Download Report

Penalties
Construction
0707445 BC Ltd. / Bar Non Construction | $2,500 | Coquitlam | May 26, 2014
One of this firm’s workers was seriously injured when a work platform collapsed. WorkSafeBC ordered the firm to investigate the
incident, as required under section 171(1) of the Workers Compensation Act, and to submit its report to WorkSafeBC. The firm refused
to investigate the incident and to comply with the order. Both refusals violated section 115(1)(b) of the Act.
0805760 B.C. Ltd. / Haztec Environmental Consulting | $1,000 | Vancouver | May 20, 2014
WorkSafeBC inspected a single-family house in the early stages of demolition. The Notice of Project — Asbestos that this firm had filed
listed only two asbestos-containing materials in the house. WorkSafeBC hired a third party to assess the house for hazardous materials.
The third-party survey identified several additional asbestos-containing materials, including wood-panelling adhesive in the upper-floor
living room and caulking on the exterior. A representative of the firm could not explain why these materials had not been sampled in the
firm’s survey. The firm’s failure to assess the site for asbestos-containing materials using occupational hygiene methods acceptable to
WorkSafeBC was a repeated violation.
AAA Roofing Ltd. | $2,500 | Vancouver | May 27, 2014
WorkSafeBC observed two of this firm’s workers installing roofing membrane on the steep roof of a two-storey house under construction.
One of the workers was not wearing personal fall protection gear, and no other system of fall protection was in place. The worker was
exposed to a risk of falling more than 6 m (20 ft.). The firm’s failure to ensure its worker used fall protection as required was a repeated
and high-risk violation.
Abby Roofing Ltd. | $2,500 | Abbotsford | May 21, 2014
This firm’s worker was carrying a sheet of plywood, moving about on the steep roof of a split-level house that was being re-roofed.
The worker was not protected by guardrails and was not connected to a fall protection system. He was exposed to a risk of falling about
6 m (20 ft.). Lifelines and loose roofing materials on the roof increased the risk of tripping. Further, piles of construction debris on the
ground below the work area, including boards with nails sticking out of them, raised the risk of serious injury or death in case of a fall.
The firm’s failure to ensure its worker used fall protection was a repeated and high-risk violation.
Abby Roofing Ltd. | $2,500 | Chilliwack | May 21, 2014
WorkSafeBC observed two of this firm’s workers on the steep roof of a three-storey house under construction. The workers were
wearing fall protection harnesses but were not attached to lifelines, and no other fall protection system was in place. They were exposed
to a risk of falling 7.3 m (24 ft.). Had they fallen, framing material, rocks, and debris on hard compact ground below could have caused
serious injuries or death. The firm failed to ensure its workers used fall protection; this was a repeated, high-risk violation.
Administrative penalties are monetary fines imposed on employers for health and safety violations of the
Workers Compensation Act and/or the Occupational Health and Safety Regulation. The penalties listed
in this section show the date the penalty was imposed and the location where the violation occurred (not
necessarily the business location). The registered business name is given, as well as any “doing business
as” (DBA) name.
The penalty amount is based on the nature of the violation, the employer’s compliance history, and the
employer’s assessable payroll. Once a penalty is imposed, the employer has 90 days to appeal to the Review
Division of WorkSafeBC. The Review Division may maintain, reduce, or withdraw the penalty; it may increase
the penalty as well. Employers may then file an appeal within 30 days of the Review Division’s decision to the
Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal, an independent appeal body.
The amounts shown here indicate the penalties imposed prior to appeal, and may not reflect the final
penalty amount.
For more information on when penalties are considered and how the penalty amount is calculated, visit our
website at worksafebc.com, then search for “Administrative penalties.”
September / October 2014 | WorkSafe Magazine
25
Penalties
(continued)
ApexMaster Roof Systems Ltd. | $7,357.73 | West Vancouver | May 23, 2014
WorkSafeBC observed two of this firm’s workers climbing a ladder to and walking around on the steep roof of a three-storey house
under construction. They were not wearing personal fall protection equipment, nor was any other type of fall protection in place,
despite a risk of falling about 12 m (40 ft.). In addition, the uneven, hard ground below had rocks embedded in it and was cluttered with
construction materials and a steel storage container. This increased the risk of serious injury or death in the event of a fall. The firm’s
failure to ensure its workers used fall protection as required was a repeated and high-risk violation.
Arthur Henry Meise /Essential Exterior Finishers | $5,000 | Prince George | April 1, 2014
Three of this firm’s workers were replacing the roof of a residence, working at heights of 3 to 5 m (10 to 17 ft.) without any fall
protection equipment. The firm violated Workers Compensation Act requirements to provide protective equipment. Its failure to
comply with Occupational Health and Safety Regulation requirements to ensure its workers used a fall protection system when working
at elevations of 3 m (10 ft.) or more was a repeated and high-risk violation.
A to Z Roofing Ltd. | $2,500 | Vancouver | May 8, 2014
WorkSafeBC observed two of this firm’s workers applying roofing membrane on the second-storey flat roof of a three-storey house
under construction. Guardrails were the required fall protection system. The guardrails that were installed were non-compliant. The
firm’s failure to ensure its workers used fall protection was a repeated and high-risk violation.
Atwal Roofing Ltd. | $1,000 | North Delta | April 16, 2014
At a worksite where a two-level occupied house was being re-roofed, three of this firm’s workers were performing roofing activities.
None was wearing personal fall protection. The workers were exposed to a risk of falling 4.5 to 6 m (15 to 20 ft.) onto a concrete
stairway, walkway, and driveway. The firm’s failure to ensure that its workers used fall protection as required was a repeated violation.
Bearclaw Homes Ltd./Fourpoint Construction | $4,107.45 | Maple Ridge | April 24, 2014
This firm’s worker was sheathing trusses on the steep roof of a three-storey wood-frame house under construction. The worker was not
wearing personal fall protection gear and no other form of fall protection was being used, so the worker was exposed to a risk of falling
12 m (39 ft.) — with the risk of serious injuries or even death in the event of a fall. Further, the worker had been left in charge of the
project while his employer was out of town. The firm’s failure to provide its workers with the information, instruction, training, and
supervision necessary to ensure their health and safety at work was a repeated violation. Its failure to ensure workers used fall protection
as required was a repeated and high-risk violation.
Best Stucco Ltd. | $3,938 | Burnaby | May 23, 2014
At a two-level house under construction, WorkSafeBC observed this firm’s workers applying stucco to the second-storey exterior.
Three were on wood scaffolding and a fourth was on a balcony. Neither the scaffold platforms nor the balcony had guardrails, and the
workers were not wearing any form of personal fall protection gear. The workers were thus exposed to a risk of falling 4 m (14 ft.)
to concrete planter walls below. Further, the scaffold platforms, consisting of single planks, were only half the required width of
50 cm (20 in.). The firm failed to ensure that its workers used fall protection as required. This was a repeated, high-risk violation. It also
failed to provide its workers with the instruction, training, and supervision required to ensure their safety. This was a repeated violation.
Bradly R. Thomas and Desiree Thomas /D. W. Systems | $2,500 | Surrey | May 15, 2014
WorkSafeBC observed three of this firm’s workers on top of a two-storey house that was being re-roofed. The roof was steep,
and the workers were wearing fall protection harnesses but were not attached to lifelines. They were exposed to a risk of falling about
7.6 m (25 ft.). Balcony railings, a concrete driveway, and a hot tub below increased their risk of serious injury or death if they fell. The
firm’s failure to ensure its workers used fall protection was a repeated and high-risk violation.
Brett Richard Young /Beyond Level Building | $2,500 | West Vancouver | May 5, 2014
On April 26, 2013, WorkSafeBC observed one of this firm’s workers (the crew supervisor) on the roof of a three-storey house under
construction. The worker was not wearing personal fall protection equipment and no other fall protection system was in place. The
worker was at risk of falling about 9 m (30 ft.). Another of the firm’s workers was on the second floor of the house, and a third on the
ground. Neither of them had on fall protection gear. The workers informed WorkSafeBC that there was no fall protection equipment on
site. This was a violation of the requirement to ensure fall protection is in place if a fall of 3 m (10 ft.) or more may occur. Following this
site inspection, WorkSafeBC ordered the firm to submit a written notice of compliance describing the steps it would take to comply
with the requirement to ensure the safety of its workers on the job. As of July 10, 2013, the firm had failed to comply with this order.
26
September / October 2014 | WorkSafe Magazine
Brian Keith Hunt/Breloden Construction | $2,500 | Fort St. John | May 8, 2014
This firm’s worker was performing sheathing activities on a steep-sloped roof when he fell about 6.4 m (21 ft.) to grade and was injured.
He was not using a fall protection system. The firm’s failure to ensure that its worker used fall protection as required was a repeated and
high-risk violation. The firm also failed to provide the supervision necessary to ensure its worker’s safety.
Choice Roofing Ltd. | $2,500 | New Westminster | May 23, 2014
At a one-storey house that was being re-roofed, two of this firm’s workers were on the steep roof close to a gable end. No fall
protection system was in use. One worker was wearing a fall protection harness but was not connected to a lifeline; the other worker
was not wearing a harness. The workers were exposed to a risk of falling 6 m (20 ft.). The firm failed to ensure that its workers used fall
protection as required and to provide them with the necessary supervision to ensure their health and safety. These were repeated and
high-risk violations.
C P Construction Ltd. | $1,000 | Burnaby | May 27, 2014
This firm was the prime contractor on a site where a two-storey duplex was being built. WorkSafeBC visited the site on November 18, 2013,
and saw that no Notice of Project (NOP) had been submitted to WorkSafeBC as required prior to starting work. The firm was ordered
to submit the NOP. As of January 2, 2014, the firm still had not complied.
D & D Framing Ltd. | $2,500 | Vancouver | May 9, 2014
This firm had been contracted to perform roofing activities on a two-storey house under construction. The prime contractor had
not built stairs to the second level of the house to allow workers to reach the roof area, nor did this firm do so before its workers
began the roofing tasks. Instead, the workers accessed the upper floor by means of a job-built ladder that did not meet safety
requirements. The firm violated the requirement to provide a stairway that includes framing, treads, and a handrail. This was a
repeated and high-risk violation.
David Mark Kitchen/Holland Roofing Services | $3,553.35 | West Vancouver | May 8, 2014
WorkSafeBC observed three of this firm’s workers, including the site supervisor, re-roofing the steep roof of a house. The workers were
not using a fall protection system. A concrete patio and walkway as well as roofing debris on the ground 6 to 6.7 m (20 to 22 ft.) below
increased the risk of serious injury or death if the workers fell. The firm’s failure to ensure that its workers used fall protection as
required was a repeated and high-risk violation.
Deol Framing Ltd. | $3,482.31 | New Westminster | May 13, 2014
This firm was framing a two-storey house. A WorkSafeBC inspection found that the firm had not provided the required stairway to the
second floor, although it was clear that much work had already occurred on that level. Workers had been using a ladder to access the
second floor. The firm failed to comply with the requirement to provide a stairway with at least framing, treads, and a handrail before
beginning construction of the next floor. This was a repeated violation.
Dosanjh Construction Ltd. | $2,500 | Vancouver | May 21, 2014
WorkSafeBC observed two of this firm’s workers setting trusses on the second floor of a two-storey house under construction. Neither
worker was wearing personal fall protection gear, and no other form of fall protection was in place. The workers were exposed to a risk
of falling anywhere from 4 to 7 m (13 to 23 ft.). Piles of construction debris and a basement stairwell opening in the uneven ground
below increased their risk of serious injury or death if they fell. The workers were unable to demonstrate that they knew how to
properly don fall protection gear. The firm’s failure to ensure that its workers used fall protection as required when working at elevations
of 3 m (10 ft.) or more was a repeated and high-risk violation. The firm also failed to provide its workers with the information, training,
and supervision needed to ensure their safety. This too was a repeated violation.
Friendly Roofing Ltd. | $2,500 | Delta | April 1, 2014
WorkSafeBC observed five of this firm’s workers without fall protection on the roof of an occupied two-storey house. They were
exposed to a risk of falling 6 to 9 m (20 to 30 ft.) onto a concrete driveway and sidewalk and a large metal disposal bin. The firm failed
to ensure its workers used fall protection. This was a repeated and high-risk violation.
Friendly Roofing Ltd. | $7,500 | Surrey | May 5, 2014
Two of this firm’s workers were re-roofing a two-storey house when WorkSafeBC observed them. They were not wearing fall protection
gear, nor was any other system of fall protection in place. The workers were exposed to a risk of falling 5 m (16 ft.). The firm violated
the Occupational Health and Safety Regulation by failing to ensure that its workers used fall protection when working at elevations of
3 m (10 ft.) or more. This was a repeated violation.
September / October 2014 | WorkSafe Magazine
27
Penalties
(continued)
Full Star Roofing & Construction Inc. | $10,067.94 | Burnaby | May 8, 2014
Three of this firm’s workers were re-roofing a two-storey commercial building, working at the edge of the roof. None of the workers
was wearing fall protection gear, nor was any other type of fall protection in place. The workers were exposed to a risk of falling about
7.6 m (25 ft.). The firm’s failure to ensure that its workers used fall protection as required was a repeated and high-risk violation.
Goldy Framing Construction Ltd. | $2,500 | Vancouver | May 26, 2014
WorkSafeBC observed two of this firm’s workers working without fall protection while installing roof trusses on a two-storey house
under construction. One worker was standing on a narrow exterior top plate 14 cm (5.5 in.) wide and was exposed to a risk of falling
about 6.4 m (21 ft.). Hard compact soil below was strewn with construction materials and debris, increasing the risk of serious injury
or death in the event of a fall. The firm’s failure to ensure its workers used fall protection as required was a repeated and high-risk
violation.
H & A Framing Ltd. | $5,000 | Vancouver | April 2, 2014
WorkSafeBC observed two of this firm’s workers on the roof of a two-storey wood-frame house installing manufactured roof trusses.
No fall protection system was in use. The workers were exposed to a risk of falling about 6.5 m (21 ft.). Compacted gravel and
construction debris below increased the risk of serious injury or death in the event of a fall. The firm’s failure to provide information,
instruction, training, and supervision to workers to ensure their health and safety was a repeated violation. Its failure to ensure its
workers used fall protection was a repeated and high-risk violation.
Jamie Nicholas Botsis/Moody Roofing | $2,500 | Port Coquitlam | April 28, 2014
WorkSafeBC observed three of this firm’s workers without fall protection re-shingling the steep roof of a two-storey house. The
workers were exposed to a risk of falling 5.8 to 8.5 m (19 to 28 ft.). Stacked shingles on the roof increased the risk of falling. The firm
failed to ensure that its workers used fall protection as required under section 11.2(1)(a) of the Occupational Health and Safety
Regulation. It also failed to provide them with the information, training, and supervision needed to ensure their safety. Both were
repeated and high-risk violations.
Jas-Mann Roofing Ltd. | $4,079.70 | Richmond | May 21, 2014
WorkSafeBC observed four of this firm’s workers installing roofing tiles on top of a two-storey house under construction. The workers
were wearing fall protection harnesses but were not connected to lifelines while on the steep roof. They were exposed to a risk of falling
3.3 to 8.5 m (11 to 28 ft.). The firm’s failure to ensure its workers used fall protection as required was a repeated and high-risk violation.
KNJ Environmental Consulting Ltd. | $5,000 | Vancouver | April 4, 2014
At the site of a single-family house in the early stages of demolition, WorkSafeBC observed workers removing drywall debris from the
front yard. The workers could not produce the hazardous materials documentation required to be kept on site whenever demolition
takes place. WorkSafeBC eventually obtained the documentation directly from KNJ Environmental. WorkSafeBC later found that the
survey provided to the architect, the prime contractor, and the company doing the abatement work did not include all the items that
were in the copy of the survey WorkSafeBC was given. As a result, WorkSafeBC hired a third party to assess the building for hazardous
materials. That assessment found vermiculite attic insulation which had been disturbed, contaminating the entire interior of the
dwelling. The insulation was listed only in the version of the survey provided to WorkSafeBC. The survey also identified electrical putty
and textured ceiling as asbestos-containing materials. Neither substance was listed in either version of KNJ’s survey. KNJ’s failure to
assess the site for asbestos-containing materials using occupational hygiene methods acceptable to WorkSafeBC was a repeated and
high-risk violation.
Kreative Exterior Inc. | $4,294.40 | Maple Ridge | May 20, 2014
This firm was a siding subcontractor on a house under construction. One of its workers was adjusting his scaffold plank when he fell
about 4 m (14 ft.) to hard-packed earth, sustaining serious injuries. He had not been wearing fall protection gear, nor was any other type
of fall protection in place. The firm’s failure to ensure that its worker used fall protection as required when a fall of 3 m (10 ft.) or more
could occur was a high-risk violation.
MBG Constructors Inc. | $23,092.78 | Langley | May 20, 2014
This firm’s worker, new on the job, was working with a crew that was roofing a prefabricated steel building under construction. He was
wearing a fall protection harness with a self-retracting lifeline. The worker fell through a 46 cm (18 in.) gap in the partly completed roof.
His lifeline cable snapped, and he landed on the concrete floor about 10.7 m (35 ft.) below, sustaining fatal injuries. WorkSafeBC’s
investigation found that the worker’s lifeline had not been used according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Further, the written fall
protection plan the firm had supplied to the prime contractor on site was inadequate. The firm failed to provide the new worker with the
instruction, training, and supervision needed to ensure his safety.
28
September / October 2014 | WorkSafe Magazine
P 218 Enterprises Ltd. (Rec)/Sopa Square Joint Venture | $1,895.09 | Kelowna | April 1, 2014
WorkSafeBC observed two of this firm’s workers on a commercial construction site standing on the top rungs of ladders to tie steel
roofing mat, above protruding steel dowels. Although the workers had on fall protection belts, they were unfastening and refastening
them to move along the face of the mat. In exposing its workers to the risk of serious injury or death in the event of a fall, this firm
violated the requirements of the Workers Compensation Act and the Occupational Health and Safety Regulation. This was a repeated
and high-risk violation.
P 218 Enterprises Ltd. (Rec)/Sopa Square Joint Venture | $1,895.09 | Kelowna | April 1, 2014
On a commercial construction site where this firm was the prime contractor, a tower crane was checked and found to be out of plumb.
Because it was unsafe to continue using the crane, two of the firm’s workers locked it out. The firm’s owner ordered the workers to
resume work with the crane. They refused and were fired for their refusal of unsafe work. The firm’s failure to fulfill its duties as prime
contractor under the Workers Compensation Act was a repeated violation.
P 218 Enterprises Ltd. (Rec) / Sopa Square Joint Venture | $4,737.73 | Kelowna | April 1, 2014
WorkSafeBC issued a stop-work order on this commercial construction site because a work platform for an elevator shaft lacked
engineering drawings and instructions. The firm, the prime contractor on the site, had installed the platform by working around the
manufacturer’s installation instructions. Four months later, WorkSafeBC observed that the elevator shaft was under construction,
and that a concrete-placing firm had built a temporary support system to hold the platform in place. The platform still did not have
the required engineering documents. The firm’s failure to fulfill its duties as prime contractor under the Workers Compensation Act
was a repeated violation.
Paul George | $3,493.13 | West Vancouver | May 20, 2014
This firm hired a contractor to remove drywall from a house slated for demolition, stating that a hazardous materials survey had shown
that the drywall was free from asbestos. The contractors had removed most of the drywall when a chance inspection by WorkSafeBC
revealed that the hazardous materials survey had not yet been completed. Once the finished survey was received, it revealed that the
drywall joint compound did in fact contain asbestos. The firm acted with reckless disregard in failing to ensure the health and safety
of workers.
Randall Blake Scott /All Cities Roofing | $2,500 | Port Coquitlam | May 30, 2014
WorkSafeBC observed four of this firm’s workers re-roofing the steep roof of a two-storey house. One of them was wearing a full-body
fall protection harness but was not attached to a lifeline. The other three were not wearing personal fall protection gear, and no other
fall protection system was in place. The workers were exposed to a risk of falling 5 to 7.6 m (16 to 25 ft.). The firm failed to ensure its
workers used fall protection as required. This was a repeated and high-risk violation.
Smythe Roofing Ltd. | $10,314.25 | Central Saanich | March 6, 2014
WorkSafeBC observed one of this firm’s workers applying roofing felt on the roof of a multi-storey single-family house at a height
greater than 3 m (10 ft.). The worker was wearing a fall protection harness but was not attached to a lifeline. The firm’s failure to ensure
its workers used a fall protection system in places where a fall of 3 m (10 ft.) or more might occur was a repeated violation.
T.C. Electric Ltd. | $1,653.31 | Quesnel | April 4, 2014
At a former gas bar where this firm was excavating part of the site, WorkSafeBC observed the firm’s worker operating an excavator.
Questioning the worker revealed that he had not conducted a pre-use inspection of the excavator, and no inspection record book could
be found in it. In addition, a pile of excavated material was too close to an excavation. Any worker who entered the excavation could
have been at risk of injury if its walls had collapsed from the pressure of the excavated material. Both failures to comply with the
Occupational Health and Safety Regulation were repeated violations.
TEJ Roofing Ltd. | $2,500 | Richmond | April 22, 2014
WorkSafeBC observed three of this firm’s workers installing concrete tile roofing on a two-storey house under construction. They
were wearing fall protection harnesses but were not attached to lifelines. The sloped roof lacked guardrails. The workers were cutting
the tiles on the roof, and the resulting dust created a slippery surface that increased their risk of losing their footing. They were also
approaching within 0.6 m (2 ft.) of the roof edges, at elevations as high as 9 m (30 ft.). Hard ground and lumber debris below posed
additional hazards in the event of a fall. The firm’s failure to ensure that its workers used fall protection as required was a repeated and
high-risk violation. The firm also failed to provide its workers with the information, instruction, training, and supervision needed to
ensure their safety.
September / October 2014 | WorkSafe Magazine
29
Penalties
(continued)
TEJ Roofing Ltd. | $2,500 | Richmond | April 22, 2014
At a single-family residential construction site, WorkSafeBC observed two of this firm’s workers, including a supervisor, installing
roofing tiles on the two-storey house. They were wearing fall protection harnesses, but at least one of them was not attached to
a lifeline and was therefore exposed to a risk of falling 5 to 9 m (17 to 35 ft.). The firm’s failure to ensure that its workers used fall
protection as required was a repeated violation.
Tomax Construction Ltd. | $5,000 | Maple Ridge | April 2, 2014
At a multi-unit residential construction site, one of this firm’s workers was exposed to a risk of falling about 10.6 m (35 ft.) from a
second-floor balcony. He was not wearing a fall protection harness, and no other form of fall protection was in place. The firm’s failure
to ensure that its workers used fall protection as required was a repeated and high-risk violation.
Triple A Roofing Ltd. | $15,000 | Richmond | April 16, 2014
Two of this firm’s workers were installing asphalt shingles on the 14/12 sloped roof of a two-storey single-family house under
construction. Both were wearing personal fall protection harnesses but were not connected to an anchor point. The workers were
exposed to a risk of falling 6 m (21 ft.). The firm’s failure to ensure that its workers used a fall protection system was a repeated and
high-risk violation.
Unique Framing Ltd. | $8,194.35 | New Westminster | May 21, 2014
At a three-storey townhouse complex under construction, eight of this firm’s workers were performing framing activities on the second
floor. Three of them were on wood-frame scaffolds on which no guardrails had been installed; one was working at the edge of
a second-storey balcony that also lacked guardrails. None was protected by a personal fall protection system. The workers were
exposed to a risk of falling about 3 to 5 m (10 to 16 ft.) to compact ground littered with construction debris, so that serious injury or
death could easily have resulted from a fall. The firm’s failure to ensure that its workers used fall protection as required was a repeated,
high-risk violation.
Upland Roofing Ltd. | $2,500 | Tsawwassen | April 15, 2014
On a single-family residential construction site, two of this firm’s workers were installing waterproofing membrane on a sloped roof
without fall protection, at risk of falling 6 to 10.6 m (20 to 35 ft.). Hazards below included scaffolding and a foundation wall. One worker
fell about 6 m (20 ft.) into a basement stairwell opening and was seriously injured. The firm’s failure to provide its workers with the
information, instruction, training, and supervision necessary to ensure their health and safety at work was a repeated violation. Its
failure to ensure workers used fall protection as required was a repeated and high-risk violation.
Upland Roofing Ltd. | $2,500 | Burnaby | April 16, 2014
WorkSafeBC witnessed this firm’s worker installing roofing material on the steep roof of a new two-storey house under construction.
The worker was not wearing personal fall protection gear, and there was no other form of fall protection in place. His risk of slipping
or tripping was increased because he was walking on roofing membrane strewn with sand and gravel, in the rain. Further, the compact
soil about 6 m (20 ft.) below was littered with construction debris, increasing the likelihood of serious or fatal injuries if he fell.
The firm failed to ensure that its workers used a fall protection system, violating section 11.2 (1)(a) of the Occupational Health and
Safety Regulation.
Vanco Roofing Ltd. | $7,500 | Vancouver | May 29, 2014
WorkSafeBC observed two of this firm’s workers performing roofing activities without fall protection on the sloped tile roof of a
two-storey house under construction. The workers were exposed to a risk of falling about 6 m (20 ft.). The firm failed to ensure that
its workers used fall protection as required; this was a repeated and high-risk violation. It also failed to provide its workers with the
necessary supervision to ensure their health and safety.
Zheng Kang Enterprises Inc. | $3,000 | Delta | May 8, 2014
WorkSafeBC observed four of this firm’s workers re-shingling the steep roof of a two-storey house. None of the workers was wearing
fall protection equipment and no other fall protection was in place. The workers were at risk of falling anywhere from 3.7 to 7 m
(12 to 23 ft.) onto asphalt driveways, concrete sidewalks, and a chain-link fence. The firm’s failure to ensure that its workers used fall
protection as required was a repeated violation.
30
September / October 2014 | WorkSafe Magazine
Manufacturing
Aqua Pure Premium Water Inc. | $1,261.81 | Kamloops | May 6, 2014
This firm failed to put in place a Workplace Hazardous Materials lnformation System (WHMIS) program as part of an overall workplace
health and safety program. Nor did it provide WorkSafeBC with a written report of the steps it had taken to comply with outstanding
orders. These were repeated violations.
Canadian Forest Products Ltd. | $75,000 | Vanderhoof | April 7, 2014
A contract welder performing repairs on a dunnage gate at this firm’s sawmill was fatally injured when the gate pivoted, pinning him
against a conveyor frame. The welder, who had been working at the mill alongside regular employees for about six months, had not
been trained in lockout procedures for equipment at the mill. In addition, the dunnage gate was not adequately marked as a hazard to
workers, and there were no written lockout procedures for it. The firm failed to ensure the use and verification of lockout procedures
as required by the Occupational Health and Safety Regulation. It also failed to mark a physical hazard in a manner that clearly identified
the hazard to affected workers. These were high-risk violations. Further, the firm violated section 115(1)(a) of the Workers Compensation
Act, which requires every employer to ensure the safety of its own and any other workers present at its workplace.
Goldwood Industries Ltd. | $10,916.90 | Richmond | May 22, 2014
WorkSafeBC inspected this firm’s sawmill and found accumulations of wood dust and debris from 0.16 cm to 1 m (1/16 in. to 3 ft.).
The firm had a weekly inspection protocol to identify dust buildup; however, it did not have a plan for carrying out this work when
regular cleanup staff were absent or for dealing with unanticipated volumes of debris between weekly inspections. In the event
of a fire during production, 10 to 20 workers would have been at risk of injury or death. The firm’s failure to remove accumulations
of combustible dust that could cause a fire or explosion was a repeated and high-risk violation.
International Web Express Inc. | $43,038.02 | Coquitlam | May 1, 2014
This firm’s worker, who had been on the job for less than two months, reached into a running press to reattach a paper roll to a rotating
cylinder. His hand got caught between the cylinder and the knife block, and was seriously injured. The press was not equipped with the
required guards. The firm violated safeguarding requirements, as well as requirements to provide adequate workplace first aid
attendants and supplies and to maintain a joint health and safety committee. In addition, it failed to provide the training and supervision
needed to ensure its workers’ safety.
Lafarge Canada Inc. /Western Region Division | $15,000 | Richmond | April 25, 2014
At a cement mill, this firm’s worker was instructed to dump clinker from a storage bin onto the floor 2.4 m (8 ft.) below, to clear a jam
that was delaying production. The dump caused clouds of clinker dust to be released in and even outside of the mill. The dust was so
thick that from outside the mill, workers could not see the lights inside, even though it was dark outside. The workers performing the
dump were not wearing adequate respiratory protection, and no announcement was made to warn workers throughout the mill to avoid
the dumping area. The incident was a repeated violation of regulatory requirements for controlling waste materials. The firm also
violated the Occupational Health and Safety Regulation by allowing its workers to use personal protective equipment as the primary
means to control exposure. Overall, the employer failed to ensure the health and safety of its workers as required by the Workers
Compensation Act. This was a repeated violation.
Lilydale Inc. | $15,000 | Port Coquitlam | May 27, 2014
This firm failed to notify WorkSafeBC when a release of ammonia gas occurred at its poultry processing plant. A dozen workers at a
neighbouring business inhaled the fumes and had to be taken to hospital as a result. The firm also failed to remedy within a reasonable
time deficiencies identified in ammonia refrigeration equipment at the plant. The failure to notify WorkSafeBC of the release of a
hazardous substance was a repeated violation.
Louisiana-Pacific OSB GP Corp./Louisiana Pacific OSB Limited Partnership | $73,088.31 | Fort St. John |
May 23, 2014
WorkSafeBC conducted a follow-up inspection of this firm’s sawmill and found accumulations of wood dust as deep as 10 to 15 cm
(4 to 6 in.). The firm had put in place a dust reduction plan that included engineering solutions, worker training, and cleanup protocols
to reduce dust accumulation, but the plan was no longer being adhered to. In the event of a fire during production, about 37 workers
would be at risk of injury or death. The firm’s failure to remove accumulations of combustible dust that could cause a fire or explosion
was a repeated and high-risk violation.
September / October 2014 | WorkSafe Magazine
31
Penalties
(continued)
Pinnacle Renewable Energy Inc. | $31,380.93 | Quesnel | May 20, 2014
WorkSafeBC inspected this firm’s pellet plant and found hazardous accumulations of primary and secondary combustible dust on
equipment and structures in the plant’s fibre infeed building. The accumulations were greater than 0.3 cm (1/8 in.) thick and covered
more than five percent of the building’s surface area. As well, the accumulations were close to or in direct contact with potential ignition
hazards. Although workers do not continually occupy the fibre infeed building, they are required to enter it regularly for maintenance
purposes. These workers are exposed to a risk of serious injury or death in the event of a fire or explosion. The firm’s failure to control
and remove hazardous accumulations of dust that could cause a fire or explosion was a repeated and high-risk violation.
Pinnacle Renewable Energy Inc. | $48,838.01 | Burns Lake | May 20, 2014
WorkSafeBC inspected this firm’s pellet plant and found hazardous levels of secondary dust on horizontal surfaces throughout the
main pellet plant building. The dust accumulations were greater than 0.3 cm (1/8 in.) deep and up to 10 cm (4 in.) in some areas, and
they covered more than five percent of the plant’s surface area. Further, they were close to or in direct contact with potential ignition
hazards. The firm’s failure to control and remove hazardous accumulations of combustible dust that could cause a fire or explosion was
a repeated and high-risk violation.
Pinnacle Renewable Energy Inc. | $31,380.93 | Quesnel | May 20, 2014
WorkSafeBC inspected this firm’s pellet plant. It found hazardous levels of primary and secondary dust on horizontal surfaces
throughout the green material infeed building. Dust had accumulated to depths of more than 0.3 cm (1/8 in.) and in many places
was in direct contact with potential ignition sources. The firm’s failure to control and remove hazardous accumulations of combustible
dust that could cause a fire or explosion was a repeated and high-risk violation. Further, the employer was unable to produce records
showing that an emergency first aid transportation drill had been held within the past year, a violation of section 4.14(3) of the
Occupational Health and Safety Regulation.
Pinnacle Renewable Energy Inc. | $48,838.01 | Burns Lake | May 20, 2014
WorkSafeBC inspected this firm’s pellet plant. Hazardous accumulations of primary and secondary dust more than 0.3 cm (1/8 in.)
deep were found on horizontal surfaces in the hammermills area, with accumulations of up to 5 cm (2 in.) around the infeed paddle
conveyor. Accumulations were also found in direct contact with potential ignition sources. The firm’s failure to control and remove
hazardous accumulations of combustible dust that could cause a fire or explosion was a repeated violation.
Pinnacle Renewable Energy Inc. | $36,223.96 | Strathnaver | May 20, 2014
WorkSafeBC inspected this firm’s pellet plant and found hazardous levels of primary and secondary dust, more than 0.3 cm (1/8 in.)
deep, on horizontal surfaces in the green material infeed building as well as in direct contact with potential ignition sources, such as
electric motors and electrical cables. The firm’s failure to control and remove hazardous accumulations of combustible dust that could
cause a fire or explosion was a repeated and high-risk violation.
Save the date!
BC Municipal OH&S
Conference - Whistler, BC
June 14-16, 2015
Stay at Work/
Return to Work
Programs
Certificate of
Recognition
Program
32
Knowledge
sharing the
www.bcmsa.ca
Contact us: Cathy Cook, Executive Director
P: 778-278-3486 F: 778-278-0029 E: [email protected]
September / October 2014 | WorkSafe Magazine
Safety
Training
Online MSDS
Management
We are the health & safety
resource of choice for local
government - we have
the stats to prove it!
Pinnacle Renewable Energy Inc. | $31,380.93 | Quesnel | May 20, 2014
After an inspection, this firm notified WorkSafeBC that it had complied with the order to clean up hazardous accumulations of combustible
dust at its pellet plant. WorkSafeBC returned to the worksite to conduct a follow-up inspection, and found primary and secondary dust
accumulations of more than 0.3 cm (1/8 in.) on elevated structures and fixtures, on surfaces in the green material building, in direct contact
with potential ignition sources, and on large containment curtains outside the truck dump building. The firm’s failure to control and remove
hazardous accumulations of combustible dust that could cause a fire or explosion was a repeated and high-risk violation.
Reidco Metal Industries Ltd. | $81,593.71 | Kelowna | May 23, 2014
One of this firm’s workers sustained a serious hand injury while operating a hydraulic press brake (a machine that bends metal). The
firm did not immediately undertake an accident investigation as required by section 173(1)(b) of the Workers Compensation Act. Two
days later another worker also sustained serious hand injuries when he inadvertently activated the foot pedal control of the same
machine. WorkSafeBC found that the machine lacked safeguards to prevent workers from accessing the hazardous point of operation.
The firm’s failure to ensure that the machine was fitted with adequate safeguards as required by section 12.2(b) of the Occupational
Health and Safety Regulation was a high-risk violation.
Sigurdson Forest Products Ltd. | $61,448.30 | Williams Lake | April 23, 2014
WorkSafeBC conducted a reinspection of this firm’s sawmill following an inspection in fall 2013 during which it had issued a stop-work
order due to accumulations of combustible dust. On this return visit, WorkSafeBC again observed primary and secondary combustible
dust accumulations above 0.3 cm (1/8 in.) on a variety of surfaces on the main level and in the basement of the sawmill. Dust had
accumulated in the enclosed high-voltage electrical vault, which according to the employer had not been cleaned in 11 years, making it
unsafe to throw the main disconnect. In some places dust had built up 20 cm (8 in.) deep. The firm’s failure to control and remove
hazardous accumulations of combustible dust that could cause a fire or explosion was a repeated and high-risk violation.
Skeena Sawmills Ltd. | $14,070.76 | Terrace | May 20, 2014
A WorkSafeBC inspection found secondary combustible dust accumulations above 0.3 cm (1/8 in.) on a variety of surfaces in the planer room
at this firm’s sawmill, particularly in the “doghouse” ducting area above. In this space, dust had built up anywhere from 1.3 cm to 7.6 cm
(1/2 in. to 3 in.) deep. Potential nearby sources of ignition included the planer machinery and non-enclosed light bulbs and fluorescent
fixtures. The firm failed to comply with section 5.81 of the Occupational Health and Safety Regulation. The firm’s failure to control and remove
hazardous accumulations of combustible dust that could cause a fire or explosion was a repeated and high-risk violation.
Tolko Industries Ltd. / Lakeview Lumber — Williams Lake | $75,000 | Williams Lake | April 14, 2014
WorkSafeBC inspected this sawmill and ordered the firm to safely remove accumulations of secondary combustible dust inside the
hot-oil energy building to minimize the risk of a fire or explosion caused by ignition of combustible dust. During a follow-up inspection
at the sawmill two weeks later, WorkSafeBC still found hazardous levels of secondary dust on horizontal surfaces throughout the
building. Although the hot-oil energy building is separate from the main part of the sawmill and is not occupied by workers full-time, at
least one worker is required to enter it daily to check the equipment inside. A worker also enters the building once a week to clean.
These workers are exposed to a risk of serious injury or death in the event of a fire or explosion. The firm’s failure to remove hazardous
accumulations of combustible dust that could cause a fire or explosion was a repeated and high-risk violation.
Primary Resources
Wolf Lake Logging Ltd. | $26,334.06 | Port Alberni | April 1, 2014
On a site where this firm was mechanically harvesting trees, WorkSafeBC observed two danger trees with a prominent lean into the
active logging area. One of the trees had a saw cut from the harvester, further weakening it. The firm’s failure to fell the danger trees
before harvesting other trees around them was a high-risk violation.
Service Sector
Acuren Group Inc. / Pacific Division | $71,497.39 | Quesnel | May 6, 2014
Two of this firm’s workers were conducting a visual inspection of the internal stock slide of a 15 m (50 ft.) tall by 9 m (20 ft.) diameter
steel blow tank at another employer’s worksite, as directed by their supervisor. While the workers were walking on the slide without fall
protection, one of them fell about 4 m (13 ft.) onto the steel floor of the tank, sustaining severe injuries. Prior to entering the tank, the
workers had completed a risk assessment that identified a fall hazard, but no fall hazard control measures were put in place. The firm
failed to ensure that its workers used fall protection as required and to provide them with the training and supervision needed to ensure
their safety.
September / October 2014 | WorkSafe Magazine
33
Penalties
(continued)
BC Hydro & Power Authority | $75,000 | Duncan | April 24, 2014
A three-man crew was preparing to replace a cross-arm on two 18 m (60 ft.) power poles supporting three high-voltage transmission
lines when a worker of this firm, a truck operator, was seriously injured. The worker was walking away from the truck when another
worker, in an elevated bucket on the truck, applied a ground line to one of the transmission lines, which had not been de-energized
as requested. Electricity travelled to a ground rod near the truck operator, then ran beneath his feet, causing electrical burns.
WorkSafeBC’s investigation found that the incident was caused by failure to follow the employer’s own safe work procedures. Safe
testing procedures for voltage on the line were not followed; other underlying factors were inadequate training and supervision, and
poor communication that prevented accurate information transfer. The firm failed to provide its workers with the information,
instruction, training, and supervision needed to ensure their safety. This was a repeated violation.
Fraser Health Authority | $75,000 | Abbotsford | May 1, 2014
Two nurses at a high-security psychiatric unit were assaulted and injured by a patient. The first was attacked while she was alone at the
nursing station, the second when she tried to rescue the first. The employer had completed a workplace risk assessment that found that
workers were at high risk of violence. The assessment identified engineering controls and changes to policy and procedures that could
reduce the risks to workers from violent patients in the unit, but the action plan from the assessment was not completely carried out for
financial reasons. The employer’s failure to implement necessary risk-reduction measures identified in its own assessment constituted
reckless disregard for the safety of workers.
Rock Tor Enterprises Ltd. / Domino’s Pizza | $2,500 | Kamloops | May 1, 2014
A follow-up WorkSafeBC inspection at this firm’s restaurant found that four previously issued orders had not been complied with. The
firm did not have a complete first aid kit for the workplace. It did not have an adequate hantavirus exposure control plan in place. Its
new and young worker orientation process was inadequate. The fourth order was to provide compliance reports for deficiencies found
in a number of previous inspections; the firm failed to do so.
Westgate Resorts Ltd. / Red Coach Inn | $16,243.89 | 100 Mile House | April 11, 2014
This firm was penalized for continued non-compliance with a number of orders, some dating as far back as September 2011. It failed to
establish and maintain an effective Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System (WHMIS) program. It did not train its
housekeeping workers in measures to reduce or eliminate musculoskeletal injuries. It failed to have a qualified person conduct a
hazardous materials inspection prior to renovation or demolition. It also violated the Workers Compensation Act by failing to comply
with orders within a reasonable time and by failing to provide a compliance report meeting specified requirements.
Westgate Resorts Ltd./Red Coach Inn | $8,330.20 | 100 Mile House | April 11, 2014
This firm was penalized for continued non-compliance with a number of orders. Violations included failing to hold monthly
occupational health and safety meetings; failing to give new workers specific health and safety orientation and training; failing
to conduct an annual emergency drill; and failing to conduct a risk assessment for violence in the workplace. The firm also failed
to offer hepatitis B vaccinations to workers at risk of occupational exposure to the virus. Nor did it have a written exposure control
plan in place for workers who may have occupational exposure to biological agents. Further, it lacked a written lockout procedure
for energy‑isolating devices. Finally, the firm violated the Workers Compensation Act by failing to provide workers with adequate
information, instruction, training, and supervision and by failing to provide WorkSafeBC with a compliance report meeting specified
requirements.
Transportation and Warehousing
Mainland Group Contracting Ltd. | $13,855.94 | Vancouver | May 1, 2014
This firm’s worker, a dump truck driver, was delivering a load of aggregate to a concrete plant. He unloaded the truck box, then tried to
unload the transfer trailer, but the tailgate locks on the trailer did not release properly. Leaving the trailer box at a 45-degree angle, the
truck driver walked around behind the trailer just as its tailgate fell open. The load of aggregate fell on the worker, causing fatal crushing
injuries. WorkSafeBC found that the firm failed to provide workers with a health and safety orientation, with training in safe work
procedures, and with supervision to ensure they were working safely. The firm also failed to properly maintain its vehicles, perform risk
assessments, and hold regular safety meetings. Overall, the firm failed to provide the information, instruction, training, and supervision
required to ensure the health and safety of its workers.
34
September / October 2014 | WorkSafe Magazine