Accident Prevention e-News February 2010	Volume 5/Issue 2/Jan 2010
In this Issue: Fall hazards inspection blitz may apply to you Ontario launches prevention and enforcement review Study documents e-learning advantage Partners in Prevention 2010: 4 trade shows in 1 In the News

Fall hazards inspection blitz may apply to you

If your firm has an onsite construction project requiring fall protection systems, and a worker may be at risk of falling 3 metres or more, expect a visit from a Ministry of Labour inspector. This includes firms that contract out construction projects.

A 90-day inspection blitz that began in mid-January is focusing on hazards involving suspended platforms. However, inspectors will be checking for compliance with all fall protection requirements, including appropriate fall-related equipment and adequate worker training. Inspectors will have zero tolerance for non-compliance.

In 2009, 43% of all critical injuries on Ontario construction projects were due to falls from ladders, scaffolds, roofs or floors/surfaces.

This blitz is the second associated with hazards involving falls from heights. In March 2008, inspectors visited 704 projects and issued 3,262 orders, including 336 stop work orders and 1,455 forthwith orders.

Recent prosecutions

These are just a sampling of fall-related prosecutions concluded in 2008 and 2009. None involved construction projects — a reminder that precautions must be taken whenever people are working at heights.

• Worker falls while clearing overhead conveyor. Employer: Canadian Linen and Uniform Service Co., Toronto, ON Fine: $95,000. In March 2007, a worker fell 4 metres from safety netting below an overhead conveyor to a concrete floor. The conveyor, which was carrying bags of soiled linen, had jammed. The worker was trying to reach the jam when he fell from the metal netting under the conveyor. The firm pleaded guilty, under section 25(2)(h) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, to failing to have a safe procedure to clear jammed overhead conveyors. Section 25(2)(h) requires employers to take every precaution reasonable in the circumstances for the protection of a worker.

• Worker falls 4 metres from roof. Employer: Dashwood Industries Limited, Goderich, ON. Fine: $65,000.In September 2008, a worker fell 4 metres from the roof of the window and door manufacturer's Centralia facility. The worker was dismantling the roof of a sound enclosure. While on the enclosure’s roof, the worker unhooked himself from his lifeline. As he approached an access ladder to get down, the worker stepped on a plywood plank, which slipped off the roof and caused the worker to fall. The firm pleaded guilty to failing to ensure that the plywood covering was secured in place, a violation of section 15(a) of the Industrial Establishments Regulation (O. Reg. 851).

• Worker falls off truck. Employer: Bunge Canada, Oakville, ON. Fine: $70,000. In March 2008, a worker was on top of a tanker-trailer in a loading bay at the edible oil product maker’s Toronto facility, filling the tanker with oil. The driver started pulling out of the loading bay, and the worker fell 3.5 meters. As the worker lay on the concrete floor, the tanker-trailer’s raised wheels ran over the worker's arm and leg, causing serious injury. The firm pleaded guilty to failing to establish an adequate system of signals permitting tanker-trailer drivers to safely leave a loading dock, a violation of section 25(2)(h) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

• Maintenance worker falls 16 metres from roof. Employer: Durez Canada Company Limited, Fort Erie, ON. Fine: $70,000. In October 2006, a worker was performing maintenance work on the roof of the resins and plastics plant. The worker stepped outside a guardrail to perform maintenance tasks and fell almost 16 metres, landing on metal barrels. The worker sustained serious head, arm, leg and hand injuries. An investigation found that the worker had not been provided with
  • proper fall protection equipment (O. Reg. 851, s. 85). A supervisor was fined $3,000 on a related charge
  • training, safe working procedures and supervision (Occupational Health and Safety Act, s. 25(2)(a)

• Worker falls from storage room ladder. Employer: Guess? Canada Corporation. Fine: $50,000. A worker at one of the national retailer’s Toronto, ON locations was standing on a 2.4 metre A-frame ladder in the storage room, trying to return a box to the top shelf. The ladder gave way and the worker fell to the floor, losing consciousness and sustaining back injuries. Because the ladder was too wide for the storage room, the worker couldn’t open the ladder fully and lock it into place. The firm pleaded guilty to failing to ensure that the worker could safely carry, move and lift store merchandise, contrary to section 45(a) of O. Reg. 851.
  
  
• Worker falls head first onto concrete floor. Employer: 1533354 Ontario Ltd. (Stayana International Trading). Fine: $60,000. In August 2007, a worker at the plastics recycler fell from a 1.9-metre high platform to the concrete floor below. The platform lacked a guardrail. After an inspector attached a stop work order to it, a sales manager removed the order. When questioned by an inspector, the manager denied it. A company owner later intervened and told workers not to use the equipment. The firm pleaded guilty to failing to ensure there was a guardrail on the open sides of the platform beside the grinder (s. 13(1)(b)(i) of O. Reg. 851). The supervisor pleaded guilty and was fined $5,000 for knowingly furnishing an inspector with false information (section 62(3)(a) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act).

• Scissor lift fall kills worker. Employer: Martinrea International Inc. Fine: $250,000. A worker using a scissor lift to repair 9-metre outdoor light poles at the auto parts maker’s Markham, ON plant died when wind gusts toppled the 7-metre-high lift. An investigation found no evidence that the worker had been trained in the safe operation of the scissor lift, nor that the company had written procedures in place. The firm pleaded guilty to failing to provide information, instruction and supervision to a worker for safely operating a scissor lift, contrary to section 25(2)(a) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act.
  
  
• Temp worker dies from racking system fall. Contractor: Ganz. Fine: $250,000. Employer: A+ Staffing. Fine: $20,000. In September 2007, a worker supplied by Toronto, ON temporary employment agency A+ Staffing was stacking boxes on a racking system at Ganz’s Woodbridge, ON warehouse. The worker fell while standing on wooden skids almost 4 metres above the warehouse floor. Ganz was fined for failing to ensure that a worker exposed to the hazard of falling more than three metres was wearing a safety belt or harness, as required by section 85 of O Reg. 851. The owner of A+ Staffing pleaded guilty to failing to provide information, instruction and supervision to a worker to protect the worker's health and safety, specifically relating to safe material handling and stacking procedures.

How IAPA can help

IAPA offers a number of fall-related resources, including training, consulting and free downloads. Learn more about the blitz, and related IAPA information, products and services.

Ontario launches prevention and enforcement review

Late last month, the province announced it was convening an expert advisory panel to conduct a comprehensive review of the province's OHS prevention and enforcement system. The panel will report back to Labour Minister Peter Fonseca in fall 2010 with recommendations for structural, operational and policy improvements.

In an interview with Accident Prevention e-News, panel chair Tony Dean described the review as “a significant opportunity to take a look at what the ministry and its partners do in the world of delivery of prevention and enforcement programs… and evaluate it and see how we can make it better.”

Elizabeth Mills, president and CEO of the three newly amalgamated health and safety associations (IAPA, Farm Safety Association and Ontario Service Safety Alliance), calls the announcement timely, strategic, and cause for celebration. “The panel’s work extends the conversations the prevention system has been having about the changing nature of work and workplaces and how it must position itself to meet those challenges,” she says. “This is the next logical step on our path to improving the lives of workers. We look forward to engaging with Tony and the panel as it undertakes its mandate.”

Employers and workers will have a chance to share their perspectives through public consultation. “It’s an opportunity for the ministry and its partners, and it’s an opportunity for workers and workplaces as well,” said Dean.

Tony Dean is a former Secretary of the provincial Cabinet, and has served as Deputy Minister of Labour. He is currently a professor in the University of Toronto’s School of Public Policy and Governance and a senior research fellow at the Harvard Kennedy School.

The panel’s task

The Minister has asked the panel to examine a range of issues, including:

1. the continuum of safety practices in a workplace. In high performance workplaces, said Dean, “you see almost a life cycle approach to health and safety, where it’s embedded in work practices and processes, in training, in orientation, from the moment a new recruit comes in to the point at which that person is fully employed in the organization, to the thinking of the senior management team and the CEO of the organization… So what are all those points on that continuum, and how can we encourage and incent [other workplaces] to raise the bar?”
   
   
2. the impact of the underground economy on OHS practices. Among the concerns:
   • how are workplaces and the nature of work changing
   • how do we adapt our prevention and enforcement system to keep pace with these changes
     
   The panel will be looking at sectors where “employment is transitional and part-time, that is transient in nature, where groups of workers are collected to do certain tasks, and there is no permanent workplace,” explained Dean.

3. how existing legislation serves worker safety. “We’ll be looking at the nature of our prevention and enforcement programs... the way they work in practice at a workplace level, the outcomes that we get under the current system, and what needs to be done to improve those elements of the system and have all of the players who are contributing to that work in a more seamless and integrated fashion.”

Does this mean more legislation and regulations? Not necessarily.

“This is not a review of the legislation as much as it is a review of the… OHS system in Ontario that operates under the auspices of that legislation,” said Dean. However, he cautions that if the panel finds “gaps or other opportunities” for improving legislation or regulations, “then we’ll provide recommendations on what might be done.”

3-phase process

The panel’s work will progress in three phases: research, consultation, and development of options and recommendations.

The Institute for Work and Health has been commissioned to conduct an inter-jurisdictional research review that will look at prevention and enforcement models elsewhere in Canada and internationally. “We would expect the results from that to be flowing in within the next two to three months,” said Dean.

“It’s essentially a look at how others are doing in structuring and providing the range of prevention and enforcement services,” he said. “What can we learn and how can we incorporate opportunities for improvement by adopting or adapting them to an Ontario context?”

The consultation phase will be facilitated in part by a website that Dean described as a route to get ideas in front of the panel. The website will enable interested parties to contribute their own research and ideas. It will also feature regular updates, and invite visitors to submit fresh ideas triggered by recent postings.

Beyond the website, the panel will be “doing a lot of work with partners in the delivery system,” and expects to hear from sectoral associations, labour and the corporate community.

“It’s a challenging job,” admitted Dean. “It will be challenging for the panel, it will be challenging for the people we call on to contribute to this… but we will do our very best to deliver options and recommendations to the Minister in all areas he has identified as priorities.”

Aiming high

“We are starting from a position of advantage,” said Dean. “We have an OHS regime that has been broadly emulated... For the most part, I think it works well, and for the most part the system over the last 5 to 6, 7 years has been driving the numbers in the right direction. The lost-time injury rate is down, fatalities are down, but obviously we have more to do if we want to be the safest jurisdiction in the world. That has to be the goal…

“Given how hard people work at every level in our health and safety system, I believe they want to be the best… At the end of the day, all this is about keeping people safe at work.”

Study documents e-learning advantage

A new literature review comparing online and face-to-face instruction shows, with caveats, that online learning may offer a slight advantage over classroom instruction.¹ Moreover, a combination of both online and face-to-face instruction appears to be more effective than either learning method on its own.

The review, conducted the US Center for Technology in Learning on behalf of the US Department of Education, started with a possible 1,132 research abstracts. The study researchers narrowed this list down to 46. Most of this research was published in 2004 or more recently.

Among the questions asked by the research review:

• how does the effectiveness of online learning compare with that of face-to-face instruction
• does supplementing face-to-face instruction with online instruction enhance learning

Online learning by itself, the researchers found, “appears to offer a modest advantage over conventional classroom instruction.” However, the review is careful to note that online learning is not automatically superior to classroom learning. This qualifier stems from the finding that, “in many of the studies showing an advantage for online learning, the online and classroom conditions differed in terms of time spent, curriculum and pedagogy.” In other words, the studies analyzed by the researchers weren’t always comparing apples to apples.

The researchers also found that combining online and classroom instruction is more effective than just one or the other.

This comes as no surprise to Pennyjane (Pj) Murray, manager of R&D for IAPA. “Many of our member firms are using some form of blended learning format, such as e-learning, in-class training (in public or in-house environments), and conferences and workshops to make sure they strike a balance between training goals and the expertise required to achieve them.”

Figuring out what’s best for you

Before undertaking training, or making changes to existing training, conduct a needs assessment. As part of the assessment process,

• ask yourself exactly what you are trying to achieve with this training initiative. What do you want to be able to see the employee doing, or not doing, as a result of this training? Identifying the precise goal is by far the most important step, says Murray. It’s your best guarantee of getting what you pay for — positive, sustainable changes in behaviour and attitude
• focus the assessment on “need to know” rather than “nice to know.” By all means consider future training needs, but figure out what training must take place now, and what can be scheduled later
• explore other training issues that may affect the outcome of your needs assessment. Examples include:

• how people learn. “For instance,” says Murray, “workplace diversity issues — language, culture, physical, mental, emotional and generational — may affect how people learn, and the methods or tools used to learn”
• learners’ exposure to technology. “There could be different levels of understanding and exposure among employees”
• learners’ access to technology. For example, does the workplace have the equipment and an appropriate setting for e-learning?

Exploring these issues while assessing training needs can help determine both the scope of any identified performance gap and the “best fit” method of addressing it, says Murray.

• ask yourself if training is the only solution. “The greatest opportunity to save on training expenses is to ensure that training solutions are implemented only when a training solution is called for,” say Louise Grummitt and Robin Martin of Benchmark Performance Inc., a firm that designs and develops custom organization and learning solutions. It’s possible some performance gaps may be filled by non-training solutions, such as hiring the right people, raising awareness, clarifying expectations, coaching effectively, or simply communicating.

After conducting a needs assessment, explore delivery models. What type of training will most directly meet the needs of your workplace? Grummitt and Martin recommend asking yourself these questions:

• are the learners new workers, existing, or a mix of both
• how many learners require training now and in future
• what job tasks require hands-on practice
• how frequently will learners perform the task(s)
• do they need to perform the task from memory or should they look it up

As you go through this exercise, you’ll see there are many options available. The beauty of having so many options? You can choose more than one.

How e-courses benefit learners

The Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety (CCOHS), which has partnered with IAPA to develop Ontario-specific e-courses, has identified four significant benefits for e-learners:

1. higher retention and faster learning:
   • people who take e-courses retain more, in less time, than people taking classroom courses. Content is delivered in smaller, more manageable units. Individuals can skim material they know, and spend more time on material new to them
   • taking an e-learning program typically requires 30-60% less time than attending a comparable classroom course
2. self-paced: students can often manage the learning process at their own speed
3. less intimidating than classroom courses. Trainees can ask the instructor questions without having to worry about what others in the class might think. They can also work through exercises in private, without fear of failure
4. more interactivity than classroom courses. Students in classroom courses typically ask about 0.1 questions per hour. Students taking e-learning programs can interact with the courseware via question and answer up to 120 times per hour

How e-courses benefit employers

There are at least six key benefits, says CCOHS:

1. "just-in-time" rather than "just-in-case" learning. People can take e-courses when they need to learn about a subject, not when an instructor is available to give a course
2. customizable content. Courses can be customized to meet a company’s specific needs. Depending on the course material, companies often add such content as workplace policies, procedures and contact information, as well as industry or sector specific information
3. uniform content. All learners see and hear exactly the same content
4. anywhere, anytime scheduling. People can take e-courses at times that suit their or the company’s schedule, in any location having an Internet- or CD-Rom-supported computer. This flexibility allows learning to take place at the least disruptive times, and minimizes the time away from the job
5. easy tracking. Companies can automatically track employees' progress by date, time spent, and test scores
6. significant secondary cost savings. Besides reducing training time, e-learning programs eliminate the need for travel and related expenses 

How in-class courses benefit learners

1. more practice time. Depending on the topic, participants have a greater opportunity to practice technical and communication skills before applying them in real situations
2. more cost- and resource-effective than on-site training. It also doesn’t require the same commitment of staff resources. As an extra benefit, some training organizations offer volume discounts. These discounts may apply even if you book group members into different sessions of the same course — an easy way to minimize potential effects on workplace production or service
3. real-time, face-to-face interaction with instructors and other learners
4. content flexibility. Instructors can raise or lower their coverage to match student knowledge levels, and tailor their examples to fit the participants’ frame of reference
5. team-building. Participants can work out basic problems and find solutions as a group. Exposure to participants from other firms and sectors can also introduce new perspectives
6. fewer distractions. Participants often concentrate better when away from their work stations, cell phones, pagers, email…

How IAPA can help

IAPA offers the most comprehensive health and safety training available in Canada, in a number of flexible learning formats:

• pubic classroom training
• on-site courses
• e-courses and other forms of self-study

1. Check out IAPA’s online training catalogue
2. To maximize your training options and budget, talk to an IAPA consultant about
   • conducting a needs assessment
   • developing a training strategy that best meet the needs and demands of your workplace
   • customizing and delivering on-site training
3. Explore e-learning opportunities. IAPA’s inventory of offerings now includes 48 courses. New offerings appear regularly. Here’s the current list.

Partners in Prevention 2010: 4 trade shows in 1

Delegates attending Partners in Prevention 2010: Ontario Health & Safety Conference & Trade Show, May 4-5, will now have unprecedented access to four related trade shows, featuring more exhibitors — and more products, services and professional expertise — than any other OHS event.

“Between the four shows, we anticipate more than 400 booths,” says Helen McDowell, manager, Conference & Special Events. “It’s an excellent opportunity for show visitors to ask questions, see new product demos, and find up-to-the-minute solutions to their workplace challenges.”

The 4-in-1 trade show brings together the following events:

• Partners in Prevention 2010, already Ontario’s largest health and safety conference and trade show
• MASC 2010 (Machine Automation Safety Congress), featuring hands-on demonstrations from leading suppliers of machine automation safety and safeguarding
• CANECT 2010 (Canadian Environmental Conference & Trade Show), the foremost event for Canadian environmental managers, plant personnel, government policy-makers, lawyers and consultants with responsibilities for environmental affairs
• Your Workplace Conference, a forum and marketplace for exchanging ideas and strategies to attain healthier, more productive workplaces

Co-locating trade shows is just one example of the synergy that results from working together. All of Ontario’s health and safety organizations have collaborated on the conference program, and will be represented at the trade show (see “Your hosts,” below).

Preliminary program available

A preliminary conference program for Partners in Prevention 2010 is now available online

Among the highlights:

• 60+ conference sessions, with expert speakers from all members of Ontario’s prevention system
• professional development courses, May 2-3 and May 6-7
• three provocative and inspirational keynote speakers
• Ministry of Labour mock trial — what happens after the Ministry lays charges
• a pre-conference Small Business Forum: Taking Care of Business and a Leadership Summit: DNA of a Winning Culture, both on May 3

Your hosts

Partners in Prevention 2010 is hosted by the Ontario prevention system partners comprising these four newly amalgamated organizations:

• Health and Safety Association for Government Services (HSAGS)
• municipal, education, community, and healthcare
• Infrastructure Health and Safety Association (IHSA)
• construction, electrical and utilities, transportation, aggregates, natural gas, and ready-mix concrete
• Safe Workplace Promotion Services Ontario (SWPSO)
• farming, landscaping, manufacturing, service, hospitality, retail, and wholesale trade
• Workplace Safety North (WSN)
• mining, forestry, pulp and paper, smelters and refineries, printing, and Northern Ontario businesses

Tap into the collective experience and resources of Ontario’s entire prevention system, including the Ministry of Labour and Workplace Safety and Insurance Board.

Find out more

• Download the preliminary conference program.
• Learn about the Small Business Forum 2010 and Leadership Summit 2010: DNA of a Winning Culture.

In the News

Alert: suspended work platform safe use, maintenance and inspection

This alert provides information about the safe use, maintenance and inspection of suspended work platforms and control measures to minimize risks associated with using this equipment. This alert is intended to increase awareness of the safety requirements for using suspended work platforms, but does not replace the need to fully evaluate the nature of the equipment being used and the work being performed in order to comply with the Occupational Health and Safety Act and its regulations.

The most commonly used suspended work platforms (suspended platforms or suspended scaffolds) are known as swing stages. They are used for window cleaning or conducting repairs to the exterior of buildings, and consist of a work platform, guardrails and a suspension system.
Multi-point suspended scaffolds are specialized suspended work platforms that have specific design and operational requirements in sections 142.1 to 142.8 of the Construction Regulation (O. Reg. 213/91). Anyone using this type of equipment must comply with the act and the regulation to ensure safe use.

The Ministry of Labour will continue its targeted inspections of construction worksites where the risk of falls is great, to ensure compliance with the act and its regulations, over the winter of 2010.

Hazard

The most significant hazard associated with swing stages is workers falling from height. Reasons why a fall may occur include:

• the swing stage overturning because the counterweight does not have the adequate weight or if the “fulcrum” or point of support at the edge of the building fails, or
• the swing stage collapsing because it is overloaded, the platforms are inadequately attached (in case of modular type stages), or there is damage from exposure to chemicals or corrosive material to the motors, platforms or wire ropes to which the stage is suspended, in addition to poor maintenance

Hazard controls and legal requirements

Under the act, employers and supervisors are required to take every precaution reasonable in the circumstances to ensure worker health and safety.

1. Proper training
   Workers working on a suspended platform or suspended scaffold who may use a fall protection system must receive comprehensive fall protection training (O. Reg. 213/91, section 26.2) and must receive
   • training on the use and inspection of the platform or scaffold, including access to and egress from it
   • training on the erection and dismantling procedures where the workers are involved in these activities
     
     
2. Wearing a fall arrest system when working on suspended equipment
   A worker who is on or getting on or off a suspended platform or suspended scaffold must wear a full body harness that is
   • connected to a fall arrest system with an independent lifeline, or
   • securely fastened to the suspended platform or suspended scaffold, if all or part of the platform or scaffold has more than one independent means of support and the platform or scaffold is so designed, constructed and maintained that the failure of one means of support will not cause the collapse of all or part of the platform or scaffold (section 141 of O. Reg. 213/91, and section 28(1)(b) of the act)
     
     
3. Proper design, construction and use of equipment
   • Every swing stage (suspended platform or suspended scaffold) must meet all the applicable requirements of O. Reg. 213/91, and specifically sections 137 and 138.
   • The platform must not be overloaded (O. Reg. 213/91, section 31(3) and 134(3)).
   • Equipment must be maintained in a condition that does not endanger a worker (O. Reg. 213/91, section 93(1)).
   • Equipment must be used in accordance with any operating manual issued by the manufacturers (O. Reg. 213/91, section 93(3))

In addition to the above requirements,

• every suspended scaffold that consists of more than one platform, and every suspended platform that weighs, together with its components, more than 525 kilograms, must be designed by a professional engineer and erected in accordance with the design drawings
• a professional engineer must inspect it prior to its first use and issue a written report with regard to the inspection
• the constructor must keep a copy of the design drawings and the professional engineer’s written inspection report on the project while the suspended platform or suspended scaffold is on the project (section 139 of O. Reg. 213/91)

4. Adequate maintenance of equipment, materials and protective devices
   • Employers must ensure that the equipment, materials and protective devices are maintained in good condition (section 25(1)(b) of the act).
   • Suppliers of machines, devices, tools or equipment under any rental, leasing or similar arrangement must ensure that the items are maintained in good condition, if it is the supplier’s responsibility under the rental, leasing or similar arrangement to do so (section 31 of the act)
     
     
5. Proper inspection of equipment by a competent worker and by the supervisor
   Suspended platforms or suspended scaffolds must be inspected prior to each day’s use by a competent worker (O. Reg. 213/91, section 137(11)) if it is operated by mechanical power and at least once a week by the supervisor or a competent person appointed by the supervisor (O. Reg. 213/91, sections 14(2) and 15(2)).

Steps for Life Walk May 2 - now in 26 communities

Join more than 3,500 people in 26 communities who are expected to walk together, on Sunday, May 2, in support of victims of workplace fatalities, life-altering injuries or occupational diseases.

Families, friends, co-workers and employers will walk to raise awareness about the importance of workplace health and safety, and to raise funds for Threads of Life Family Support Programs and Services.

Threads of life is a national registered charitable organization that provides families affected by a workplace tragedy with

• one-on-one peer support assistance and guidance within the health and safety system
• opportunities to promote public awareness and accountability for workplace health and safety

More than three people are killed on the job every working day.

What you can do

• Support Threads of Life by creating a Steps for Life team.
• Help prevent injuries by inviting a Threads of Life speaker to share his or her story at a local event.
• Learn more about Threads of Life.