,000 will go to SAASE's Ag on the MOOve agriculture awareness project. PE MB LAWS & ANNOUNCEMENTS CASES Pattern of Harassment & Bullying Justified Worker’s Firing After a city investigated a complaint that a worker had harassed and bullied a co-worker and others in the workplace, it fired him. The union argued that although the worker’s conduct was inappropriate, it didn’t warrant termination. The arbitrator noted that the city had properly and thoroughly investigated the complaints. The evidence showed that the worker engaged in a pattern of disrespectful behaviour toward his co-workers and manager that was confrontational, humiliating, threatening and deserved discipline. Management tried to counsel the worker to changes his ways before firing him. But he didn’t change and, in fact, didn’t accept that his conduct was inappropriate. So the arbitrator concluded that progressive discipline wouldn’t be appropriate here and his termination was justified [Saskatoon (City) v. Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 47, [2012] CanLII 12086 (SK LA), March 8, 2012]. Two Companies Fined for Fall Protection Violations During a routine inspection, inspectors saw seven workers stuccoing a house without fall protection or protective headwear. Their employer pleaded guilty to two violations of the OHS Act and was fined $2,440. In another case, an inspection of a commercial construction site revealed three workers on a roof without fall protection equipment. Their employer also pleaded guilty to two OHS violations and was fined $1,960 [Artistic Masonry & Stucco Ltd. and T.U.F.F Exteriors Ltd., Govt. News Release, Feb. 22, 2012]. March 14: Alert Released on Furnaces & Carbon Monoxide The Office of the Fire Marshal issued an alert on a number of natural gas-burning forced-air furnaces that have the potential to release carbon monoxide fumes into the living environment. Carbon monoxide is a colourless, odourless, tasteless and toxic gas that’s a product of incomplete combustion. March 19: New Program to Promote Inuit Fitness Inuit and First Nations leaders launched a new online fitness project aimed at improving health and fitness among indigenous people in Canada. Just Move It – Canada, the first of its kind in Canada, will highlight new and existing programs promoting physical activity and wellness that are driven by aboriginal culture. LAWS & ANNOUNCEMENTS YT LAWS & ANNOUNCEMENTS NU NT LAWS & ANNOUNCEMENTS March 19: New Steps to Address Hazardous Waste The government is spending more than $4 million to drill wells near garbage dumps to monitor the groundwater and install spill pallets to contain hazardous waste, such as antifreeze, kerosene and oil. By the end of this year, every dump and municipal landfill is expected to have a test well. Samples will be taken twice a year. May 2012 © Bongarde 14 IAQ continued FROM PAGE 1 WHAT THE LAW SAYS The growth of more tightly sealed buildings and increased use of energy conservation measures that recirculate building air and reduce the amount of outside air supply have led to an increase in IAQ complaints. The use of synthetic materials, office equipment such as photocopiers, laser printers and computers, cleaning products, chemicals and outdoor air pollution also contribute to indoor air contamination. Indoor air quality is an important workplace health issue. According to Environment Canada, the physical symptoms commonly attributed to IAQ problems include headache, fatigue, shortness of breath, sinus congestion, coughing, sneezing, skin irritation, dizziness, nausea and eye, nose, and throat irritation. Some individuals may be particularly susceptible to the effects of indoor air contaminants, including people: • With existing allergies or asthma; • With respiratory disease; • Whose immune systems are suppressed due to chemotherapy, radiation therapy, disease or other causes; and • Who wear contact lenses. The OHS regulations of many jurisdictions require employers to control the general quality of the air in the workplace through means such as proper natural or mechanical ventilation. They also typically have specific requirements for dealing with airborne contaminants, such as occupational exposure limits (OELs) for certain substances and use of specialized ventilation systems to remove contaminants from the air. And of course the “general duty” clause that’s part of every jurisdiction’s OHS act requires employers to take every reasonable precaution to provide a safe and healthy workplace and protect workers from known hazards—including indoor air pollution. HOW TO COMPLY Requirements for maintaining general IAQ vary by jurisdiction. (See the chart on page 16 that spells out the general IAQ requirements in the OHS laws of each jurisdiction.) But basically, you should do the following: Control Humidity & Temperature Some IAQ problems can be prevented by maintaining the proper humidity levels and temperature in the workplace. For example, if the humidity level is too high and the workplace is too warm, mould, fungi and bacteria may grow and cause respiratory problems. And when humidity is too low, people tend to get eye, nose or throat irritation, dry skin or chapped lips. WorkSafe Alberta recommends keeping humidity levels between 30-60%, although humidity levels may need to be lower in the winter to avoid condensation on windows. The appropriate workplace temperature depends on the type of work being done there as well as the weather conditions. Insider Says: For more information on mould in the workplace, see “Indoor Air Quality: What Does the Law Require You to Do to Protect Workers from Mould?” Sept. 2007, p. 1. Reduce Levels of Air Contaminants Airborne contaminants, such as carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, formaldehyde and volatile organic compounds (VOCs), impact the IAQ in a workplace when they’re present above certain levels. As a result, every jurisdiction requires employers to protect workers from exposure to vapours, fumes, gases and mists that contain certain contaminants above designated OELs. One way to control the levels of airborne contaminants in the workplace is by eliminating their sources. In fact, Québec’s OHS regulations require employers, insofar as possible, to replace hazardous substances that are sources of dusts, fumes, mists, vapours or gases with substances that aren’t hazardous or are the least hazardous possible. But often substitutes aren’t available. So the most common way to control the levels of airborne contaminants in the workplace is through specialized ventilation systems, which we discuss below. Ensure Proper Ventilation To have good IAQ, you must have ventilation systems in place that are appropriate for both the facility and the types of operations within it. Some facilities need both a general ventilation system for the facility as a whole and a specialized system designed to control the concentrations of airborne contaminants in sections of the facility. Analogy: A general ventilation system is like your home’s HVAC system, while a specialized system is like the hood over your stove that removes smoke and other airborne contaminants generated by cooking. The ventilation categories: For more safety compliance advice, visit us on the web at www.OHSInsider.com requirements fall into two general 15 Design, installation and operation. Ventilation systems must be properly designed, installed and operated. Poorly designed systems may not only fail to prevent IAQ problems but also cause problems themselves. So several jurisdictions, including Fed, BC, NB and NS, require ventilation systems to comply with ASHRAE Standard 62-1989, Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor Air Quality. NL says that such systems must comply with ASHRAE and ACGIH standards, without specifying which ones. Other jurisdictions require ventilation systems to be designed and installed in accordance with “established engineering principles,” the building code or local by-laws, while others spell out these requirements in their OHS laws. Maintenance. Once your facility has a proper ventilation system in place, you must ensure that it’s properly maintained to work effectively. OHS laws often contain requirements for the cleaning, repair and general maintenance of ventilation systems. One way to comply with these requirements is through a preventive maintenance program that includes: • Regular inspections of all critical components of the ventilation system, such as dampers, fans, belts, baffles, ductwork, diffusers and control systems; • Regular inspections for conditions such as water leaks or stagnant water pools that promote the growth of microorganisms such as mould; • Repair or replacement of malfunctioning and consumable components, such as filters and belts; • Cleaning of air distribution systems, ducts and dampers; • Treatment of open water systems associated with ventilation equipment, such as cooling towers and humidifiers, to control biological growth; and • Maintenance of combustion sources, such as furnaces, space heaters and water heaters, to ensure proper burning and exhausting of waste gases so that they aren’t recirculated in the workplace. Implement Process for Investigating IAQ Complaints An IAQ problem may still develop in your workplace even if you take the above actions. So you should develop and implement a process for investigating and addressing IAQ complaints. In fact, Fed and BC law require employers to investigate IAQ complaints and spell out the steps such investigations must include. (BC law also requires IAQ investigations when occupancy in the space changes substantially or significant changes are made to the ventilation system.) The required investigation steps contained in Fed and BC law are a good blueprint for IAQ investigations in general. So consider following them even if those laws don’t apply to your facility. Based on their combined requirements, your IAQ investigations should include, at a minimum: • Review of the nature and number of health or safety complaints related to air quality; • Visual inspection of the workplace; • Inspection of the ventilation system for cleanliness, operation and performance, including ventilation rate; • Review of the maintenance schedule for the system; • Assessment of actual building use as compared to the use for which it was designed; • Assessment of actual level of occupancy as compared to the level for which the building was designed; • Determination of potential sources of contaminants; • Sampling for suspected airborne contaminants; • Determination of levels of carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, temperature, humidity and air motion, where necessary; • Specification, where necessary, of tests to be conducted to determine levels of formaldehyde, particulates, airborne fungi and VOCs; and • Identification of the standards or guidelines to be used in evaluating test results. In addition, you should keep records of all IAQ complaints, the investigation of these complaints and any actions you take in response to them. MODEL TOOLS: Go to the Insider’s online partner site, www.OHSInsider.com, to download a Model General IAQ Inspection Checklist and Model Health Survey you can use to gather information from workers on any health problems they’re having that may be tied to IAQ. BOTTOM LINE As a safety coordinator, you need to impress upon management the importance of maintaining proper IAQ. Taking the recommended actions to keep the air in your workplace free of pollution and address any complaints can protect your workers from unnecessary and avoidable illnesses. And, if protecting workers’ health isn’t reason enough, doing so can also protect your company from potential liability for OHS and other violations. May 2012 © Bongarde 16 KNOW THE LAWS OF YOUR PROVINCE Here are the general indoor air quality requirements in the OHS law in your jurisdiction: RELEVANT LAW FED AB BC 1. HVAC systems in buildings owned by an employer or in which an employer is the principal tenant and any HVAC systems that an employer controls must meet the design requirements of ASHRAE Standard 62-1989, Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor Air Quality [Secs. 2.20-2.21]. 2. Employers must appoint a qualified person to set out written instructions for the operation, inspection, testing, cleaning and maintenance of an HVAC system and the calibration of probes or sensors on which the system relies, taking into account CSA Guideline Z204-94, Guideline for Managing Air Quality in Office Buildings [Sec. 2.24]. 1. Secs. 4.71-4.78 spell out the requirements for ventilation systems, including that such systems be designed, constructed and operated in accordance with: a. established engineering principles; and b. ASHRAE Standard 62-1989, Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor Air Quality. a. a workplace has appropriate air quality and is adequately ventilated; and b. contaminants and impurities don’t accumulate in the air at a workplace [Sec. 4.1]. 1. Employers must ensure that an area where a worker works contains at least 8.5 m3 of air space for each worker in that area, excluding height above 3 m from the calculation [Sec. 19]. NB 2. Sec. 20 spells out the ventilation requirements, including that employers must ensure that a place of employment is adequately ventilated by: 1. Employers must ensure that: NL NT/NU NS 4. Sec. 2.27 spells out the steps employers must take to investigate situations in which the health or safety of a worker in the workplace is or may be endangered by the air quality. OHS law doesn’t contain general IAQ requirements, but does have requirements for airborne contaminants and specialized ventilation systems. 1. An employer must, as much as is reasonably practicable, ensure that: MB 3. Employers must post, in a place readily accessible to every worker, the telephone number of a contact person to whom health or safety concerns regarding the IAQ in the workplace can be directed [Sec. 2.26]. a. there’s appropriate circulation of clean and wholesome air; b. there’s adequate ventilation; and 2. Sec. 4.79 spells out the steps employers must take to investigate the IAQ when complaints are reported, occupancy in the space changes substantially or renovations involving significant changes to the ventilation system occur. a. keep the air reasonably pure; and b. render harmless all gases, vapours, dust or other impurities that are likely to endanger the health or safety of any person [Sec. 15(a)]. 3. Sec. 4.3 spells out the requirements for specialized ventilation systems. a. natural ventilation that introduces outside air provided by openings having a combined area equal to at least 5% of the floor area; or b. mechanical ventilation conforming to ASHRAE Standard 62-1989, Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor Air Quality. c. impurities are made harmless and inoffensive in a workplace in accordance with ASHRAE and ACGIH standards [Sec. 45(1)]. 2. Resource guide to the regulations says that “fresh air” means outdoor air that’s of similar quality to ambient air in the surrounding area and for guidance in determining whether air is “reasonably pure,” refer to ASHRAE Standard 62-1989, Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor Air Quality. 2. Sec. 128 spells out ventilation requirements. PE 1. Employers must ensure that the workplace is adequately ventilated by either natural or mechanical means so that the atmosphere doesn’t endanger workers’ health and safety under normal working conditions [Sec. 11.1]. 2. Secs. 11.2-11.8 spell out ventilation requirements. QC 1. Establishments must be adequately ventilated either by natural or mechanical means, and excessive air draughts must be avoided [Sec. 101]. 2. Secs. 39-44 and 101-115 spell out requirements for airborne contaminants and ventilation. SK YT Workplace Safety & Health Regs. OHS Reg. OHS Regs. General Safety Reg. OHS General Reg. 3. Secs. 15(b)-(c) spell out ventilation requirements. 1. Industrial establishments must be adequately ventilated by either natural or mechanical means so that the atmosphere doesn’t endanger workers’ health and safety [Sec. 127]. a. ensure the adequate ventilation of a place of employment; and b. to the extent reasonably practicable, render harmless and inoffensive, and prevent the accumulation of, any contaminants OHS Regs. 2. Secs. 45(2)-(11) spell out ventilation requirements. ON 1. Employers, contractors or owners must: OHS Code 2009 2. Sec. 4.2 spells out the requirements for general ventilation systems. OHS law doesn’t contain general IAQ requirements, but does have requirements for airborne contaminants and specialized ventilation systems. 1. Employers must provide a supply of fresh air into and the removal of air from a workplace or part thereof that’s, so far as is reasonably practicable, sufficient to: Canada OHS Regs. or impurities in the air by providing an adequate supply of clean and wholesome air and maintaining its circulation throughout the place of employment [Sec. 65]. 2. Secs. 66-67 spell out ventilation requirements. OHS law doesn’t contain general IAQ requirements, but does have requirements for airborne contaminants and specialized ventilation systems. For more safety compliance advice, visit us on the web at www.OHSInsider.com Industrial Establishments Reg. OHS Regs. Reg. respecting occupational health and safety OHS Regs. Occupational Health Regs. 17 4 Tips for Making Safety Training More Engaging By Barbara Semeniuk, BSc CRSP T raining classes on dry subjects such as safety can result in workers with glazed over looks who are counting the hours until the session finishes. Why not make learning fun and incorporate techniques that will engage workers and help them retain what they’re taught? Training should appeal to hearing, visual and hands-on learners and ideally incorporate methods suited to the learning styles of all your participants. Here are some tips I recommend. Sub-vocalization One engagement technique, called sub-vocalization, involves reading aloud sections of the course you want your workers to remember and having them repeat it back out loud, making notes at the same time. Sub-vocalization is very effective for auditory learners. Mind Mapping Another useful technique to improve workers’ note taking is called mind mapping. Here’s how it works: workers draw a circle in the middle of the page and write a central concept inside of it. They then write related topics or points coming from the circle like the spokes of a wheel. Mind mapping is a powerful tool for making complex subjects concrete, simple and visual. It appeals to both workers who learn by doing and visual learners. Streamline Safety Lessons Simply put, in this age of television, texting, social media and commercials, attention spans have shortened. As a result, use the 60-20-8 rule to streamline your safety training: • No safety training session should be longer than 60 minutes, the maximum attention span that you can expect from most participants; • The lessons within any session should be in 20 minute sections; and • Every 8 minutes, you should have workers do an exercise or change the pace such as by showing a video to regrab the workers’ attention and cement their learning. Encourage Worker Interaction Socialization techniques can improve workers’ memories and make learning fun, too. For example, when a lesson is complete, have each worker move from his/her seat, meet with a different person in the group and discuss three things they learned from the lesson and how they’re going to apply the lesson to their job. Each worker can also tell the group the most important thing he/she learned during the training session. This approach is a fun and engaging method of encouraging worker interactions in a non-threatening manner. It’s also a good idea to encourage questions and use a mixture of group and individual exercises to keep the class flowing. And incorporating games or props, such as squeaky toys and dice, can also engage workers in the lesson and with each other. For example, you can have the workers roll dice to determine how much time they’ll get for a break. In conclusion, using these tips will improve the odds that workers will understand your safety lessons and retain what you’ve taught them. And I guarantee they’ll enjoy your class and you’ll become an “in demand” trainer! Ms. Barbara Semeniuk BSc. CRSP is President of Purcell Enterprises Ltd., a loss control management firm that specializes in health and safety auditing, and is a member of the OHS Insider Board of Advisors. If you wish to discuss this article, call her at 780-951-0867 or email her at [email protected]. Safety Training Resources Want more safety training tips and resources? Go to Safety Smart Online, which provides safety coordinators with tools to help them reinforce learning and manage their safety programs, such as safety talks, quizzes, cost-ofinjury worksheets and injury tracking forms. May 2012 © Bongarde 18 MANAGING YOUR OHS PROGRAM Implement a Fatigue Risk Management System I f your workplace is filled with hazardous chemicals and dangerous machinery, you may not even think about protecting workers from fatigue. After all, fatigue isn’t a workplace hazard—it’s just a fact of life that workers need to manage on their own. This kind of thinking about worker fatigue may be common but it’s also short-sighted. For example, fatigue can lead to safety incidents because exhausted workers may have slowed reaction times or exercise poor judgment. The American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine’s (ACOEM) Presidential Task Force on Fatigue Risk Management recently published a guide on fatigue risk management systems. Here’s a look at how you can use the guide to manage worker fatigue in your workplace. Impacts of Worker Fatigue Yes, everyone experiences some degree of fatigue at one point or another. But we’re not talking about general sleepiness here. Sleepiness is merely the general tendency to fall asleep. On the other hand, fatigue, as the ACOEM guide explains, is the body’s response to sleep loss or to prolonged physical or mental exertion. (See the box on p. 19 for some of the physical, mental and emotional signs of excessive fatigue.) Fatigue can have a variety of causes, including shift work such as working nights or rotating shifts. Many studies have shown that shift work can lead to sleep issues, which in turn can lead to injuries. For example, a study by researchers at the University of British Columbia showed that Canadians who work nights and rotating shifts are almost twice as likely to be injured on the job than those working regular day shifts. Fatigue and the decreased alertness resulting from insufficient or poor quality sleep can have several safetyrelated consequences, including: • Slowed reaction time; • Reduced vigilance; • Impaired decision-making ability; • Poor judgment; • Distraction during complex tasks; and • Loss of awareness in critical situations. Safety isn’t the only aspect of the workplace impacted by fatigue. For example, one study estimates that companies lost $1,967 per worker per year in lost productivity due to sleep loss. Fatigue Risk Management Systems You can use a fatigue risk management system to address worker fatigue issues in your workplace. Such systems are similar to OHS systems and can, in fact, be incorporated into an existing OHS system. According to the guide, the key components of a fatigue risk management system include: Fatigue management policy. This policy should spell out how the company plans to address fatigue in the workplace, including the roles and responsibilities of all stakeholders. (Go to the Insider's online partner site, www.OHSInsider.com, to download a Model Fatigue Management Policy.) Fatigue risk management. To manage fatigue in your workplace, you must collect information on fatigue as a hazard, analyze its risks and implement controls to mitigate those risks. The guide says there are five basic ways to avoid safety errors caused by fatigue: 1. Balance between workload and staffing; 2. Shift scheduling; 3. Worker fatigue training and sleep disorder management; 4. Workplace environment design; and 5. Monitoring fatigue and alertness for duty. Fatigue reporting system. The guide recommends establishing a reporting system workers can use to report incidents caused by fatigue or when they feel so fatigued that they’re unfit to work safely. This system should be simple and straightforward. Fatigue incident investigation. When workers report incidents in which fatigue was a factor, you must investigate such incidents promptly and effectively. This investigation can simply be incorporated into your standard incident investigation. It should focus on the role fatigue played, why the worker was fatigued and why any fatigue-control mechanisms in place failed. Fatigue management training and education. The company should train management and workers on the fatigue risk management system. The guide suggests that this training cover: • Hazards of working while fatigued and the benefits of being well rested; • Impact of chronic fatigue on personal relationships, mental/physical well-being and general happiness; For more safety compliance advice, visit us on the web at www.OHSInsider.com 19 • Recognizing that although fatigue can’t be eliminated, it can be managed and minimized; • Adequate quantity and quality of sleep is key to managing fatigue; • Basics of sleep physiology, circadian rhythms and what’s considered adequate sleep; Signs of Excessive Fatigue Physical signs: • Sleep hygiene—that is, how to obtain adequate quality and quantity of sleep; • Yawning • Sleep disorders—why they matter, how to tell if you may have one and what to do about it; • Drooping eyelids • Importance of diet, exercise, stress management and management of other health conditions that affect fatigue; • How to recognize fatigue in yourself or your co-workers; and • Alertness strategies to be used while at work, such as appropriate use of caffeine, rest or exercise breaks and social interactions. Sleep disorder management. One of the most common causes of fatigue is an underlying sleep disorder. So it’s beneficial for companies to set up sleep disorder management programs that screen workers for sleep disorders and help them get appropriate treatment. Process for internal and external auditing of the system. As with any safety management system, your fatigue risk management system should be regularly audited to ensure that it’s effective and up-to-date and to implement any corrections or improvements. BOTTOM LINE For a fatigue risk management system to be effective all stakeholders must be actively engaged in it. But the guide stresses that its success depends on the commitment of a senior manager who’s ultimately accountable for managing fatigue risk. In addition, a positive safety culture in which workers and management trust one another and information about fatigue is openly reported is important to the successful implementation of such a system. Safety coordinators can use the ACOEM guide to get buy-in from both management and workers on the need for a fatigue risk management system and to set up such a system once approved. INSIDER SOURCE • Rubbing of eyes • Head dropping • Microsleeps • Digestive problems Mental signs: • Difficulty concentrating on tasks • Lapses in attention • Difficulty remembering tasks being performed • Failing to communicate important information • Failing to anticipate events or actions • Accidentally doing the wrong thing • Accidentally not doing the right thing Emotional signs: • More quiet or withdrawn than usual • Low energy • Lacking the motivation to perform a task well “Fatigue Risk Management in the Workplace,” ACOEM Presidential Task Force on Fatigue Risk Management, JOEM, Vol. 54, No. 2, Feb. 2012. May 2012 © Bongarde 20 WINNERS & LOSERS Can You Fire a Worker for Swearing on the Job? Various kinds of inappropriate conduct by workers can establish “just cause” for their termination, such as poor job performance, harassment, violence, theft of company property, etc. But can an employer fire a worker for swearing on the job? Here are two cases in which arbitrators had to decide if termination was appropriate for a worker who cursed at work. TERMINATION WAS APPROPRIATE TERMINATION WASN’T APPROPRIATE FACTS FACTS A lead hand for a road maintenance contractor was conducting rolling road closures of a highway that had debris strewn on it. As he parked at the bottom of an onramp, a couple backed their van down the ramp and into his vicinity. He approached the open passenger window, struck the side of the van several times and started yelling and swearing at the couple, telling them to get back on the “f**king highway.” In fact, he used the word “f**k” or “f**king” several times. The contractor fired him for unprofessional behaviour toward members of the general public. The union argued that termination was excessive, although both the union and the lead hand acknowledged that calling a member of the public a “f**ing a**hole” was inappropriate. A worker for an auto parts company brought a starter into the office. The owner’s son yelled at him, claiming he’d asked for an alternator, not a starter. They got into an argument, during which the worker said, “I don’t need this f**king sh*t!” Both a customer and a female worker were present. Two days later, the worker was fired for swearing in front of a customer and a “lady” in the office. DECISION An Ontario arbitrator ruled that the contractor was justified in firing the lead hand. DECISION The Ontario Labour Relations Board ruled that termination was excessive. EXPLANATION EXPLANATION The arbitrator, noting that the lead hand’s contract required him to act professionally and courteously toward the general public, found that his language and conduct were unprovoked. He never apologized or showed remorse. In fact, when he was told at the termination meeting that he was being fired for using “abusive language,” he replied, “They f**king well deserved it.” He argued that swearing and profane language were common in the workplace. But the arbitrator said that even if that was true, it doesn’t take a lot of common sense to know that you should avoid swearing at a stranger, especially when your conduct reflects upon your employer. Plus, the lead hand had been disciplined for abusing a member of the public seven months before this incident. The company claimed that it was justified in firing the worker given his use of profanity and disciplinary record. But the Board noted that the prior discipline had been imposed on the worker for his job performance, not his use of profanity. There was no evidence as to whether profanity was common in the workplace or whether the company had a policy barring the use of profanity. And it appears that this incident was an isolated one. So the Board concluded that although the worker’s swearing in front of a customer warranted discipline, it didn’t justify termination. TWD Roads Management Inc. v. International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 793, [2011] CanLII 80857 (ON LA), Dec. 14, 2011 Queensway Auto Parts (403491 Ontario Inc.) v. Copeland, [2009] CanLII 3350 (ON LRB), Jan. 22, 2009 Lock in the best value in compliance advice: renew or subscribe today. Member Benefits Annual Membership 24/7 access to OHSInsider.com - What you need to know, updated daily Safety Compliance Insider Newsletter - Delivered straight to your desk every month Ask the Expert - Answers from our network of experts Unlimited Webinars - Live and recorded webinars with leading industry experts OHS Policy Builders - Custom policy documents in minutes Legal Consultation - Complimentary consultation with top OHS lawyers Complete Guide to Canadian Safety Compliance - Instantly downloadable Whitepapers and Special Reports - In-depth coverage of hot topics OHS Insider OHS Insider Pro $397 $797 Call 1-800-667-9300 to secure your membership. For more safety compliance advice, visit us on the web at www.OHSInsider.com
© Copyright 2024