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

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

Court Bulletin

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

May 8, 2013 11:46 a.m.

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

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

Court Bulletin

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

May 1, 2013 4:55 pm

 

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

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

WSIB Chair - Elizabeth Witmer

November 29, 2012

Elizabeth Witmer – WSIB Chair spoke to a group from the EAC-CME on Tuesday, November 27, 2012.

She complemented the CME on being good lobbyists, adding that people do listen to the CME.They have decided to keep the Safety Groups going for at least one more year because of the CME lobbying for it.

Then she started to go over the changes that have been and are coming from WSIB.

WSIB is reviewing their policies annually.  They need stakeholders’ (that is you and me) input on what they are doing. 

The Arthurs’ Funding Review is bringing reforms; first there will be changes to the present classifications and corresponding rate structure.

WSIB has changed their investment portfolio realizing a 7% ROI.  Transforming the WSIB is imperative to be able to align with the changing and new workforce.

The WSIB has a $2.2 billion unfunded liability.  They are proposing changes to bring that to 60% by 2017; 80% by 2022 and fully funded by 2027.  The ways this will be accomplished are not yet set down; however, she prefers not to increase premiums.

Some things already accomplished have been:

• Retraining has been brought in-house instead of outsourced which has seen substantial advantages.
• A new medical strategy has immediate staff intervention with the employee and employer for return to work for those with lower back and shoulder injuries which are becoming the most common source of claims.

When questioned whether the NEER program would remain at the four years of experience ratings instead of the previous three – she commented that she had not yet been briefed regarding that issue but would be sure to bring it forward.

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

November 21, 2012 1:10 pm

 

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

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