Showing posts with label occupational health and safety. Show all posts
Showing posts with label occupational health and safety. Show all posts

Thursday, November 14, 2013

Coca-Cola Bottling Company Fined $70,000 After Worker Injured

Ontario Newsroom Ontario Newsroom
Court Bulletin

Coca-Cola Bottling Company Fined $70,000 After Worker Injured

November 14, 2013
BRAMPTON, ON - Coca-Cola Bottling Company, based in Halifax, Nova Scotia, has been fined $70,000 for a violation of Ontario's Occupational Health and Safety Act after a worker in a Brampton plant was injured.

On December 1, 2010, a worker was operating a palletizer machine at the company plant located at 15 Westcreek Boulevard in Brampton when the worker noticed that cases of product were becoming stuck on transfer plates. The palletizer machine loads beverage product cases onto pallets for shipping. Due to spillage of pop products, transfer plates become sticky and often interfere with the movement and proper alignment of beverage product cases; workers commonly spray the plates with an aerosol silicone spray to overcome the sticking. The safety equipment on the palletizer machines includes a gate that is interlocked so the palletizer machine stops if the gate is opened.

In this incident the worker proceeded to reach inside the opening in the gate to spray the plate with silicone without shutting off the production line. As the worker did so, a push bar cycled on and pinched the worker's arm between the push bar and a metal support beam. The worker suffered a fractured arm as a result.

Coca-Cola Bottling Company pleaded guilty to failing, as an employer, to ensure that an in-running nip hazard on the palletizer that endangered the safety of a worker was equipped with and guarded with a device that prevents access to the pinch point as required by the Occupational Health and Safety Act, and was fined $70,000.

The fine was imposed by Justice of the Peace Richard Quon. 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
                                    7755 Hurontario Street
                                    Brampton, ON
                                   
Judge:                         Justice of the Peace Richard Quon

Date of Sentencing:    November 12, 2013

Defendant:                  Coca-Cola Bottling Company
                                   1959 Upper Water Street, Suite 1100
                                   Halifax, Nova Scotia

Matter:                        Occupational Health and Safety

Conviction:                 Ontario Regulation 851/90
                                    (Industrial Establishments)
                                    Occupational Health and Safety Act
                                    Section 25(1)(a)

Crown Counsel:          Daniel Kleiman

Friday, May 10, 2013

St. Marys Cement, Supervisor Fined $78,000 After Worker Injured

Court Bulletin

St. Marys Cement, Supervisor Fined $78,000 After Worker Injured

Ministry of Labour

WHITBY, ON - St. Marys Cement Inc. of Toronto has been fined $75,000 and a supervisor was fined $3,000 for violations of the Occupational Health and Safety Act after a worker was injured.

On January 29, 2012, workers were clearing mud and rock from the vanes of a large rotary sluice at the St. Marys Cement plant located at 400 Waverly Road South in Bowmanville.

Although the electrical supply had been turned off, a brake on the sluice was not able to hold the vanes in place for cleaning. An inspection determined that the brake drum was cracked. A steel bar was inserted to prevent the vanes from rotating. When the bar came into contact with one of the vanes, the force of the rotation caused the bar's handle to suddenly fly upward. It struck one of the workers on the face, causing a concussion and facial fractures. A Ministry of Labour investigation followed the incident.

St. Marys Cement pleaded guilty to failing, as an employer, to ensure that gravity-stored energy was dissipated or contained while work was being done on the sluice, and was fined $75,000.

Edward Maybee pleaded guilty to failing, as a supervisor, to ensure that workers worked in the manner and with the protective devices, measures and procedures required by the Occupational Health and Safety Act and Regulations, and was fined $3,000.

The fines were imposed by Justice of the Peace Robert G. Boychyn. 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:                    Provincial Offences Court
                                      605 Rossland Road
                                      Courtroom #103
                                      Whitby, ON
                                   
Judge:                         Justice of the Peace Robert G. Boychyn

Date of Sentencing:    May 1, 2013

Defendant:                    St. Marys Cement (employer)
                                         Edward Maybee (supervisor)

Matter:                         Occupational Health and Safety

Conviction:                  Ontario Regulation 854/90
                                    Section 185(7)(b)
                                   
                                    Occupational Health & Safety Act
                                    Section 25(1)(c) and Section 27(1)(a)
                                   
Crown Counsel:            Dan Kleiman

Thursday, May 2, 2013

Algoma Tubes Inc. Fined $70,000 After Workers Injured

Court Bulletin

Algoma Tubes Inc. Fined $70,000 After Workers Injured

Ministry of Labour

SAULT STE. MARIE, ON - Algoma Tubes Inc., a manufacturer of steel pipe products based in Whitehorse, Yukon, has been fined $70,000 for a violation of the Occupational Health and Safety Act after two workers were injured.

On July 15, 2011, two workers employed as electrical maintenance technicians by Algoma Tubes at the facility located at 547 Wallace Terrace in Sault Ste. Marie were decommissioning an out-of-service motor control centre (a large electrical panel). A de-energized control cable that one of the workers was removing came into contact with a 480-volt energized panel. The resulting arc flash caused one of the workers to sustain burns to one hand and the other worker to suffer burns to the hand, forearm and face.

The Ministry of Labour investigated the incident and found that Algoma Tubes failed as an employer to ensure that the workers used rubber gloves, mats, shields or other protective equipment and procedures adequate to ensure protection from electrical shock and burns while performing the work.

This was contrary to section 42.1(2) of Ontario Regulation 851, R.R.O. 1990, as amended, and to section 25(1)(c) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.O.1, as amended.

The company pleaded guilty and was fined $70,000.

The fine was imposed by Justice of the Peace Jill Morris. 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:                     Provincial Offences Court
                                     Civic Centre
                                     99 Foster Drive
                                     Sault Ste. Marie, ON

Judge:                         Justice of the Peace Jill Morris
                                  
Date of Sentencing:   April 30, 2013

Defendant:                   Algoma Tubes Inc
.
Matter:                        Occupational Health and Safety

Conviction:                Ontario Regulation 851

                                    Occupational Health & Safety Act, Sec.25(1)(c)
                                   
Crown Counsel:         Shantanu Roy

Wednesday, April 10, 2013

Employer and Supervisor fined after Co-op Student Injured

News Release

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

  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

Friday, February 15, 2013

What must an employer do in your workplace?




Part III: Duties of Employers and Other Persons

Disclaimer: This resource has been prepared to help the workplace parties understand some of their obligations under the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA) and regulations. It is not legal advice. It is not intended to replace the OHSA or the regulations. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION PLEASE SEE FULL DISCLAIMER
The Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA) imposes duties on employers, constructors, supervisors, owners, suppliers, licensees, officers of a corporation and workers, among others. Part III of the Act specifies the general duties of these workplace parties.

General Duties of Employers

An Ontario employer, who is covered by the OHSA, has a range of legal obligations, including the obligation to:
  • instruct, inform and supervise workers to protect their health and safety [clause 25(2)(a)]
  • assist in a medical emergency by providing any information—including confidential business information—to a qualified medical practitioner and other prescribed persons for the purpose of diagnosis or treatment [clause 25(2)(b)]
  • appoint competent persons as supervisors [clause 25(2)(c)]. “Competent person” is a defined term under the Act. A “competent person” is defined as one who must:
    • be qualified—through knowledge, training and experience—to organize the work and its performance
    • be familiar with the Act and the regulations that apply to the work being performed in the workplace
    • know about any actual or potential danger to health and safety in the workplace

    An employer may appoint themselves as supervisors if they meet all three qualifications [subsection 25(3)].
  • inform a worker, or a person in authority over a worker, about any hazard in the work and train that worker in the handling, storage, use, disposal and transport of any equipment, substances, tools, material, etc. [clause 25(2)(d)]
  • help joint health and safety committees and health and safety representatives to carry out their functions [clause 25(2)(e)]
  • not employ or permit persons, who are under the prescribed age for the employer’s workplace to be in or near the workplace [clauses 25(2)(f) and (g)]
  • take every precaution reasonable in the circumstances for the protection of a worker [clause 25(2)(h)]
  • post in the workplace a copy of the OHSA, as well as explanatory material prepared by the Ministry of Labour that outlines the rights, responsibilities and duties of workers. This material must be in English and the majority language in the workplace [clause 25(2)(i)]
  • in workplaces in which more than five workers are regularly employed, prepare a written occupational health and safety policy, review that policy at least once a year and set up and maintain a program to implement it [clause 25(2)(j)]. For guidance on how to do this, see Appendix A of this Guide
  • post a copy of the occupational health and safety policy in the workplace, where workers will be most likely to see it [clause 25 (2)(k)]
  • provide the joint health and safety committee or the health and safety representative with the results of any occupational health and safety report that the employer has. If the report is in writing, the employer must also provide a copy of the parts of the report that relate to occupational health and safety [clause 25(2)(1)]
  • advise workers of the results of such a report. If the report is in writing, the employer must, on request, make available to workers copies of those portions that concern occupational health and safety [clause 25(2)(m)]
  • ensure that every part of the physical structure of the workplace complies with load requirements prescribed in the applicable Building Code provisions, any prescribed standards and sound engineering practice [clause 25(1)(e)]
  • prepare policies with respect to workplace violence and workplace harassment and review them at least once a year [subsection 32.0.1(1)]
  • regardless of how many workers they employ, develop programs supporting workplace harassment and workplace violence policies and include measures and procedures for workers to report incidents of workplace harassment and workplace violence, and set out how the employer will investigate and deal with incidents or complaints.
Note: the version of the Occupational Health and Safety Act on the e-Laws website is an official version of the Act per the Legislation Act, 2006.

Prescribed Duties of Employers

Please note that some employer duties make reference to prescribed requirements. For example, clause 25(1)( c) of the OHSA requires that employers carry out any measures and procedures that are prescribed for the workplace. “Prescribed” means specified in regulation. Where a regulation specifies measures and procedures for a specific type of workplace (e.g. an industrial establishment), the employer is required to carry out those measures and procedures.
A complete list of OHSA regulations can be viewed on the Ministry of Labour website.

Duties of Employers with respect to Workplace Violence and Workplace Harassment

Employers have specific duties regarding workplace violence and workplace harassment. Please see Part III.0.I of this Guide for more information.

Duties of Employers Concerning Toxic Substances

In workplaces where there are toxic or hazardous substances, the employer has many specific duties. These are described in detail in Part IV - Toxic Substances.

Duties of Supervisors

The Act sets out certain specific duties for workplace supervisors. A supervisor must:
  • ensure that a worker works in compliance with the Act and regulations [clause 27(1)(a)]
  • ensure that any equipment, protective device or clothing required by the employer is used or worn by the worker [clause 27(1)(b)]
  • advise a worker of any potential or actual health or safety dangers known by the supervisor [clause 27(2)(a)]
  • if prescribed, provide a worker with written instructions about the measures and procedures to be taken for the worker's protection [clause 27(2)(b)], and
  • take every precaution reasonable in the circumstances for the protection of workers [clause 27(2)(c)].

Who is a supervisor?

A supervisor is a person appointed by the employer who has charge of a workplace or authority over a worker [subsection 1 (1)].
Workers are often asked to act as supervisors in the absence of persons hired in that capacity, particularly those identified by such terms as senior, charge, or lead hands. Despite the term used, it is very important to understand that if a worker or lead hand has been given “charge of a workplace or authority over a worker” this person has met the definition of a supervisor within the meaning of the OHSA and assumes the legal responsibilities of a supervisor under the Act.

Who is a Competent Person?

A competent person is defined in the OHSA as someone who is qualified because of knowledge, training and experience to organize the work and its performance, is familiar with this Act and the regulations that apply to the work, and has knowledge of any potential or actual danger to health or safety in the workplace.
The OHSA requires that employers appoint a competent person as a supervisor [clause 25(2)(c)].

Duties of Constructors

Who is a constructor?

A constructor is defined in the OHSA as a person who undertakes a project for an owner and includes an owner who undertakes all or part of a project by himself or by more than one employer. The constructor is generally the person who has overall control of a project.
See also the publication entitled: Constructor Guideline: Health and Safety which is also available on the MOL website.
Under the Act, the constructor’s duties include the following:
  • to ensure that the measures and procedures in the Act and regulations are carried out [clause 23(1)(a)]
  • to ensure that every employer and worker on the project complies with the Act and regulations [clause 23(1)(b)], and
  • to ensure that the health and safety of workers on the project is protected [clause 23(1)(c)].
Where required in regulation, a constructor must give written notice to a Director at the Ministry of Labour, containing prescribed information, before work begins on a project [subsection 23(2)]. The Regulation for Construction Projects (O. Reg. 213/91) made under the Act specifies the projects in respect of which notice shall be provided and the content of the notice.

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


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

Thursday, January 24, 2013

Proactive Employment Standards Inspections

Proactive may be another way of saying "without a complaint".  Ministry of Labour Officers often used to be reactive NOT proactive. For instance, if an employee made a complaint about an employer the MOL would come and investigate. The Chief Prevention Officer wants to change that. By hiring and training more officers; putting out more public warnings; using social media to repeat the warnings and make sure all those "unknown" employers comply.

If you are in business it is time to make it your business to find out what your employer obligations demand of you with regards to the understanding of your employees' rights and safety.

Ontario will help ensure fairness in the workplace by enhancing the enforcement of the Employment Standards Act, 2000 (ESA) through proactive inspections. Each year, employment standards officers visit employers to ensure compliance with core ESA standards such as posting the ES poster, wage statements, unauthorized deductions, record keeping, hours of work, eating periods, overtime pay, minimum wage, public holidays, vacation with pay and in the case of temporary help agencies, providing required information to assignment employees and charging employees fees.

Inspections are also aimed at educating employers and employees about their rights and responsibilities under the ESA, and helping them to find more information. If violations are found during an inspection, officers may issue a range of compliance tools, including compliance orders, orders to pay wages/fees, or Part I Notices of Offence ("tickets"). In some cases, prosecution may be considered, and employers may also be re-inspected at a later date.

Chief Prevention Officer, George Gritziotis, wants complete compliance from all Ontario employers and businesses according to his talk to the CME-EAC last fall.


We are ALL responsible — employers, supervisors and workers — for preventing workplace illness and injury. Get involved now! Your search for workplace health and safety information starts right here…or here.
 

Tuesday, December 11, 2012

Ministry of Labour Consultation Period on New Mandatory Health & Safety Training for everyone

Hello,

I am somewhat concerned about the impact this new MOL initiative may have on employers and business owners.  It sounds like a great idea - but who pays for the time and training?  And what will be the ROI?

Here is the MOL Link: http://www.labour.gov.on.ca/english/hs/prevention/consultations/training.php

The consultation period ends February 4, 2013. Submissions may be mailed or sent electronically to the following addresses:

Mail: Awareness Training Programs Regulation Project
400 University Ave., 12th floor
Toronto, ON M7A 1T7
E-mail:WebHSpolicy@ontario.ca

Maybe I am cutting off my own consulting opportunities here - but if the Province keeps dumping legislation on to the business owner - the costs will be too high!  Just like development charges move businesses away from Niagara.  This (could) cause small businesses not to hire; to avoid compliance; to try to download their costs somehow. 

I believe that it will make it harder on businesses.  Zero accidents in Ontario sounds great.  I also believe that everyone has the right to go to work and come home again safely.  What is the cost?  What is the way to implement?  Why aren't the District School Board's including Health and Safety training in the curriculum?  The schools used to have a First Aid course as part of the curriculum. 

Why is it that Quebec can educate their students in less years than Ontario and it is not an inferior education - quite the opposite?  Quebec also has a mandatory 30 hours of health and safety training before someone can participate in construction. 

I think we can find a more economically viable way than make employers pay.

Thanks - Joy

Wednesday, November 21, 2012

Stacey Electric Company Limited Fined $150,000 After Worker Killed


Ministry of Labour

Toronto, ON - Stacey Electric Company Limited, a Toronto company, was fined $150,000 on November 19, 2012, for violations of the Occupational Health and Safety Act after one worker was killed and another worker was injured.

On December 23, 2010, two Stacey Electric workers were repairing a broken beacon at a railway underpass on Bathurst St. near Dupont St. in Toronto. The beacon was on a cement median between four lanes of traffic. One worker was in the bucket of a boom truck that had been extended over a lane of traffic next to the median. The other worker was standing on the median assisting the worker in the bucket. There were no traffic control measures such as signs or traffic cones in place. While the workers were repairing the beacon, a bus struck the boom attached to the bucket holding one of the workers. The worker on the median was struck and killed by the bus and the bucket as it fell to the ground. The other worker was also injured.

A Ministry of Labour investigation found that there was no traffic protection plan in place during the repair operation.

Stacey Electric Company Limited plead guilty to failing to take the reasonable precaution of ensuring that their workers prepare a traffic protection plan for their protection.

The fine was imposed by Justice of the Peace Donald Buchanan. 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
                                    1530 Markham Rd.
                                    Toronto, ON

Judge:                         Justice of the Peace Donald Buchanan

Date of Sentencing:    November 19, 2012

Defendant:                  Stacey Electric Company Limited

Matter:                        Occupational Health and Safety

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

Crown Counsel:          Mike Nicol

Monday, November 19, 2012

1648133 Ontario Ltd. and Employee Fined $156,000 After Worker Injured

    Ministry of Labour
 
Brampton, ON - 1648133 Ontario Ltd., operator of Furmar Dixie Road, a Mississauga facility that produces asphalt, was fined $150,000 for violations of the Occupational Health and Safety Act after a worker was injured. An employee of the company, Colin Martin, was fined $6,000 in relation to the same incident.

On June 3, 2011, a truck driver arrived at Furmar Dixie Road to pick up six tons of asphalt. The driver asked about the pickup procedure at the main office and was told to drive under a silo and a horn would indicate when to load up. The driver stopped the truck after hearing the horn, believing that the truck was correctly lined up to receive the asphalt. There were no signals to indicate that the truck was in the wrong position, and the asphalt began releasing onto the cab of the truck, caving it in. The driver yelled for help, was pulled from the truck and suffered severe injuries.

1648133 Ontario Ltd. plead guilty to failing to ensure that the silo was guarded or shielded to prevent its asphalt from endangering a worker. The company also plead guilty to failing to provide the driver with adequate information, instruction and supervision regarding the asphalt loading process. It was fined $75,000 for each offence.

When Ministry of Labour personnel went to investigate the incident they tested the system of photo sensors intended to prevent the release of asphalt if a truck was not lined up correctly. The testing, done in the control tower, showed the sensors for one of the silos were not working. Mr. Martin, who was in the control tower with the ministry personnel, left the room, returned and asked that they test the silo again. This time it worked. When questioned, Mr. Martin told the inspector for the first time that there was a control box that would allow the sensors to be bypassed. He had turned off the sensor bypass to the silo without the inspector's knowledge or permission.

Colin Martin plead guilty to altering the scene without the inspector's permission to do so.
The fines were imposed by Justice of the Peace Michael Barnes. 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
                                    5 Ray Lawson Blvd.
                                    Brampton, ON

Judge:                         Justice of the Peace Michael Barnes

Date of Sentencing:     November 13, 2012

Defendants:                 1648133 Ontario Ltd.
                                    Colin Martin

Matter:                         Occupational Health and Safety

Convictions:                 Ontario Regulation 851, Section 26
                                    Occupational Health and Safety Act, Section 25(2)(a)
                                    Occupational Health and Safety Act, Section 51(2)

Crown Counsel:           Catherine Glaister


Friday, November 2, 2012

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