WTools for buildingo safer workplacesrk | worksafemagazine.comSa | Januaryf / Februarye 2015
Digging deep to New tools to protect prevent disaster p7 working drivers p18 Sex and gender differences Bullying the focus for factor into safety p12 student videos p24 Advanced Technology • Trained Professionals • 24/7 Monitoring
It’S the laW. Ensuring your employee’s safety is your duty as an employer. ProTELEC’s suite of CheckMate and CheckMate Plus services and products provide the best solution for your legal requirement to monitor your employees who work alone!
CheckMate is a proactive, automated communication service designed to check on people working alone to ensure their safety.
Meets requirements of having an effective communication plan for employees working alone that includes regular check-ins.
Combines advanced technology with trained professionals - CheckMate utilizes automation to ensure that all CheckMate calls are made when they should be and involves trained professionals to respond to potential life threatening situations when a lone employee does not respond.
Simple to use - Workers only need to answer their phone and enter a 4-digit pin number.
Track Lone workers through CheckMate’s Location Recording option.
Requires no hardware or software to purchase. Your lone workers only need access to a regular phone line, cellular phone or satellite phone.
www.proteleccheckmate.com • 204-272-5799 • 866-775-6620
2 January / February 2015 | WorkSafe Magazine
Checkmate_WorkSafeBC_Magazine_REVISEDMAY26-14.indd 1 26/05/2014 5:18:33 PM Advanced Technology • Trained Professionals • 24/7 Monitoring Highlight Ritchie Bros. staff sell safety on the screen p21
Contents January / February 2015 | Volume 15 | Number 1
Features Work Science 12 Why sex and gender matters in injury prevention Ask an Officer A WorkSafeBC study shows the need to account 5 Expert help for fallers in need for male-female differences in developing health, It’S the safety, and return-to-work programs. laW. Senior regional officer Bjarne Nielsen offers a By Gail Johnson Ensuring your employee’s safety is your duty as an employer. primer on qualified assistance requirements for ProTELEC’s suite of CheckMate and CheckMate Plus manual logging. services and products provide the best solution for your legal By Gord Woodward Safety Talks requirement to monitor your employees who work alone! 15 Train workers to expect good On the Cover supervision 7 One strike and you’re out Safety leaders use a hands-on approach to CheckMate is a proactive, automated communication The City of Victoria’s safe excavation program maintain healthy habits on the shop floor. service designed to check on people working alone to serves as a model to employers striving to avoid By Don Hauka gas line hits. ensure their safety. By Gord Woodward Meets requirements of having an effective communication plan for employees Centre Pullouts working alone that includes regular check-ins. Departments Combines advanced technology with trained professionals - CheckMate Stand out safely utilizes automation to ensure that all CheckMate calls are made when they 4 | From the editor —New hi-vis vest requirements for should be and involves trained professionals to respond to potential life heavy industry threatening situations when a lone employee does not respond. 17 | Policy notes 18 | WorkSafeBC update What’s wrong with this photo? Simple to use - Workers only need to answer their phone and enter a 4-digit pin number. 20 | What’s wrong: you tell us —Auto repair shop needs to fix its approach to safety Track Lone workers through CheckMate’s Location Recording option. 27 | Penalties
Requires no hardware or software to purchase. Your lone workers only need access to a regular phone line, cellular phone or satellite phone. On the front cover: City of Victoria utilities operations construction worker Richard Martignago relies on manual digging to expose underground utilities. www.proteleccheckmate.com • 204-272-5799 • 866-775-6620
January / February 2015 | WorkSafe Magazine 3
Checkmate_WorkSafeBC_Magazine_REVISEDMAY26-14.indd 1 26/05/2014 5:18:33 PM From the editor WorkSafe Editor-in-chief: Terence Little | Managing editor: Dana Tye Rally A safety-conscious Assistant editors: Carol-Anne Doucet and Monika Wierzbicki Graphic designers: Nancy Berke and Graham Coulthard workplace is the real prize Photographer: Khalid Hawe | Photo safety advisor: Andrew Lim On the surface, the benefits seem short-lived: raise awareness about workplace safety by producing a WorkSafe Magazine is published by the WorkSafeBC (Workers’ fun, clever video about everyday hazards — slips and Compensation Board of B.C.) Communications department to educate workers and employers about injury and disease prevention, promote positive safety trips, ergonomics — and then win awards for it. culture, and provide links to WorkSafeBC resources for safer workplaces. Burnaby’s Ritchie Bros. Auctioneers did just that Disclaimer WorkSafeBC strives for accuracy; however, the information recently for the annual National Occupational Safety contained within WorkSafe Magazine does not take the place of professional and Health (NAOSH) Week. occupational health and safety advice. WorkSafeBC does not warrant the accuracy of any of the information contained in this publication. WorkSafe Why short-lived? There’s a tendency to go right back Magazine and WorkSafeBC disclaim responsibility for any reader’s use to the same bad old workplace habits for the rest of of the published information and materials contained in this publication. WorkSafeBC does not warrant or make any representations concerning the the year. accuracy, likely results, or reliability of the contents of the advertisements, claims made therein, or the products advertised in WorkSafe Magazine. But Lily Cheng, Ritchie Bros. health, safety, and WorkSafeBC does not warrant that any products advertised meet any required environment manager, has seen something more take certification under any law or regulation, nor that any advertiser meets the shape: “People are now comfortable reminding each certification requirements of any bodies governing the advertised activity. other about safety.” WorkSafe Magazine is published six times a year by WorkSafeBC. The yearly issues include January/February, March/April, May/June, July/August, It’s a subtle shift, and an important one. Awards are September/October, and November/December. The magazine can be viewed nice; but it’s the process of engaging workers in health online at worksafemagazine.com. and safety that makes a difference. It’s what Contact the magazine Email: [email protected]. Telephone: employers are finding across B.C. — whether it’s the Editorial 604.232.7194. Subscriptions 604.231.8690. Mailing address: City of Victoria’s City of Excellence award for safe WorkSafe Magazine, PO Box 5350 Station Terminal, Vancouver, B.C. excavation practices (page 7), Ritchie Bros. and Kerry V6B 5L5. Courier: WorkSafeBC Communications, 6951 Westminster Highway, Richmond, B.C. V7C 1C6. Canada winning big at NAOSH (page 21), or students vying for the upcoming anti-bullying video contest Subscriptions To start or stop a free subscription to WorkSafe Magazine, or to update mailing information, follow the “Subscribe” link on our website (page 24). at worksafemagazine.com. You can also email [email protected] or call 604.231.8690. So, the next time you’re considering entering a workplace health and safety contest, remember it’s Editorial enquiries/feedback If you’d like to comment not just for show. It’s an investment in keeping your on an article or make a suggestion, please email [email protected]. workers safe — every day. Advertising For information about advertising your product or service in WorkSafe Magazine, please contact OnTrack Shannon Ward OnTrack Media Media at 604.639.7763 or [email protected].
Copyright The contents of this magazine are protected by copyright and may be used for non-commercial purposes only. All other rights are reserved and commercial use is prohibited. To make any use of this material, you must first obtain written authorization from WorkSafeBC. Please email the details Terence Little of your request to [email protected]. WorkSafeBC™ is a Editor-in-chief registered trademark of the Workers’ Compensation Board of B.C.
4 January / February 2015 | WorkSafe Magazine Contributors Ask an Officer
Emergency assistants
Marnie Douglas critical in forestry Marnie Douglas is a Kelowna-based writer and communications professional who began her career Bjarne Nielsen in journalism. WorkSafeBC senior regional officer Region: Courtenay Years on the job: 16
Don Hauka Don Hauka is a communications In this issue, we talk with Courtenay-based Bjarne Nielsen — consultant and writer living in New WorkSafeBC’s senior regional officer for forestry — about qualified Westminster, B.C. assistance in manual falling.
Q. We have a first aid worker on site. Isn’t that all the qualified assistance we need? A. It depends on the situation. When falling trees in the woods, we look at three things: 1) the difficulty of the task, 2) whether an incident is an emergency, and 3) whether an injury has occurred. Qualified assistance in Lucy Hyslop forestry should consider all three factors, which one or more people can Lucy Hyslop is a writer and editor address, depending on their qualifications. (This is a requirement under based in Vancouver. section 26.28 of the Occupational Health and Safety Regulation.) Essentially, a “work difficulty” is a dangerous tree that a faller is unsure of how to tackle. In such a case, qualified assistance could mean another certified faller or falling supervisor acting as a second set of eyes. An emergency is an urgent situation to prevent or control a hazard, such as a windstorm causing trees to block egress from the bush. An injury always requires a first aid attendant; the attendant’s ticket level Gail Johnson depends on the number of workers on site. Gail Johnson is an award-winning Vancouver-based journalist who Q. Which workers are considered “qualified?” specializes in health writing. A. Workers qualify to respond to these emergent scenarios if they’ve been trained or have experience with the work, the hazards involved, and the means to control the hazards. They must always be available and equipped to promptly render first aid, know the faller’s location, and be trained in the requirements of safely approaching and obtaining permission to enter the hazard area (two tree-lengths).
Gord Woodward Q. What are the timelines for providing qualified assistance? Gord Woodward is based in A. If a faller is injured, the first aid attendant must be able to reach injured Nanaimo and writes for a variety of magazines and websites. workers within 10 minutes (see Guideline 3.18, “Availability of a First Aid
January / February 2015 | WorkSafe Magazine 5 Attendant” on worksafebc.com). If it’s a work radio systems usually being the most reliable means difficulty, a response isn’t required right away. But, of communication. during the waiting period, you’ll need procedures to control the hazards for workers. For example, Q. How do we know our safety plan has you might need to flag-off “no work zones.” adequate communication procedures? A. Anyone associated with falling activities must be Q. Can a machine operator provide qualified given written safe work procedures that include assistance? directions on summoning and rendering assistance A. An operator could provide assistance, but has to be to manage a falling difficulty or to deal with an able to reach the faller within a reasonable time. emergency. A worker check-in system should occur That means the operator should be in a position to at regular intervals, such as the start of the day, readily observe the faller, and drive right up to him every 30 minutes, and, at the end of day. or her, as necessary. If there’s steep country impeding the machine from going up the hill, then Q. What’s the purpose of this Regulation? we don’t allow the operator to respond to A. The intent of this requirement is to provide support emergencies. and resources for the faller to safely do the work. Q. What if we only have a single worker on a Q. Where can I get more information about jobsite? qualified assistance? A. We recommend having two fallers working together. A. See the new Guideline for Summoning Assistance If a worker is alone, employers have to put a system at www2.worksafebc.com/Publications/ in place for that worker’s safety. A first aid attendant OHSRegulation/Part26.asp#SectionNumber:26.28. must be able to reach him or her quickly, and Looking for answers to your specific health and safety another faller or qualified falling supervisor must questions in WorkSafe Magazine? Send them to be available to assist in overcoming falling [email protected] and we’ll consider difficulties. Communication and check-in including them in our next Ask an Officer feature. W procedures are critically important, with two-way
WorkSafeBC prevention officers cannot and do not provide advice on specific cases or issues referenced in this article. WorkSafeBC and WorkSafe Magazine disclaim responsibility for any reliance on this information, which is provided for readers’ general education only. For more specific information on prevention matters, contact the WorkSafeBC prevention line at 604.276.3100 or toll-free at 1.888.621.7233.
Driving to Improve Safety Providing quality occupational health and safety services to the transportation, logistics and warehousing industries in British Columbia. The SafetyDriven Team can provide: Safety Training & Education Safety Advisory Services Safety Tools and Resources Safety Research & Best Practice Development We are also the Safety Program Support transportation industry’s Injury Management Advisory Services certifying partner for the Certificate of Recognition Explore our services and programs.
The Trucking Safety Council of British Columbia is an independent health www.safetydriven.ca and safety association funded, governed, and working for industry. TOLL FREE: 1-877-414-8001
6 January / February 2015 | WorkSafe Magazine On the Cover City of Victoria municipal workers Harry Sandhu, Kimberly Meadows, Rebecca Chow, André Dupuis, and Dan Little set up closed-circuit TV equipment to conduct an assessment of the city’s sanitary sewer pipeline.
Pipe-clearing mission goes B.C.-wide By Gord Woodward
January / February 2015 | WorkSafe Magazine 7 If B.C. held its own Olympics for underground excavation safety, the City of Victoria would own the podium — especially if the event concerned the elimination of cross bores. The capital city recently received recognition as the 2013 City of Excellence gold medalist for excavation techniques and underground infrastructure best practices, an honour the city earned in 2011, making it the annual competition’s only two-time champion. In the process, Victoria arguably became a model municipality for WorkSafeBC’s province-wide cross-boring prevention initiative by recording a perfect score over the past four years. Not a 10, as in the Olympics, but a 0, as in zero cross bores. The City of Victoria uses an interactive mapping system to identify underground utilities. “We need to elimate cross bores,” says Gordon Harkness, manager of WorkSafeBC’s risk analysis unit. “Victoria has been ahead of the curve with an active they played a part in the city’s decision to enhance its cross-bore mitigation program.” infrastructure safety program. Like an athlete preparing for the Olympics, the city used technology and Harkness says the city stands out for actively ferreting specialized training and procedures. “It’s about out cross bores, which are the intersection of two protecting the safety of workers, and the public,” Lee underground utilities or structures. They usually occur says. when a natural gas line gets unintentionally installed through another underground utility, such as a sanitary The city’s underground infrastructure includes or storm sewer. Until debris builds up and causes a approximately 242 km of sewer pipe and 260 km of blockage — or municipalities detect a problem during storm drains, as well as natural gas, hydro, cable, and routine maintenance via closed-circuit TV (CCTV) — phone lines. The underground utility information can cross bores usually go undetected. And that’s why be viewed on the City’s GIS (Geographic Information they’re such a danger in B.C. Systems) VicMap — a software program accessible to staff and the public — that shows the locations of Municipal crews, contractors, or even plumbers underground utility installations. working on private residences, who then flush the sewer line or use a power auger, face a potentially “You can actually open VicMap on your smartphone deadly risk from the gas-air mixture. In fact, sources and look up our infrastructure,” explains Kimberly of ignition, such as sparks from electric motors and Meadows, City of Victoria occupational health and switches or pilot lights, could ignite the resulting safety officer. vapour or gas. The city also created its own training programs, “This is a major concern all across the province,” says showing crews how to properly read plans. And, it Cathy Cook, executive director of the BC Municipal involved all departments, including its parks workers, Safety Association. “We’ve been contacting our who sometimes have to cut tree roots underground. members as much as we can to make sure they’re In order to maintain these safe practices, the city aware of it.” developed written operational procedures. Among them was a checklist for pre-job hazard assessment, Goal to protect workers and the public with a reminder about the threat of cross bores. Victoria didn’t need the reminder. From 2008 through Workers must fill out the hazard identification checklist 2012, its crews had discovered 11 cross bores, says prior to any excavation. And, as a means of keeping it Deryk Lee, the city’s manager of underground utilities top of mind for workers, a daily crew talk record is operations. None of them caused any damage. But printed on the back of their time sheets.
8 January / February 2015 | WorkSafe Magazine The emphasis on safety minimally affected the city’s budget: a lesson Meadows wants to share with other “The cost of a hit far outweighs municipalities. “The cost of a hit far outweighs any any expenses associated with expenses associated with education, especially since lives could be at stake.” education, especially since Cross-bore initiative focuses on lives could be at stake.” cooperation — Kimberly Meadows, City of Victoria That philosophy echoes the message WorkSafeBC has occupational health and safety officer been emphasizing since launching its cross-bore initiative in March 2014. The awareness campaign Mainland, and the South Okanagan, where highlights the hidden dangers of cross bores, their underground infrastructure is generally fairly shallow — abundance — one small municipality has recorded a contributing factor to cross bores. (In northern B.C., 60 over the years — and their easy, cost-free fix: a frozen ground means lines are buried deeper below the quick call to BC One Call. Under the group’s Call surface, greatly reducing the risk of cross bores.) Before You Clear program, any reports of suspected cross bores are immediately relayed to FortisBC. In “I feel pretty confident that our initiative was the best response, FortisBC may then advise by phone that no thing to do,” says WorkSafeBC occupational safety cross bores are present in the area, or they’ll go officer Doug Fielding. He’s visited 25 municipalities directly to the site to provide assistance in safely around Greater Vancouver and — with the exception of dealing with them and repairing any damage to pipes. an “all-clear” at the University of B.C.’s utilities — heard constant reports of the hidden hazards. As part of this initiative, WorkSafeBC has dispatched officers throughout Vancouver Island, the Lower Throughout this process, Fielding has been focused
All BC employers are now required to develop a Workplace Bullying & Harassment Policy and to train all workers about identifying, preventing and reporting bullying & harassment. It’s the law! Are you in compliance? YOW Canada offers Workplace Violence & Harassment Online Training
Dynamic - includes audio, animations and illustrations Comprehensive tracking capabilities through a Easy, convenient and course administration site effective Bilingual Certificate included
Website: www.yowcanada.com Phone: 1.866.688.2845 Inc. Safety Compliance Email: [email protected] Made Easy!
January / February 2015 | WorkSafe Magazine 9 on the requirement to develop and implement safe work procedures for drain clearing that will address cross-boring risks. These include provisions for contacting the gas utility company prior to commencing work. So far, he says, working in cooperation with municipalities has been most effective. “Some municipalities are managing quite well. If everyone took these precautions, all of this could go away, with no one injured.” Harkness points out that FortisBC contractors are no longer practising the directional drilling techniques that resulted in cross-boring, and as a result, no new installations should result in cross bores. “Everyone is on the same page now,” he says, pointing to the benefit of B.C. municipalities sharing infrastructure information with FortisBC, so they can get help to find and fix the problem. “WorkSafeBC has accelerated that procedure,” says Ian Turnbull, FortisBC’s damage prevention and emergency services manager. “They’ve really got everyone’s attention.” City of Victoria video inspections operator André And that’s encouraging news for those who would like Dupuis monitors its CCTV operations console. to see many more employers enter the competition for excellence in excavation safety. W
Did you know? All workers in B.C. have the right to refuse unsafe work.
CONNECTED
one_third_ad_7.indd 1 08/04/13 4:20 PM 10 January / February 2015 | WorkSafe Magazine Your safest move? Call before you clear
For the safe underground excavation involving possible cross bores, WorkSafeBC prevention officers and industry safety experts suggest the following best practices: • Look for clues Do a condition assessment of the location before starting work. Have crews eyeball the street — looking for ground disturbances or changes that aren’t indicated on maps — and be alert for the smell of gas. Check your own maps and data banks showing potential natural gas lines in the area. Using a remote camera, attempt to identify the blockage.
• Enforce standard operating procedures Make sure crews — including contractors — have written instructions and emergency procedures on hand at all times, and that they adhere to them. One of the cardinal rules: Never use equipment that may cause damage when verifying the location of underground utilities.
• Preach patience Tell crews not to clear blocked sewers with rotating equipment or water jets, until you have ruled out cross bores, or Fortis BC is on site to assist them.
• If a cross bore might have occurred, “Call Before You Clear” Contact BC One Call at 1.800.474.6886 and tell the agent you’re dealing with a sewer service line blockage. This will immediately alert FortisBC, which will advise if gas is in the area, and, if necessary, attend the jobsite — typically within two hours.
• Record and report all work Even if something minor comes up during the project, document it, and then update your maps and databases accordingly. That little bit of paperwork can make a huge difference in future.
• Review online resources www.commongroundbc.ca/field-resources/best-practices-resources/ — best excavation practices from the BC Common Ground Alliance www2.worksafebc.com/i/posters/2014/ws_14_04.html — a WorkSafeBC bulletin on the danger of cross bores when directional drilling www2.worksafebc.com/i/posters/2014/ws_14_03.html — a WorkSafeBC bulletin on the danger of explosions when clearing sewers
January / February 2015 | WorkSafe Magazine 11 Work Science A University of B.C. research group, led by research chair Mieke Koehoorn, is working in partnership with WorkSafeBC to examine the role of sex and gender in work-related injury and illness.
Work-return rate differs
between the sexes By Gail Johnson
When it comes to health, a person’s sex 2013, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and gender plays an undeniable role. named Mieke Koehoorn a research chair in Gender, Work and Health. This award supports Partnership Women and men respond differently to projects looking into sex and gender differences in the effects of various treatments, for work-related injury and illness. instance, and each is at greater risk for As part of a research project led by Koehoorn and certain illnesses and injuries. Sex Chris McLeod of UBC’s School of Population and (biological differences) and gender (social Public Health, the Partnership has found notable and cultural differences) are increasingly differences in work-disability duration among men and being taken into account in health research women with the same type of injury working in the — leading to more accurate, relevant, and same occupation. sensitive findings. The same can These differences hold implications for employers, in apparently be said for the benefits of terms of increasing their awareness of the role of sex and gender in workplace health outcomes, and in incorporating the two factors in developing more successful health and safety and occupational health and safety and return-to-work programs. return‑to-work outcomes. Research suggests women take longer To that end, WorkSafeBC is supporting research into gender and sex differences in work-related health with to return to work the University of British Columbia (UBC) through the “Even when we’re looking at the same job and the Partnership for Work, Health and Safety. In February same kind of injury, preliminary findings suggest
12 January / February 2015 | WorkSafe Magazine “Even when we’re looking at the home among men and women that could impact the ability to recover.” Sociological trends show that the same job and the same women still hold primary responsibility for tasks like child care, taking care of aging parents and family kind of injury, preliminary members, and other obligations outside the workplace. findings suggest women take These factors may affect women’s rate of recovery from occupational injury, she says. slightly longer than men to go “It would be helpful to be aware that workers with back to work after an injury.” young children in the home, for example, may have a more difficult time recovering and may need a —Mieke Koehoorn, co-lead for the modified return to work.” Partnership for Work, Health and Safety Subtle biases within the health care community — and their treatments — are a factor, as well. Other research women take slightly longer than men to go back to has found that orthopedic surgeons are 22 times more work after an injury,” explains Koehoorn, co-lead for likely to recommend knee replacement to a male the Partnership for Work, Health and Safety. patient than a female patient, even when disease The researchers analyzed data linked through severity is identical. Family physicians were found Population Data B.C., examining acute injuries like to recommend the procedure to men twice as often fractures, as well as cumulative injuries, such as as they did to women. (A survey of the same doctors tendonitis, bursitis, musculoskeletal injuries, and back prior to the study found they were unaware of any strains. They looked at a range of industries, from gender bias.) farming to logging to health care. A persistent “Research showing that women have different health difference arose: across the board, women were off care experiences than men is something the medical work longer than men. community needs to respond to,” McLeod says. Among the researchers’ next steps are to pinpoint why Then, there is the effect of work-related initiatives, differences exist in return-to-work outcomes among such as modified duties — or the lack thereof — injured male and female workers. The explanations, on a person’s ability to get back to work. they say, are complex. “Women may be more likely to be working in smaller Traditional roles may interfere with workplaces or in part-time, temporary positions, and may recovery not have access to modified or partial return‑to‑work options. So they’re required to stay off work longer, until Sociodemographic factors could certainly play a role. they’re fully recovered,” Koehoorn says. “What is the impact on work-disability duration of having young children in the home?” Koehoorn asks. “Further research on gender differences can help “There may be a difference of responsibilities within employers modify their return-to-work programs
Did you know? Falls are a leading cause of workplace injury.
January / February 2015 | WorkSafe Magazine 13 in ways that are sensitive to these differences,” “It’s important to remember that every person is McLeod says. gendered and every cell is sexed,” Koehoorn says. The researchers will use the findings to advance our “To think that doesn’t affect our health, our use of the understanding of sex and gender differences that affect health care system, and our work is ignoring important occupational health. Ultimately, the information will help opportunities to understand health, return to work, and employers become aware of those differences, work experiences. It plays out in decision-making and prompting them to take steps to reduce workplace risks programs by clinicians, rehabilitation professionals, and provide more successful return-to-work programs. and employers.” Lori Guiton, WorkSafeBC’s director of Research Study has implications for Services, says the Partnership’s study demonstrates return‑to‑work programs how evidence can be used to improve outcomes for Ongoing research into work-related sex and gender injured workers. issues is especially valuable, given that women make “As workplace demographics evolve, this research up half of the Canadian labour force and that men and will help us to keep the whole system as effective as women are working in greater numbers in possible for all workers,” she says. W non‑traditional occupations.
Worker data expands research possibilities
The WorkSafeBC-University of British Columbia Partnership for Work, Health and Safety addresses issues relating to occupational health throughout the province. It uses comprehensive data managed by Population Data BC, which allows for in-depth research on the entire working-age population over a 25-year period. The diverse and multidisciplinary Partnership is composed of faculty, staff, and students from UBC’s School of Population and Public Health in the Faculty of Medicine. The team actively collaborates with a range of organizations, including the BC Cancer Agency, CAREX Canada, the Institute for Work and Health, and the Asbestos‑related Research, Education and Advocacy (AREA) Fund. The Partnership’s work has led to improved outcomes for B.C. workers. For example, cutting‑edge research into occupational diseases like asbestosis, work‑related asthma, coal workers’ pneumoconiosis, and sinonasal cancers have helped to inform policy and practice to keep workers safer and healthier. “The Partnership gives us the opportunity to foster relevant, meaningful research on occupational health policy and workers’ compensation issues in B.C.,” Guiton says. “Through this ongoing relationship, we can put our data to work in ways that give us a window into the broader effects of work-related injury and illness.”
14 January / February 2015 | WorkSafe Magazine Safety Talks
Randy Nerling (left), store manager for PriceSmart Foods in Richmond, B.C., discusses retail safety issues with assistant store manager Chris Robinson.
Five fundamentals of effective supervision By Don Hauka
WorkSafeBC occupational safety officer supervisors in any industry should apply five key Mike Tasker knows the difference good principles to protect workers on the job. supervisors make to workplace safety. And 1 Communicate that’s not just in more labour-intensive Don’t just talk, Tasker says: use a combination of verbal work environments such as construction and written presentations and demonstrations to get or logging. In retail — a sector where your point across. Tailor your message to your supervision might be downplayed — audience, and keep in mind different learning styles. Tasker has seen the burns, cuts, slips and Ask questions and listen to the answers. “You were falls that mentorship and direction could given two ears and one mouth: use them have prevented. proportionally.” “Some employers have the attitude that just because 2 Observe they’re running a shoe store, for instance, they face “We can’t stress it enough — supervise is a verb.” very little risk. Like, ‘What could happen?’ Well, lots,” Effective supervisors don’t sit in an office all day filling Tasker says. out reports. Whether you’re supervising a shop floor Tasker, who helped develop WorkSafeBC’s recently task or over-the-counter transaction, watch what’s updated online course, “Supervising for Safety,” says happening. Make sure your workers meet your
January / February 2015 | WorkSafe Magazine 15 “We can’t stress it enough — if you’re communicating important information, you’ll need to rely on face-to-face demonstrations or have supervise is a verb.” someone act as an interpreter. You can also refer to — WorkSafeBC occupational translated WorkSafeBC safety publications. “It’s not safety officer Mike Tasker a cookie-cutter approach. Adapt your approach to the needs of your people.” expectations of safe behaviour. If they don’t, show them how to do so. Employers — choose your supervisors carefully 3 Intervene If you’re an employer, keep in mind that the person Correct unsafe behaviours quickly, so they don’t take working longest at the firm or doing a particular job root. Letting a worker get away with an unsafe shortcut best is not necessarily a good supervisor. Employers sends the wrong message. Younger employees are need supervisors with strong communication, especially prone to high-risk behaviours because they risk‑assessment, and conflict-resolution skills. And, want to impress. A good supervisor will tell them she or companies need to require ongoing training and he is impressed by how safely that employee does the mentoring of their supervisors. “The job of supervisor job — not how quickly. is a profession. Like any profession, to be successful, one must be taught, mentored, and supported.” 4 Give praise Focus on the positive. It’s just as important to reinforce Resources good behaviours as it is to correct unsafe ones. Tell The recently upgraded Supervising for Safety course your employees how much you appreciate them taking is a free, do-at-your-own-pace, interactive resource the time to do the job safely. “Catch them doing for supervisors in all industries: supervisingforsafety.com something right. We encourage a five-to-one ratio For WorkSafeBC safety publications that have been of ‘atta-boys’ to ‘don’t do that again.’” translated into languages other than English, visit 5 Empathize www.worksafebc.com/publications/default.asp Understand the regulatory requirements to help keep Specific information about the role and responsibilities your workplace safe, but keep in mind your workers’ of supervisors in all working environments can be strengths and limitations. For instance, some of your found under the Occupational Health and Safety workers might have English as a second language. So Regulation on worksafebc.com. W
HEALTH & SAFETY TRAINING SAVE THE DATE! A wide variety of courses offered onsite and online BC Municipal Occupational Health & Safety Conference Benefits of onsite courses include: Whistler, BC - June 14-16, 2015 we send our instructors to you • face-to-face interaction • hands-on demonstrations and activities • scheduled to fit CERTIFICATE OF RECOGNITION your organization's needs • content can be tailored to fit (COR) PROGRAM your organization's existing materials GET Benefits of online training include: CONNECTED convenient • relevant • immediate • affordable www.bcmsa.ca CONTACT US sharing the Cathy Cook, Executive Director P: 778-278-3486 F: 778-278-0029 Knowledge E: [email protected]
16 January / February 2015 | WorkSafe Magazine Policy notes
5 Hand falling or bucking without necessary precautions to protect workers from the tree that is being felled or bucked, or other affected trees
6 Work in the vicinity of potentially combustible dust without the necessary precautions to protect workers Violations in these six circumstances are not the only ones that may be high-risk. The policy determines whether other violations are high-risk, based on the following criteria: • The likelihood of an incident or exposure occurring • The likely seriousness of any injury or illness that Six violations are now designated high-risk. could result if the incident or exposure occurs What does this mean for employers? Employers: avoid high-risk As an employer, you must ensure the health and safety violations of your workers, and take all reasonable steps to comply with the Act and Occupational Health and Employers will want to take note of recently approved Safety Regulation regarding high-risk situations. WorkSafeBC policy changes related to high-risk violations; meanwhile, nurse practitioners might If a high-risk violation occurs and you haven’t been be affected by government-approved Workers duly diligent, you could be subject to penalties or Compensation Act amendments that alter their role warning letters; any penalties imposed will be in health care. calculated using the higher, Category A payroll table available in the Prevention Manual on worksafebc.com. What’s new for high-risk violations? Where can you learn more? If you’re an employer involved in potentially high-risk activities, note that OHS Policy D12-196-2 now A new OHS Guideline (See G–D12–196–2 on designates six violations as high-risk. This means that worksafebc.com) provides more information and each of these violations could potentially lead to an examples of other violations likely to be deemed Occupational Health and Safety penalty or warning high-risk according to the policy criteria. letter. These policy changes include simplified criteria What’s changed for nurse practitioners? for determining whether other violations are high-risk. In early 2014, the provincial government passed Bill 17, Violations in the following six circumstances are amending the Workers Compensation Act to recognize designated as high-risk: nurse practitioners as qualified practitioners — similar 1 Working at over 3 m (10 ft.) without an effective fall to licensed chiropractors, dentists, naturopaths, and protection system podiatrists. 2 Entry into an excavation over 1.2 m (4 ft.) deep, WorkSafeBC policies have been revised to reflect this contrary to the requirements of the Regulation change, enabling nurse practitioners to be recognized as qualified practitioners who provide services to 3 Entry into a confined space without pre-entry workers under the Health Professions Act and testing and inspection to verify that the required corresponding regulations and bylaws. precautions have been effective at controlling the identified hazards OHS Regulation amendments 4 Causing work disturbing materials containing Detailed information on recently approved asbestos, or potentially containing asbestos, OHS Regulation amendments can be found at to be performed without necessary precautions www.worksafebc.com/regulation_and_policy/public_ to protect workers hearings/2014PublicHearing/law_40_50.asp. W
January / February 2015 | WorkSafe Magazine 17 WorkSafeBC update
New tools to prepare employees for winter driving are available at roadsafetyatwork.ca.
Make fleet maintenance your new routine By Marnie Douglas
Brushing our teeth, making breakfast, and Loewen, corporate safety lead with Canadian Natural Resources Ltd., an upstream oil and gas producer. driving to work are just a few of the many “That’s why we make it mandatory for every one of our ordinary routines we do every day. We drivers to attend a driver training course before don’t give much attention to these daily operating a company vehicle.” tasks because they’re so familiar and To support safe work-related driving, WorkSafeBC and repetitive. its partners at Road Safety at Work have developed But driving, in particular, is a complex and potentially new online resources. Anita Deiter, strategy manager for Road Safety at Work, says a new winter employer hazardous task that demands our full attention, even tool kit provides guidance for employers and if it becomes predictable. supervisors whose workers drive as part of their job, as And, it’s why some employers are taking a concentrated well as those who use their own vehicles for work. The and proactive approach to winter driving safety and free kit, available at shiftintowinter.ca and designed for fleet maintenance programs — particularly where businesses of all sizes, helps workplaces prepare, employees drive light-duty or passenger fleet cars on assess, plan, and manage driving during the B.C. winter occasion, and might be less attuned to thinking of their driving season from early October through March. vehicles as extensions of their workplaces. “We recognized there were no resources available for “We believe that drivers, for the most part, have the companies to develop a winter driving safety program,” skills to be good drivers, but they tend to accept it as a Deiter says. “The tool kit is an easy, step-by-step guide routine task and become complacent,” says Rod to keeping workers safe, including what to do before,
18 January / February 2015 | WorkSafe Magazine “Winter is just another consideration to drive safely, according to conditions.” — Rod Loewen, corporate safety lead with Canadian Natural Resources Ltd.
during, and after winter.” Employers looking for area, with representatives from various levels of specific information can also download individual management, and workers. These audits examine checklists, tip sheets, and other educational materials safety management system compliance and vehicle that can be presented at crew talks or monthly health incident statistics. The review determines what types of and safety meetings. incidents are occurring and directs area management to develop an action plan to reduce them. This level of oversight is important for employers in sectors requiring fleet or personal vehicle use, such “This year, we tasked each area to develop a proactive as home health care, or travelling sales or repair work. action plan to reduce vehicle incidents. Supervisors In western Canada, for instance, Canadian Natural in each area will be holding drivers accountable,” has about 2,500 light-duty four-wheel-drive vehicles Loewen says. in its fleet, and its employees travel some 77 million kilometres a year, much of it in remote areas of B.C. Take advantage of online resources and Alberta — all in less than ideal conditions. On average in B.C., 23 workers are killed and another 1,290 are injured and miss time from work each year, “Because wells and equipment are on many different due to work-related motor vehicle incidents (MVIs). locations, our operators, mechanics, and And just as the provincial incident rate goes up during instrumentation people need to be mobile to attend winter, so do the number of work-related crashes the various sites,” Loewen says. “Although driving isn’t leading to injuries. their primary responsibility, it’s essential year-’round. Deiter says the tool kit can be used by all businesses “We use various bulletins and newsletters to remind and organizations whose workers drive for work drivers of the need to adjust for slippery conditions, purposes, even occasional drivers and those driving but the reality is that most of our vehicles operate their own vehicles. A new version of the tools, on secondary resource roads every day. So, winter custom‑designed for commercial trucks, will be is just another consideration to drive safely, according available later this year. to conditions.” “As an employer, it’s your responsibility to establish Stay on top of winter driving needs and maintain an effective safety program. That This year, Canadian Natural introduced an awareness program should address the risks and hazards your program entitled, “Don’t Let Your Safety Slip in Winter.” workers and contractors face when they’re driving They sent a bulletin to employees, encouraging them either a company or personal vehicle for work to prepare themselves and their vehicles for cold, purposes,” she says. snow, and ice. Then, when the first snow hit, they sent out another bulletin about the importance of wearing Sharpen your road safety skills personal protective equipment, such as appropriate You can find the employer tool kit under the Driving for footwear, to prevent slips. Work tab on shiftintowinter.ca. For more information about fleet vehicle maintenance, including new pre-trip In addition, the company makes safe driving vehicle inspection and maintenance forms and logs procedures and presentations mandatory topics at for managers, supervisors, and workers, go to its monthly safety meetings to inform and motivate roadsafetyatwork.ca. W employees to drive safely. And, it conducts safety management system audits annually in every field
January / February 2015 | WorkSafe Magazine 19 What’s wrong: you tell us
First aid requires sterile surroundings Winner
Valen Kayaks • The room is littered with contaminated, bloody gauze Valen Kayaks, a first aid Level 2 on the floor and counter — creating a non-sterile attendant and construction environment. safety coordinator for Beedie • The bottle on the counter needs an MSDS (material Construction in Aldergrove, is safety data sheets) label, the medical utensils should the winner of the “What’s be in the sterilizing tray, and all biohazard waste wrong with this photo?” contest disposed of properly. for November/December. • It’s unsanitary and unprofessional to have • The first aid attendant is not wearing sanitary clothing, a pack of smokes on the same counter as the disposable nitrile gloves, or safety glasses to prevent medical supplies. the spread of infection. • The exam chair shouldn’t be cluttered, but ready for • The first aid attendant should not be touching the a patient to sit in. needle; rather, the injured employee should be • The bowl attached to the chair should also be sterile disposing of the needle in the biohazard container and ready for use. (There is no immediate, sterile (on the floor). field to work with.) • The patient should be sitting in a chair and being • Hydrogen peroxide shouldn’t be used by first aid made comfortable during examination and treatment. attendants because it kills the white blood cells that • The eyewash station has to be clean and readily actually help heal wounds. available; WD-40 and other non-medical items • The oxygen tank is not stored properly in a bag or shouldn’t be in the first aid room to begin with. hard case and appears damaged from tipping over. It • The trash bin should be clearly marked “medical can also pose a tripping hazard for either the patient waste only,” and the lid, closed! or attendant. W
20 January / February 2015 | WorkSafe Magazine Ritchie Bros. Auctioneers art director Matt Raynor, left, and its corporate communications lead Jose Vargas take safety measures to extremes in a scene from the company’s award-winning video for NAOSH Week 2014.
Safety stars put ‘fun’ into fundamentals By Lucy Hyslop
Take health and safety, add in the drama In its video — a spoof of the popular legal procedural of TV’s Law & Order — complete with its — the opening investigation scene focuses on a coffee spill and morphs into a chase (walking, not running) to distinctive theme track — and what do catch the culprit. The idea is to raise awareness about you create? preventing spills, slips, and trips, and the importance of A witty video that helped the Burnaby offices of Ritchie proper ergonomics at its Burnaby location — the Bros. Auctioneers — global seller of used heavy presentation had employees doubled over, laughing. equipment — win three awards at the 2014 NAOSH “We certainly like to use funny angles to talk about (North American Occupational Safety and Health) something that could be perceived as being a little dry Week, while promoting safer and healthier workplace — like health and safety,” says Lily Cheng, Ritchie Bros. habits among its staff. manager of environment, health and safety. The winning entry was just one of many innovative Production of the video was part of numerous NAOSH ideas arising from the annual, North America-wide events the company took part in last May, involving competition to promote workplace health and safety, roughly 400 employees, as well as 45 at both its Prince following this year’s theme of “Make Safety a Habit.” George and Chilliwack sites. Their events included Last October, Ritchie Bros. scooped prizes for best “Canstruction Vancouver,” where 6,000 cans were overall in Canada and in B.C., as well as most sculpted into such figures as a Lego™ space person innovative. The company also tied with Finning Canada touting a message about emergency preparedness, in Surrey for tops in general industry. and a “selfie competition,” with employees taking
January / February 2015 | WorkSafe Magazine 21 “People are now comfortable to really raise awareness,” Cheng says. “Employees will more easily say things like, ‘Hey, stop talking on the reminding each other about phone while you’re walking down the stairs.’ People safety.” are now comfortable reminding each other about safety.” — Lily Cheng, manager of environment, health and safety for Ritchie Bros. Employees make safety a family event Auctioneers in Burnaby Meanwhile, TV’s Family Feud provided inspiration for Kerry Canada Inc., the Delta-based beverage production company. For its fourth year participating in photos of themselves acting safely, such as packing NAOSH Week, the company polled its 60 employees emergency kits into their car trunks. with questions, such as “Name an item in the first aid Beyond the annual health and safety week: “the entire room,” revealing the top answers throughout the game. company provides a variety of health and safety “It was fun for those who were playing the game and reminders to staff through different avenues,” Cheng for the studio audience — everyone else — who had says. These efforts continue all year long, and include the pleasure of watching,” says Neil Fulgueras, Kerry regular wellness walks. Canada production supervisor. In this year’s NAOSH She says the most common injuries in the company’s Week competition, the company earned one national offices occur from trips and falls, but believes these award for most innovative and two province-wide reminders will reduce incidents in the future. “When awards for best overall and for food processing and you’re involved in organizing an event, it’s been proven manufacturing.
SAFETY & HEALTH WEEK IN B.C.
For more information on how to get your workplace involved, visit naoshbc.com.
22 January / February 2015 | WorkSafe Magazine It also brought workers and families together for a potluck lunch. During the feast, people coloured on 1 x 2.4-metre posters, writing “Make Safety a Habit” A winning approach in the seven languages of its employees — including Tagalog and Punjabi — and drawing stop signs, for to safety example, as well as the NAOSH Week three-arm symbol, representing Canada, the U.S., and Mexico. The following four B.C. employers earned Kerry Canada’s campaign also included a video this year’s highest honours in the annual focusing on high-visibility vests and safety precautions. NAOSH (North American Occupational Called “Make safety a habit, Don’t run like a rabbit,” the Safety and Health) Week — a competition to video has become a safety training tool for new raise awareness about injury and illness employees. prevention in the workplace. The safety week — which coincided with Kerry Canada workers marking the calendar with 508 days without Winner a time-loss injury — incorporated management from Best Overall Kerry Canada Inc. all departments. “This was imperative to its success,” Best New Entry Tsleil-Waututh Nation says Kerry Canada production manager Lyn Peterson. Most Innovative Ritchie Bros. Auctioneers “Safety is so much more than a week-long event — it’s every day.” Best Presentation Versacold Logistics of Theme & EV Logistics For a complete list of 2014 NAOSH Week winners, visit the “Newsroom” on worksafebc.com. You can also find Ritchie Bros.’ award-winning video on YouTube by searching “Law & Order HSU.” W
It’s up to you to keep your workplace safe Your health and safety data can help you do that
Visit worksafebc.com> about us> open data and check out the Employer Safety Planning Tool Kit and the Industry Safety Information Centre
January / February 2015 | WorkSafe Magazine 23 B.C. high school students, such as Tsawwassen Grade 11 student Aidan Schooley (pictured), as well as post-secondary students, can now enter the 2015 student safety video contest. Respectfully seeking powerful safety videos By Robin Schooley
As students move into their after-school it’s vital for young workers to be aware of what they or summer jobs, or into a work experience can and should expect on the job front. “Students need to know that there are policies that protect them when program, they should know they have as they leave school,” he says. “That’s where our new much right to a safe and respectful work contest comes in.” environment as they do at school. In fact, The contest is open to all high school students in B.C. WorkSafeBC has occupational health with separate categories for students in Grades 8 to 10 and safety (OHS) policies to help address and Grades 11 to 12. In celebration of the contest’s and prevent workplace bullying and 10th anniversary, a new category invites entries from harassment. B.C. post-secondary students under age 25. And now, for the first time, the topic is entrenched in “Opening up the contest to post-secondary students the 2015 WorkSafeBC student safety video contest allows us raise awareness of this important issue with under the theme, “No bullies at work: My right to a safe an older youth audience,” says Glen McIntosh, and respectful workplace.” manager of WorkSafeBC’s young and new workers programs. “This is important, because the majority Shawn Mitton, who heads up workplace bullying and of young worker injuries happen between 18 and 24 harassment prevention initiatives at WorkSafeBC, says years of age.”
24 January / February 2015 | WorkSafe Magazine “Students need to know that there are policies that protect them when they leave school.” — WorkSafeBC regional prevention manager Shawn Mitton
Students asked for their take on The contest will award $1,000 to the post-secondary workplace bullying student or team who submits the best entry. For first- and second-place high school winners, students The contest challenges youth to create a two-minute and their schools will share the prize money. In total, video that explores workplace bullying and harassment and what can be done about it. OHS policies define $10,000 in prize money will be given away. duties to minimize or prevent bullying and harassment WorkSafeBC’s corporate sponsors fund the prizes: and outline responsibilities for employers, supervisors, Actsafe, London Drugs, the Ledcor Group of and workers. Companies, Peter Kiewit Infrastructure Inc., and Verbal aggression or yelling, humiliating initiation Seaspan. practices or hazing, spreading malicious rumours, and “We’re excited to see the calibre of videos from calling someone derogatory names — these are just students who may have already had some work some of the forms bullying and harassment may take experience,” McIntosh says. on the job. New requirements state that no worker should be the source of this kind of behaviour, nor the Two top high school entries will also advance to the target of it. national “It’s Your Job” contest, where they’ll compete “Bullying and harassment can have dramatic effects on for additional prizes. the physical and mental health and safety of workers. It can increase their risk of being injured, particularly if The deadline for entries is April 1, 2015. they are distracted or under substantial stress due to other people’s harmful behaviours,” Mitton says. For details, rules, and entry forms, visit worksafebc.com/studentvideocontest. “More and more, people are talking openly about bullying. That’s a good thing.” For more information about bullying and harassment, go to worksafebc.com/bullying.
Asbestos ranks as a “Enviro-Vac™ is the go-to Did you know? leading cause of worker asbestos-removal company Health and safety disease and death in BC. Canada-wide.” information is available in multiple languages on worksafebc.com. HIDDEN KILLER Find out more at www.envirovac.com
604-513-1324 Toll-free 1-888-296-2499
January / February 2015 | WorkSafe Magazine 25 Safe tractor use reduces the risk of serious injury.
For resources and videos on the safe operation of equipment, visit worksafebc.com/agriculture.
26 January / February 2015 | WorkSafe Magazine Penalties
Construction 0863478 B.C. Ltd. | $3,250 | Vancouver | August 6, 2014 This firm was the general contractor for a worksite where a vacant heritage house was being renovated into a multi-unit residence and townhouses were being built. Its superintendent was removing a section of flat roof from the house, and instructed one of the firm’s workers to stand underneath it to help lower it. The roof detached suddenly and fell down, seriously injuring the worker. WorkSafeBC’s investigation found that the firm failed to use dismantling procedures that would adequately protect workers and to ensure that a fall protection system was used as required. It also failed to remove or guard protruding ends of reinforcing steel that were hazardous to workers, and failed to provide information, instruction, training, and supervision to its workers to ensure their health and safety. These last two failings were both repeated.
0917814 BC Ltd. | $2,500 | Abbotsford | September 8, 2014 This firm violated multiple safety requirements as prime contractor at a site where a townhouse complex was being built. Most importantly, no one was directing the work activity or overseeing the health and safety of workers at the site. The person designated as health and safety coordinator and occupational first aid attendant was absent when WorkSafeBC inspected the site. WorkSafeBC issued a stop-work order to remain in effect for three days or until a qualified health and safety representative was in attendance to oversee activities on the jobsite. As the prime contractor of a multiple-employer workplace, the firm failed to do everything practicable to establish and maintain a system or process that would ensure compliance with workplace safety requirements.
0934834 B.C. Ltd. / G.P. for Smamelet Siyam Limited Partnership | $2,500 | Harrison Hot Springs | September 12, 2014 This firm allowed its unqualified worker to unsafely fell 11 trees on a transmission line twinning project. A stump audit found backcuts lower than undercuts, insufficient holding wood to control the directional fall of the trees, and undercuts that were not clean. These violations of requirements in section 26.24(5) of the Occupational Health and Safety Regulation were all high-risk, exposing the person falling the trees to a risk of serious injury or death due to loss of control of the fall of the tree or kick-back at the stump.
1 Day Roofing Ltd. | $2,500 | Abbotsford | September 23, 2014 WorkSafeBC observed three of this firm’s workers working on the steep roof of a two-storey house under construction. One walked to the edge of the highest part of the roof, climbed down to a lower section of roof, and then climbed from there into a second‑floor window opening. This worker was not using any personal fall protection gear, nor was any other form of fall protection in place, meaning he had been exposed to a risk of falling as much as 8.5 m (28 ft.). Hard-packed dirt and gravel at grade, strewn with construction debris, increased the risk of serious injury or death in the event of a fall. The firm failed to ensure that a fall protection system was used as required, a repeated and 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 are grouped by industry, in alphabetical order, starting with “Construction.” They 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.”
January / February 2015 | WorkSafe Magazine 27 Penalties (continued)
Anomar Construction Corp. | $3,250 | Peachland | August 20, 2014 WorkSafeBC observed two of this firm’s workers on the roof of a three-storey house under construction. The workers were walking on the 14 cm (5.5 in.) wide top plates of the exterior walls. They were not using personal fall protection systems, and no other type of fall protection was in place, so they were exposed to a risk of falling 11 to 12 m (36 to 40 ft.). The firm’s failure to ensure that a fall protection system was used as required was a high-risk violation. The firm also failed to provide its workers with the information, instruction, training, and supervision needed to ensure their health and safety.
Antonio Ramunno / River Citi Roofing & Siding | $2,500 | Coldstream | August 7, 2014 WorkSafeBC observed three of this firm’s workers shingling the steep roof of a house under construction. The workers were not using personal fall protection gear, and no other fall protection system was in place. The workers were exposed to a risk of falling from 3.5 to 5.5 m (12 to 18 ft.) to packed sand and gravel. Tripping hazards on the roof increased the likelihood of falling. The firm’s failure to ensure that a fall protection system was used as required was a repeated and high-risk violation.
BCS Contractors Ltd. | $2,000 | Surrey | August 6, 2014 This firm was performing high-risk asbestos abatement on a house built before 1990. WorkSafeBC visited the worksite and observed that the negative air unit, which prevents the spread of asbestos fibres and reduces airborne asbestos concentrations in the containment area, was not operating. The generator that powered the unit was found to be out of fuel. Further, the generator and negative air unit had been turned off overnight. The firm failed to consistently maintain a containment facility for high-risk work. This was a repeated violation.
BCS Contractors Ltd. | $2,500 | Surrey | August 6, 2014 This firm was performing asbestos abatement activities at a motel due to be demolished. WorkSafeBC first inspected the worksite on August 8, 2013, and observed numerous violations of requirements for asbestos identification and removal. WorkSafeBC ordered the firm to remedy the violations; the firm complied. On August 21, 2013, a prevention officer conducted a follow-up inspection and again noted various asbestos-removal violations, which mainly involved failure to post signs at the boundaries of the designated work area. The officer issued a stop-work order for the site. A second follow-up inspection on August 26 found that the firm had not complied with the requirements set out in the stop-work order.
BCS Contractors Ltd. | $2,500 | Surrey | August 6, 2014 On January 24, 2013, WorkSafeBC issued this firm a stop-work order applicable to all its moderate- and high-risk asbestos abatement projects, due to multiple violations of requirements for asbestos identification and removal. WorkSafeBC also ordered the firm to stop providing asbestos abatement clearance letters. The next day, a prevention officer observed two of this firm’s workers carrying out asbestos abatement activities at the site of a house due for demolition. The firm is being penalized for its failure to comply with an order of WorkSafeBC, a violation of section 115(1)(b) of the Workers Compensation Act.
BCS Contractors Ltd. | $5,000 | Vancouver | August 6, 2014 This firm was conducting asbestos abatement measures at a house due for demolition in Port Coquitlam. The hazardous materials survey that the firm had carried out on the property misidentified asbestos-containing substances. For instance, the survey referred to paper-backed sheet vinyl flooring, which necessitates high-risk removal procedures, as floor tile, which requires moderate-risk removal procedures. At a worksite in Vancouver where another house was being demolished, the firm’s worker issued a demolition clearance letter (based on a hazmat survey prepared by another firm) incorrectly stating that a house slated for demolition was free of asbestos-containing materials. (This was a repeated violation.) In this case, WorkSafeBC issued a stop-work order and ordered the prime contractor for the site to hire a qualified person to assess the degree of asbestos contamination on the site before work resumed. At both worksites, the firm failed to ensure that its workers complied with the Workers Compensation Act, the Occupational Health and Safety Regulation, and orders issued by WorkSafeBC.
Buckner’s Excavating Ltd. | $2,500 | Surrey | September 15, 2014 WorkSafeBC observed one of this firm’s workers clearing brush and trees from a wooded lot using an excavator. The excavator was not fitted with adequate protective structures or cab guards to protect the operator from falling or intruding objects such as snapped or whipped branches, loose debris, and tree limbs. Thus, the operator was exposed to a risk of serious injury or death. WorkSafeBC issued a stop-use order for the equipment. The next day, the prevention officer returned to the worksite and found another of the firm’s workers using the same excavator to clear the land. The excavator had not been fitted with protective structures as required. The firm failed to ensure that its mobile equipment had structures to protect operators as required by section 16.21(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Regulation. This was a repeated violation.
28 January / February 2015 | WorkSafe Magazine Dhaliwal Framing & Home Management Ltd. | $1,000 | Burnaby | August 15, 2014 On August 6, 2013, WorkSafeBC ordered this firm to submit a Notice of Compliance with fall protection requirements and related matters. The firm had until August 19 to do so. As of October 15, 2013, the firm had not complied with this order. The firm is being penalized for its failure to comply with a WorkSafeBC order, a violation of section 115(1)(b) of the Workers Compensation Act.
Elite Roofing Ltd. | $15,348.91 | Coldstream | September 24, 2014 WorkSafeBC observed three of this firm’s workers re-roofing a one-and-a-half-storey detached garage. The workers were not using any personal fall protection equipment, nor was any other form of fall protection in place. They were exposed to a risk of falling nearly 4 m (13 ft.). The firm’s failure to ensure that a fall protection system was used as required was a repeated violation.
Euro Artistic Metals Ltd. | $5,000 | Maple Ridge | August 15, 2014 This firm’s worker was installing gutters about 9 m (29 ft.) above grade, on the steep roof of a new three-storey house. The worker was not wearing personal fall protection gear. No other form of fall protection was in place. The firm’s failure to ensure that a fall protection system was used where a fall of 3 m (10 ft.) or more could occur was a repeated and high-risk violation of section 11.2(1)(a) of the Occupational Health and Safety Regulation.
Flora Framing Ltd. | $3,344.05 | Richmond | August 20, 2014 Two of this firm’s workers, along with four workers of a firm hired to assist with the work, were sheathing the roof of a two-storey house under construction. Three were standing on the roof plates and trusses as they worked, at heights from 8.3 to 10 m (27 to 34 ft.). The other three were working on scaffolds made of 25 cm (10 in.) planks instead of 50 cm (20 in.) planks as required. The scaffolds were set up on a balcony 5 m (17 ft.) above grade. No form of fall protection was in place on either the roof plates and trusses or the scaffolds. The workers were exposed to a risk of falling from 5 to 10 m (17 to 34 ft.). Further, the workers using circular saws and nail guns were not wearing safety eyewear as required, and a ladder used to access the roof did not extend 1 m (3 ft.) above the landing to which it provided access. The firm failed to ensure that a fall protection system was used as required, 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 health and safety, which was a repeated violation.
G. B. Roofing Ltd. | $5,000 | Burnaby | February 27, 2014 Two of this firm’s workers were observed working on a sloped roof at least 3.5 m (12 ft.) above grade without a fall protection system. The firm failed to ensure that a fall protection system was used as required. Further, the firm failed to provide its workers with the information, instruction, training, and supervision necessary to ensure their health and safety at the workplace. Both were repeated violations.
G & D Construction Ltd. | $4,886.03 | Mission | August 5, 2014 At a house under construction, WorkSafeBC observed four of this firm’s workers, as well as workers from other firms, accessing the second storey by way of a stairway that lacked a handrail on its open side. The firm’s failure to ensure that stairways were fitted with handrails as required was a repeated violation.
Great West Enterprises Ltd. | $5,805.28 | Quesnel | August 28, 2014 WorkSafeBC observed five of this firm’s workers working on the roof of a four-storey apartment building on a foggy day. All five were wearing safety harnesses, but only one of them was connected to a lifeline. No other form of fall protection was in place. The workers were exposed to a risk of falling 10.6 m (35 ft.). Clutter on the roof (air hoses, roofing materials, and debris) increased the workers’ risk of tripping and falling. The workers were in view of the firm’s supervisor. The firm’s failure to ensure that a fall protection system was used 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 health and safety, a repeated violation.
Heimann & Sons Masonry Inc. | $17,849.44 | Castlegar | August 21, 2014 WorkSafeBC observed three of this firm’s workers on the top planks of scaffold work platforms erected for building a concrete block wall. The workers were not wearing personal fall protection gear and were exposed to a risk of falling more than 4 m (13 ft.) to the concrete slab below. Deficiencies with the scaffolds, including a lack of guardrails on the top planks where the workers were standing, increased the likelihood of falling. The firm failed to ensure that its workers were protected by a fall protection system when a fall of 3 m (10 ft.) or more could occur. This was a high-risk violation.
January / February 2015 | WorkSafe Magazine 29 Penalties (continued)
Jaspreet Singh Sidhu | $5,000 | White Rock | September 16, 2014 WorkSafeBC observed two of this firm’s workers on the flat roof of a two-storey house under construction. The workers were not using personal fall protection gear, and no other form of fall protection was in place. They were exposed to a risk of falling 6 m (20 ft.). The roof surface was wet from rain and strewn with tripping hazards such as construction materials, electrical cords, and nail gun hoses. Concrete walls and construction materials and equipment at grade increased the risk of serious injury or death in the event of a fall. The firm failed to ensure that a fall protection system was used as required, a repeated and high-risk violation.
JCB Contracting Ltd. | $5,846.03 | Vernon | August 25, 2014 Two of this firm’s workers were sheathing the steep roof of a two-storey house under construction. One was walking on trusses and on the top plate of the exterior wall. Neither worker was wearing personal fall protection gear, nor was any other form of fall protection in place. The workers were exposed to a risk of falling 6.5 m (22 ft.). Further, a second-floor balcony lacked guardrails, as did a second-floor opening around the stairs leading to the upper floor (which also lacked a handrail on the open side of the stairs). The firm’s failure to ensure that fall protection was used as required where a fall of 3 m (10 ft.) or more could occur was a high-risk violation.
J & J Framing Ltd. | $2,889.60 | Abbotsford | August 26, 2014 WorkSafeBC observed one of this firm’s workers installing roof trusses on a two-storey house under construction. The distance to the ground was about 6 m (20 ft.). Another of the firm’s workers was standing on an improperly built wood-frame scaffold, exposed to a risk of falling about 3.4 m (11 ft.). Neither worker wore personal fall protection gear, nor was either protected by guardrails. The firm’s failure to ensure that fall protection was used where a fall of 3 m (10 ft.) or more could occur was a repeated and high-risk violation.
Kevin’s Roofing Ltd. | $3,498.63 | Vernon | August 20, 2014 WorkSafeBC observed two of this firm’s workers shingling the roof of a two-storey house under construction. One worker was wearing fall protection gear but was not attached to a lifeline. The other worker was not wearing fall protection gear. No other form of fall protection was in place. The workers were exposed to a risk of falling 3.4 to 8 m (11 to 26 ft.), with tripping hazards and snow on the roof increasing the likelihood of a fall. The firm’s failure to ensure that a fall protection system was used as required was a repeated and high-risk violation.
Moonrise Construction Ltd. | $2,500 | Abbotsford | September 4, 2014 WorkSafeBC observed two of this firm’s workers installing siding on a two-storey house under construction. One was crouching on the steep roof itself; the other was working from a painter’s plank supported by a ladder-jack system. The workers were not protected by guardrails and neither worker was using personal fall protection equipment. The workers were at risk of falling 5.5 to 6 m (18 to 20 ft.) Directly below the workers, a large concrete patio pit opening exposed them to a risk of serious or fatal injuries in the event of a fall. The firm’s failure to ensure that a fall protection system was used as required was a repeated and high-risk violation.
Mukhtiar Singh Gosal | $2,500 | Surrey | September 23, 2014 This firm’s worker was installing asphalt shingles on the steep roof of a two-storey house under construction when WorkSafeBC observed him. He was not using personal fall protection gear, nor was any other fall protection in place. The worker was exposed to a risk of falling 8 m (25 ft.). Construction equipment and debris on the hard-packed ground below increased the worker’s risk of serious injuries or death in the event of a fall. The firm violated the Occupational Health and Safety Regulation by failing to ensure that a fall protection system was used when working at elevations of 3 m (10 ft.) or more. This was a repeated and high-risk violation.
Outland Roofing Ltd. | $2,500 | Kamloops | August 20, 2014 WorkSafeBC observed two of this firm’s workers climbing a ladder to and walking on the steep roof of a two-storey house. Neither worker was wearing personal fall protection gear, nor was any other form of fall protection in place. The roof was partly covered in frost, increasing the risk of slipping. The workers were exposed to a risk of falling at least 3.8 m (12.5 ft.). The firm’s failure to ensure that a fall protection system was used as required was a high-risk violation. The firm also failed to provide its workers with the information, instruction, training, and supervision needed to ensure their health and safety.
Oviedo Developments Ltd. | $1,000 | White Rock | August 28, 2014 This firm violated multiple safety requirements as prime contractor at a site where a townhouse complex was being built. WorkSafeBC observed the worker of a forming contractor standing on the tops of plywood edges alongside the forms, pouring concrete from a pump boom. The worker was not wearing personal fall protection gear, nor had work platforms been installed as required. Further, the pump boom truck was being operated within the limits of approach of live high-voltage power lines. Lastly, construction debris littered steps leading to the first aid room. The firm failed to do everything practicable to establish and maintain a system or process that would ensure compliance with the Workers Compensation Act and the Occupational Health and Safety Regulation.
30 January / February 2015 | WorkSafe Magazine Park Williams Ltd. | $2,500 | Kamloops | September 4, 2014 This firm’s young, new worker was using a rough-terrain forklift (RTF) to move a load of trellises from the rear of a house under construction to the front. He was backing down a steep gravel driveway when the RTF stalled and started rolling backward uncontrollably. The worker jumped out of the cab, sustaining a serious injury to his leg. WorkSafeBC’s investigation found that the worker had not had access to the operator’s manual for the RTF, and that the firm had not made him aware of the RTF’s documented safety features or the instructions related to its inspection and use. The firm failed to ensure that equipment at its workplace was used and operated in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions. It also failed to provide its worker with the information, instruction, training, and supervision needed to ensure his safety. This was a high-risk violation.
Performance Roofing Ltd. | $6,391.87 | Richmond | August 11, 2014 Three of this firm’s workers were patching around gutters on the sloped, asbestos-tile roof of an empty warehouse. None of the workers were wearing personal fall protection gear, and no other form of fall protection was in place. One worker took a step on the roof, broke through, and landed on the asphalt floor of the warehouse 10.6 m (35 ft.) below, sustaining fatal injuries. The firm failed to ensure that the roof was capable of withstanding stresses likely to be imposed on it. It failed to have a written fall protection plan for a location where a fall of 7.5 m (25 ft.) or more could occur. Finally, it failed to ensure the health and safety of its workers at the worksite. Taken together, and considering other factors, these violations created a high risk of injury or death to the firm’s workers.
Rajinder Singh Johal | $2,500 | Surrey | September 25, 2014 WorkSafeBC observed this firm’s worker shingling the roof of a house under construction. He was not using personal fall protection equipment, and no other form of fall protection was in place. He was exposed to a risk of falling 7.6 m (25 ft.). Tripping hazards on the roof included air hoses and construction materials and debris. Construction equipment and more debris on the hard-packed ground below increased the risk of serious injuries or death in the event of a fall. The firm’s failure to ensure that a fall protection system was used as required was a repeated and high-risk violation.
RG Roofing Ltd. | $30,000 | Surrey | September 3, 2014 WorkSafeBC observed four of this firm’s workers re-roofing a two-storey house. They were not using personal fall protection systems, and no other form of fall protection was in place. The steep roof did not have toeholds as required. The workers were at risk of falling 5.5 m (18 ft.) or more; roofing membrane underfoot increased the likelihood of slipping or tripping. Only three sets of personal fall protection gear were available on site, and when the workers donned them, they did not fasten them tightly enough — indicating that they had not been trained in how to use the equipment. The firm’s failure to provide toeholds, and its failure to ensure that its workers used fall protection as required, were repeated and high-risk violations. Further, first aid equipment, supplies, and services were not available on site as required, a repeated violation. The firm also failed to provide its workers with the information, instruction, training, and supervision needed to ensure their health and safety, another repeated violation.
R.S. Uppal Framing Ltd. | $5,000 | Mission | September 16, 2014 WorkSafeBC observed one of this firm’s workers on the steep roof of a two-storey house under construction, sheathing the roof trusses. The worker was not using personal fall protection gear, and no other form of fall protection was in place, exposing him to a risk of falling 5 m (17 ft.). Another of the firm’s workers was passing sheets of OSB up to the worker on the roof through a second-floor window without guardrails. Guardrails were also missing from the second-floor stairwell opening and the stairway itself lacked a handrail. A stairway with at least framing, treads, and a handrail is required before construction of the next floor begins. The firm’s failure to provide such a stairway and to provide guardrails as required were repeated violations. The firm also failed to ensure that a fall protection system was used where a fall over 3 m (10 ft.) could occur, a repeated and high-risk violation. Overall, the firm failed to provide its workers with the information, instruction, training, and supervision needed to ensure their health and safety, a repeated violation.
Sidhu & Jandu Construction Ltd. | $6,121.25 | Osoyoos | September 25, 2014 WorkSafeBC observed this firm’s worker performing sheathing activities from within the trusses near the unguarded roof edge of a one-storey house under construction. He was not using personal fall protection equipment, and no other form of fall protection was in place. He was exposed to a risk of falling 5 m (16 ft.). The firm’s failure to ensure that a fall protection system was used as required was a repeated and high-risk violation.
January / February 2015 | WorkSafe Magazine 31 Penalties (continued)
Swift Demolition Services Ltd. | $2,500 | Vancouver | August 27, 2014 This firm conducted a hazardous materials survey that failed to identify asbestos-containing materials (ACMs) at a pre-1990 house slated for demolition. The firm then performed asbestos-abatement activities on site and issued a clearance letter that incorrectly stated that all asbestos-containing materials had been removed. Shortly after the letter was issued, WorkSafeBC hired a third party to assess the house for hazardous materials. The third-party survey identified ACMs that were not listed in Swift Demolition’s survey, including paper-backed sheet flooring, caulking on wood mouldings, paper tape on ductwork, and window sealant. The firm failed to ensure that hazardous materials were safely removed before demolition began. It also failed to comply with the Occupational Health and Safety Regulation. These were both repeated violations.
Taj Roofing Ltd. | $5,000 | Vancouver | August 21, 2014 This firm’s worker stood on a wooden scaffold to seal nails on the roof of a new two-storey house. No fall protection system was in place, exposing him to a risk of falling as much as 5 m (17 ft.). The job-built scaffold increased the likelihood of a fall because it did not comply with the applicable standard — guardrails had not been installed and the work platform was too narrow. Further, no safe means of access to the scaffold work platform was provided. As the worker tried to descend from the scaffold through a window frame, he put his weight onto a two-by-four brace that was not designed for this use. The brace broke away from the scaffold and the building, and the worker fell 5 m (17 ft.) to a concrete basement stairwell floor, sustaining serious injuries. The firm’s failure to ensure that a fall protection system was used where a fall of 3 m (10 ft.) or more could occur was a repeated and high-risk violation.
Targa Contracting (2013) Ltd. | $2,500 | Maple Ridge | August 11, 2014 At a site where this firm’s workers were installing sanitary services for a 65-lot subdivision, WorkSafeBC observed workers in a narrow excavation 2 to 2.5 m (7 to 8 ft.) deep. The excavation was not sloped, shored, benched, or otherwise supported as required. This was a high-risk violation.
Troj & Odis Construction Ltd. | $2,128.08 | White Rock | September 11, 2014 WorkSafeBC inspected this firm’s worksite, where the firm’s crew was building a three-storey townhouse complex. Stairways in the development lacked handrails, and on the second floor, balcony door openings lacked guardrails. Workers were performing framing activities near these openings and were exposed to a risk of falling 3.4 m (11 ft.) onto nail-studded construction debris at grade. The firm violated the requirement to provide stairways that include framing, treads, and a handrail. It also violated the requirement to ensure that a fall protection system is in place where a fall of 3 m (10 ft.) or more could occur. These were repeated violations.
Upper Edge Contracting Inc. | $3,977.28 | Kamloops | August 14, 2014 WorkSafeBC observed two of this firm’s workers on the steep roof of a four-storey building. They were moving from one end of the roof to the other to haul up lengths of gutter that another of the firm’s workers was handing up to them via a ladder. Although lifelines were installed on the roof and the two workers were wearing fall protection harnesses, they did not attach their lanyards to the lifelines until after they positioned the gutters on the roof. No other form of fall protection was in place. These workers were exposed to a risk of falling 8.5 m (28 ft.) to pavement and stone below. The firm failed to ensure that a fall protection system was used as required, a repeated and high-risk violation. It also failed to provide its workers with the instruction, training, and supervision necessary to ensure their safety at the worksite, a repeated violation.
Vermeer Bros Contracting Ltd. | $8,098.50 | Chilliwack | September 10, 2014 Three of this firm’s workers were building a chicken barn. They were setting roof trusses, standing on the top plates and on the trusses themselves. The workers were not using personal fall protection equipment, and no other form of fall protection was in place. The workers were at risk of falling 5 m (16 ft.). The firm’s failure to ensure that a fall protection system was used when work was being done at a place from which a fall of 3 m (10 ft.) or more could occur was a repeated and high-risk violation.
Vincent Edmond Harriott / Curtyn Construction | $11,424 | Port Coquitlam | August 18, 2014 WorkSafeBC observed six of this firm’s workers on the third floor of a multi-unit townhouse complex under construction. The workers were performing framing activities near the unguarded edge of the building; they were not wearing personal fall protection gear, and no other form of fall protection was in place. They were exposed to a risk of falling 6.4 m (21 ft.). The firm’s failure to ensure that a fall protection system was used as required was a high-risk violation. The firm also failed to provide its workers with the information, instruction, training, and supervision needed to ensure their health and safety.
32 January / February 2015 | WorkSafe Magazine Vista Plus Homes & Contracting Inc. | $4,609.05 | Kelowna | September 11, 2014 WorkSafeBC observed this firm’s worker removing old shingles on the roof of a single-storey house. The worker was not using a personal fall protection system, nor was any other form of fall protection in place. The worker was exposed to a risk of falling 3.5 m (11.5 ft.) onto two fence lines and a metal disposal bin. The firm’s failure to ensure that fall protection was used as required, and to instruct its worker in fall protection systems and procedures, were repeated and high-risk violations. As well, the firm failed to inspect its worksites regularly to prevent the development of unsafe working conditions, a repeated violation. These and other deficiencies show that the firm failed to ensure the health and safety of workers at a workplace where its work was being carried out, also a repeated violation.
Westshore Industries Ltd. | $7,768.65 | Abbotsford | September 11, 2014 WorkSafeBC observed three of this firm’s workers on the steep roof of a house under construction, sheathing the roof with sheets of plywood. The workers were wearing safety harnesses but were not attached to lifelines. No other form of fall protection was in place. The workers were exposed to a risk of falling as much as 6 m (20 ft.). Debris on the roof posed a tripping hazard, increasing the workers’ risk of falling. The firm’s failure to ensure that fall protection was used as required was a repeated and high-risk violation.
Weststar Restoration and Contracting Service Ltd. | $11,270.43 | Maple Ridge | August 5, 2014 This firm’s workers were applying waterproofing material to the exterior wall of an underground parkade. The excavation exposing the wall was more than 1.2 m (4 ft.) deep but was not sloped, shored, benched, or otherwise supported as required. When WorkSafeBC inspected the site, there were cracks in two walls of the excavation and a third wall had collapsed. WorkSafeBC ordered all workers to exit the excavation and issued a stop-work order. The firm’s failure to meet the sloping and shoring requirements of section 20.81(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Regulation was a high-risk violation.
Year 2000 Construction Ltd. | $2,500 | Abbotsford | September 24, 2014 WorkSafeBC observed two of this firm’s workers on the extremely steep roof of a two-storey house under construction. They were not using personal fall protection equipment, and no other form of fall protection was in place. The workers were exposed to a risk of falling 7.6 m (25 ft.). The firm failed to ensure that a fall protection system was used as required in section 11.2(1)(a) of the Occupational Health and Safety Regulation. This was a repeated and high-risk violation.
Manufacturing Apollo Forest Products Ltd. | $14,800.70 | Fort St. James | August 20, 2014 WorkSafeBC inspected this firm’s sawmill and observed hazardous accumulations of combustible dust on surfaces and fixtures in the partially enclosed hog building. Workers in the area were exposed to a risk of serious injury or death should the dust have ignited and caused a fire or explosion. A front-end loader used to remove hog fuel from the building presented a potential ignition source; hot carbon particles from its exhaust could have ignited the dust. This immediate hazard in the hog building prompted WorkSafeBC to issue an order to stop work until the dust accumulations could be removed. The firm’s failure to control and remove hazardous accumulations of combustible dust was a repeated violation.
Ardew Wood Products Ltd. | $58,117.15 | Merritt | September 3, 2014 At this firm’s sawmill, a young worker sustained serious injuries when he was drawn into a running conveyor belt while cleaning underneath it. The conveyor belt had not been fitted with adequate safeguards. The firm failed to ensure the use and verification of lockout procedures as required by section 10.4(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Regulation. This was a repeated and high-risk violation. Also, the worker was working alone and had to stop the conveyor, contact emergency services, and explain to emergency personnel how to lock out — all while trapped in the conveyor. The firm lacked a written procedure for checking on workers assigned to work alone. The firm failed to ensure the safety of all workers at its workplace and failed to provide its workers with the information, instruction, training, and supervision needed to ensure their safety. These were repeated violations.
Sherine Industries Ltd. | $8,742.38 | Surrey | September 8, 2014 This firm operates a sign-making facility. One of its workers was trying to clear a jam from a shear machine that trims commercial stop signs when he inadvertently activated the foot pedal, causing the shear to cycle. The worker sustained serious hand injuries. WorkSafeBC’s investigation found that the machine had not been fitted with physical guards to prevent a worker from contacting the hazardous point of operation. The firm failed to develop lockout procedures, as required whenever safeguarding is absent. This was a high-risk violation.
January / February 2015 | WorkSafe Magazine 33 Penalties (continued)
West Fraser Mills Ltd. | $75,000 | Quesnel | September 29, 2014 WorkSafeBC inspected this firm’s sawmill and planer mill and observed hazardous accumulations of combustible dust throughout the facility’s Coastal Planer room, one of two planer lines on site. Dust accumulations more than 0.3 cm (1/8 in.) deep were found on elevated surfaces and overhead fixtures, estimated to cover more than 5 percent of the enclosed Coastal Planer room’s overall area. Dust was found in contact with potential ignition sources such as equipment motors and an elevated light fixture. Officers also observed hazardous dust accumulations of up to 107 cm (42 in.) deep in semi-enclosed wall cavities in the planer infeed area adjacent to the Coastal Planer room. Workers in both these areas were exposed to a risk of serious injury or death should the dust have ignited and caused a fire or explosion. Prevention officers issued an order to stop work on the Coastal Planer line until the dust accumulations could be removed. The firm’s failure to control and remove hazardous accumulations of combustible dust was a repeated and high-risk violation.
Primary Resources M & J Dhaliwal Green Acres Vegetable Farm Ltd. | $10,766.85 | Heffley Creek | September 29, 2014 During an inspection of this firm’s produce farm, WorkSafeBC observed three of the firm’s workers trying to repair electrical cables for the conveyor motors on a vegetable processing line. The equipment was not locked out as required prior to this type of work, and the workers were not qualified to perform the electrical work. They were exposed to a risk of serious injuries or even death from hazardous electric energy and the potential start-up of the conveyor. This was a high-risk violation of the lockout requirements in the Occupational Health and Safety Regulation. WorkSafeBC ordered the firm to stop work on the line until an appropriate lockout process had been established and implemented by qualified workers. A follow-up inspection the next day found that the firm had completed work on the line after the prevention officers left, in defiance of the stop-work order.
Sanders & Company Contracting Ltd. | $39,620.83 | Merritt | September 9, 2014 This firm’s worker was operating an excavator, using it to move logs on a steep slope. A log lifted by the excavator’s bucket contacted high-voltage power lines overhead. WorkSafeBC’s investigation found that the firm allowed workers and equipment to work in a location where they could enter into the limits of approach to high-voltage electricity — a high-risk violation. The firm’s failure to implement clearly defined controls or work procedures to prevent inadvertent contact with the high-voltage power lines placed workers at risk of injury or death. The firm failed overall to provide its workers with the information, instruction, training, and supervision needed to ensure their health and safety, a repeated violation.
Trinidad Drilling Ltd. | $75,000 | Fort St. John | August 25, 2014 This firm’s worker was working in the mixing shack of a natural gas well when a hose on a pressure relief line broke. Volatile drilling fluid sprayed onto the worker (soaking his fire-retardant personal protective clothing) and the rig. A flash fire ignited, and the worker sustained serious burns. WorkSafeBC’s investigation found that rig setup instructions for the high-pressure piping were inadequate. A flexible hose that was too long and of too small a diameter had been installed, contravening section 12.174(4) of the Occupational Health and Safety Regulation. The firm failed to ensure the health and safety of its own and other workers at the workplace. This was a high-risk violation.
Zane Emmond Macdonald / Z.E. MacDonald Falling | $2,500 | Harrison Hot Springs | September 12, 2014 This firm’s worker felled a large tree that nearly hit an arborist working about 9 m (30 ft.) up another tree. At the last moment, the arborist glimpsed the falling tree coming toward him and was able to move out of its path, so that it just brushed him. The worker felling the tree had not ensured the minimum of two tree-lengths between the tree and the position of the arborist. The firm’s failure to ensure that its worker complied with the requirements of section 26.24(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Regulation was a high-risk violation.
Service Sector Berezan Management (B.C.) Ltd. | $3,407.82 | Richmond | August 8, 2014 This firm contracted a roofing company to perform repairs to the gutters of its building, an empty 40-year-old warehouse with corrugated asbestos roofing tiles. One roofer took a step on the roof, broke through, and landed on the asphalt floor of the warehouse 10.6 m (35 ft.) below, sustaining fatal injuries. The firm had not taken steps to determine the structural integrity of the roof and identify the hazards of working on it. The firm failed to maintain its premises in a manner that ensured the health and safety of persons at its workplace. This was a high-risk violation.
34 January / February 2015 | WorkSafe Magazine Great Canadian Casinos Inc. | $75,000 | Richmond | September 3, 2014 This firm’s worker was part of a team changing a motor on an automated theatre seat system. When the old motor was pulled off the gear assembly, the brake holding the seats in their upright position came off with it. The seats, which had not been secured, moved downward, striking the worker, who fell through a gap in the floor to the concrete surface of the maintenance area 3 m (9.5 ft.) below. He sustained fatal injuries. WorkSafeBC’s investigation found that the firm failed to securely cover or guard an opening in the floor that was a danger to workers. It also failed to secure equipment parts against inadvertent movement, which was a high-risk violation of lockout procedures required by the Occupational Health and Safety Regulation. These violations show that the firm failed to provide its workers with the information, instruction, training, and supervision needed to ensure their safety. This in turn was a repeated violation.
Interior Health Authority | $75,000 | Vernon | September 19, 2014 This employer operated a hospital laboratory in which workers were exposed to formaldehyde and other toxic substances due to an inadequate ventilation system. Workers suffered a variety of adverse health effects as a result of working in the lab. In early 2011, WorkSafeBC inspected the lab and ordered the employer to assess engineering controls. Assessments indicated that the ventilation system needed to be completely overhauled. The employer implemented short-term measures to protect workers from exposure, such as some interim administrative controls and the use of personal protective equipment. Despite repeated inspections and orders, as of January 2014 the employer still had not taken steps to overhaul the system as needed to reduce the risk to workers. The employer’s failure to maintain the ventilation system to effectively control airborne contaminants in the workplace was a repeated and high-risk violation.
Parkhouse Holdings Ltd. | $8,605.35 | Vancouver | September 17, 2014 This firm owns a boutique hotel in which it operates a beer and wine store. On March 14, 2013, WorkSafeBC ordered the firm to prepare investigation reports into two violent incidents that had occurred in its workplace, and to submit copies of the reports to WorkSafeBC. The firm was also ordered to establish and implement policies, procedures, and work environment arrangements to eliminate or minimize the risk to workers from violence. As of January 14, 2014, the firm still had not complied with either order.
Trade Donald Charles David Stewart / Macleod’s Books | $2,000 | Vancouver | September 24, 2014 Aisles in this firm’s store and storage areas were partly or fully blocked by unsecured, stacked books and boxes. This was a failure of the firm to arrange work areas to allow for the safe movement of people, equipment, and materials. Also, some bookcases were free-standing and swayed when pressed or bumped. Piles of books on the floor and atop shelves were similarly unstable. These were failures to ensure that materials were stored in a stable and secure manner. The firm was first ordered to correct these safety violations in April 2012. By December 2013, the firm still had not complied. The April 2012 inspection had also found three electrical panels blocked by books and boxes. A subsequent inspection found that the panels had been made accessible. But in December 2013, WorkSafeBC observed that two of the panels were once again obscured — a repeated violation of the requirement to ensure that paths and working space around electrical equipment are kept clear of obstructions and not used for storage. Finally, ladders in the store did not have the required manufacturer’s labels showing their grade and intended use. This was also a repeated violation.
Plazio Industries Inc. | $3,807.47 | Kelowna | September 11, 2014 This firm, a door-to-door vacuum sales company, ordered four of its new, young workers to drive 1,400 km (870 miles) overnight in a company van. On the way, the vehicle went out of control, struck a barrier, and rolled. One worker sustained serious injuries and the others, minor injuries. The firm violated multiple requirements of the Occupational Health and Safety Regulation and Workers Compensation Act. It failed to develop and implement a health and safety program, and failed to provide any pre-use vehicle inspection, any information about weather or road conditions, or any instruction, training, or supervision for driving at night in potential winter conditions to a sales team of all new and young workers. In short, the firm failed to take reasonable care to ensure the health and safety of its workers.
Rajput Holdings Ltd. | $1,000 | Vancouver | September 15, 2014 This firm operates a 24-hour convenience store. WorkSafeBC found that the firm had not developed and implemented a written procedure for checking the well-being of workers assigned to work alone. Nor had it put late-night retail safety procedures into place or established and implemented policies, procedures, and work environment arrangements to eliminate or minimize workers’ risk of injury from violence. The firm violated sections 4.21(1), 4.22.1(2)(b), and 4.29 of the Occupational Health and Safety Regulation. W
January / February 2015 | WorkSafe Magazine 35 Marketplace directory
CANADA’S LEADING SAFETY AND RESCUE SPECIALISTS
Safety & Rescue Training Safety Consulting Rescue Standby AUDIOMETRIC SERVICES Confined Space Services • on-site hearing testing To schedule, contact: • on-site noise level monitoring 604–888–7220 or 1–800–331–2522 • custom-moulded earplugs [email protected] | www.clactraining.ca 1. 8 00.59 4 . 13 5 5 | www.RoninRescue.com
Did you know? We offer secure online services to allow employers and injured workers to conveniently access their account information — anytime, anywhere.
36 January / February 2015 | WorkSafe Magazine A New Look For A Trusted Advisor From Pacific Environmental to TOTAL SAFETY
Pacific Environmental One Brand to The Early Years Consulting becomes Unite Us All Pacific EHS
1995-2011 2012 2014
PacificEHS.TotalSafety.com 604.292.4700
January / February 2015 | WorkSafe Magazine 37 StJohn_Ad_PRINT_8.5x11.pdf 1 14-07-25 4:08 PM
C
M
Y
CM
MY
CY
CMY Ben Latham
K
Just like the food in your fridge – your first aid certificate can expire.
Medical emergencies can happen anywhere, at any time, and to anyone. Keeping your certification up-to-date ensures you can act both quickly and with confidence when a co-worker needs you most.
Give us a call or visit our website to renew your certificate or enroll in one of our classes. Register today at sja.ca or call 1.866.321.2651