(Vol.2) Addendum – Mining Health, Safety and Prevention Review

March 2015

Final Report (vol.2) Addendum Mining Health, Safety and Prevention Review

Ministry of Labour

Table of Contents Appendices ...... 2 Appendix A – Support and advice to the Review ...... 2 The Advisory Group ...... 2 Internal Responsibility System Working Group...... 3 Health and Safety Hazards Working Group ...... 4 Technology/Management of Change Working Group ...... 6 Capacity of the Health and Safety System Working Group ...... 7 Training, Skills and Labour Supply Issues Working Group ...... 7 Emergency Preparedness and Mine Rescue ...... 8 Mining Sector Risk Ranking ...... 9 Appendix B – Health and Safety Statistics ...... 10 Appendix C – Ontario Health and Safety System Partners and Affiliates ...... 15 Ontario Ministry of Labour ...... 15 Workplace Safety North (WSN) ...... 15 Occupational Health Clinics for Ontario Workers (OHCOW) ...... 15 Workers Health & Safety Centre (WHSC) ...... 16 Institute for Work & Health (IWH) ...... 16 Office of the Worker Adviser (OWA) ...... 16 Mining Legislative Review Committee (MLRC) ...... 17 Technical Advisory Committees (TAC) ...... 17 Mining Tripartite Committee (MTC) ...... 17 Ontario Mine Rescue ...... 18 Appendix D – James Ham’s IRS “Table 51” ...... 19 Appendix E – Audit Elements of Effective Management of Change Procedure ...... 21 Appendix F – Underground Mining Sector Level Risk Assessment ...... 25 Appendix G – Mining Sector Coroner’s Jury Recommendations Analysis ...... 31 Appendix H – Common Core Modules ...... 36 Appendix I – Presentations Heard and Consultation Papers Received ...... 38 Public Consultation Presenters ...... 38 Public Consultation Submissions ...... 40

Ministry of Labour 1 Appendices

Appendix A – Support and advice to the Review

The Advisory Group As part of the Mining Health, Safety and Prevention Review, the Chief Prevention Officer established an Advisory Group to provide advice on a variety of matters including past recommendations from mining sector coroner’s jury inquests and commissions, as well as current issues of concern and their impacts on workplace health and safety. The Advisory Group also considered other issues raised during the public consultations and provided feedback on the progress and final reports.

The Advisory Group was comprised of key mining stakeholders from labour, employer, and other relevant health and safety organizations. A representative from the MINES group (Mining Inquiry Needs Everyone’s Support) also participated as an observer. Members were invited based on their demonstrated commitment to occupational health and safety in the mining sector, and their roles as recognized leaders in their professional / organizational communities.

Chair • George Gritziotis, Chief Prevention Officer/Associate Deputy Minister, Ministry of Labour

Labour Vice Chair • John Perquin, Assistant to the International Secretary-Treasurer, United Steelworkers

Employer Vice Chair • Fergus Kerr, Vice President of Operations, Global Atomic Fuels Corporation

Members • Roger Emdin, Manager Sustainable Development, Sudbury Integrated Nickel Operations, Glencore, Employer Co-Chair, Mining Legislative Review Committee

• Mike Bond, Chair, Local 6500 Health, Safety and Environment Committee, United Steelworkers, Worker Co-Chair, Mining Legislative Review Committee

• Cam Mustard, President and Senior Scientist, Institute for Work and Health

• Candys Ballanger-Michaud, Chief Executive Officer, Workplace Safety North

• Wendy Fram (Observer), Chair, Mining Inquiry Needs Everyone’s Support (MINES)

Representatives of the Advisory Group recommended individuals representing both labour and employers to be part of six Working Groups created to explore the following topics: Ministry of Labour 2 Internal Responsibility System Working Group Facilitator: Dwayne Plamondon – Director - Mining, Workplace Safety North (WSN) and Megan Waque - Stakeholder Communications Specialist, WSN

Working Group Members • Shannon Campbell – Manager, Mine Operations, Kidd Operations – A Glencore Company, Ontario Mining Association (OMA) (Employer Representative)

• Nancy Hutchison – Secretary-Treasurer, Ontario Federation of Labour (OFL) (Labour Representative)

Resources/Support • John Vander Doelen – Director, Prevention Office, Ministry of Labour (MOL)

• Peter Simpson – Director, Dispute Resolution Services, MOL

• Yvonne Slupinski – Senior Policy Advisor, Policy Division, MOL

• Brier Musson – Senior Policy Advisor, Policy Division, MOL

• Dr. Cameron Mustard, President and Senior Scientist, Institute for Work & Health

• Carol Michaud, Executive Assistant to the Industrial and Mining Directors, WSN

Presenters/Subject Matter Experts Consulted • Rowland Howe, Compass Minerals

• Peter Xavier, Sudbury Integrated Nickel Operations - A Glencore Company

• Peter Calnan, Barrick – Hemlo Operations

• Roy Slack, Cementation

• Randy Graham, United Steelworkers (USW)

• Lisa McCaskell, Ontario Public Service Employees Union (OPSEU)

• Nancy Johnston, Ontario Nurses’ Association (ONA)

• Sari Sairanen, UNIFOR

• Mike Deprat, USW

• Vern Edwards, OFL

• Rick Farrell, Kidd Operations - A Glencore Company, JHSC Worker Representative

• Joe Guido and Alain Arsenault, Vale, JHSC Worker Representatives

Ministry of Labour 3 • Andy Peacock, Canada Talc, JHSC Worker Representative

• Dave Stewart, Sudbury Integrated Nickel Operations: A Glencore Company, JHSC Worker Representative

• Alan Hall, Memorial University

• Wayne Lewchuk, McMaster University

• Michael Quinlan, University of New South Wales

• Peter Strahlendorf, Ryerson University

• Gord Winkel, University of Alberta

• Andy King, Occupational Health Clinics for Ontario Workers (OHCOW)

• John Oudyk, OHCOW

• Loretta Michaud and Tom Parkin, Workers Health and Safety Centre (WHSC)

• Alec Farquhar, Office of the Worker Advisor (OWA)

• Cindy Schiewek, Public Services Health and Safety Association (PSHSA)

• Dawna Nighbor, Workplace Safety North (WSN)

• Kiran Kapoor, Workplace Safety and Prevention Services (WSPS)

• Carrie Boyle, Infrastructure Health and Safety Association (IHSA)

• Rick Shulist, MOL Inspector, London

• John C. Miller, MOL Inspector, Timmins

• Andre Touchette, MOL Inspector, Sault Ste. Marie

• Shaun Carter, MOL Inspector, Sudbury

Health and Safety Hazards Working Group Facilitator: Bob Barclay – Provincial Coordinator- Mining, MOL

Working Group Members • Frank Demers, Vale, Sudbury – (OMA Representative)

• Eric Lachance – United Steelworkers (USW) Local 2020 (Labour Representative)

Resources/Support • Brian Hanulik – Senior Policy Advisor, Policy Division, MOL

• Dwayne Plamondon – Director - Mining, WSN

Ministry of Labour 4 Presenters/Subject Matter Experts Consulted The Seismicity and Rockbursting Hazard Theme:

• Mike Yao, Vale Limited;

• Brad Simser, Glencore Limited;

• Dave Counter, Glencore Limited;

• John Hadjigeorgiou, University of Toronto;

• Marty Hudyma, Laurentian University;

• Steve MacKinnon, Queen’s University;

• Lewis Castro, Golder Associates Limited;

• Phil Earl, Barrick Gold Corporation, Hemlo Operations;

• Alan Price-Jones, Cementation Limited;

• Luc Beauchamp, Workplace Safety North;

• Ming Cai, MIRARCO

The Occupational Disease and Ventilation Hazard Theme:

• Anthony Chevrier, Vale Limited;

• Lise Sauve-Gingras, Glencore Limited;

• Euler De Souza, Queen’s University;

• Paul Demers, Occupational Cancer Research Centre;

• Cheryl Allen, Vale Limited;

• Cassidy Throssell, Vale Limited;

• Steve Hardcastle, Canmet;

• Jason Chevrier, KGHM Limited.

The Fatigue Hazard Theme:

• John Oudyk, Occupational Health Clinics for Ontario Workers;

• Curtis VanderGrient, Occupational Health Clinics for Ontario Workers;

• Michelle Tew, Occupational Health Clinics for Ontario Workers;

• Brian McInnes, Ministry of Labour;

Ministry of Labour 5 • Loretta Michaud, Workers Health and Safety Centre;

• Tina MacPherson, Workers Health and Safety Centre.

The Water Management Hazard Theme:

• Harvey Parsons, Centre for Excellence in Mining Innovation;

• Jim Maltby, Glencore Limited;

• Steve Runnalls, Vale Limited;

• Dave Lisi, United Steelworkers, Vale Limited.

The Mobile Equipment Hazard Theme:

• Dan Dubuc, Vale Limited;

• Tammy Egers, C.R.O.S.H. and Laurentian University;

• Jamie Cresswell, Mining Legislative Review Committee and Ministry of Labour.

Technology/Management of Change Working Group Facilitator: Vic Pakalnis – President and CEO, MIRARCO

Working Group Members • Robert Bianchin – Safety Specialist, Glencore, Sudbury (OMA Representative)

• Craig Allair – USW Local 6500 (Labour Representative)

Resources/Support • Bob Barclay – Provincial Coordinator- Mining, MOL

• Glenn Lyle – Associate, Health & Safety, Risk Management, MIRARCO

• Dwayne Plamondon – Director - Mining, WSN

• Dr. Tammy Eger, Director , CROSH

• Peter Larsen, Director EHS Americas ,Sandvik

• Merel Hartog, Executive Assistant , MIRARCO

Presenters/Subject Matter Experts Consulted • Jozef Stachulak, Manager of Strategic Diesel Research, MIRARCO

• Dr. Jim Joy, University of Queensland

• Dr. Neil Cunningham, Australian National University

Ministry of Labour 6 • Dr. Leon Genesove, Chief Physician, Ministry of Labour

• Dr. Graham Norval, Associate Professor at the University of Toronto

• Scott Ferguson, Safety & Risk Manager, Glencore Australia

Capacity of the Health and Safety System Working Group Facilitator: Bob Barclay – Provincial Coordinator- Mining, MOL

Working Group Members • Fred St. Jean – Manager Safety, Occupational Health and Medicine, Vale, Sudbury (OMA Representative)

• Alfred Mills – USW Local 9422 (Labour Representative)

Resources/Support • Brian Lewis – Director - Strategy and Integration Branch, Prevention Office, MOL

• Dwayne Plamondon – Director - Mining, WSN

Training, Skills and Labour Supply Issues Working Group Facilitator: Robert Merwin – Executive Advisor, Assistant Deputy Minister’s Office, Mines and Minerals Division, Ministry of Northern Development and Mines (MNDM)

Working Group Members • John LeClair, Director, Safety and Health - Canada & USA, Goldcorp Inc. – (OMA Representative)

• James Niemi – United Steelworkers Local 6500, Vale Canada, Copper Cliff mine & diamond drill raise bore worker representative and the labour co-chair of the Mining Tripartite Committee (Labour Representative)

Resources/Support • Sylvia Barnard, President Emeritus, Cambrian College of Applied Arts & Technology

• Gerry Champagne, Consultant Trainer, Workplace Safety North

• Michelle Foster-Chandler, Policy and Program Advisor, Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities

• Glenn Staskus, Provincial Coordinator – Mining (A), Ministry of Labour

• Administrative support was provided by Isabelle Izumi and Brigitte Pelletier-Cisneros

Ministry of Labour 7 Presenters/Subject Matter Experts Consulted • Tom Parkin, Managing Director, Workers’ Health and Safety Centre.

• Sue Boychuk, Provincial Lead, Young Workers Portfolio, at the Ministry of Labour

Emergency Preparedness and Mine Rescue Facilitator: Alex Gryska – General Manager, Mine Rescue, WSN

Working Group Members • Jamie Mortson, Lakeshore Gold, Timmins – (OMA Representative)

• Dave Stewart – Mine Mill Local 598 (UNIFOR) Health and Safety Coordinator (Labour Representative)

Resources/Support • Scott Campbell – Manager, Emergency Management, MOL

• Jamie West – Smelter Worker Safety Representative, Vale

• John LeClair – Director – Safety and Health Canada and the USA, Goldcorp

Presenters/Subject Matter Experts Consulted • Ted Hanley – General Manager (Transitional), Mine Rescue, WSN

• Charlie Burton – Supervisor, Mine Rescue, WSN

• Tim Taylor – Mine Rescue Officer, Southern Ontario District

• Duane Croswell – Mine Rescue Officer, Thunder Bay District

• Tim Ebbinghaus – Mine Rescue Officer, Thunder Bay District

• Grant Saunders – Mine Rescue Officer, Red Lake District

• Danny Taillefer – Mine Rescue Officer, Timmins District

• Emanuel Cabral – Mine Rescue Officer, Timmins District

• Wally Adler – Mine Rescue Officer, Sudbury District

• Bruce Hall– Mine Rescue Officer, Sudbury District

• John Hagan – Mine Rescue Officer, Onaping

• Wayne Baker – Mine Rescue Officer, Kirkland Lake

• Shawn Kirwan – Emergency Response Specialist

Ministry of Labour 8 • Gilbert Wahl – Wesdome

• Emmett Houston – DMC Mining

• Jim Ahrens – Compass Minerals

• Jim Lundrigan – Sudbury Nickel Operations, A Glencore Company

• Tim Maloney – Vale Canada Ltd

• Markus Uchtenhagen – Goldcorp Canada Ltd.

• Mike Dudar – Vale Canada Ltd.

• Carl Uusivirta – Goldcorp Canada Ltd.

• Claude Landry – KGHM

• Dan Demers – AuRico Gold

Mining Sector Risk Ranking • Robert Blanchin – Glencore

• John Daigle – Vale

• Dan Laing – First Nickel

• Jamie Mortson – Lake Shore

• Craig Allair – USW Local 6500

• Dave Stewart – Mine Mill Local 598

• Nick Larohelle – USW Local 6500

• Al Robb – Unifor

Resources/Support • Dr. Sujoy Dey – Ministry of Labour

• Robert Barclay – Ministry of Labour

• Gerald Allen – Ministry of Labour

• Pierre Lefebvre – Ministry of Labour

• Harsim Kalsi – Ministry of Labour

• Dwayne Plamondon – Workplace Safety North

Ministry of Labour 9 Appendix B – Health and Safety Statistics

Occupational Health and Safety in Ontario’s Mining Industry In 2014, 30 critical injuries and six fatalities were reported to the Ministry of Labour for the mining sector1. Over the last 10 years, the number of critical injury events reported to the ministry has decreased. On an annual basis, the number of fatalities reported has fluctuated between one and six, and has been slightly higher in the recent past.

From 2005 to 2014, in the Ontario Mining sector:

• 315 critical injuries were reported to the Ministry of Labour

• 29 fatalities were reported

Chart 1 – Fatality and Critical Injuries reported to MOL 2005-20142

50 45 Critical Injury Events 45 Fatality Events 38 40 36 35 33 30 31 30 30 24 25 25 23 20 15 10 5 6 3 4 3 3 5 1 2 1 1 0 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

1 Events include only those that have been reported to the Ministry, and may not represent what actually occurred at the workplace. A fatal injury within Ministry of Labour jurisdiction includes an injury or incident resulting in the death of an employee. This excludes death from natural causes, death of a non-employee at a workplace, suicides, death under the jurisdiction of the Criminal Code, Highway Traffic Act and Canada Labour Code and death from occupational exposures that occurred many years ago. The Ministry of Labour investigates injuries in employees covered by the Occupational Health and Safety Act. The critical injury numbers represent critical injuries reported to the Ministry, and may not necessarily represent critical injuries as defined by the Occupational Health and Safety Act. Critical injury events recorded in the ministry’s data systems may include injuries to non-employees, as workplaces are required to report these events. Data are subject to change due to inspectors’ updates to the enforcement database 2 Ministry of Labour Data systems.

Ministry of Labour 10 Table 1 - Fatality and Critical Injuries reported to MOL 2005-20143

Year Critical Injury Events Fatality Events 2005 45 1 2006 33 3 2007 36 4 2008 38 2 2009 23 1 2010 30 1 2011 31 5 2012 24 3 2013 25 3 2014 30 6

While traumatic injuries do not show a pattern of decline in the past 10 years a longer term view of fatal injuries shows a decline in both total numbers and in all the causal factor categories.

Table 2 – Fatal Injuries by decade and Causal Factors4

Years Causal 1930- 1940- 1950- 1960- 1970- 1980- 1990- 2000- Factor Total 1939 1949 1959 1969 1979 1989 1999 2014 57 23 18 14 9 5 2 0 128 Explosives (14.5%) (6.4%) (5.3%) (5.1%) (5.9%) (4.5%) (4.1%) (0%) (7.4%) 99 120 106 71 33 31 9 8 477 Fall of Rock (25.3%) (33.1%) (31.2%) (25.9%) (21.7%) (27.9%) (18.4%) (17.8%) (27.7%) 69 43 63 39 21 20 6 5 266 Fall of Person (17.6%) (11.9%) (18.5%) (14.2%) (13.8%) (18.0%) (12.2%) (11.1%) (15.4%) Fall Caught 33 34 36 28 10 17 8 11 177 Struck Object (8.4%) (9.4%) (10.6%) (10.2%) (6.6%) (15.3%) (16.3%) (24.4%) (10.3%) 14 12 9 8 4 1 2 1 51 Asphyxiation (3.6%) (3.3%) (2.6%) (2.9%) (2.6%) (0.9%) (4.1%) (2.2%) (3.0%) 7 10 13 8 3 0 0 2 43 Burn (1.8%) (2.8%) (3.8%) (2.9%) (2.0%) (0.0%) (0.0%) (4.4%) (2.5%) 0 0 19 10 1 2 1 0 33 Drowning (0.0%) (0.0%) (5.6%) (3.6%) (0.7%) (1.8%) (2.0%) (0.0%) (1.9%) 5 3 2 5 2 1 1 0 19 Electric Shock (1.3%) (0.8%) (0.6%) (1.8%) (1.3%) (0.9%) (2.0%) (0.0%) (1.1%)

3 Ibid 4 WSN, EFFFORT Report, as of Jan. 21, 2015

Ministry of Labour 11 Years Causal 1930- 1940- 1950- 1960- 1970- 1980- 1990- 2000- Factor Total 1939 1949 1959 1969 1979 1989 1999 2014 18 15 7 4 1 1 1 0 48 Miscellaneous (4.6%) (4.1%) (2.1%) (1.5%) (0.7%) (0.9%) (2.0%) (0.0%) (2.8%) 29 34 27 27 17 10 5 5 154 Run of Muck (7.4%) (9.4%) (7.9%) (9.9%) (11.2%) (9.0%) (10.2%) (11.1%) (8.9%) 61 68 40 60 51 23 13 13 329 Transportation (15.6%) (18.8%) (11.8%) (21.9%) (33.6%) (20.7%) (26.5%) (28.9%) (19.1%) 392 362 340 274 152 111 49 45 1725 Total (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%)

In 2013,5 the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) allowed a total of 158 occupational disease fatality claims6. Of these, 10 (7%) were related to the mining sector, which is roughly ten times the proportion of the insured workforce engaged in mining work7. Given the fact that it can take many years for an occupational disease to develop, it is important for the industry to take steps today to identify and address potential future sources of occupational disease. Prevention has the potential to save many lives.

In terms of WSIB injury claims in the mining sector, the number has declined over the past 10 years. In 2013, the mining sector had an allowed lost time injury rate of 0.79 per 100 workers, which is less than half the 2004 rate of 1.73 per 100 workers.8 This trend reflects a drop in allowed lost time injuries from 389 to 231 – despite an increase in the insurable workforce over that time period9. Throughout this period, the lost time injury rate in mining has been lower than the average of Schedule 1 employers10, and it has declined more sharply than the overall rate among Schedule 1 employers (i.e. from 1.88 to 0.95 injuries per 100 insured workers)11.

5 WSIB data for 2014 will be released mid-2015. 6 Workplace Safety and Insurance Board. (2014). By The Numbers: 2013 WSIB Statistical Report, Schedule 1, pp.97 Data is at March 31st, 2014 for the entitlement year. 7 Based on WSIB covered employment for Schedule 1, (2104) pp 9. Data is as at March 31st of the following year for each injury/illness year. 8 Workplace Safety and Insurance Board. (2014). By The Numbers: 2013 WSIB Statistical Report, Schedule 1, pp.13 Data is at March 31st, 2014 for the entitlement year 9 Workplace Safety and Insurance Board. (2014). By The Numbers: 2013 WSIB Statistical Report, Schedule 1, pp.10-11 Data is at March 31st, 2014 for the entitlement year 10 Schedule 1 employers are required by legislation to pay premiums to the WSIB and are protected by a system of collective liability. The WSIB pays benefits to injured workers the pooled insurance fund so Schedule 1 employers are relieved of individual responsibility for actual accident costs. 11 Workplace Safety and Insurance Board. (2014). By The Numbers: 2013 WSIB Statistical Report, Schedule 1, pp.13. Data is at March 31st, 2014 for the entitlement year

Ministry of Labour 12 Chart 2 – Allowed Lost Time Injury Rate in Mining Sector has Declined over the Last 10 Years12

2.00 1.73 1.60 1.39 1.30 1.12 1.20 1.26 0.96 1.13 0.79 0.80 0.98 0.87 Injury Rate Injury 0.40 Allowed Lost Time

- 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Table 3 – Allowed Lost Time Injury Rate in Mining Sector has Declined over Last 10 Years13

Year Allowed Lost Time Injury Rate 2004 1.73 2005 1.39 2006 1.26 2007 1.30 2008 1.13 2009 0.96 2010 0.98 2011 1.12 2012 0.87 2013 0.79

12 WSIB (2014). By The Numbers: 2014 WSIB Statistical Report, Schedule 1. Data is as at March 31st of the following year for each injury/illness year 13 Ibid

Ministry of Labour 13 Table 4 – Ministry of Labour Activity in Underground Mining Sub-sector by Fiscal Year14

Years Events and Activities 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 Field Visits15 640 528 645 Orders 1177 1190 1223 Work Refusals16 2 4 2 Complaints17 55 31 28

14 Ministry of Labour – Sector Trend report 15 Includes investigation and inspection activity. 16 As reported to the Ministry of Labour 17 As reported to the Ministry of Labour

Ministry of Labour 14 Appendix C – Ontario Health and Safety System Partners and Affiliates

Ontario Ministry of Labour The ministry's occupational health and safety mandate is to set, communicate and enforce occupational health and safety legislation (the Occupational Health and Safety Act), and regulations. It also develops, coordinates and implements strategies to prevent workplace injuries and illnesses and can set standards for health and safety training. To report incidents, critical injuries or fatalities – or to ask about workplace health and safety – call the Ministry of Labour toll-free at 1-877-202-0008. Follow the ministry on Twitter.

Workplace Safety North (WSN) WSN comprises the former Mines and Aggregates Safety and Health Association, Ontario Forestry Safe Workplace Association, Ontario Mine Rescue, and Pulp and Paper Health and Safety Association.

• Serves (province wide): forestry, mining, smelters, refineries, paper, printing and converting.

• Toll-free (Ontario): 1-888-730-7821

• Web Site

• On Twitter @WSN_News

“Workplace Safety North (WSN) provides a number of services to benefit health and safety in the mining sector across Ontario. In 2014 WSN’s Prevention Services Mining Group provided over 73,000 hours of training on topics like ground control, mine ventilation and mining-specific Join Health and Safety Committee courses.”

Training provided by WSN’s Prevention Services Mining Group and the Mine Rescue Program in 2014 (Jan. 1, 2014 – Dec. 31, 2014):

— Total Participants: 7,565 — Total Participant Hours: 73,028

Occupational Health Clinics for Ontario Workers (OHCOW) OHCOW provides comprehensive occupational health services – to workers concerned about work-related health conditions and to workers, unions and employers who need support to

Ministry of Labour 15 prevent these health conditions from developing. OHCOW services are free of charge.

• Toll-free: 1-877-817-0336

• Web Site

• On Twitter @OHCOWclinics

Workers Health & Safety Centre (WHSC) As Ontario’s designated health and safety training centre, the WHSC provides training for workers, their representatives and employers from every sector and region of the province.

• Toll-free: 1-888-869-7950

• Web Site

• On Twitter @WHSCtraining

Institute for Work & Health (IWH) IWH is an independent, not-for-profit research organization that aims to protect and improve the health of working people by providing useful, relevant research to workers, employers, occupational health and safety professionals, disability management professionals, clinicians, policy-makers and more.

• Phone: 416-927-2027

• Web Site

• On Twitter @iwhresearch

Source: MOL Website - Health and Safety Partners

Office of the Worker Adviser (OWA) The Office of the Worker Adviser was established in 1985 as an independent agency of the Ontario Ministry of Labour. The OWA provides free and confidential services (advice, education, and representation) in workplace insurance matters (formerly called workers’ compensation) and on occupational health and safety reprisal issues. The OWA provides workplace insurance services to non-unionized injured workers and their survivors. Occupational health and safety reprisal services are provided to non-unionized workers. The OWA represents workers at the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB), the Workplace Safety and Insurance Tribunal (WSIAT) and the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB). Alternative dispute resolution is used

Ministry of Labour 16 to resolve cases when possible. The OWA also provides self-help information for workers to handle their own claims or applications where appropriate.

Mining Legislative Review Committee (MLRC) The Mining Legislative Review Committee is established under section 11 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act of Ontario, to provide the Minister of Labour with advice and counsel in respect to legislation and regulations relating to occupational health and safety in mines.

The Committee is composed of nine members: a chairman, four members recommended by the Ontario Mining Association and the Aggregate Producers Association and four members recommended by the Ontario Federation of Labour. These members are appointed by the Minister. The aforementioned organizations also recommend alternate members, who are appointed by the Minister.

Technical Advisory Committees (TAC) Workplace Safety North has five mining technical advisory committees - mining equipment, ground control, mine rescue, safety and loss, and workplace environment. They are volunteer committees that work to provide sector-specific expertise to WSN. The committees help WSN achieve its mission, which is to enable its members’ workplaces to be the healthiest and safest in the world. These volunteer committees are advisory only and have no administrative authority. Volunteers on these committees are individuals who have demonstrated leadership in health and safety at an operational level and who are committed to improving the health and safety of workers.

Mining Tripartite Committee (MTC) The Mining Tripartite Committee provides expertise and recommendations to the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities with respect to the establishment and operation of training programs for specific mining occupations or groups of mining occupations in order to respond to industry needs, technological advances and high health and safety standards. MTC creates and maintains a mining modular system with the highest possible quality of skills training and promotes this system within Ontario.

The Mining Tripartite Committee is comprised of industry representatives – an equal number of labour and management representatives; and government representatives from the Ministry of Training, Colleges, and Universities and the Ministry of Labour. The Ontario Mining Association is represented by an observer at the committee.

Ministry of Labour 17 Ontario Mine Rescue Ontario Mine Rescue (OMR), a part of Workplace Safety North (WSN), is established under the authority of the Occupational Health and Safety Act and headquartered in Sudbury, Ontario. Ontario Mine Rescue staffs, equips and maintains a network of mine rescue stations across the province that ensure mines within a specified geographic area have adequate emergency response capability.

OMR’s role includes delivering training to first responders, providing consultations, conducting periodic audits, ensuring WSN-owned equipment is maintained to manufacturers' recommended standards, and providing advice during mine emergencies.

Ministry of Labour 18 Appendix D – James Ham’s IRS “Table 51” Internal responsibility-system for the performance of work Table 51 was used by James Ham to detail the work activities for which each of the workplace parties and their responsibility for ensuring the effective performance of work. Ham stated that knowing the responsibilities for each task would allow the workplace party to not only fulfill their responsibilities but to identify when workplace conditions were different than the normative state.

Table 5 – James Ham's IRS "Table 51"

Occupation Level Responsi- President bilities 1st- line 2nd- line Superinten- and chief Worker18 Manager Supervisor supervisor dent executive officer Nature of Process Assign tasks Schedule work Interpret Determine Establish work material objectives objectives purposes Plan operations Responsibility Direct Instruct and Develop Select and Select and Select for people helpers develop supervisors develop develop staff manager workmen supervisors Allocate workforce Provide workforce Responsibility Use Direct work Specify duties Assign duties Determine Delegate for work knowledge performance and and functions operating performance and skill within clearly responsibilities responsibilities authority Delineate defined job Exercise Define Delegate spheres of specifications initiative authority authority responsibility Delegate authority Responsibility Carry out Carry out Carry out Interpret Establish Determine for direction work in a duties in a duties in a policies and businesses business of work manner manner manner procedures in philosophy philosophy consistent consistent consistent with light of and Develop with with policies policies and business procedures operating approved and procedure and philosophy in policies practices procedures philosophy of administration and and enterprise of business Standardize procedures philosophy of activities administrative enterprise procedures

18 The term originally used in the Ham Report was "workman.”

Ministry of Labour 19 Occupation Level Responsi- President bilities 1st- line 2nd- line Superinten- and chief Worker18 Manager Supervisor supervisor dent executive officer Responsibility Work co- Co-ordinate Co-ordinate Co-ordinate Conduct the Determine for relations operatively performance work supporting operation of policies to with people with others of tasks programme services the enterprise make the in a manner purposes of compatible the with enterprise legislated compatible requirements with and social legislated trends requirement and social trends Responsibility Use Provide Provide Make Obtain capital Authorize for facilities facilities, adequate adequate provision for goods capital and equipment, tools and services and necessary expenditure equipment machine equipment machines facilities, and tools machines and equipment Responsibility Maintain Implement Provide Set standards Determine Determine for conditions standardized standardized facilities for of work standards of policies for of work condition condition standardized performance work the conditions and working performance operation of conditions and working enterprise conditions Responsibility Inspect Report on Report on Report on Develop Account to for facilities of work workforce, department effective audit owners on accounting workplace, progress and workload, and activity and system state and machines, workplace anomalous anomalous progress of Account for and working requirements conditions, conditions enterprise the state of conditions and facility and to public Report enterprise in requirements on discharge Inspect work anomalous terms of of and report conditions business responsibility on task viability and of accomplish security of trusteeship ment or employment reason for not doing so Report on condition of machines, workplace and work environment

Ministry of Labour 20 Appendix E – Audit Elements of Effective Management of Change Procedure These audit elements were compiled by the Review to serve as a guideline for industry use.

1. Organizational commitment and mandate to a Management of Change (MOC) process.

It is the employer’s responsibility to implement and ensure compliance with effective processes and management systems for prevention of unauthorized change. Assurance activities that check the management systems effectiveness attest to management’s commitment to the mandate.

1.1 Policy endorsed and supported by the site management.

1.2 Procedure defines all roles within the MOC process including the Joint Health and Safety Committee and workers affected by change.

1.3 Established MOC training provided to all levels within the workforce (including workers, supervisors and process and subject matter experts)

2. Management of Change Process Developed.

The process provides a means for workers to understand how the policy is to be applied, company expectations and their role. The process operationalises the company mandate and policy. Without process there is no means for workers to adhere to mandate and expectations.

2.1 Process developed with input from key company stakeholders.

2.2 Method and criteria established that define “change” and when the process is to be applied.

• flow chart to describe the process • organizational change is included in definition of change • differentiate between short term (emergency changes) and permanent changes • change request aligned to the business unit objectives

2.3 Objective and risk identified supporting the need for change.

2.4 Criteria to define level of review rigor depending on the degree of impact.

2.5 Procedure gives examples of the different levels of change.

2.6 Procedure requires that the technical basis of the proposed change be described.

Ministry of Labour 21 2.7 Change details and assessment and approval for each MOC is captured and retained in a document format.

2.8 Process owner is identified.

2.9 Skilled facilitator is identified for the MOC process (to ensure that the MOC process is being properly followed).

3. Hazard and Risk Assessment requirements of MOC.

Knowledgeable persons or subject matter experts need to determine whether the change will in fact lower risk and not introduce other new risks. This assessment information enables effective decision making. Consideration for Risk Assessments:

3.1 Process assesses the risk level of the current situation against the hazards and risks associated with the proposed change.

3.2 Procedure specifies the method of hazard identification and risk assessment appropriate for the change proposed.

3.3 The hazard and risk assessment method utilizes established internal severity and likelihood criteria.

3.4 Means to trigger additional or more rigorous risk assessments.

4. Review team composition defined in MOC.

A diverse team of knowledgeable persons and stakeholders involved in the change review will have high likelihood of identifying potential risks and developing solutions to mitigate the risk. Consideration for team composition:

4.1 Composition of the review team changes with the potential severity or magnitude of the change.

4.2 Engage the appropriate knowledgeable persons in the change review

• front line workers and supervisors impacted by the proposed change • representatives of the health and safety team • specialists, engineers, subject matter experts, individuals trained to lead the MOC etc.

4.3 Guidance to define what constitutes an effective team.

Ministry of Labour 22 5. Defined Change approval process.

In order to prevent uncontrolled change, it must be clearly understood by all that no change is to be implemented without management approval. Management representatives must recognize the importance of conducting thorough assessments prior to initiating change and the significance of providing approval for change.

5.1 Sign-off authority for the change varies with the magnitude of the change (process defines who has the authority to approve change).

6. Implementation plan for the intended change.

Most change is implemented to improve performance. This step is intended to ensure no additional risks materialize as a result of incomplete implementation. Change can produce adverse results if the appropriate change measures are not put in place. Risk events of this nature often materialize as a result of the workforce not being made aware of the change. Consideration for implementation plan:

6.1 Timeline established for the change process.

6.2 Identification of tasks to be done before, during and after implementation. (examples: update as-built diagrams, procedures, workforce communication, etc.)

6.3 Communication plan.

7. Follow up to the change.

The Change Owner (as company representative) must apply due diligence in this respect to provide assurance of complete and effective change implementation. Consideration for follow-up step:

7.1 Verify completeness such as the updating of SOP's, training material, drawings etc.

7.2 Evaluate effectiveness of change.

7.3 Capture any suggestions for improvements to the MOC process prior to closing off the initiative.

8. Monitoring the effectiveness of the MOC process.

The employer has implemented a Management of Change system. In addition to mandating policy, they must also monitor compliance to the policy and be assured of the management system’s effectiveness. The employer must act on/correct any process defects identified. Assurance activities need to be identified and implemented along with a means to review

Ministry of Labour 23 assurance activities and develop process improvement plans as required. Consideration for monitoring process:

8.1 Requirement to assess the effectiveness of the MOC process.

8.2 Method or process to identify and investigate incidents where change occurred and the MOC process was not followed, to enable management to correct MOC process findings.

8.3 Performance indicators developed to review compliance and effectiveness of the MOC process.

Ministry of Labour 24 Appendix F – Underground Mining Sector Level Risk Assessment

Introduction The Ministry of Labour (MOL) launched the risk assessment initiative in effort to gain better insight into the risks facing workers, sector by sector, in Ontario workplaces. The purpose of the initiative is to provide better information about risks to employers and their representatives, workers and their representatives, and to MOL and Health and Safety Association ( HSAs) staff, so that they can work together to mitigate those risks and reduce the incidence of injury, illness and death in Ontario workplaces.

Risk assessment is, of course, widely established across Ontario’s mining sector. Individual firms, worker unions and joint health and safety committees routinely evaluate risks in an effort to prevent injuries and illnesses. While risk assessment is not new, what is new is the application of a consistent, rigorous methodology to assess risk across a sector of the economy like the underground mining sector.

The methodology draws from the fields of decision science and risk management to gain insight into key risks in a sector, focusing on the highest risks. Once those risks have been identified, the next step is for the partners in prevention – employers, workers, and ministry and HSA staff – to work together to mitigate those risks.

The methodology uses system-wide intelligence and a balanced mix of peer-recognized subject matter experts (SMEs). Risk identification requires the extraction and application of collective wisdom. To that end, the risk assessment process brings together those employer and worker representatives who are recognized as experts by their peers in order to identify the leading risks in the sector – the events (situations, conditions or factors) that could lead to injury or illness.

The process for assessing risks in underground mining was launched in the spring of 2014, and the workshop drawing the SMEs together was held in June, 2014. The purpose of this process was to identify and assess the risk events (including the “latent” risks) within a system so as to discern the components of an event and permit study of their structures and dynamics until it is determined what it will take to unravel or “sabotage” the event. Malcolm Sparrow4 stresses on a government’s need to be vigilant, so they can spot emerging threats early, pick up on precursors and warning signs, use their imaginations to work out what could happen, and to do these things even before much harm is done. Nimbleness, flexibility to organize quickly and appropriately around each emerging risk, rather than being locked into patterns of practice constructed around the risks of a preceding decade, being adept at creating new approaches

Ministry of Labour 25 when existing methods turn out to be irrelevant or insufficient to suppress a risk, is being a true risk-based regulator.

Risk Assessment Process The ministry’s risk assessment approach involves a systematic process of identifying and estimating the level of risk across the sector under review, taking into account both the probability and the severity of exposure to an event or harm. The process draws different expert stakeholders – employers, workers, academics, enforcement and HSA staff – together in a systematic and structured environment to identify, discuss, and analyze the varied perspectives and angles that may define a particular risk. This workshop is not just about the risk assessment experiences of a particular organization or a company, but rather a horizontal view of the sector that includes organizations having advanced or not-so-advanced risk management systems. In other words, risk assessment is being conducted at the level of the sector as a whole, that is, at the level of the system. In addition, the process recognizes that there is no one-size fits all approach to risk assessment.

Many mining firms are, of course, sophisticated practitioners of risk assessment and management in the context of their own operations. However, risk assessment using a systems (holistic) view of the underground mining sector as a whole in Ontario has not been done before. The Chief Prevention Officer and the mining advisory group recognized the need for such an analysis that would allow all stakeholders to have a common focus on the priorities for the underground mining sector.

The risk assessment process undertaken for the mining sector was based on the best available evidence and professional judgment of the participants. An important goal of the process was to maximize objectivity to the greatest extent possible; the risk assessment was conducted independently from risk management, and it was not subject to external expectations of what a potential risk management outcome should be.

The core of the risk assessment process in the underground mining sector was to use the collective wisdom across the sector in a process to focus the industry, workers and their representatives, HSAs, and the regulator on the highest risks to mining health and safety.

When undertaking a risk assessment, participants considered where and when additional information was required and sought the appropriate sources for it. However, these activities required additional time and resources and could not be justified in many cases. Considerations were based on informed and professional judgment and information came from a variety of sources. Collaboration with industry and subject‐matter experts was often a source of

Ministry of Labour 26 information. In addition to front-line personnel, partners such as Ministry of Health and Long- Term Care, Health and Safety Associations, academia, worker groups, Workplace Safety & Insurance Board, and other subject-matter experts had valuable information. This collaboration lent varied and critical perspectives that were respected and addressed through a systematic and structured risk assessment process.

Where there was a lack of information, or an event or harm that did not lend itself to established scientific assessment methods (e.g. impact of new technology), evaluators used professional judgment, available evidence and reports to assess the risks to the health and safety of workers.

Risk Assessment Methodology The first step was to identify peer-recognized subject matter experts (SMEs) who would be assembled in a workshop to identify and prioritize the risks facing workers in underground mining. The participants were system partners drawn from the underground mining industry, from unions, the ministry and Workplace Safety North. The identification of the participants involved extensive consultation across the sector to ensure that highly respected SMEs could participate with the broad support of key interests in the mining sector.

The second step was pre-workshop planning, which began with an in-depth orientation on the risk assessment project. Each of the selected SMEs was then requested to identify situations or conditions (events) that could lead to injury or illness with appropriate evidence for each event and current controls where they exist. A template for this exercise was provided to the SMEs.

The lists from the SMEs were collected and amalgamated into one list and then sent back to them for a final review days before the workshop date. It should be noted that the final list reflected verbatim what each of the SMEs submitted; only clear duplications were eliminated.

The final template itemized 263 events. The events were then organized into 29 categories of event, in order to increase the usefulness of the results for purposes of later analysis.

An all-day workshop was scheduled for the analysis and prioritization of each identified event on the amalgamated list. This involved a discussion about each identified event on the list, after which the participants voted on the likelihood of the event occurring and the consequence of the event were it to occur. It was agreed that, although all participants were encouraged to engage fully in the discussion of each event, only the representatives from mining industry employers and workers would vote. MOL and WSN participants did not vote.

Ministry of Labour 27 To ensure the best possible results, participants agreed that the workshop meeting must be face-to-face. The participants were expected to engage in robust discussion in respect of each item on the list before the voting.

The workshop process was open, transparent, and collaborative. All opinions were heard and debated. The transparency of the process provided assurance to participants that they would have ample opportunity to present relevant information and that their views would be respected. As a result, the discussion generated a deeper objective understanding of the event and allowed for all perspectives to be heard. It is important to note that comments were not attributed to any individual or organization.

At the end of the discussion of each of the identified events, each participant cast a vote, on a scale of 1 – 5, on the “likelihood of the identified event occurring” and then on the “severity of the consequence if that event were to occur”. When voting on an event, the participants were instructed to consider the state of the controls that are currently in place. Each vote had the effect of locking in the participants’ ranking of each of the events. The result is a relative ranking of all of the 263 events that the participants were asked to assess.

Assessing levels of risk required judgement. This means that, in addition to any available data, the SMEs brought their considerable experience, knowledge, and sometimes their intuition to bear on the assessment of the likelihood of the event occurring and the severity of consequence that the event would have if it were to occur. The measurement occurred on a Likert scale of 1 to 5. A different scale, 1 to 10, or even 1 to 20, other any other such scale could have been used, but the result would be the same so long as the participants doing the measurement have a frame of reference based on the definitions of each unit of the scale provided. In the end, the scales used are a systematic measurement of a person’s judgement based on his/her subject matter expertise, which provides a foundation for any scientific investigation.

The workshop was facilitated by the ministry’s Corporate Risk Officer, Dr. Sujoy Dey, a certified risk management professional with training in systems thinking and decision science. On completion of the voting, the Risk Officer assembled the results into a ranked list of the identified events and then created a heat map that reflected the spread of the risks across the underground mining sector.

The results of the risk assessment exercise were immediately sent to the workshop SME participants for validation.

Ministry of Labour 28 Results of the Underground Mining Risk Assessment Workshop For the underground mining sector, the expert group identified a total 263 events. A heat map was developed provides a snapshot of the key risks facing a sector, arrayed in accordance with the priority ranking assigned to the risks in the workshop.

The results of the risk assessment can be organized in several ways. Different ways of portraying the results, for example looking at the ranking by workers as compared to the ranking by employers, can be used to help determine where there is an opportunity for employers to improve the communication of controls in place.

In analyzing the results, there was a significant degree of convergence among the participating voters in ranking the risks. It is fair to conclude, as such, that the top ten list provides a compelling set of priorities for the underground mining sector. This gives decision-makers a way to collectively move forward towards defining control actions through a systematic risk mitigation process.

The results of the risk assessment process provide a sound foundation for a more detailed analysis of the highest risks in the sector. For example, a structured root-cause analysis of the highest risks is a great start towards a complete analysis of causal factors for the identified adverse event. A risk has nowhere to go but down, when control strategies suppress it from all known angles and perspectives, thereby breaking the trajectory of accident causation. No one organization or an individual can provide all the perspectives that are essential for a true understanding of a risk. As the system has come together to identify and analyze the risks, the system should come together again to mitigate the same set of risks.

The top 10 risk events listed by category and specific situation or condition that could result in injury or illness were:

1. Ground Control – Rock bursts underground.

2. Mobile Equipment – Large vehicle and pedestrian or small vehicle interaction is common and lethal.

3. Ground Control – Loose rock at the face continues to kill and injure workers underground.

4. Ground Control – Existing underground mines in Ontario are becoming deeper and incurring higher extraction ratios. These situations can result in various forms of ground instability.

5. Ground Control – High faces not scaled and secured to protect workers

Ministry of Labour 29 6. Mobile Equipment – The mobile equipment employed in many underground mines is getting bigger. Bigger equipment can often result in poorer operator visibility (i.e. more and larger blind spots). This can result in collisions with other vehicles or contact with pedestrians.

7. Occupational Illness – Exposure to hazardous substances (dusts, materials, metals), gases/ fumes, biological materials or forms, Physical Hazards (vibration, noise, heat/cold stress, light.).

8. Fatigue – Working shiftwork resulting in disrupted sleeping patterns.

9. Ground Control – Fall of ground while installing ground support.

10. Training – Supervisors in some mines in Ontario lack the proper experience and Training. Inexperienced and improperly trained supervisors pose a threat to themselves and their direct-report workers.

References: 1. Daryl Raymond Smith, David Frazier, L W Reithmaier, and James C Miller (2001). Controlling Pilot Error. McGraw-Hill Professional. p. 10. ISBN 0071373187.

2. Jo. H. Wilson, Andrew Symon, Josephine Williams, and John Tingle (2002). Clinical Risk Management in Midwifery: the right to a perfect baby? Elsevier Health Sciences. pp. 4–6. ISBN 0750628510.

3. Tim Amos and Peter Snowden (2005). "Risk management". In Adrian J. B. James, Tim Kendall, and Adrian Worrall. Clinical Governance in Mental Health and Learning Disability Services: A Practical Guide. Gaskell. p. 176. ISBN 1904671128.

4. Malcolm K. Sparrow (2008). The Character of Harms: Operational Challenges in Control, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England; New York, USA.

Ministry of Labour 30 Appendix G – Mining Sector Coroner’s Jury Recommendations Analysis

Report on Coroner Jury Reports Analysis for Mining Sector Purpose This report provides an overview of the preliminary analysis of Coroners Jury Reports (CJRs) in the mining sector.

Context The Office of the Chief Coroner (OCC) for Ontario is responsible for death investigations and inquests in Ontario to ensure that no fatalities are overlooked, concealed, or ignored.

Deaths that occur as a result of an accident in the course of employment at construction sites, mining plants and mines are subject to mandatory inquests. According to Section 10 (5) of the Coroners Act:

Notice of death resulting from accident at or in construction project, mining plant or mine • (5) Where a worker dies as a result of an accident occurring in the course of the worker’s employment at or in a construction project, mining plant or mine, including a pit or quarry, the person in charge of such project, mining plant or mine shall immediately give notice of the death to a coroner and the coroner shall hold an inquest upon the body. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.37, s. 10 (5); 2009, c. 15, s. 6 (5).

The CJRs provide a synopsis of the events leading to the fatality and outline recommendations by the Jury to prevent future incidents.

Scope of Review In March 2014, the Data Management and Performance Metrics Unit gained access to inquest reports received by the Ministry of Labour to analyse the incidents description and Coroner Jury’s recommendation (CJRs) to the MOL, for findings that could support prevention-related initiatives.

The qualitative analysis of the CJRs included inquests that took place between 1996 and 2009. There was a total of 36 inquests in the mining sector, representing 18% of all CJRs received by the MOL in 13 years. The following discussion is specific to this subset of CJRs.

To ensure inter-rater reliability, once all CJRs were coded, the two coders met to review all the inquests for the coding of the ‘primary cause of fatal incident’. Where there were discrepancies between coders, the language used in the inquest determined the primary cause of fatal incident.

Ministry of Labour 31 There was a total of 37 fatalities among the 36 inquests: one inquest included two fatalities. The analysis highlights trends related to these fatalities by worker characteristics and other incident characteristic factors.

Overall Findings • Most victims were workers 25 to 54 years old.

• Almost 60% of fatal incidents in mining sector were caused by being struck by equipment, crushes and being pinned.

• When the accident time was mentioned, over half occurred in the afternoon hours: from noon to 5 pm.

• The most critical day of the week for fatal accidents was in the middle of the week: Wednesday (27%), followed by the beginning and the end of week: Mondays and Fridays (19% each).

• When weather was mentioned as a contributing factor for the fatality, the cold was the primary weather condition identified but weather was only mentioned in four inquest reports.

• The majority of the inquest recommendations were related to the OHSA and its regulations (61%), followed by communications (11%), and training related (10%).

Detailed Findings 1. Demographics

All fatalities in Mining sector involved males. From an age perspective, the majority of fatalities involved workers between 25 to 54 years old (86%).

Table 6 – Percentage of fatalities versus percentage of average Ontario employment (1996-2009), Victim’s Age n=3719

Young (<25) Middle Aged (25-54) Older (>=55) 14% versus 15% 86% versus 74% 0% versus 11%

2. Cause of Fatal Incident

The top three primary causes of death were: 1) struck by equipment (24%), 2) crushed (18%), and 3) pinned (18%). Fatalities from crushes included being crushed by equipment (e.g., trailer, loader) and by materials (e.g., stone, rock). All the falls were falls from

19 Employment data source: Statistics Canada, CANSIM Table 282-0002

Ministry of Labour 32 heights, and included falls from ladders, in ore passes or in holes. The category of “Other” includes: asphyxiation, swept by, and unknown.

Table 7 – Primary Cause of Fatal Incident (n=37)

Primary Cause of Death Percentage Struck By 24% Crushed 18% Pinned 18% Buried 15% Fall 9% Other 9% Run Over 3% Burns 3% Blunt Force 1%

3. Workplace Context

By far most fatalities involved workers (91%), followed by supervisors (9%). Most fatal incidents occurred while working (73%). For 27% of the incidents the information was insufficient to determine what was being done at the time of the incident.

The majority of incidents occurred while victims worked with others on the same work site (69%), while 31% of victims were alone in the workplace at the time of incident.

4. Incident’s Timing

Most fatal incidents occurred during the afternoon (noon to 5 pm) at 53%, followed by the night (10 pm to 4:59 am) at 27%, morning (5 am to 11:59 am) at 20%, and evening (6-10 pm) at 0%.

The majority of fatal incidents occurred on Wednesdays (27%), followed by Mondays and Fridays (19%), Tuesdays and Thursdays (11%), Saturdays (8%) and Sundays (5%). Most fatal incidents occurred during the working week (86%) comparing with the weekend (14%).

The months with the highest rate of fatal incidents in the mining sector were April (19%) and August (19%).

Ministry of Labour 33 Table 8 – Fatal Incidents by Month (n=37)

Month Percentage January 3% February 3% March 5% April 19% May 8% June 8% July 11% August 19% September 3% October 8% November 11% December 3%

5. Weather

Although there were few mentions of the weather in the inquest reports, there were four reports (or 11% of all mining CJRs) which specifically mentioned the weather as a contributing factor to the fatal incident. The cold (50%, n=2) was the primary weather condition mentioned to contribute to the incident.

6. Location

As expected, the majority of fatalities in the mining sector occurred in the MOL’s Northern Region (68%). The Western Region was next (19%), followed by Eastern Region (8%) and Central Region (5%).

7. Recommendations

Each inquest included one set of recommendations which apply to the fatal incident included in that inquest. A total of 249 recommendations were directed to the MOL, equaling 24% of all recommendations made in 36 mining sector inquests. On average, each inquest in the mining sector had 7 recommendations, with a range from 0 to 22 recommendations.

The majority (61%) of the recommendations were related to the OHSA and its regulations.

Of the total recommendations related to OHSA:

• 63 recommendations were related to the OHSA (42%) • 55 recommendations were related to the Mining Regulations (36%) • 29 recommendations were related to both OHSA and Mining Regulations (19%) • 5 recommendations were related to the Construction Projects Regulations (3%).

Ministry of Labour 34 The second most common theme among the recommendations was related to communication and collaboration (11% or 28 recommendations). These recommendations pertained to communication and cooperation between the Ministry and workplaces, as well as collaboration between the Ministry and various agencies and workplaces.

Recommendations for training enhancement and certification (10% or 25 recommendations) were also frequently mentioned. These recommendations covered issues such as additional workplace training, new training frequencies and lengths of training, different types of training, additional training requirements and proof of certification.

Ministry of Labour 35 Appendix H – Common Core Modules The Ministry of Training, Colleges, and Universities (MTCU) administers the following mining modular training programs. Each consists of a Common Core and may include specialty modules. Below is a list of these programs by sector:

Ontario’s Mining Modular Programs Hard Rock Mining • Underground Hard Rock Miner Program #770010 – Common Core and Specialty modules

• First Line Underground Mine Supervisor – Underground Hard Rock Miner #770121 – Common Core

• Basic Underground Hard Rock Mine Service Types #770225 – Common Core

Soft Rock Mining • Underground Soft Rock Miner Program #770130 – Common Core and Specialty modules

• First Line Underground Mine Supervisor – Underground Soft Rock Miner #770131 – Common Core

Surface Mining • Surface Miner #771210 – Common Core and Specialty modules

• Common Core for Generic First Line Supervisor Program #770141– Surface Mining, Surface and Underground Diamond Drilling Operations and Surface and Underground Electrical/Mechanical Mining Trades

Mill Processing • Mill Process Operator – Mineral Ore #810050 – Common Core and Specialty modules

Smelting • Basic Smelter Operations – Mineral Ore #810080 - Common Core. Note: This program is intended for production workers and first line supervisors.

• Non-Production Workers in a Smelter Operation – Mineral Ore #810090 – Common Core

Underground Diamond Drilling • Underground Diamond Driller #770150 – Helper, Runner Level and Specialty modules

Ministry of Labour 36 Surface Diamond Drilling • Surface Diamond Driller #770200 – Common Core and Specialty Modules

Ministry of Labour 37 Appendix I – Presentations Heard and Consultation Papers Received

Public Consultation Presenters Timmins - March 31 2014 No Presenters

Kirkland Lake – April 1 2014 • Marc Ayotte (USW)

Sudbury – April 2 2014 • Ian Plummer

• Miles Sullivan (USW)

• James Niemy

• Eric Lachance (USW Local 2020)

• Nick Larochelle (USW)

• Craig Allaire (USW)

• Faye Campeau

• Jason Patterson (USW)

• Joe Guido (USW)

Sudbury – April 3 2014 • Tammy Eger (Laurentian University)

• Vic Pakalnis (MIRARCO)

• Dave Stewart (Sudbury Integrated Nickel)

• Denis Chartrand (Unifor 598)

• Julien Dion (Steelworkers of Active Retirees)

• Jamie West (Vale)

• Ryan St George (USW Local 6500)

Red Lake - April 30 2014 • Gerry Leblanc (USW)

Ministry of Labour 38 Marathon - May 1 2014 • Jason Card (USW Local 9422)

• Glenn Keenen (USW Local 9422)

• Alf Mills (USW Local 9422)

London – May 13 2014 • Lisa MacDonald Perron

• Mark McDuff

• Randy Graham (USW Local 8782)

• Nancy Johnson (ONA)

• Philip Bousquet (OMA)

• Jamie Wright (Unifor Local 88)

• Sari Sairanen (Unifor)

• Bill Work (Unifor 1959)

• Sylvia Boyce (USW)

• Stephan Lynch (Unifor Local 19-O)

• Drew Dalgleish (Unifor Local 10-O)

• Sue Finch (Office of the Worker Advisor)

• Rick Hamilton & Jayne McKenzie (Office of the Worker Advisor)

• Steve Banks (USW)

• Marty Warren (USW)

• David Cousins (St. Mary’s Cement)

• David Chezzi (Occupational Health Clinic for Ontario Workers)

• Chris Hodgson (OMA)

• Roger Falconer (WHSC)

• Rick Smithers (USW)

Ministry of Labour 39 Public Consultation Submissions • Gerry Rogers

• Ian Plummer

• James Niemi

• Joe Guido

• Nick Larochelle

• Charles Trenka

• Craig Allaire

• CROSH

• Jamie West

• MIRARCO

• Ryan St. George

• Rick Lakanen

• Robert Kohut

• Alf Mills

• Ken Leblanc

• OCRC

• Phil Lafreniere

• USW

• Lake Shore Gold Corp

• Compass Minerals

• OPSEU

• K&S Windsor Salt Ltd

• AuRico Gold

• Cementation Canada Inc.

• GoldCorp

Ministry of Labour 40 • KGHM International

• KIDD Operations

• LOARC

• OMA

• Boart Longyear

• ONA

• Redpath Group

• Vale Ontario

• WHSC

• Peter

• Sudbury INO

• Occupational Cancer Research Centre

• Anonymous

• UNIFOR

• Eric Lachance

• Marc Ayotte & Mike Huard

• Seppo Juhani Vataja

• IAM Gold Corporation

• The Ontario Federation of Labour

• Peg Scherzinger

• Glenn Keenan

• Jason Card

• Jean-Marc Millette

• Bob Parker & Bill Wark

• David Chezzi

• Drew Dalgleish

Ministry of Labour 41 • Jamie Wright

• Nancy Johnson

• Rick Hamilton & Sue Finch

• Rick Smithers

• Robert Kohut

• Roger Falconer

• Stephan Lynch

• Mark Macduff

• John F. Barker

• Dumas Mining

• Dennis Shannon

Ministry of Labour 42