Accident Prevention e-News May 2009	Volume 4/Issue 5/May 2009
In this Issue: Next inspection blitz: young and new workers Adding violence and harassment to the OHSA Profiting from participatory ergonomics Pandemic planning: if not now… In the News

Next inspection blitz: young and new workers

Manufacturing is one of three sectors that can expect a knock on the door from inspectors checking on young and new worker safety. The other two sectors, which also hire a high number of young and new workers, are

• service sector — retail, restaurant, tourism, wholesale, vehicle sales and service, office  related services, cold storage, etc.
• “extended” workplaces — golf courses, amusement devices, tree planting operations, landscaping, painting  job sites, and parks and recreation locations, etc.

Ministry of Labour inspectors conducted a similar blitz last fall. Among the findings: inadequate supervision was a greater issue than inadequate training. If you hear that knock, count on close scrutiny of your supervisory practices around young and newly assigned workers of any age.

Statistics indicate that all workplaces can pose serious risks for these workers. “We’ve conducted a long-term study of young worker fatalities,” explains Wayne De L’Orme, provincial coordinator of the ministry’s industrial health and safety program. “It didn’t make a difference what sector or what job a young worker was doing, fatalities occurred.”

Two implications: lower risk industries may be taking safety for granted, and serious injuries and fatalities can occur in any workplace, regardless of the perceived risk.

De L’Orme hopes that the current economic environment won’t tempt employers to cut back on “that very important orientation and safety training” because of budget reductions or layoffs that impose more work on the remaining workers.

Later this year, the ministry plans to conduct at least two more inspection blitzes. De L’Orme advises that, although each blitz will have a different safety focus, supervision will be a common theme. “At the end of next year we’ll have a better sense of whether it’s just new and young workers who would benefit from health and safety supervision, or all workers.”

Watch for more on future blitzes in upcoming issues of AP e-News.

How IAPA can help

1. Training
   • Effective Supervision for Supervisors, Part I (3-day, 6-module course, also available on site)
   • Effective Supervision for Supervisors, Part II (2-day, 4-module course, also available on site)
   • First 4 Weeks Health & Safety Orientation and Training (self-directed); facilitated, onsite training also available
   • Health & Safety for Managers & Supervisors in Ontario (8-9 hour e-course)
   • Proactive Strategies for Compliance – Discipline for Safety (1/2-day)
   • Supervisors' Responsibilities and Due Diligence (1/2 day, also available on site)
   • WHMIS for Managers and Supervisors in Ontario (1-hour e-course)
2. Free downloads
   • Employing Young Workers - Tips for Supervisors / Tips for Employers
   • Orientation Training

Adding violence and harassment to the OHSA
By Cheryl Edwards and Jeremy Warning

Ontario employers, managers, and advisors have been watching and waiting as the Ontario government experiences a groundswell of pressure to add workplace violence-related provisions to its Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA). Ontario has remained one of the few jurisdictions in Canada yet to define workplace violence and incorporate employer and supervisory obligations, and worker rights within OHS legislation.

The Ministry of Labour has been inspecting workplaces and issuing orders for workplace violence-related policies, workplace assessments, and training of workers in earnest since 2007. Statistics just released by the ministry indicate that between April and September 2008, inspectors made 198 field visits and issued 185 orders related to workplace violence, using the general obligation placed on employers to “take every precaution reasonable in the circumstances for the protection of a worker” as an enforcement tool. Further, as recently as late 2008, the ministry commenced a prosecution against one employer, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, for numerous alleged violations, including failure to prepare and implement a violence prevention policy using the “every precaution reasonable” provisions of section 25(2)(h) of the OHSA as an enforcement tool.

Inquest juries, including those empanelled following events at OC Transpo, Sears Chatham and Hôtel-Dieu Grace in Windsor, have recommended adding violence-related provisions to the OHSA for many years. Workers and organized labour have also raised their collective voices to insist on OHS mechanisms to ensure workplaces that are free of violence, bullying and harassment as a supplement to existing human rights and workers compensation regimes already used to enforce worker rights and obtain compensation for victims of violence arising in the course of employment. The addition of workplace violence to the protections in the OHSA has been seen by some as a final, missing piece of Ontario’s violence protection puzzle.

Ontario follows up on consultation with legislation

In September 2008, the ministry released a consultation paper requesting submissions from stakeholders regarding the content of potential workplace violence legislation. In particular, the ministry requested submissions about

• a definition of workplace violence
• whether a violence prevention program should be required under workplace violence legislation
• whether workplace violence legislation should have sector specific requirements
• whether workplace violence legislation should address domestic violence
• whether workers should have the right to refuse work on workplace violence grounds

The Ontario government has now responded with Bill 168, the Occupational Health and Safety Amendment Act (Violence and Harassment in the Workplace) 2009. Bill 168 received first reading in the Legislature on April 20, 2009. It addresses the issues raised in the consultation paper, and gives rise to new ones. The framework established by the consultation paper is a useful means by which to analyze the proposals in Bill 168.

Definition of workplace violence and harassment

Important rights and obligations that flow from the manner in which violence is defined include

• employer obligations to prepare policies and programs
• the trigger for the ability to refuse work
• new requirements to prepare a report of a workplace injury due to violence

Understanding what is and is not workplace violence for the purposes of the OHSA is key to understanding the requirements and obligations proposed by Bill 168.

Bill 168 defines “workplace violence” to mean

(a)  the exercise of physical force by a person against a worker in a workplace that causes or could cause physical injury to the worker
(b)  an attempt to exercise physical force against a worker in a workplace that could cause physical injury to the worker

Notably, the definition of workplace violence does not include threatened violence. This distinguishes the proposed legislation from that of a number of other Canadian jurisdictions. However, in defining workplace violence as the attempted or actual application of physical force, the definition is in keeping with the traditional role of OHS legislation—preventing physical risks to workers.

Bill 168 also includes a definition of workplace harassment. This is defined to mean “a course of vexatious conduct or comment against a worker in a workplace that is known or ought reasonably to be known to be unwelcome.” As such, Bill 168 incorporates non-physical types of conduct that have not, historically, been considered a proper subject of regulation by the OHSA or litigation under the OHSA, but rather found their resolution through the civil courts, and workplace safety and insurance and human rights regimes. As will be seen by an analysis of the remaining issues raised by the consultation paper, Bill 168 creates a web of different rights and obligations depending upon whether the conduct at issue under the OHSA is “workplace violence” or “workplace harassment.”

Workplace violence prevention program

Under Bill 168, where more than five workers are regularly employed at a workplace, an employer is required to prepare written policies regarding each of workplace violence and harassment. These policies are to be posted in a conspicuous place, and reviewed at least annually. The legislation as worded suggests that these ought to be separate policies.

Bill 168 requires an employer to prepare a violence program as a means to implement the violence policy. However, prior to preparing the program, an employer is expected to conduct an assessment of violence risks that may arise from the nature of the workplace and the type or conditions of work, and craft the program to reflect risks that could cause physical injury. The assessment results must be shared with the joint health and safety committee or safety representative, or to workers directly if there is no committee or representative, either verbally or in written form if that exists. An employer must also perform periodic reassessments to ensure that the policy and program continue to protect workers. Bill 168 does not provide a specific expectation regarding the frequency of reassessments.

The violence program itself must address issues such as

• how the risks identified in the assessment will be controlled
• the summoning of immediate assistance if workplace violence occurs or is likely to occur
• methods for workers to report incidents or threats of workplace violence
• how the employer will investigate and deal with incidents, complaints or threats of workplace violence

An employer is required to provide adequate training in the violence policy and program to workers.

Workplace harassment prevention program

A workplace harassment prevention program is also mandated by Bill 168. However, an employer is not required to assess its workplace for workplace harassment. Rather, the program must include reporting procedures for workers and set out how the employer will investigate and deal with incidents and complaints. Presumably, this could be coordinated with, or even included within, the employer’s other harassment prevention procedures.

Sector specific requirements

Bill 168 is a proposed amendment to the OHSA. As such, the requirements are not sector specific as there has been no amendment to the existing regulations. Therefore, if Bill 168 is passed, the provisions will be of general application and affect employers in all sectors.

Domestic violence

Bill 168 contains a proposed requirement that employers respond to domestic violence. However, an employer is not required to assess its workplace for potential domestic violence risks. The proposals in Bill 168 would require an employer to take “every precaution reasonable in the circumstances for the protection of a worker,” if the employer becomes aware, or ought reasonably to be aware, of a domestic violence risk to the worker. As such, domestic violence is treated as a stand-alone obligation that requires employer response to a specific risk that arises, or that they ought reasonably be aware of. Indicia of domestic violence that ought to trigger employer awareness are not specified.

The right to refuse work

Bill 168 would amend existing work refusal provisions to permit a worker to refuse work if “workplace violence is likely to endanger himself for herself,” in addition to other longstanding grounds upon which a work refusal may occur. Therefore, if Bill 168 is passed in its current form, workers would have the right to refuse to work where they believe (section 43(3) and 43(6)) that their physical well-being is at risk because of the actual or attempted application of physical force. There is no proposed right to refuse where “harassment” is believed likely to endanger.

Bill 168 does not alter the current limited right to refuse to work that applies to public sector occupations and workplaces. The bill does, however, alter the worker’s obligation to remain near his or her workstation to allow workers to remove themselves from alleged harmful situations. The proposed amendment would insert the words “as reasonably possible” into the current wording of subsection 43(5) and 43(10) of the OHSA so that the worker would remain at a safe place near the work station if and as reasonably possible, until the investigation is complete. However a worker must remain available to the employer or supervisor for the purposes of the investigation.

Employer obligations to protect workers from violence and harassment

The least clear aspect of the proposed amendments relates to employer obligations to protect workers from workplace violence and harassment. The bill does not provide for an express employer duty to protect workers from harassment; an employer’s obligation is to prepare a policy, program, ensure training, and create reporting and response mechanisms. Bill 168 does provide for an employer duty (under section 25 OHSA duties as applicable), and supervisor and worker duties (under their duties as applicable), with respect to workplace violence.

This wording creates some uncertainty, but it appears that the ministry could prosecute for failing to protect workers from workplace violence in addition to its power to prosecute for failing to create and implement the required policies and programs.

If a worker were to seek enforcement of these provisions and suffer an alleged employer reprisal for doing so (for example, by complaining or making recommendations, refusing to work), it also appears that a section 50 reprisal complaint could potentially arise. The Ontario Labour Relations Board when considering reprisal complaints has expressed strong doubt that the current OHSA covers non-physical forms of violence. The board has prevented workers complaining of a reprisal related to “harassment” to seek a remedy under the OHSA for that reprisal. Bill 168 may open the door to a broader range of reprisal complaints than currently permitted.

Disclosure of information about persons with a violent history

Interestingly, and we suspect controversially, Bill 168 proposes that an employer or supervisor would have a duty to provide to a worker (as part of training and information to worker obligations) personal information related to a risk of workplace violence from a person with a history of violent behaviour if

(1) the worker will encounter the person in the course of their work
(2) the risk of workplace violence is likely to expose the worker to physical injury

Bill 168 does not provide specific guidance on the type or amount of personal information that may be provided in such circumstances. However, it does limit the amount of information that may be provided as it stipulates that no employer or supervisor shall disclose more information than is necessary to protect the worker from physical injury.

Reporting of workplace violence

Bill 168 requires an employer to prepare a notice under section 52 of the OHSA in the event that a worker is disabled from regular duties, or requires medical attention, as a result of workplace violence. Bill 168 does not address report content. As such, the content of the report would be dictated by the requirements set out in the regulation applicable to the workplace.

Phase-in of provisions

If Bill 168 is passed, it will not require immediate compliance by employers. The provisions will come into force six months after passage.

While some aspects of Bill 168 are consistent with the ministry’s current approach to workplace violence under the OHSA—requiring that employers take “every precaution reasonable in the circumstances” for worker protection—by including issues such as harassment, domestic violence and duties to provide personal information about potentially violent persons as set out above, Bill 168 does contain significant departures from the traditional approach to workplace violence protections seen elsewhere. It is too early to tell whether Bill 168 will emerge from the legislative process intact, or at all, but it does provide a very strong indication of the approach that employers can expect from the government in Ontario.

Cheryl Edwards is Lead in Heenan Blaikie’s national OHS & Workers’ Compensation Practice Group; cedwards@heenan.ca; Tel: 416.360.2897. Jeremy Warning is a senior associate and a member of the group; jwarning@heenan.ca; Tel: 416.643.6946.

How IAPA can help

If your workplace contains machine-related hazards, consider these options.

1. Attend Violence in the Workplace, a half-day course
   
   
2. Attend these sessions at two upcoming regional events:
   • Violence in the Workplace at Kingston 2009 Day of Workshops, Kingston, ON, June 2
   • Violence Prevention – Simple Solutions at Education is the Key, a 2-day conference and trade show, London, ON, June 16. Early bird deadline expires May 26
     
     
3. IAPA also offers the following resources:
   • to assess risk of violence from external sources, use the Workplace Violence Hazards Inspection Form
   • to assess risk of violence from internal sources, use the Employee Risk Assessment Questionnaire
   • learn to recognize, assess and control common situations that lead to workplace violence with Controlling Violence in the Workplace Video-Based Training. Includes a video, administrator’s guide, and five participant guides, certificates, and hazard control forms
   • download Creating Healthy Workplaces, a comprehensive rationale for creating a physically and psychologically healthy work environment. Other related downloads are also available
   • arrange for onsite delivery of these IAPA courses: Creating Healthy Workplaces and Psychosocial Risk Management. Both courses can help firms create a healthy workplace with less risk of conflict and violence
     
     
4. IAPA is currently customizing the following self-study e-courses, in collaboration with CCOHS, for the Ontario market, for release in winter 2010:
   • Violence in the Workplace in Ontario: Establish a Prevention Program
   • Violence in the Workplace in Ontario: Recognize the Risk and Take Action
     
     

Profiting from participatory ergonomics
By Ivan Szlapetis

A great many articles, research papers and books have been written on the costs of musculoskeletal disorders (MSD) and the benefits of ergonomics. Still, some people see ergonomic practices as a luxury, not a necessity.

What these people may not be seeing are the practical but “hidden” benefits that can affect many aspects of business operations.

Ergonomics matches the work and work environment to the abilities, needs and limitations of the users. The full scope of ergonomics includes the physical environment, as well as psychological and sociological factors affecting the job.

Participatory ergonomics is a process for workplace improvement that involves workers as well as other stakeholders in problem solving.

Implementing a PE process

Based on research findings, the Institute for Work & Health suggests the following six keys to success in implementing a participatory ergonomics (PE) process. Additional detail is provided based on the experiences of IAPA ergonomic specialists.

1. Create PE teams with appropriate members. Some firms use an Ergonomics Change Team (ECT) or steering committee to drive ergonomic improvements. Teams can represent a cross-section of the organization, or workers and supervisors from one department, an approach taken by Cogent Power Inc. The firm started with its furnace department, went on to the slitting and then forming departments (for more, see “Going Lean” in the Nov/Dec 2008 issue of Accident Prevention).

2. Involve the right people in the PE process. Often, the team will include:

• workers — the job experts who are affected by any changes
• maintenance and/or engineering — inevitably, something will need to be fabricated or adjusted to make an ergonomic improvement
• supervisors — to lead behavioural changes that may be necessary; this could include planning job rotations and coaching people on proper lifting and handling techniques
• health and safety coordinator and/or joint health and safety committee members —  representation on the ECT can avoid creating silos
• labour representation — if there is a union, make sure it’s on board
• management — a project sponsor will clear the path to implementing solutions

3. Provide ergonomic training for ECTs. IAPA has developed a training program for ergonomics teams, called Building an MSD Prevention Program (see How IAPA can help). Teams learn about ergonomics principles, and practice the skills necessary to recognize and assess MSD hazards. An ergonomics specialist facilitates brainstorming activities to identify a range of possible solutions, which allows a comprehensive and practical plan of action to evolve. The intention is to build self-sufficiency and develop the skills and attitudes necessary for a firm to replicate on its own the successes facilitated by IAPA.

4. Involve a PE champion. A PE team will be more effective if it has a champion who helps coordinate meetings and motivate people to complete their action items. To help manage change, a champion must be an effective communicator and have credibility across the organization.

5. Define participants’ responsibilities. Team members work best with well-defined roles, responsibilities and a code of conduct for meetings. By involving team members in this way, you can leverage individuals’ unique abilities to maximum benefit. Nothing is more frustrating than calling a meeting and watching people show up late without having done what they were assigned to do.

6. Make decisions through group consultation. While making decisions in a group sounds great, it isn’t always easy. They can take longer than “executive decisions,” but the quality of the solutions and likelihood of compliance with decisions is often greater when more people are involved. A team needs to decide how it will handle conflicting opinions. Some firms are already team-oriented, but this is not the culture in all workplaces. Having a facilitator, such as an ergonomist, can to help establish the norms necessary for team building.

The hidden benefits of being proactive

If you analyze the benefits of ergonomics only in hard dollars paid for equipment modifications and consulting fees, you would likely find a modest difference between reactive and participative approaches. However, when considering less tangible but equally valuable benefits of both approaches, a strong link emerges between participatory ergonomics and long-term profitability.

The table below suggests how different groups or individuals might respond to an injury or complaint that has been raised. I’ve linked these intangible effects to potential measurable results.

Ivan Szlapetis, a Canadian Certified Professional Ergonomist, is a healthy workplace consultant with IAPA; iszlapetis@iapa.ca.

Excerpted from an article appearing in the May/June issue of Accident Prevention magazine.

How IAPA can help

1. Sign up for a free webinar on the business case for ergonomics. Learn from two organizations that successfully implemented ergonomic changes, then measured and documented their impact. Participation limited. Register today.
   
   
2. Check out an online list of ergonomic resources posted in advance of a musculoskeletal disorder (MSD) blitz earlier this year.
   
   
3. Try out a free sample e-course on MSDs

Pandemic planning: if not now…

Although the likelihood of a near-term flu pandemic appears increasingly remote, experts warn against letting our guard down.

An influenza pandemic usually spreads in two or more waves, either in the same year or in successive influenza seasons. As the flu season develops in the southern hemisphere, influenza A/H1N1 could gather strength. If so, the possibility of the virus mutating into something more dangerous could grow just as our own flu season begins in the fall.

What’s a business to do? Take advantage of the lull to review and strengthen your pandemic plans.

If you don’t have plans, you’re not alone. According to a late-April survey conducted by Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters, only 13% of respondents said they’re prepared for a pandemic.

Approximately 87% of the 527 companies polled indicated their businesses do not have a continuity plan in place to deal with an emergency situation like a pandemic; 90% were unsure of what steps to take to safeguard their operations, including their supply chain.

What you risk by doing nothing

A pandemic may impact your firm in various ways:

• dramatic productivity losses, due to high levels of pandemic absenteeism, with up to 50% of staff absent, for periods of about 2 weeks at the height of a severe pandemic wave. Some employees may be ill, while others may be too frightened to come in, or have to stay home to care for family members. Expect up to eight weeks of disruption, says Business Development Bank of Canada (BDC)
• disruption of essential services, such as information, telecommunications, financial services, energy supply, and logistics
• customer orders that are cancelled or left unfilled
• disruption of supplies needed for ongoing business activity. Other firms will also be suffering from pandemic absenteeism. Expect additional problems if you’re importing goods by air or land from severely affected jurisdictions
• limited availability of contracted services. Maintenance of key equipment merits close planning attention
• greater or lesser demand for business services. Demand for some services may rise (e.g., Internet/network access for your employees working from home), while demand for others may fall (e.g., certain types of travel activity)

Protecting your business

Taking a proactive approach to protecting your employees and your business can give your company a competitive advantage during a crisis and at other times. Besides keeping the machinery humming, it demonstrates to employees, shareholders and customers that you have a plan in place to continue supplying critical products or services.

The principles for responding to a flu pandemic apply to all aspects of emergency preparedness planning. Use this instance as a planning opportunity for any emergency. Keep the process as simple as possible by proceeding step by step. Figure out what external risks your workers and your business face, what consequences could arise, and what steps can be taken to prevent or mitigate them before and during an emergency.

How IAPA can help

• Attend either of two half-day courses, Pandemic Planning: Is Your Business Ready, on June 23 and 25 in Mississauga and Burlington, respectively.
• Go to our Pandemic Planning page for a list of IAPA resources, including the two courses, a pandemic Q&A, free downloads, and the latest pandemic news
• Check out Diminishing Risks, from the May/June issue of Accident Prevention magazine, for a series of risk assessment tips.

In the News

Free webinar: The Dollars and Sense of Ergonomics

Regardless of your industry, most organizations in today's economy are looking for ways to improve productivity and performance with fewer resources.

Ergonomics, the science of fitting work and the work environment to workers (instead of the other way around), can be a sure means to achieving this end. But making the case for ergonomics can be a hard sell, especially in tough economic times.

Learn from two workplaces’ success stories

During this webinar, you'll hear from two very different organizations:

• a Tier 1 auto parts manufacturer. Speaker: Paul O'Connor, HSE Coordinator, Kumi Canada Corporation
• a public sector school board: Speaker: Kerri Stewart, Associate Occupational Hygienist, Health & Safety Department, Durham District School Board

Both have successfully implemented ergonomic changes and reaped significant benefits. The fixes were generally low-cost while the returns were high, as measured by

• LTI reductions
• improved RTW outcomes
• productivity gains
• financial gains through WSIB premium rebates

Find out…

• how ergonomics can improve health and safety and the bottom line
• how to successfully tackle ergonomics issues in your workplace
• how to measure and document outcomes
• how to make a more effective case for ergonomics in your workplace
• where to turn for help

Only 100 "seats" are available. Register Now!

2008 inspection blitzes results

In 2008, just over 2,800 inspections of industrial workplaces during three Ministry of Labour blitzes resulted in 7,788 work orders, the ministry reports. All three blitzes generated at least 1.5 times more work orders than usual.

The blitzes focused on young and new worker safety, fall hazards, and electrical safety.

Because many injuries and fatalities can be traced to a few root causes, the ministry conducted the blitzes to raise awareness of and increase compliance with related OHS legislation and regulations.

The ministry does not limit inspections to workplaces with injuries. It also uses other predictive indicators, such as inherent hazards and poor records of compliance.

A summary of the outcomes for each blitz appears below.

The ministry’s blitz campaign continues in 2009. Lift truck and musculoskeletal disorder blitzes took place in February and April, respectively. A young and new worker safety blitz is scheduled for June (see “Next blitz: young and new worker safety” elsewhere in this issue).

How IAPA can help

Check out an online list of resources that IAPA posts in advance of each successive blitz. The web page includes resources for all blitzes.