Accident Prevention e-News August 2009	Volume 4/Issue 8/August 2009
In this Issue: 9 ways to maximize your training budget Understanding WHMIS after GHS MOL’s 10 most issued orders When an employer becomes a constructor In the News

9 ways to maximize your training budget
By Derry McDonell and Robert Lee

Employers may be reluctant to part with training dollars when budgets are tight, but with today’s unlimited options there is much to gain by taking time to assess your training needs and research what’s available. The ideal return on that training investment? A safety-savvy workforce that applies what it learns, shares its knowledge and skills with others, and creates a safe, productive and profitable workplace.

Here’s how to make every penny count.

1. Maximize downtime. A slower business climate can be an opportune time to implement a health and safety training program or rethink your existing one.

“It’s a good time to invest in training,” says Tracy Putherbough, HR manager and director of training for Airia Brands Inc. (formerly Nutech), a manufacturer of residential heat recovery ventilators in London, ON. “With the recent slowdown in new construction, I had time to review all our safety policies in detail and make any changes required before the market picks up again.”

2. Assess your training needs. A needs assessment “may be the most valuable and least expensive educational tool with biggest ROI on the planet,” says Sabine Steinbrecher, CEO and founder of Learning Library Inc. “Sadly, we rarely see them being used.”

Particularly with health and safety training, identifying the precise goal is by far the most important step, say both Janis Seaman, development specialist, and Pennyjane (Pj) Murray, manager of R&D for IAPA. It’s your best guarantee of getting what you pay for—positive, sustainable changes in behaviour and attitude.

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?

• 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 can affect the outcome of your needs assessment:
  • how people learn. “When looking at performance gaps,” says Murray, “bear in mind that 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”

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, turn your attention to what type of training and which trainer(s) will most directly meet the needs of your workplace.

3. Choose the best delivery model(s). Depending on the topic, options encompass everything from a brief online tutorial to a week-long course overseas. 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.

“Lots of employers are using some form of blended learning format—in-class (in public or in-house environments), e-learning, and train-the-trainer—to make sure they strike a balance between training goals and the expertise required to achieve them,” says Murray.

In-class options provide an opportunity for participants to acquire knowledge, network with other learners, and practice technical and communication skills before applying them in real situations. Public sessions can be both cost- and process-effective, as they are often less expensive than in-house/on-site training, and don’t require the same commitment of staff resources. As an extra benefit, some 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 avoid affecting workplace production or service.

Much has been made of the advantages of online or e-learning courses; for example, flexible 24/7 scheduling and self-paced, low-cost learning without classroom interruptions.

“E-learning can be used effectively where the goal is information acquisition,” says Murray. “But if a demonstrable skill is involved, e-learning is less useful as a stand-alone option.” For example: first aid treatment or CPR. Or you need to demonstrate that a trainee’s knowledge is being shared with other workers, or show an OHS inspector that the knowledge is being shared.

4. Choose the right trainer for the job. At Airia Brands Inc., Putherbough conducts most day-to-day job training herself. However, when it comes to specializedOHS training that requires technical knowledge and experience, such as forklift operation, lockout/tagout procedures or WHMIS, she relies on IAPA.

The same reasoning applies when the training is product-oriented, continues Putherbough. “I will call the supplier to come in and do training on the proper use of their equipment, hearing protection devices, for example.”

5. Assess the training consultant. If you decide to outsource training, conduct a due diligence evaluation of the consultant’s ability to achieve the performance goal you’re after. If you’re going to have a training consultant come in, he or she should be able to show how the training will translate the course information into work habits that can be sustained over time.

Insist on both the required course content and a course design capable of delivering it. Does the consulting firm have credibility in the industry? Check with former clients.

“A consultant can have lots of content material, but the course design may be too complex for your workforce to acquire it,” says Murray, “On the other hand, the course design could be great but the content is inadequate. “These same things can sometimes be a problem in the design of software-based training as well.”

6. Conduct a critical analysis of the design of the planned training. Janis Seaman believes this is an extremely important step that some organizations avoid, or fail to do thoroughly.

“It comes back to what you are trying to accomplish,” she says. “Is it simple information transfer or is it capacity building—getting beyond compliance and into behavioural and attitude changes?”

7. Make it stick. Ensure trainees can apply their newfound knowledge, or they’ll lose it. Grummitt and Martin say adult learners need ample opportunity to practice and apply what they’ve learned so far.

“It’s always good practice to revisit what has been learned on a regular basis post-training,” says Lori Lane, IAPA’s workplace learning and performance specialist. “Managers who are requesting the training need to invest the time in their people after the fact to ensure that they are applying new knowledge to their roles.”

Lane and Christy Sneddon, product developer at the Ontario Service Sector Alliance (OSSA), suggest drawing up a learning contract to ensure both parties are committed to learning the new skills, applying the new skills, or in some cases changing old behaviours to new ones.

8. Train and re-train. Some training is progressive. Other training needs refreshing. “Continuous improvement is important for sustaining the results of training, so it’s a myth that you only need to be trained once,” says Seaman. “The more critical the skill, the greater the need for refresher training.”

9. Look for low-cost or free training solutions to supplement your core training program. A bit of research may uncover great educational and training tools available to your workers free of charge. For example, some healthcare facilities and public health units offer free health-related seminars on nutrition, fitness, smoking cessation and stress reduction. Companies that manufacture or distribute machinery, safety devices and personal protective equipment often provide free training on their safe use.

“Many of our industry suppliers/manufacturers will come in and provide seminars to staff (e.g., a course on hearing protection),” Putherbough says. “For them, it’s an avenue for building relationships with clients. For us, it’s professional training at no cost.”

Adapted from an article by Derry McDonell (mcdonell.derry@gmail.com) and Robert Lee (writemorr@yahoo.ca). Watch for the full article in the August/September issue of Accident Prevention magazine.

How IAPA can help

IAPA offers the most comprehensive range of health and safety training offerings in Canada. To better meet the demands of your budget and time limitations, IAPA provides training in a number of flexible learning formats, from intensive classroom training to more focused on-site workshops and e-courses. Find out more.

Understanding WHMIS after GHS
By Lorraine Davison

Canada’s Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System (WHMIS) is about to change. WHMIS is a comprehensive program for providing information on the hazards and safe use of hazardous materials used in Canadian workplaces. This standardized approach for managing workplace chemical hazards, unique to Canada, has been a legislated requirement for over 20 years.

But soon WHMIS will be implementing the key elements of the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS). GHS was created to help standardize chemical hazard classification and communication worldwide. Once implemented, hazard information prepared in other countries will be easier to use in Canadian workplaces, since generally speaking, they will use the same hazard classification, labelling and data sheet rules. Currently, the WHMIS classification rules, label and MSDS requirements are unique to Canada.

While GHS will be implemented in Canada, it will not actually replace WHMIS. Instead, WHMIS will be modified to incorporate the GHS elements. There will be a new set of classification rules, label requirements, and Safety Data Sheet (SDS) requirements (MSDSs will be called SDS).

With these changes come distinct benefits for Canadian employers and workers. These include:

• promoting regulatory efficiency
• facilitating trade
• easing compliance
• providing improved, consistent chemical hazard information
• encouraging safe transport, handling and use of chemicals
• promoting better emergency response to chemical incidents

While it is still too early to know exactly what will change in WHMIS, here are the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety (CCOHS)’s predictions of what may happen.

Roles and responsibilities – little change expected

The current roles and responsibilities for suppliers, employers and workers are not likely to change in any significant way because of GHS. Suppliers will still have to classify hazardous products and prepare SDSs and labels for their customers. Employers will continue to make sure that their products are labelled, and SDSs are available to workers. Training and education will also continue to be vital in WHMIS after GHS, as employers must ensure staff are educated and trained properly about WHMIS and working safely with products. Workers will still have to learn about WHMIS, labels, and symbols and participate in training programs so that they know how to protect themselves and their coworkers in the workplace.

How GHS will change WHMIS

• Classification will be the first area of change. For example:
  • WHMIS will likely adopt all of the GHS health and physical hazard classes, including the explosives and aspiration hazard, although probably not all categories (smaller parts of classes) of every class. WHMIS will also likely continue to include some hazards that are currently not in the GHS system, such as biohazardous materials
  • the new WHMIS hazard classes will have more specific names
  • some changes will combine former WHMIS classes into one new GHS hazard class, such as reproductive toxicity

• Supplier labels are also likely to change, and will probably have a few new requirements. The most noticeable change may be new pictograms, as well as the use of a signal word. For example: Warning or Danger. Depending on the hazard class and category, a specific signal word, hazard statement and symbol/pictogram will be required or prescribed, and must appear on the label. It is still not clear if the names of hazardous ingredients will be included on the label, or if the WHMIS hatched border will still be required.

SDSs will continue to follow a 16-section format. However, they will also include standardized information requirements for each section. The 9-section WHMIS format for MSDSs will no longer be acceptable. Another important change to note is that the product classification and some of the label information will probably be required on the SDS. The SDS updating requirements (every 3 years) may continue to be required.

When GHS will change WHMIS

This is the most frequently asked question related to GHS in Canada. While WHMIS regulators continue to discuss changes to WHMIS, a clear deadline has not been identified for full implementation. Since Canadian regulations often take a year or two to move from initial draft to full implementation, it is likely that full implementation of changes will not occur until after 2010, perhaps not even until after 2011. Canada will likely announce a transition period to allow suppliers to implement the new requirements.
 
Canadian regulators are also making efforts to coordinate GHS implementation at the same time as the United States, our biggest trading partner, so stay tuned for the proposed timelines (both implementation and transition periods) from the US Occupational Safety and Health Administration as it publishes a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, expected in October 2009. Meanwhile, Europe has started full implementation this year, though suppliers can use both the old and new system together until 2015.

Lorraine Davison is CCOHS’s Manager, Chemical Services, www.ccohs.ca. Learn more about GHS at www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/chemicals/ghs.html.

How IAPA can help

IAPA offers a number of options:

1. classroom/on-site training courses
   • WHMIS for Workers Self-Study Training Package (DVD format)
   • WHMIS: Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System (1/2 day; also available on site)
   • WHMIS: Train-the-Trainer (3 days)
     
     
2. e-courses (click on elearning tab); one hour unless otherwise indicated
   • WHMIS for Managers and Supervisors in Ontario
   • WHMIS for Workers (ENG and FR versions)
   • WHMIS Refresher (ENG and FR versions)
   • WHMIS: Understanding MSDSs (ENG and FR versions; 1.5 hours)
     
     
3. free downloads
   • WHMIS General Information
   • WHMIS Inventory Form
   • WHMIS Training Requirements
     
     
4. consulting services, including
   • comprehensive hazard assessment reports and recommendations
   • development and delivery of awareness presentations on specific topics
   • assistance in delivering systematic, written health and safety program procedures
   • customized on-site training
     

MOL’s 10 most issued orders

For several years running, failing to take every precaution reasonable for the protection of a worker is the most frequently issued order by inspectors in the Ministry of Labour’s Industrial Program, statistics show.

In fiscal 2008, Industrial Program inspectors issued almost 52,000 orders, representing 64% of total orders issued by the ministry. Wayne De L’Orme, provincial coordinator of the program, notes that failing to take every precaution reasonable, representing 9% of orders, covers a range of employer-related failures not addressed by more specific provisions of the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA) and the Industrial Establishments Regulation (O. Reg. 851). However, other categories in the top 10 list involve more precise issues, such as equipment maintenance, machine guarding, and housekeeping (see the table at the end of the article).

Most contraventions appear on the list year after year. One reason may be the ministry’s recent focus on firms most likely to incur injuries. These are the workplaces least likely to have a strong commitment to injury and illness prevention.

Take machine guarding as an example. “Guarding is a relatively simple concept in itself,” says De L’Orme. “And for complex guarding solutions, workplaces are required to conduct a pre-start health and safety review, which should ensure guarding is adequate. Yet our inspectors find an inordinate number of machines with inadequate guarding.

“Sometimes employers may buy equipment believing it is compliant with the laws, when it isn’t,” suggests De L’Orme. “Sometimes people may find it expedient to remove guards to speed up production.

“I would hope that very few people are running machines without guards, knowing the dangers and what can be done to control them. But if a guard is removed, this indicates a failure of the internal responsibility system in that workplace. The supervisor has to go along with it, the machine operator has to go along with it, fellow workers, maintenance staff… It’s a real breakdown in terms of people watching for each other’s health and safety, including owners.”

The contravention that De L’Orme finds most disturbing is “failing to maintain equipment and protective devices in good condition. Maintenance is another basic concept. Since unmaintained equipment is also less productive equipment, this seems to be a reflection of poor health and safety practices and poor operating ability.”

De L’Orme believes such workplaces have built the cost of workplace injuries into the cost of doing business. “They’re institutionalizing their injury rate as an acceptable loss. Whether they are seeing it in these terms, that’s what they’re really doing.”

How to shake that mindset?

• Start by understanding the hard costs of a workplace injury. IAPA’s Small Business Safety Calculator allows you to calculate the actual costs of a common injury in your industry sector. They may be much higher than you think.

• Review IAPA’s business case for health and safety. A poor health and safety record may be symptomatic of broader organizational issues. Conversely, improving health and safety can boost productivity and increase profitability. The business case shows you what the possibilities are.

• Develop an action plan. IAPA’s Health & Safety Roadmap offers 4 powerful steps—including helpful tools—to meet your legal obligations and protect your workers.

Other ways IAPA can help

• Invite a consultant to conduct an audit of your health and safety program. IAPA consultants will work with you to identify, assess and determine safety, health and environmental needs, based on your readiness and capacity.
• Join IAPA’s 2010 Safety Group. Under this peer-support program, firms come together in regional chapters to select five elements of a health and safety program to initiate or improve on in their workplace. Members then work together to implement their selected safety elements, attending up to five facilitated one-day meetings throughout the year facilitated by an IAPA consultant. The benefits: a potentially significant reduction in lost-time injuries, and a possible compensation premium rebate. In 2007, the last year for which figures are available, 734 firms shared a $7 million rebate.

* Topic descriptions have been abbreviated. For the full wording, please refer to the section of the act or regulation cited

When an employer becomes a constructor
By Cyrus Gordon

IAPA consultant Kim MacLaughlin was faced with choosing among different shades of grey. Was her client an employer, a constructor, or both?

MacLaughlin was meeting with the head of a family-run business that owns several small, low-rise apartment buildings. “Over the last few years, I’ve helped him address health and safety concerns related to the general maintenance and repair of the buildings, such as landscaping and cleaning,” she explains. “Most of the work is done by his superintendents. Special jobs, such as electrical repair, would be contracted out.“

Red flags came up in MacLaughlin’s mind as she looked at some of the new work that the client was planning to undertake. “His buildings are around 30 years old,” says MacLaughlin. “Their interior and exterior now require significant repair and technological upgrades.” For example, in one building, the owner wanted to improve energy efficiency by replacing the lighting fixtures, exterior doors and heating system.

It was obvious that this work would go beyond simply stripping 1970s-style wallpaper in a lobby. “It would require extensive changes to the electrical and ventilation systems,” recalls MacLaughlin. “Even the frame around the building entranceway would have to be reinforced to support the heavier doors purchased by the owner.”

The owner was planning on dividing the work up between his superintendents and contractors. “He felt that superintendents could supervise the day-to-day progress of the work,” explains MacLaughlin.

The problem is that this owner is no longer answerable to just the Occupational Health and Safety Act’sIndustrial Establishments Regulation (O. Reg. 851). The Regulations for Construction Projects apply as well. According to the act,

• the type of work the owner was planning on doing is identified specifically as “construction”
• the extent of the work will transform the location into a construction “project”
• the owner will become not only an “employer,” but a project “owner” and a “constructor”

When a workplace becomes a construction site

McLaughlin’s client is receiving a first-hand lesson on the frequent blurring of workplace divisions in workplace health and safety legislation. The fact is that the act’s “construction” definition (s.1 (1)) refers to many activities found in non-construction settings, such as industrial facilities, offices, and even residential buildings like apartments and single-family homes. These activities include repair, alteration, dismantling, painting, and installation of machinery.

Generally speaking, in the non-construction sector, if these activities are performed on machinery or equipment, the safety and health requirements would fall under the Industrial Establishments Regulation. However, the requirements in the Construction Projects Regulation would apply if the work met the criteria of being a construction “project,” which includes “the construction of a building… structure, industrial establishment” as defined by the act (s.1 (1)).

“The risks and consequences of injuries in the construction sector are well known. That’s why the Ministry of Labour has established responsibilities specifically for ‘constructors’ and the management of [construction] projects,” explains Lois Weeks, an IAPA consultant who specializes in managing construction projects in industrial establishments. Under the right circumstances, this could place a workplace operating according to the Industrial Regulations, under new and additional workplace safety and health requirements. “It’s important to understand these responsibilities, to protect yourself from prosecution, as well as to protect the lives of employees and contractors.”

The Regulation for Construction Projects is much more prescriptive than the Industrial Establishments Regulation, and contains specific requirements for equipment operations and OHS administration. There is also a designated substances regulation for “Asbestos on Construction Projects and in Buildings and Repair Operations" (O. Reg. 278/05).

Perhaps the best example of the differences between the two regulations involves personal protective equipment. For instance, the construction regulation requires the wearing of protective headwear and footwear at all times when on a construction project (Reg. 213/91, sect. 22, 23). This equipment must also meet a specified high standard of impact resistance. However, the relatively more subjective Industrial Establishments Regulation requires personnel to wear the foot and head protection “as appropriate in the circumstances” (Reg. 851, sect. 80, 82).

Could your repair job be a “construction project”?

This issue was the topic of two Ontario court cases involving firms ordered to comply with the construction regulation (Relamping Services Canada Ltd. V. Universal Retrofit Inc. and St. Mary’s Cement Co. v. Ontario). Use the following, drawn from the cases, to evaluate your situation.

• Scope of activity: Are you conducting a repair or alteration? Replacing a broken light fixture would be considered a “repair,” and would not likely be covered under the construction regulation. However, if the replacement process involves upgrading the fixtures, reattaching wiring and replacing component parts, this would be considered an alteration integral to the building, and would therefore be a construction project.

• Project magnitude: If the activity involves multiple contractors working on a large area of your facility, it would be appropriate to apply the duties and protections of the construction regulation.

Still can’t decide?

If it’s difficult to determine whether the activity falls under the Industrial Establishments Regulation or Construction Projects Regulation, select the regulation that’s most closely related to the work being done. Unlike the Industrial Establishments Regulation, the Construction Projects Regulation refers to specific types of equipment and work operations such as scaffolds, mobile cranes, demolition operations, and compressed air. If your project involves these types of equipment or work, go with the Construction Projects Regulation as it will provide you with more legislative guidance to protect your workers.

And MacLaughlin’s client?

“My client’s work definitely meets all three criteria,” comments MacLaughlin. “He’s planning major repairs and upgrades to the interior and exterior of the building. Much of the work will involve construction equipment like scaffolding.”

The application of the construction regulation in non-construction sectors has the greatest personal impact on the employer. This is because under the act, “constructors” include employers or other persons “undertaking [a] project” (s.1 (1)), including the hiring of contractors for the project. “’My client was planning to hire and direct lighting and ventilation contractors. He would definitely be seen as a constructor,” explains MacLaughlin.

Being suddenly labelled a “constructor” is not unusual. “If a homeowner has multiple contractors working together on a home renovation project, he or she would be considered a ‘constructor,’” explains MacLaughlin.

“Constructors are mainly responsible for the day-to-day health and safety of the workers on the construction project,” explains Weeks. “They carry the bulk of the responsibility for safety and legal compliance on the project in accordance with the act and the construction regulation.”

According to the act, the Construction Projects Regulation, and Ministry of Labour’s Constructor Guidelines, some of these responsibilities include:

• ensuring that the measures and procedures prescribed by the act and the regulation are carried out on the project
• ensuring every employer and every worker performing work on this project complies with the act and the regulations
• notifying the Ministry of Labour about the project as prescribed
• developing written procedures for emergencies, and ensuring workers have ready access to a telephone
• appointing a project supervisor if 5 or more employees are working on it at the same time. The supervisor must conduct inspections at least once a week to ensure that the equipment on the project does not endanger the workers (OHSA s.23; Reg. 213/91 s. 13-19)

As the owner of the premises where the work will take place, MacLaughlin’s client would also be the “project owner.” Project owners are responsible for determining if any designated substances are on site, and providing a list of these substances to potential contractors. Owners also must inform the Ministry of Labour about any projects exceeding $50,000.

The main challenge for the client will be to keep on top of the project’s day-to-day activities. “One of the greatest challenges in property management is supervising staff,” explains MacLaughlin. “Typically, apartment maintenance staff are not closely supervised, except for the occasional spot-check by the superintendent or the property owner.” In a construction project, this would not only compromise the employer’s due diligence, but directly contravene the supervisory responsibilities in the Construction Projects Regulation.

Penalties for non-compliance are high, even for firms not in the construction sector. In June 2009, an owner of a commercial property being renovated in Kitchener was fined $60,000 for failing to notify contractors working on the building that they were handling asbestos (for more on this prosecution, see this issue’s “In the Courts” section). Also, contraventions involving personal protective equipment could result in employers, constructors, supervisors and/or workers receiving tickets on the spot, with fines ranging from $195 to $295. These fines could lead to larger fines if the ministry were to launch a prosecution, up to a maximum $25,000 per offence.

Even homeowners may be implicated. In 2003, a Richmond Hill, ON homeowner was fined $20,000 for failing, as a constructor, to have proper guardrails in place. This oversight resulted in a worker suffering a fatal fall while installing door and window trim.

Possible next steps

So what should employers in the non-construction sector do if faced with a construction project? MacLaughlin has two suggestions:

1. “bring in external expertise. If you’re running a metalworking shop, you would only hire qualified staff to operate your machinery. Why wouldn’t you do the same for a construction project?”

Fortunately, project owners in Ontario can assign health and safety responsibilities to the contracted constructor. Weeks explains: “They can hire a general contractor to assume the constructor role or designate one of the contractors in the role. But it must be spelled out contractually and then the owners must not direct the day-to-day operations. If they do, they can easily pull the contractor liability back on themselves.”

2. create a contractor health and safety policy that defines his or her responsibilities and the responsibilities of his or her contractors. “A good contractor safety program ensures that all parties—contractors and project owner—are equally committed to the safety of the workers onsite,” explains MacLaughlin. “This commitment means that everyone is notified of health and safety concerns as they come up.”

So if you think that the Construction Projects Regulation apply only to workers building skyscrapers, think again. “Any employer, especially if they own commercial property, should know that a planned renovation or unplanned disaster can turn their workplace into a construction project,” says MacLaughlin. “If you’re in this situation, awareness of the unique hazards and requirements for this sector is essential.”

Cyrus Gordon is an Information Resources Consultant at IAPA’s Information Centre.

How IAPA can help

IAPA offers four related training courses:

• Hiring Outside Contractors, a half-day course that focuses on what a company needs to have in place when hiring outside contractors
• Managing Safety of On-Site Contractors, a companion half-day course that assists employers with learning and establishing the requirements to manage the range of contractors onsite. Also available on site
• Construction Projects in Industrial Facilities, a half-day workshop covering the types of construction typically found in industrial workplaces, how to determine who is the constructor on a project, administrative requirements, and site specific hazard controls (e.g., personal protective equipment, signage, barricades, etc.)
• Contractor Health and Safety in Ontario a one-hour e-course that provides owners, employers and contractors with a framework to help fulfill their health and safety responsibilities

Also, IAPA consultants can assess your training needs, as well as customize and deliver on-site training.

In the News

Texting while driving: up to 23 times the risk

Studies using real-world driving data show that truck drivers who text message face a risk of crash or near crash 23 times that of non-distracted drivers. Just dialling a cell phone while driving a car increases the risk of a crash or near-crash 2.8 times.

The research on which these figures are based was conducted by the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute. According to an institute press release, the findings “show conclusively that a real key to significantly improving safety is keeping your eyes on the road.”

The institute’s research involved light vehicle drivers and truck drivers manually manipulating phones, such as dialling and texting. These activities led to a substantial increase in the risk of being involved in a crash or near crash, says the Institute. However, talking or listening increased risk much less for light vehicles, and not at all for trucks. Text messaging on a cell phone was associated with the highest risk of all cell phone related tasks (see table below).

Research involved several large-scale, naturalistic driving studies using sophisticated cameras and instrumentation in participants’ personal vehicles. Combined, these studies continuously observed drivers for roughly 10 million kilometres of driving.

What the institute recommends

Based on its research, the institute suggests the following.

1. Avoid any activities that divert the driver’s eyes from the roadway, such as texting and dialling.

2. Ban texting in moving vehicles for all drivers. This task has the potential to create a true crash epidemic if texting-type tasks continue to grow in popularity and when the generation of frequent text message senders reach driving age in large numbers.

3. If you must use a cell phone, use a “true hands-free” system (e.g., voice activated). “Headset” cell phone use is not much safer than “hand-held” use because the primary risks with both tasks involve answering, dialling, and other tasks that require eyes to be off the road. True hands-free phone use can reduce the time a driver takes his or her eyes off the road.

4. Ban all cell phone use among newly licensed teen drivers. Teens tend to engage in cell phone tasks much more frequently, and in much more risky situations, than adults. They are four times more likely to get into a related crash or near crash event than their adult counterparts.