Accident Prevention e-News
October 2009
|
Volume 4/Issue 10/Oct 2009
|
In this Issue:
|
|
November blitz: slips, trips and falls
 Ontario Ministry of Labour inspectors will be watching for slip, trip and fall hazards during a November blitz.
Target sectors for the blitz include transportation, education, retail, industrial services (e.g., janitorial services), and wholesalers. “These are the five sectors that have had the greatest issue with falls in the last while,” says Wayne De L’Orme, provincial coordinator of the ministry’s Industrial Health and Safety Program.
“But regardless of these target sectors,” warns De L’Orme, “inspectors are going to be going to all workplaces where they believe they will find related safety issues. Almost any workplace in the province could be visited during the blitz.”
Alarming statistics
The blitz is partly triggered by a steady rate of fall injuries. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board records show that
- since at least 1997, falls account for 1 in 6 lost-time injury claims
- falls account for 1 in 4 of all recent fatalities in the industrial subsector
- same level falls, such as slips and trips, account for up to 65% of fall injuries
- 1 worker is injured in a fall every 20 minutes—80 workers a day
- injured workers are off the job for about 6 weeks
Learning from the last blitz
A blitz in September 2008 that focused primarily on falls resulted in 935 targeted workplace visits and 2,628 work orders. Almost 200 were stop work orders.
2008 Fall Blitz Results |
Number of workplace visits |
935 |
Total orders issued |
2,628 |
Stop work orders issued |
183 |
Orders issued per workplace visit |
2.81 |
Stops work orders issued per workplace visit |
0.196 |
Number of tickets issued |
18 |
|
“Inspectors found a lot of situations in which the basic upkeep and maintenance of equipment were just badly done,” says De L’Orme. “I know of at least one prosecution that arose from the blitz because the inspector observed workers only had access to poorly maintained ladders.”
The ministry added slips and trips to this year’s blitz because of 2008 injury statistics. For example, a number of critical injuries occurred due to slips in employee parking areas. “Most of these injuries occurred in the November to March period,” says De L’Orme. “So among the questions inspectors will be asking is, ‘What procedures do you have in place to keep employees safe during periods when snow and ice accumulate?’”
Contributing factors
Incident investigations show that people often lose their balance, slip or fall due to the following factors:
- poor lighting, slippery surfaces, inadequate housekeeping and other deficient working conditions
- missing protective devices (e.g., guardrails)
- misused equipment or equipment in poor condition (e.g., ladders and scaffolds)
- lack of appropriate personal protective equipment (e.g., equipment is not available, not used, or misused)
- poor work practices (e.g., unclear job procedures, lack of training, or workers rushing to meet deadlines)
Ask yourself these questions
To reduce the risk of slip, trip and fall injuries, consider the following questions:
- Is equipment, such as ladders, scaffolds and bucket lifts, in good condition and used properly?
- Is lighting adequate so workers can see clearly?
- Are good housekeeping standards set and followed?
- Are snow, ice and liquids on walking and working surfaces promptly cleared/cleaned?
- Are workers and supervisors trained before work starts?
- Are written job procedures available to, understood and followed by workers?
- Is required personal protective equipment (e.g., appropriate footwear) in good condition?
- Is fall-arrest equipment worn when working from heights?
- Are incidents and injuries investigated to find and eliminate the root cause?
3 recent fall prosecutions
September 30, 2009: Liquidation World Inc., an Alberta discount retailer, was fined $18,000 after an inspector visiting a Brantford, ON location found that two workers had been using an unsafe ladder. The ladder was missing three of its four non-slip feet, and one of its cross-members was broken. Liquidation World Inc. pleaded guilty to failing to ensure that the ladder had non-slip feet and was free from loose parts or other faults, as required by sections 73(a) and (b) of the Industrial Establishments Regulation (O. Reg. 851).
May 14, 2009: national clothing and accessories retailer Guess? Canada Corporation was fined $50,000 for an incident in which a worker was seriously injured in a storage room. In October 2007, a worker at a Guess? outlet in Toronto, ON was standing on a 2.4 metre A-frame ladder in the storage room, attempting to return a box to the top shelf. The ladder gave way and the worker fell to the floor, sustaining back injuries. An investigation found that the ladder was too wide for the storage room. This prevented the worker from fully opening the ladder and locking it into place. The company 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.
October 22, 2007: A worker in a cooling tunnel at Magna Structural Systems Inc. in Milton, ON injured his leg after tripping on debris. The worker had entered the tunnel to realign a rack on which auto parts from a paint baking oven were cooling. On the floor were a piece of conduit, metal plates, skids and waste paint. Magna pleaded guilty to failing to ensure the floor was kept free of obstructions, hazards and refuse, as required by subsection 11(a) of O. Reg. 851. Fine: $82,500.
How IAPA can help
IAPA offers a number of resources to help prevent slips, trips and falls.
- E-courses (1 hour)
- Free downloads
- Small Business Safety Calculator
A worker who slips on a greasy floor and suffers head injuries is just one of the scenarios in which you can adjust the calculations to reflect typical costs for your workplace.
- Assessments and customized training
IAPA consultants have knowledge and experience regarding slip, trip and fall prevention. They can answer your questions, provide hazard assessments, customize training, and recommend other controls for your workplace.
Violence and harassment act: 2nd reading
 Bill 168, which will require Ontario employers to implement violence and harassment prevention measures, was introduced for second reading and debate in the legislature on October 5.
The intent of Bill 168, Occupational Health and Safety Amendment Act (Violence and Harassment in the Workplace) 2009, is to establish minimum workplace standards and clarify employers’ and workers’ obligations and rights.
“We want workplaces to create an environment that says to each and every worker that violence is unacceptable in this workplace and violence will be dealt with,” said Labour Minister Peter Fonseca when introducing the bill for second reading.
Among its measurers, Bill 168 will require employers to
- assess the risk of violence and harassment
- prepare workplace policies
- develop an implementation program, including control measures
- create a process for responding to complaints and threats
The bill would also
- expand workers’ right to refuse unsafe work to include situations of violence
- require workers to report incidents or threats of workplace violence. Correspondingly, employers who are aware or ought to be aware that domestic violence may erupt at work must take every reasonable precaution to protect the worker
- provide for authority to make regulations, including requiring an employer to designate a workplace violence and harassment coordinator
- add definitions of workplace violence and harassment to the Occupational Health and Safety Act. For example, " harassment" would cover a broad range of types of harassment, comprising psychological, sexual, bullying, and intimidation
“There's no denying that violence occurs in our workplaces,” said Fonseca. “From April 2008 to March 2009, the ministry received 170 complaints related to violence in the workplace. In the same time period, inspectors made 417 field visits and issued 351 orders related to violence in the workplace. In the last 12 years, three coroners' juries have recommended amendments to the Occupational Health and Safety Act.”
Current status
Debate on the bill was adjourned, and as of October 12 had not resumed. Once debate has finished, the bill will likely go to a standing committee for possible review and amendment. Assuming the bill proceeds, workplaces can expect the ministry and its health and safety system partners to release such compliance tools as guides, checklists, templates, and training.
What other jurisdictions have done
During debate on the bill, MPP Peter Kormos (New Democrat, Welland) listed progress in other jurisdictions:1
- Quebec passed a law in 2004
- Saskatchewan recently tightened its existing violence and harassment laws
- Australia has covered harassment under its Workplace Health and Safety Act since 1995
- Scotland outlaws workplace harassment of any kind, defining it as "unwanted conduct that violates people's dignity or creates an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment"
- Sweden has a 1993 ordinance that contains measures and provisions against victimization at work. “It also covers adult bullying, mental violence, social rejection and harassment, including sexual harassment,” said Kormos.
How IAPA can help
- Scan an overview of the legislation, and what you need to know about workplace violence and harassment.
- Attend a new management briefing, Implications of Bill 168
- Attend a new half-day workshop, Preventing Violence and Harassment at Work
- Attend sessions at upcoming regional conferences and trade shows:
- Workplace Violence and Harassment: An Overview of Bill 168, at
- Workplace Violence Prevention, at Forum North, November 4, Thunder Bay
- IAPA also offers the following resources, which cover workplace violence in a general manner:
1 Source: Legislative Assembly of Ontario, Official Records for 5 October 2009
Mental health claims: are the floodgates opening?
By Ryan J. Conlin
 More workers may become eligible for mental stress compensation benefits as a result of a recent court decision in BC.
Whether employees ought to be entitled to receive workers compensation benefits for mental stress conditions has been controversial for many years. As a matter of law, Ontario’s Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) will grant entitlement only for mental stress that arises out of a reaction to an unexpected traumatic event or series of events. Workers are not entitled to benefits for traumatic mental stress that results from an employer’s decisions or actions. Nor are workers who develop mental stress gradually over time, due to general workplace conditions.
Unions and injured worker activists have asserted for years that denying compensation for most types of mental stress is unconstitutional. They have argued that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms prohibits a compensation agency from treating mental stress claims differently than physical injuries. In what could be a precedent setting case across the country, the BC Court of Appeal has at least partly accepted this argument.
Plesner case
(i) Factual history: the case involved a worker employed at a BC Hydro generating station.1 While attending a training session, he witnessed a rupture of a natural gas pipeline. He gave evidence that he was fearful the gas leak would result in an explosion, thus triggering a chain reaction.
Two weeks after the incident, the worker visited his family doctor, who noted symptoms of stress and referred him to a psychiatrist. The worker stopped working, and his psychiatrist ultimately diagnosed him as having post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
The worker’s initial compensation claim was denied on the grounds that his condition was chronic. He appealed to the Review Division, BC’s equivalent to Ontario’s WSIB Appeals Branch. The division accepted that Plesner was suffering from PTSD linked to the gas rupture, but ruled the circumstances of the rupture did not qualify as a traumatic event within the meaning of the legislation, as interpreted by board policy. In particular, the incident did not meet the threshold to qualify as “horrific,” and the appeal was dismissed. Ontario WSIB policy with respect to traumatic mental stress is similar to the policy language at issue in this case.
Plesner appealed to the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal. Again, the appeal was denied on the grounds that the gas rupture did not meet the threshold for qualifying as a traumatic event.
(ii) BC Court of Appeal decision: on judicial review to the BC Court of Appeal, the majority held that the “traumatic event” descriptor under section 5.1 of the Workers Compensation Act, when reviewed concurrently with board policy, breached the equality provisions of the Charter in that it gave rise to discrimination on the basis of mental disability. According to the majority, workers similarly situated to Plesner were at a significant disadvantage in terms of entitlement to compensation compared to workers suffering from physical disability.
In the majority’s view, workers suffering from physical disabilities had only to show they suffered a work-related injury in order to receive benefits, while workers suffering from mental disabilities were required to exceed the traumatic threshold before receiving compensation.
Interestingly, the majority held that the provision in the legislation that confined entitlement to stress arising out of a sudden and unexpected traumatic event was not unconstitutional. However, the majority went on to find that the high threshold set by the board’s mental stress policy for establishing that a “traumatic event” occurred offended the Charter. The majority identified the specific provisions of the board’s mental stress policy that were determined to be unconstitutional.
The dissenting judge took a different approach. She held that the distinction drawn between physically injured workers and psychologically injured workers did not amount to discrimination based on disability. This judge ruled that treating workers compensation claims differently on the basis of how they were acquired did not breach the Charter. She was also sympathetic to the argument that drawing a line is inevitable in a government benefits scheme, and that the government is entitled to decide for itself how resources are allocated provided that the Charter is not breached.
Notwithstanding the detailed dissenting judgment, the BC government has apparently decided not to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. The board has removed the provisions of the mental stress policies that the court held offended the Charter.2 The board redefined “traumatic event” as “an emotionally shocking event,” which the board indicated was consistent with both Dorland’s Medical Dictionary, and The Concise Oxford Dictionary definitions of traumatic event.
“Traumatic” threshold remains in effect
It is important to appreciate that the Plesner decision does not open the door to WSIB entitlement for every type of work-related stress condition. Plesner argued that confining entitlement to work-related mental stress arising out of a “traumatic” event was in and of itself unconstitutional. In other words, Plesner argued that the discrimination arose out of the fact that workers with physical injuries simply had to establish that the injury was work related, whereas workers suffering from mental stress had to establish that the stress was work related and traumatic.
It was argued that confining entitlement to traumatic mental stress was unconstitutional when almost any kind of work-related physical injury automatically results in entitlement being granted. The court did not accept Plesner’s argument. However, the court went on to find it unconstitutional to set an extremely high threshold for establishing that the work-related stress is also traumatic when no similar barrier exists for physical injuries. The court noted that it was evident from the examples provided in the policy that the circumstances must be extreme for stress to be considered traumatic.
It is fair to say that the nature of the examples listed in the policy was such that most workers will likely seldom, if ever experience an event that would meet the policy’s threshold for traumatic. Although the issue was not analyzed extensively in the judgment, it appears that the court was prepared to accept that differential treatment between physical and mental conditions is permissible, provided that the threshold for entitlement to mental stress benefits is not set too high.
Long term impact
It is clear from this decision that entitlement to workers’ compensation benefits for mental stress will expand significantly in BC, and possibly across the country if this decision is followed by other courts or is accepted by the Supreme Court of Canada. Workers in BC will now have to establish that the stress condition arises from a reaction to “an emotionally shocking event.”
Clearly, the court intended to expand entitlement to workers compensation benefits for mental stress without requiring the elimination of the hurdle that stress be a reaction to a work-related event that is objectively traumatic. However, it remains to be seen how “emotionally shocking event” will be interpreted, and it is not clear where the new line will be drawn. For example, would an employee be granted entitlement for a reaction to a single incident of being loudly yelled at by a supervisor? Would an employee be entitled to compensation after being sent a pornographic email by a co-worker?
Under the old policy, it is fairly clear that such incidents would not be considered “traumatic.” After the Plesnerdecision, there may be some circumstances where a reaction to such events would be treated as compensable in BC.
The mental stress policy in BC continues to deny entitlement for stress caused by an employer’s decision relating to the worker’s employment, including a decision to change the work to be performed or the working conditions, to discipline the worker or to terminate the worker’s employment. This means that stress arising out of an employee’s reaction to ordinary work-related events continues to be non-compensable.
However, employers should also appreciate that other courts will likely be asked to go further than the BC Court of Appeal in Plesner and find that imposing the traumatic threshold for entitlement is unconstitutional regardless of how “traumatic” is defined by policy. Such a finding would dramatically lower the bar to entitlement for mental stress, and could possibly result in dramatic premium increases.
How the Plesnerapproach is treated in Ontario remains to be seen. It is anticipated that it will not be long before the WSIB and the courts are required to determine whether to follow the Plesnerapproach or not.
Ryan J. Conlin is a partner practicing in the Occupational Health and Safety Practice Group at Stringer Brisbin Humphrey Management Lawyers: 416-862-1616, ext. 370, rconlin@sbhlawyers.com. This article first appeared in UPDATE, an electronic publication of Stringer Brisbin Humphrey.
1 Plesner v. British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority, 2009 BCCA 188 (B.C.C.A.)
2 See www.worksafebc.com/regulation_and_policy/policy_decision/board_decisions/2009 /july/assets/20090714-06.pdf for a copy of the resolution which amended the mental stress policy
Warehouse safety: accreditation and other prevention opportunities
 One of the greatest issues facing warehouse operators is the personal and financial loss resulting from material handling incidents, says Kevin A. Maynard, executive director of the Canadian Supply Chain Sector Council.
In a session at the upcoming CSA/IAPA Warehouse Safety Conference, taking place November 12-13 in Mississauga, ON, Maynard will bring delegates up to speed on the council’s new Material Handling Skills Upgrading Project.
“Health and safety is one of the biggest drivers for our sector to look at in terms of upgrading the skills and abilities of material handlers,” says Maynard. “People who operate reach and forklift equipment are fundamental to the supply chain, so we see a real need to invest in the development of skills and competencies of these equipment operators.”
As part of the project, stakeholders have worked with Council to develop 5 occupational standards for operators of
- electric motor lift trucks
- internal combustion engine trucks
- mobile aerial work platforms
- rough terrain lift trucks
- work station cranes
Safety figures prominently in these standards. For instance, it appears under the following required competencies for electric motor lift truck operators:
- equipment design and stability (awareness of equipment-related accident causation and prevention, acquaintance with general ergonomic principles and postures…)
- pre-operational safety (how to conduct a pre-operational safety and maintenance inspection, awareness of the personal protective equipment required…)
- operational safety (awareness of operators’ responsibilities, knowing how to identify, report, and take corrective action addressing obstacles, equipment, and workplace hazards, knowing the organization’s fall protection plan and/or applicable safety procedures when employing lift trucks to lift personnel…)
- general safety (identifying, avoiding, and correcting related hazards, applying general safety practices, defensive driving techniques…)
These standards will go a long way towards helping foster a workplace safety culture, says Maynard. “Working together, employees, employers and organizations such as ours have to do what we can to change workplace culture so that material handling tasks are performed with speed, efficiency and most importantly with safety in mind.” It’s in everyone’s best interests, he says. “There’s a huge liability issue for the direct line supervisor all the way up to the director of a firm.”
The supervisor’s role
“If a workplace focuses only on getting goods onto racks or out the door, then safety may be ignored,” says Hazel Henry, a consultant with the Ontario Service Sector Alliance (OSSA). “Supervisors in this environment may be held accountable for meeting deadlines, but not for worker safety.”
This goes against their responsibilities under the Occupational Health and Safety Act.
“I think for a lot of supervisors it comes as a surprise that they need to be ‘competent,’” says Henry, another session leader at the upcoming warehouse safety conference. “This may be partly the employer’s fault for not making sure their supervisors have all the training so that they can fulfill their responsibilities. People get hired or promoted, but are they really competent?”
Under the act, a competent person is defined as someone who
- is qualified because of knowledge, training and experience to organize the work and its performance
- is familiar with the act and the regulations that apply to the work
- has knowledge of any potential or actual danger to health or safety in the workplace
In her session, Henry will explore the role of the supervisor in safe lifting.
“Lifting can happen in anybody’s job,” says Henry, “but in terms of warehouses, you have everything from small boxes to huge pieces of equipment. How do you move these goods in a way that won’t injure yourself? That’s why supervisors need to know their role in promoting safe lifting practices…
“Supervisors are the eyes of the workplace,” continues Henry. “If you give them knowledge, they can see whether workers are doing things properly or are at risk of an injury. They can also use their knowledge to coach, to encourage employees to report hazards or pain and discomfort—the early signs of a potential injury, and to walk the talk for all safety practices.
“If supervisors don’t follow the practices they advocate, it’s all just hot air. If they’re part of the safety culture, then they can enforce safe practices with conviction. Employees know.”
Delegates attending the session will learn
- about safe lifting practices, myths and misconceptions about back injuries, why they occur, and supervisors’ role in preventing them. “The average cost of a compensation claim is now $98,000,” notes Henry. “Typically, back injuries are painful and don’t go away quickly, so you can save a lot of pain and expense by preventing them”
- how to develop an action plan, so that they can apply their know knowledge right away
Why lift truck incidents still happen
IAPA consultant David Mustard, another conference presenter, suggests it’s less a lack of training or a revolving workforce—two common beliefs—and more an issue of poor hazard recognition among all workplace parties.
“Workplaces have taken the time to invest in training and supervision, maintenance, facility design, selecting the right lift truck and so on,” says Mustard, “but many haven’t looked at how the equipment and operators interact with what goes on around them, and they haven’t identified the hazards that are specific to the type of equipment used.”
In other words, employers and supervisors may think they’re doing the right thing, but their prevention process may be flawed.
“For me the big issue, and what my session is really all about, is who’s evaluating the evaluators? Firms bring in outside organizations or have their own people conduct evaluations of the operators’ skills. This is completed in a set time period often in a very controlled environment. But that’s not the real world,” says Mustard, “where people actually work. And who is determining what skills the evaluators have? I don’t believe we’re giving the evaluators, often our front-line supervisors, the tools to do it properly.”
Mustard points to the statistics. “Within the manufacturing sector, we’ve had a pretty significant drop when it comes to injury frequency and severity involving lift trucks. Between 2006 and 2007, there was a 20% drop in the number of days lost. From 2007 to 2008, there was another 40% drop, so we’re doing a good job in returning people to work, but the number of incidents is not dropping at the same rate. This means we’ve gotten better at getting people back to work sooner, but we have not seen the same improvement with regard to identifying and controlling the hazards associated with the equipment. We’re not doing a good job at maintaining and assessing those controls.”
“I’ll be asking delegates to consider three questions: what are you doing for hazard recognition, what controls are you implementing when you recognize a hazard, and who’s evaluating those controls.”
How IAPA can help
The November 12-13 CSA/IAPA Warehouse Safety Conference offers more than 20 sessions, including a fall protection demonstration and a temporary worker safety plenary session. Find out more.
In the News
October 26: no handheld devices while driving
Starting on October 26, it will be illegal for Ontario motorists to use hand-held wireless communication devices or any hand-held electronic entertainment devices while driving.
Drivers who text, email, dial, or chat on a cell phone are four times more likely to be in a crash than a driver who is focused on the road, says the Ministry of Transportation.
What the act says
The new legislation, Countering Distracted Driving and Promoting Green Transportation Act, states that unless vehicles are pulled off the roadway or lawfully parked drivers cannot
- use hand-held wireless communications devices such as cell phones and smart phones
- use hand-held electronic entertainment devices such as iPods, other portable MP3 players, or portable games
- text and email
- view display screens on devices not required for driving, such as a laptop or DVD player
However, the act will allow
- hands-free wireless communications devices with an earpiece or Bluetooth device
- 911 calls
- pressing the button of a hand-held device to activate hands-free mode for incoming or outbound calls
- GPS units mounted on dashboards
- collision avoidance systems
- use by emergency services personnel such as police, fire and ambulance
- logistical transportation tracking devices used for commercial vehicles
Drivers caught violating the act could face fines of up to $500. However, the government is giving drivers a three-month grace period. Police won’t begin issuing tickets until February 1, 2010.
The new legislation would bring Ontario in line with Quebec, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Labrador. BC announced in August that it too plans to ban cell phone use while driving.
What employers can do
Start by taking the act a step further and prohibit drivers from also using hands-free devices, says Doug Annett, director of operations for Skid Control School in Oakville, Ontario. “Research consistently reports no significant difference between hands-free phones versus traditional units in relation to vehicle crashes.”
“We’ve been advising companies and drivers for years that it’s the function of the conversation that creates an inattentive state,” explains Annett. “Hands and feet may operate the controls, but the eyes and brain are what really drive the car. Because many calls surround business, discussions often require a high level of concentration with unfortunate tradeoffs. The best solution for safety is to not make or receive calls when the vehicle is in motion, even with a hands-free unit.
“Besides,” continues Annett, “over-use of your cell phone while driving represents poor time management or unrealistic workplace expectations. Driving time is not a chance to catch up on calls.”
How IAPA can help
Download Driving for Work is a Risky Business, a 1-page hazard tip sheet
Siemens recalls industrial circuit breakers
Siemens Canada Limited has announced a recall notice for JD/LD/LMD circuit breakers.
Manufacturer: Siemens Energy and Automation, Inc. Hazard: the handle shield of the affected products may break with potential access to live internal parts. Incidents/Injuries: No known instances of injury and/or property damage.
Description/models: affected products manufactured from May 18, 2007 through August 8, 2007. The date code format reads: MMDDYY****, (affected 051807**** through 080807****). The product was made in the US, sold by Siemens Canada Limited, and distributed from May 18, 2007 through January 31, 2008.
Remedy: replace potentially defective handle shield in accordance with the installation instructions. For replacement parts and installation instructions, contact: Customer Interaction Centre: 1-888-303-3353.
|