What must an employer do in your workplace?

Part III: Duties of Employers and Other Persons

• Revised: October 18, 2012
• Content last reviewed: October 2012
• PDF Version [ 488 Kb / 106 pages | Download Adobe Reader ]

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.

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.

 

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

November 15, 2012 2:30 pm    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

Bermingham Construction Ltd. and Supervisor Fined $69,000 After Worker Injured

October 11, 2012

Hamilton, ON - Bermingham Construction Ltd., a Hamilton construction company, was fined $65,000 for a violation of the Occupational Health and Safety Act after a worker was injured. A supervisor at the company was fined $4,000 in relation to the same incident.

On January 7, 2010, at the company's Hamilton facility, a worker was refueling a mobile crane. The worker had climbed onto the crane and opened the lid of its fuel tank when the lid fell on the worker's hand. The worker was injured falling from the crane.

Bermingham Construction Ltd. was convicted, as an employer, of failing to take the reasonable precaution of ensuring that the fuel tank lid was secured during fuelling. The supervisor was convicted of failing to take the same precaution.

The fines were imposed by Justice of the Peace Vincent Formosi. 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
                                    45 Main St. E.
                                    Hamilton, ON

Judge:                         Justice of the Peace Vincent Formosi

Date of Sentencing:    October 4, 2012

Defendants:                 Bermingham Construction Ltd. and Supervisor

Matter:                         Occupational Health and Safety

Convictions:                 Occupational Health and Safety Act, Section 25(2)(h)
                                    Occupational Health and Safety Act, Section 27(2)(c)

Crown Counsel:           Alicia Gordon-Fagan

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

Waterloo North Hydro Inc. Fined $110,000 After Worker Injured

July 18, 2012 11:00 AM

Waterloo, ON - Waterloo North Hydro Inc., an electricity distributor for Waterloo and the surrounding area, was fined $110,000 for a violation of the Occupational Health and Safety Act after a worker was injured.

On October 12, 2010, a mall was under construction in Waterloo. Workers from Waterloo North Hydro Inc. had installed transformers on site and were attempting to send power from a transformer in one location to a transformer in another location. As power was sent to the second transformer, a worker for an electrical contractor was in the area routing a metal tape through a duct. The tape came into contact with a newly energized electrical conductor and caused an arc flash. The worker was badly burned.

A Ministry of Labour investigation found that an adequate job plan for energizing the transformers had not been documented. A job plan would have identified all known hazards and implemented controls for each hazard to protect workers from injury.
Waterloo North Hydro Inc. pleaded guilty to failing to establish and implement an adequate job plan prior to installing and energizing the transformers.

The fine was imposed by Justice of the Peace Ruth Legate Exon. 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
                                    77 Queen St. N
                                    Kitchener, ON
Judge:                         Justice of the Peace Ruth Legate Exon
Date of Sentencing:    July 16, 2012
Defendant:                  Waterloo North Hydro Inc.
Matter:                        Occupational Health and Safety
Conviction:                 Ontario Regulation 213/91, Section 181(1)
                                   Occupational Health and Safety Act, Section 23(1)(a)
Crown Counsel:          Kikee Malik

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

Small Business in Niagara

In 2008, my demographic studies put small businesses (under 50 employees) in Niagara at 75%.  The Labour Market Plan 2009 - 2013 by our provincially mandated local board - Niagara Workforce Planning Board - put that number at 99% - with 50% of those as owner/operator - zero employees.

The hot new job in Niagara seems to be entrepreneurial!

Many in the Niagara Region are screaming for Leadership...from grassroots to Regional Integrated Economic Development Commission.  There are businesses that want to invest in Niagara.  They want to build their business in Niagara and they want to raise their family in Niagara.

We can have the best of both worlds; living and working together; collaboratively instead of competing against each other.  Partners in (your industry here), Competitors in the Field (borrowed from the Niagara Industrial Association.)

It raises my eyebrows each March when the Sunshine List is delivered to us via the local media.  We have also been called the "Call Centre Capital of Ontario".  There is a huge gap between minimum wage at $10.25 an hour and over $100,000 per year.

How many jobs are left in Niagara that cover that gap?  The gap between 40 hours of work at minimum wage which earns $21,320 and over $100,00?  If you don't work for a government, government funded or non-profit funded organization; what are your chances for more than minimum wage?

These are my opinions and observations.  I learned a long time ago that we can make numbers into what ever story we want told.

I would love to hear some feedback from you.  I know you have an opinion.  You might not have been looking for a rant on the HRNC Blog - but employment IS our business.

www.hrnc.ca

Inquest Into The Death Of Mark Pagavathsing Announced

Why are inquests into accidental employment deaths done?

It is by reviewing the accident in detail and hearing all the evidence presided over by the

inquest coroner that new facts or issues may be revealed.

After hearing all the evidence, the jury deliberates.  Frequently, they come up with suggestions that can make workplaces safer for everyone.

Sometimes new laws are made from the results of the inquest which will help everyone in the workplace to be more aware and to work more safely.

June 21, 2012 10:05 AM

Brampton — Dr William J. Lucas, Regional Supervising Coroner for Central Region, Brampton Office, today announced that an inquest will be held into the death of Mark Pagavathsing.
Mr. Pagavathsing, aged 46, died on August 18, 2011 from injuries received during his employment on a construction project.

The inquest will examine the events surrounding Mr. Pagavathsing's death.  The jury may make recommendations aimed at preventing similar deaths.

The inquest is expected to last two days and to hear from approximately four witnesses.
The inquest will begin at 10:00 a.m. on Wednesday, September 19, 2012 at the Aurora Municipal Offices, 1 Municipal Drive.  Dr. Mary Beth Bourne will preside as inquest coroner and Mr. Robert DeChellis will be counsel to the coroner.

CONTACTS

• Dr. William J. Lucas
  Regional Supervising Coroner for Central Region, Brampton Office
  905-874-3972
  

Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services
ontario.ca/safety

www.hrnc.ca 

Town of Pelham Fined $60,000 After Worker Injured

Fines and Penalties for a violation of the Occupational Health and Safety Act

 

May 23, 2012 11:39 AM

St. Catharines, ON - The Corporation of the Town of Pelham was fined $60,000 for a violation of the Occupational Health and Safety Act after a young worker was injured.
On August 25, 2011, summer students working for the Town were repairing the lids of catch basins, which are the parts of storm drains used to collect debris. One worker lifted the lid of a catch basin with a pickaxe so another worker could apply tape to the basin. While the second worker's hand was in the basin, the lid slipped from the pickaxe and crushed that worker's hand.
A Ministry of Labour investigation found that the workers did not have a direct supervisor and they had not been shown how to do the job before. Instead, they received instructions from a manager and were sent to repair the catch basins alone.
The Corporation of the Town of Pelham was fined $60,000 for failing to provide adequate information and instructionto the workers on how to safely repair the catch basins.
The fine was imposed by Justice of the Peace Lena Mills. 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.

Ministry of Labour: Employment Standards Officers - what they are looking for...

Proactive Inspections

Employment Standards (ES) officers visit businesses across Ontario ‘proactively’, even if no complaint has been filed by an employee. These officers will help you correct areas where your business is not complying with the Act. In most cases, a review of the following 10 standards takes place, which apply to most, but not all, workplaces in Ontario.

• ESA poster
• Wage statements
• Deductions from wages
• Record keeping
• Hours of work
• Eating periods
• Overtime pay
• Minimum wage
• Public holidays
• Vacation with pay

Officers usually provide advance notice of an intended visit. They will review your records and speak to you and your employees. If there are issues of non-compliance they will discuss these with you and, depending on the nature of the violation, they may provide an opportunity to correct them.ES Officers may also issue orders to pay, tickets or lay charges; courts may impose fines.

For more information:  www.hrnc.ca

Southwest Glass Products Inc. Fined $50,000 After Worker Injured

Court Bulletin

Ministryof Labour

12-19 For Immediate Release

March 22, 2012

Southwest Glass Products Inc. Fined $50,000 After Worker Injured

London, ON – Southwest Glass Products Inc., a Toronto glass manufacturer, was fined $50,000 for a violation of the Occupational Health and Safety Act after a worker was injured.

On September 9, 2010, at the company’s London plant, a worker was unloading glass sheets from a mechanized conveyor. The worker stumbled and reached out to stop from falling. The worker’s hand made contact with a mechanized roller on the conveyor and was pulled around the roller. The worker lost a finger and a tendon.

A Ministry of Labour investigation found that the employer had installed a guardrail in front of the conveyor but it was removed by workers to make their job easier. At the time of the incident there were no other protective devices to prevent workers from accessing the rollers on that part of the conveyor.

Southwest Glass Products Inc. pleaded guilty to failing to ensure that the conveyor was guarded to prevent access to its moving parts.

The fine was imposed by Justice of the Peace Jacob Bruinewood. 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.

Sports, Leadership and Team Chemistry: How can it apply to your Workplace?

As a business owner or manager you probably have a number of people working under you and those people likely work in some sort of team.  There are inherently interpersonal dynamics at play. Your team isn’t that unlike any professional sports team. There will be leaders, there will be the quite dependable ones, rookies and veterans and there may be a couple you`d put on your “trading block” or choose not to resign for next season but the real world isn’t like the sports world and you may be in a position that has you trying to keep everyone moving forward.  The point I’m making is there are different strengths and weaknesses amongst your employees, people who will step up and lead the group, others who you know you can count on for quality results and those that may need more guidance to perform their jobs.   The manager (YOU) need to focus your attention on creating the right work groups and teams to get the best results. If you’re seeing some groups at your workplace struggle while others succeed you may need to consider mixing up your “lines”. Maybe putting your easily distracted employee with a couple quite dependable employees could help focus his or her attention to achieve the right results or maybe a key leader among your employees might be best suited to work with one of your more inexperienced individuals to coach him along, provide the guidance needed and step in when mistakes are made. Team chemistry and the way people interact and play off each other can mean the difference between a championship squad and one that misses the playoffs. Which will yours be? Put on the coach’s hat and see what you can achieve by trying to understand the people in your workplace and who they perform best with.

www.hrnc.ca

Fines for violations of the Occupational Health and Safety Act after a worker was injured

Court Bulletin

Ministry of Labour 12-17 For Immediate Release
March 15, 2012

Manufacturer Fined $50,000 After Worker Injured

Brampton, ON – Surteco Canada Ltd., carrying on business as Doellken-Woodtape, an international manufacturer of plastic edging for use on furniture, was fined $50,000 for a violation of the Occupational Health and Safety Act after a worker was injured.
On March 30, 2010, a worker at the company’s Brampton plant was cleaning out a hopper. The worker reached a hand into the hopper while an auger inside it was slowly rotating. The worker’s hand was injured when it was caught by the auger and trapped against the hopper wall.
Surteco Canada Ltd., carrying on business as Doellken-Woodtape, pleaded guilty to failing to ensure that the auger had stopped rotating before the worker began cleaning the hopper.
The fine was imposed by Justice of the Peace Thomas McKeogh. 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 Bulletin

Ministry of Labour  12-18 For Immediate Release
March 15, 2012

Con Cast Pipe Inc. Fined $55,000 After Worker Injured

Guelph, ON – Con Cast Pipe Inc., a Guelph manufacturer of concrete infrastructure products, was fined $55,000 for a violation of the Occupational Health and Safety Act after a worker was injured.
On August 24, 2010, workers were pouring concrete into a steel form. One worker was standing beside the form and using a remote control to operate an overhead crane to pour buckets of concrete into the form. Without warning, one side of the steel form detached and fell on the worker. The worker suffered multiple fractures and a punctured lung.
A Ministry of Labour investigation found that the welds used to hold the form together were inadequate to resist the weight of the wet concrete being poured into the form.
Con Cast Pipe Inc. pleaded guilty to failing to take the reasonable precaution of ensuring that the form was designed and constructed to resist all loads and forces which were likely to be applied to it.
The fine was imposed by Justice of the Peace Adriana Magoulas. 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.

www.hrnc.ca

Village of Point Edward Fined $75,000 After Worker Killed

Court Bulletin


12-16 For Immediate Release
March 6, 2012


Sarnia, ON – The Corporation of the Village of Point Edward was fined $75,000 today for a violation of the Occupational Health and Safety Act after a worker was killed.

On January 30, 2010, members of the village’s paid volunteer fire department were participating in ice water rescue training. After doing swimming and floating exercises, the workers were instructed to swim out to a moving sheet of ice, climb it, and ride it down the lake. Some of them could not climb the ice floe and attempted to swim back to shore. One worker, unable to climb onto shore, was pushed by the ice floe under its surface. The worker was trapped under the ice floe for about four minutes. The worker was removed but died due to being trapped in the cold water.

A Ministry of Labour investigation determined that although there was rescue equipment in one of the fire trucks parked on shore during the exercise, there was no equipment readily available to pull the worker onto shore.

The Corporation of the Village of Point Edward pleaded guilty as an employer to failing to take the reasonable precaution of ensuring that adequate rescue equipment was available for the ice water rescue training exercise.

A related charge against an individual is still before the courts and is scheduled for a trial in May.
The fine was imposed by Justice Deborah Austin. 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.


www.hrnc.ca

New Water Plumbing Inc. Fined $100,000 After Worker Killed

Court Bulletin

12-15 For Immediate Release
March 5, 2012

New Water Plumbing Inc. Fined $100,000 After Worker Killed

Toronto, ON – New Water Plumbing Inc., of Thornhill, was fined $100,000 for a violation of the Occupational Health and Safety Act after a worker was killed.

On December 23, 2009, two workers from New Water Plumbing Inc. were in the mechanical room of a Toronto condo tower. They had taken a large exhaust fan out of its housing. As the workers were moving the fan, a light fixture they had swung out of the way swung back and hit the fan. Part of the light fixture was damaged, allowing its electrical charge to contact the fan. The worker who was holding the fan at the time was fatally electrocuted.

New Water Plumbing Inc. pleaded guilty to failing to ensure that the fan was lifted, carried or moved in a way that would not endanger a worker.

The fine was imposed by Justice of the Peace Mary Anne Ross Hendriks. 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.

For further information:
Media contact:
Matt Blajer
Ministry of Labour
416-326-7405

Court Information at a Glance
Location: Ontario Court of Justice
70 Centre St.
Toronto, ON

Judge: Justice of the Peace Mary Anne Ross Hendriks
Date of Sentencing: March 1, 2012
Defendant: New Water Plumbing Inc.
Matter: Occupational Health and Safety
Conviction: Ontario Regulation 851, Section 45
Crown Counsel: David McCaskill

www.labour.gov.on.ca
www.hrnc.ca

How does privacy in the workplace affect the employer and the employee?

Most of us are aware of PIPEDA (Personal Information Protection of Electronic Data Act). The Act put into place in 2000 to assist consumers to trust electronic transfer of their personal information; such as medical and health issues, credit card information, social insurance numbers and Ontario health information and medical care numbers.  Fraud in the use of our medical system was rampant as information numbers were stolen and there was no identification necessary at that time.

Things have changed drastically since then.  Has fraud stopped?  Well, no...  Usually as soon as a new rule comes into place some genius has already found a way to use it or abuse it.

However, when it comes to the employer, you have a duty to protect your employee's information and keep it confidential.  What about those 3rd party phone calls that ask you if so and so works for you and is this how much they make?  There is an easy way to take care of that situation.  Make a policy that asks each employee to fill out a request form for a certain company to ask about their employment information and have it active for a certain time period.  This way you do not have to comprise any information without your employee's consent and the employee can have their information verified quickly and painlessly.

Most financial institutions are happy to have a pay stub from the employer and if they know you - your word on how long you have been employed by that company.

It is very important that all employee information is kept confidential and not given to anyone without the employee's consent.

Something that even small businesses may want to consider - what are you doing with your computer/blackberry smart-phone backups.  If you are wondering exactly what this refers to you could be looking at a lot of hassle down the road.  Most individuals don't even know that they are able to backup their phones.  And many businesses only have their client and employee information on one computer.  If anything happens to that computer - well, let's just say copy the information on your computer to a flash drive, SD card, digital backup hard drive, etc.  Protect yourself, your business, your employees and your clients.

Be smart - not burnt!

www.hrnc.ca

HRNC creates Employment contracts and Employee handbooks

Employment contracts ensure that there is a “hard copy” of the terms of the employment relationship between employee and employer and that both parties will abide by these terms. HRNC will be able to draft an employee contract that is not only simplistic but comprehensive and will outline the necessary information needed to hire an employee. The contract will include the information for your company as well as link the handbook into the contractual agreement so as to ensure that the terms of employment also relate to policies outlined in the employee handbook. www.hrnc.ca

Who is a Human Resources Professional?

Anyone can call themselves a Human Resources Professional.  However, the HRPA of Ontario is the regulating body for HR professionals.  You can find out if someone is a member of this association by going to www.hrpa.ca.  Just check their name under the listings and you will know for sure.  The CCHRA issues the exams and the HRPA issues the designations which HR professionals value highly - their C.H.R.P.  You can also find out if an individual has this designation on HRPA's web-site.  This gives you confidence that the individual you are considering hiring as an employee or as a consultant really meets the Canadian and Provincial standards set out by their regulating body.  It doesn't mean that they are perfect or know everything as there are so many specialists within the HR community.  But - it should be a qualification that you definitely need to be aware of and look for.  It is a long, hard road to achieve this designation - therefore, respect the education and experience that those have earned.
Joy Vas, CHRP

Injuries, Performance, Hiring and Return to Work: Due Diligence

Human Resources professionals know the value of ensuring your company does its due diligence and maintains thorough, organized records of the many employee related issues that tend to come up in the workplace. There are several reasons for this. First it’s your source for information on just what’s happening in your workplace; who’s performing well, who’s performing poorly? Are injuries going up or down? Who’s missing time and why?  When you compile the data recorded over 6 months, a year, five years etc. you can really learn a lot about your own workplace, see where you can make improvements and if your improvement measures have worked. In addition when your employees come to you for a raise or time off what do you have to show them as justification, have you maintained records of when staff have been off, have you kept performance reviews? Without documentation you don’t have much to base your decisions on. This leads to maybe the most important point regarding the need to keep up on your due diligence. Every year there are thousands of claims made to the Ontario Human Rights Commission and the Ministry of Labour regarding health and safety claims, wrongful dismissals and discrimination in hiring to name a few but many of these claims are proven to be false and business owners are spared thousands of dollars in severance pay and fines simply because they have conducted their business properly and have the documentation to fall back on when needed. Make sure that you’ve done your due diligence, keep good records and have had employees sign off when their acknowledgement is needed; it’ll save you many headaches and there’s a good chance it could save you some money. 

John Ruyter, HRNC