Employer and Supervisor fined after Co-op Student Injured

News Release

CRS Specialties Inc. and Supervisor Fined $59,000 After Co-op Student Injured

April 9, 2013 4:20 pm  Ministry of Labour

St. Catharines, ON - CRS Specialties Inc., a Welland manufacturer of rebar bending equipment, was fined $55,000 for a violation of the Occupational Health and Safety Act after a student, working there as a co-operative education placement, was injured. A further fine of $4,000 was imposed on a supervisor for a similar violation of the act during the investigation of the incident.

On March 23, 2011, at the company's Welland workplace, the student was taking apart a fan and washing it in a Varsol bath. When finished, the student was told to start a welding task. When beginning the task, the young worker was wearing a polyester-blend sweatshirt over overalls. Polyester materials are susceptible to ignition and should not be worn while welding. The student was not supplied with a welding jacket, welding sleeves, neck shroud or flame-retardant clothing. The supervisor did not intervene to make sure the student removed the sweatshirt and had sufficient apparel to prevent injury.

While the student was welding, the sweatshirt ignited and caught fire. The student suffered second degree burns.

Later, on March 28, 2011, while the Ministry of Labour was investigating that incident, an inspector saw another worker in the same workplace not wearing apparel sufficient to prevent injury while welding. The worker was wearing a polyester-blend sweatshirt and only one welding sleeve.

CRS Specialties Inc. pleaded guilty to failing to ensure that a competent person was appointed as supervisor.

Supervisor Chad Corriveau pleaded guilty to failing to ensure that a worker was wearing apparel sufficient to protect the worker from injury while welding.


The fines were imposed by Justice of the Peace B. Phillips. In addition to the fine, the court imposed a 25-per-cent victim fine surcharge, as required by the Provincial Offences Act. The surcharge is credited to a special provincial government fund to assist victims of crime.


Court Information at a Glance

Location:                      Ontario Court of Justice
                                      71 King St.
                                      St. Catharines, ON

Judge:                          Justice of the Peace B. Phillips

Date of Sentencing:     April 4, 2013

Defendant:                   CRS Specialties Inc.

Matter:                         Occupational Health and Safety

Conviction:                  Ontario Regulation 851, Section 84
                                      Occupational Health and Safety Act,
                                      Section 25(2)(c), Section 27(1)(a)

Crown Counsel:           Daniel Kleiman

Teranorth Construction Engineering Limited Fined $115,000 After Worker Killed

January 24, 2013 2:10 pm

Ministry of Labour

Thunder Bay, ON - Teranorth Construction & Engineering Limited, a Sudbury constructor, was fined $115,000 for a violation of the Occupational Health and Safety Act after a worker was killed.

On June 24, 2011, the company was constructing new eastbound and westbound bridge decks on Highway 11/17 at the Mackenzie River in the Municipality of Shuniah. Precast concrete bridge spans were already installed and workers were pouring liquid grout into the joints. A worker was on an elevated work platform beneath the bridge decks sealing leaks caused by liquid grout seeping through the concrete spans. The elevated work platform was on a sloped surface when it overturned, fatally injuring the worker.

Teranorth Construction & Engineering Limited pled guilty to failing to ensure that the elevated work platform was used only on a firm, level surface.

The fine was imposed by Justice Dianne P. Baig. In addition to the fine, the court imposed a 25-per-cent victim fine surcharge, as required by the Provincial Offences Act. The surcharge is credited to a special provincial government fund to assist victims of crime.


Court Information at a Glance

Location:                    Ontario Court of Justice
                                    1805 Arthur St.
                                    Thunder Bay, ON

Judge:                         Justice Dianne P. Baig

Date of Sentencing:     January 21, 2013

Defendant:                   Teranorth Construction & Engineering Limited

Matter:                         Occupational Health and Safety

Conviction:                  Ontario Regulation 213, Section 148(b)

Crown Counsel:           Shantanu Roy

Do you know what the IRS stands for in Ontario Occupational Health and Safety?

November 2, 2012

The Ontario Ministry of Labour has been prosecuting violations of the Occupational Health and Safety Act by employers, with hefty penalties and fines.

Most of these violations involve the employers omission in training their employees of certain hazards.  The Ontario Ministry of Labour has found a violation in the omission of training in certain workplace operations of machinery,  that none of the workers had received traffic control training and a traffic control plan was not in effect, that the employer failed to ensure that the work surface was kept free of slip and fall hazards, and there are many more.

We do not have accidents in Ontario workplaces.  If you remember the ads the Prevention division of the WSIB released a few years ago - it was scary stuff!  Horrible things happened to people in the workplace who did not follow the OHSA or whose employer did not train them in proper procedures.

Where does the employee fall in all of this?

Perhaps, it is a little like Scott Street in St. Catharines.  If you have ever had the privilege of driving down that street you will notice the many traffic stop signals that have been installed.  Let me mention here that except for major intersections; those are not preventive measures taken - they are completely reactive.  Each of those "extra" traffic signals  represents someone who was killed while crossing Scott Street.  Crossing without going to a nearby intersection.  Crossing in the middle of the street.  The reaction of the City because the public outcry for something to be done demanded an action.  The re-action was another traffic signal.  It was a horrible way to die for a young student and for an elderly grandmother.  I hope that these additional traffic signals prevent it from happening again.

In the workplace, Justice Ham instituted the Internal Responsibility System.  It was a reaction.  However, it was after a careful investigation into what happened in a terrible workplace "accident".

The triangle of responsibility that he designed puts the Province of Ontario at the top.  They pass legislation and regulations that are made to protect workers.

Then the first stop in the bottom of the triangle is the employer, who is legislated to take all measures to keep employees safe.

The next stop in the triangle is the employees who are in the workplace.  Essentially, the foundation of this structure is the relationship between the employer and the employees.  Each communicating to the other about any possible hazards that may be in the workplace.  Then each taking responsibility for taking all measures to make sure that the workplace is safe.

I feel like I am repeating myself.  Everyone is responsible to make sure the workplace is safe because the Province of Ontario does not have any accidents!

It is extremely difficult for the Justice in these cases to charge an employee who has been killed or injured.  The employer is found to be at fault.  Common sense tells us that often the employee should not have been doing what they were doing.  Still, the employer is at fault.

Even when an employee is rushing at the end of the day to finish on time, early, or if working on piece work - to make an extra few bucks for their family - when tragedy strikes; the employer is at fault.

The employer may have set up an accident by using a compensation method that doesn't allow employees to take their time on a more dangerous job.  The employer may have given a young worker a chance to have his first job even without experience and paired him with a more experienced worker who was taking chances.

However, regardless of the Internal Responsibility System that is in place in the Province of Ontario; the employer pays the penalty with his cash and the employee pays the penalty with his life.

When will we learn that employees also have a duty to mitigate the dangers in the workplace.  They also have a responsibility to use common sense on the job.  They also must give up the chance for the extra buck by slowing down and doing the job safely.

The OHSA is like Scott Street for me.  It is the reaction to many injuries in the workplace over the years.  A collection of decisions so that this will not happen again.  It is also a collection of common sense.  Use it or lose it!

The Province of Ontario is regulating workplaces to use common sense.  Employers must train their employees properly and to use common sense.

Employees must use common sense to come home from work each day - alive and in one piece.

It is our right in Ontario workplaces.

Other information links:
www.hrnc.ca
http://www.labour.gov.on.ca/english/hs/pubs/mining/syn_minirs_2.php

Safety is ultimately employer’s responsibility, not committee’s: Arbitrator

This is an interesting decision - the union grieved extra PPE protection for its' members.

Joint health and safety committee had power to prescribe safety equipment but employer could still do so without committee’s recommendation

November 2, 2012

The health and safety of employees is ultimately the responsibility of the employer and can’t be delegated to a joint health and safety committee, an Ontario arbitrator has ruled.

Gerdau Ameristeel, a steel manufacturing company, introduced a policy in its Whitby, Ont., plant requiring employees to wear chin straps on their safety headgear. The union grieved the policy, noting that the collective agreement required Gerdau to take all reasonable precautions for the safety of employees — in line with health and safety legislation — and to provide all personal protective equipment prescribed by the joint health and safety committee. The union argued this gave the power to approve safety equipment to the joint committee, not the company.

The arbitrator found that the Ontario Occupational Health and Safety Act placed the main responsibility for employee health and safety with the employer, including the assigning of personal protective equipment. This legal responsibility did not diminish with the existence of a joint health and safety committee and a collective agreement allowing the committee to recommend safety equipment, said the arbitrator. If the employer didn’t have the ability to dictate equipment, then it would be susceptible to being charged and prosecuted for safety conditions over which it had no control.

The arbitrator ruled that Gerdau was entitled to prescribe personal protective equipment for employees, independent of the joint health and safety committee, regardless of the collective agreement provision giving the committee a say in prescribing equipment. The greivance was dimissed.

“Although I do not doubt this union’s commitment to the safety of its members, I do not believe that the employer can avoid its legal obligation, even when acting in good faith, to take every precaution reasonable in the circumstances for theprotection of a worker,” said the arbitrator.

For more information see:

•Gerdau Ameristeel v. U.S.W., Local 6571, 2012 CarswellOnt 9066 (Ont. Arb. Bd.).

© Copyright Canadian HR Reporter, Thomson Reuters Canada Limited. All rights reserved.

http://www.employmentlawtoday.com/articleview/16594-safety-is-ultimately-employers-responsibility-not-committees-arbitrator

 

Royal Group, Inc. Fined $50,000 After Worker Injured

 

Is a wet floor really that bad?  Yes, when people can be hurt!

Doesn't the employee have a duty under the IRS?

Who is ultimately responsible?

October 30, 2012

Newmarket, ON - Royal Group, Inc., carrying on business as Royal Pipe Co., a Toronto pipe manufacturer, was fined $50,000 for a violation of the Occupational Health and Safety Act after a worker was injured.

On July 2, 2011, a worker at the company's Woodbridge manufacturing facility was setting up one of the production lines. The worker slipped on a wet surface and fell onto a machine. The worker's arm was trapped and injured between the frame of the machine and one of its moving parts.

Royal Group, Inc., carrying on business as Royal Pipe Co., pleaded guilty to failing to ensure that the work surface was kept free of slip and fall hazards.

The fine was imposed by Justice of the Peace John MacDonald. In addition to the fine, the court imposed a 25-per-cent victim fine surcharge, as required by the Provincial Offences Act. The surcharge is credited to a special provincial government fund to assist victims of crime.

Court Information at a Glance

Location:                    Ontario Court of Justice
                                    465 Davis Dr.
                                    Newmarket, ON

Judge:                         Justice of the Peace John MacDonald

Date of Sentencing:    October 26, 2012

Defendants:                 Royal Group, Inc. carrying on business as Royal Pipe Co.
Matter:                        Occupational Health and Safety

Convictions:                Ontario Regulatio 851, Section 11(a)(ii)

Crown Counsel:          Shantanu Roy

Goldcorp Canada Ltd. Fined $350,000 After Worker Killed

Timmins, ON - Goldcorp Canada Ltd., the operator of Hoyle Pond, a Timmins mine, was fined $350,000 today for a violation of the Occupational Health and Safety Act after a worker was killed.

On March 10, 2011, a worker was operating a scoop tram in a production area of the mine. A scoop tram is a type of mobile equipment used to pick up and move broken rock underground. Two workers approached the tram on foot and had a conversation with its operator about work to be done that day. The tram operator drove away to get a piece of equipment. While the tram was gone one of the two workers on foot began laying electrical wire in the tram's work zone and a third worker entered the area on foot. The tram operator returned to the area thinking there were only two workers there. The operator saw two cap lamps near the entrance and proceeded into the work zone unaware that there was a worker laying electrical wire there. That worker remained unseen and was run over and killed by the machine.

A Ministry of Labour investigation found that at the time of the incident Goldcorp had a procedure in place to alert equipment operators of workers in their area. This procedure required the placement of signs and flashing lights. While the signs and lights were readily available at the time of the incident, the procedure was not applicable in the area where the incident occurred.

Goldcorp Canada Ltd. pleaded guilty to failing to ensure that:

• there was a safety procedure in place in the area of the incident to protect workers when mobile equipment was being used
• workers were instructed on such a procedure
• the procedure was implemented through appropriate supervision

The fine was imposed by Justice of the Peace Alex Spence. In addition to the fine, the court imposed a 25-per-cent victim fine surcharge, as required by the Provincial Offences Act. The surcharge is credited to a special provincial government fund to assist victims of crime.

Court Information at a Glance
    Location:                    City Hall Council Chambers
                                      220 Algonquin Blvd. E.                                      Timmins, ON

Judge:                         Justice of the Peace Alex Spence



Date of Sentencing:    October 11, 2012

Defendants:                 Goldcorp Canada Ltd.

Matter:                           Occupational Health and Safety

Convictions:               Occupational Health and Safety Act, Section 25(2)(a)

Crown Counsel:        Wes Wilson

Pallet Manufacturing Company Fined $50,000 After Worker Injured

August 23, 2012

Newmarket, ON - Woodbridge Pallet Ltd., a Woodbridge-based pallet manufacturing and repair company, was fined $50,000 on August 17, 2012, for a violation of the Occupational Health and Safety Act after a worker was injured.

On July 20, 2010, a Woodbridge Pallet employee was painting pallets in the workplace's paint department. The worker began walking across the floor area to retrieve some paint when a counter-balance forklift carrying a load of pallets struck the worker. The worker suffered leg and arm injuries.
A Ministry of Labour investigation found that the forklift operator - when moving forward - could not see the other worker because the pallets on the forks obstructed the operator's forward view.
Woodbridge Pallet Ltd. pleaded guilty to failing to move materials in a way that would not endanger any workers.

The fine was imposed by Justice of the Peace Linda DeBartolo. In addition to the fine, the court imposed a 25-per-cent victim fine surcharge, as required by the Provincial Offences Act. The surcharge is credited to a special provincial government fund to assist victims of crime.

Court Information at a Glance
Location:                     Ontario Court of Justice
                                    465 Davis Dr.
                                    Newmarket, ON
Judge:                         Justice of the Peace Linda DeBartolo                                  
Date of Sentencing:    August 17, 2012
Defendants:                Woodbridge Pallet Ltd.
Matter:                        Occupational Health and Safety
Convictions:               Occupational Health and Safety Act, Section 25(1)(c)
                                   O. Reg. 851/90 Section 45
Crown Counsel:         Mike Nicol

An Ontario court has held that an employer had no duty to provide safety training to a medical manager

[author: Adrian Miedem

An Ontario court has held that an employer had no duty to provide safety training to a medical manager on a function – the use of ladders – that was outside of the manager’s job duties.
The case involved the Emergency Medical Services Manager with the Parry Sound Health Centre. The manager took an extension ladder, leaned the ladder against the outside of a building, then climbed the ladder to check a heating and air conditioning roof unit that was not working properly. When the manager was 15 or 20 feet up, the ladder gave way and he fell to the ground and was seriously injured.

The Ministry of Labour laid an Occupational Health and Safety Act charge against the employer, alleging a failure to properly train the medical manager on ladder use.

Justice of the Peace Tenant, in the Ontario Court of Justice, held that the employer was not guilty. He found that ladder use “had nothing to do with” the medical manager’s job; that the manager should not have been using a ladder; that it was not foreseeable that he would use the ladder; that he was not asked by the employer to use the ladder or to repair the roof unit; and that he was aware that the proper procedure was to call a maintenance worker.

The court asked, rhetorically, whether it would be “reasonable and necessary to provide information, instruction and supervision to a maintenance worker on the proper use of a hypodermic syringe?” and whether, if a nurse was injured hanging a piece of art, would the employer be required to train all nurses in the use of hammers?

In closing, the court stated that it does not require “super-human efforts” to raise a due diligence defence to Occupational Health and Safety Act charges, and the Act and regulations do not “mandate or seek to achieve the impossible entirely risk-free work environment”.
R. v. West Parry Sound Health Centre, 2012 CarswellOnt 7703 (Ont. C.J.)

---

Published In: Administrative Law Updates, Labor & Employment Law Updates

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.
Thank you to the © Fraser Milner Casgrain LLP 2012 | Attorney Advertising

Company Director Fined $90,000 Under OHSA After Workers Killed

  

July 13, 2012 11:20 AM

Toronto, ON - Joel Swartz, the director of Metron Construction Corporation, a Toronto constructor, was fined $90,000 after pleading guilty to violations of the Occupational Health and Safety Act after four workers were killed and another worker was seriously injured.

On December 24, 2009, six workers were on a suspended work platform, also known as a swing stage, at a construction project on Kipling Ave. in Toronto. The swing stage collapsed and fell 13 floors, killing four of the workers and seriously injuring another worker. The only worker properly attached to fall protection was held by the lifeline and pulled to safety.

A Ministry of Labour investigation found that the deceased workers had not been properly tied off to a lifeline, and had not been properly trained in the use of fall protection. The swing stage had been overloaded and it was later determined to be defective and hazardous.
Joel Swartz pleaded guilty under the Occupational Health and Safety Act to failing, as adirector, to take all reasonable care to ensure that:

• workers did not use a defective or hazardous swing stage
• the swing stage was not loaded in excess of the weight it was meant to bear
• workers were adequately trained in the use of fall protection by a competent person
• Metron Construction Corporation prepared and maintained written training and instruction records for each worker

Metron Construction Corporation was convicted of criminal negligence causing death and was fined $200,000 in relation to the same incident. Metron's conviction was pursuant to amendments to the Criminal Code of Canada relating to workplace safety which have been in force since 2004.  The criminal charges were laid by the police.

The fines were imposed by Judge Bigelow of the Ontario Court of Justice. In addition to the OHSA fines, the court imposed a 25-per-cent victim fine surcharge, as required by the Provincial Offences Act. The surcharge is credited to a special provincial government fund to assist victims of crime.

Other defendants facing charges stemming from this incident are still before the court.

Court Information at a Glance
Location:                     Ontario Court of Justice
                                    Old City Hall
                                    60 Queen Street West
                                    Toronto, ON
Judge:                         Judge Bigelow                                   
Date of Sentencing:   July 13, 2012
Defendants:                 Joel Swartz
                                    Metron Construction Corporation
Matter:                        Occupational Health and Safety
Conviction:                 Ontario Regulation 213/91, Section 26.2(1)
                                   Ontario Regulation 213/91, Section 26.2(3)
                                   Ontario Regulation 213/91, Section 93(2)(a)
                                   Ontario Regulation 213/91, Section 134(3)
Crown Counsel:         Tom Schneider

Construction Supervisor Fined $30,000 After Worker Killed

 

 

July 12, 2012 4:00 PM

Milton, ON - An Uxbridge construction company supervisor was fined $30,000 for violations of the Occupational Health and Safety Act after a worker was killed.

On December 15, 2009, bridge construction was underway on the Queen Elizabeth Way over Bronte Creek in Oakville. The construction company 474294 Ontario Limited, carrying on business as Northern Machinery Services, was removing the concrete deck of the existing bridge. The president of the company, Barry Wood, was supervising. While workers were removing concrete panels from the bridge a section of the deck began to collapse. A worker fell and a collapsing concrete panel fell on top of the worker. The worker was killed.

A Ministry of Labour investigation found that Mr. Wood had been provided with a copy of an engineered procedure for safely cutting and removing concrete from the bridge deck in order to maintain its structural integrity and prevent collapse. However, this procedure had been violated. Furthermore, the workers exposed to a fall hazard while dismantling the bridge had not been wearing fall protection.

Barry Wood pleaded guilty to failing, as a supervisor, to take the reasonable precaution of ensuring that workers engaged in the cutting and removal of the bridge deck followed the engineered procedure for that task. He was fined $20,000 for this violation.

Mr. Wood also pleaded guilty to failing, as a supervisor, to ensure that workers exposed to a fall hazard were wearing fall protection. He was fined $10,000 for this violation.

The fines were imposed by Justice Stephen Brown. In addition to the fines, the court imposed a 25-per-cent victim fine surcharge, as required by the Provincial Offences Act. The surcharge is credited to a special provincial government fund to assist victims of crime.


Court Information at a Glance
Location:                    Ontario Court of Justice
                                    491 Steeles Ave. E.
                                    Milton, ON
Judge:                         Justice Stephen Brown 
Date of Sentencing:    July 12, 2012
Defendant:                  Barry Wood
Matter:                        Occupational Health and Safety
Conviction:                 Occupational Health and Safety Act, Section 27(2)(c)
                                   Ontario Regulation 213/91, Section 26.1(2)
Crown Counsel:          Wes Wilson