Accident Prevention e-News September 2009	Volume 4/Issue 9/Sep 2009
In this Issue: IAPA’s Safety Group: share issues, best practices, and rebates Turning 30: an OHS milestone Upholding solicitor-client privilege H1N1 – 8 steps to mitigate the threat In the News

IAPA’s Safety Group: share issues, best practices, and rebates
By Peter Kenter

Groucho Marx was once quoted as saying, “I don’t care to belong to any club that will have me as a member."

IAPA’s Safety Group just might have been an exception. It welcomes any member firm that wishes to join one of its 42 chapters across Ontario, regardless of their current safety performance—good, fair or challenging.

The Safety Group is a performance-based rebate program created by Ontario’s Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB). Industry organizations such as IAPA act as sponsors. The benefits to participating firms: an opportunity to adopt best practices, improve health and safety performance, and network with other companies working toward the same goals. The WSIB provides its own incentive—a potential rebate based on group members’ improved safety record.

When IAPA initiated its Safety Group program in 2004, about 120 firms joined up. By 2007, the last year for which rebates have been determined, the program had enrolled 734 firms, who achieved an LTI rate reduction of 16.2 percent and a severity rate reduction of 14.9 percent. They shared in a pooled WSIB rebate of $7 million. The rebate varied from firm to firm, but members received an average rebate of $7,700 from 2005 to 2007.

Although all members share a goal of improved safety performance, the routes taken to achieve it vary with each firm. Three members share their experiences below.

Snapshot: Glendale RV

Brian Lammers is plant manager at Glendale RV, a Strathroy, ON firm that manufactures recreation vehicles. The company joined IAPA’s London chapter in December 2003.

“I’ve been with the company since 1974 and became the plant manager in 1998,” says Lammers. “At that point I also took responsibility for the health and safety of everyone at the plant. The nature of our business is such that there are as many as 300 to 400 workers in the plant at any given time, many performing manual tasks involving parts being shaped and assembled with saws, hammers, nails and screws. It’s not an automated process. There’s a large potential for injuries, and when we started with the program, there was a large potential for reducing injuries.”

Lammers says that participation in the Safety Group has helped him to strengthen the documentation that outlines safety procedures and ensures each worker has the knowledge to perform work safely. The company had undergone an IAPA Safety Group mock Workwell audit as part of its Safety Group membership, revealing some inconsistencies in written policy.

“We had a safety policy, but it was in bits and pieces, with some anecdotal information here and some loose instruction there,” says Lammers. “We might have trained someone and given them a document that itemized the training they received, but when we were asked if the worker signed off on the training, we couldn’t produce any proof. You need a paper trail.”

When asked where they could locate a copy of the company health and safety policy, only 30 percent of workers at Glendale RV could initially find it. Through its membership in the group, Lammers says the company has closed the loop on documentation, adopting the best practices of other chapter members and adapting material supplied by IAPA.

The company now follows a five-step program in implementing safety procedures: setting the standard, communicating the standard, training, evaluating and acknowledging success.

Snapshot: Jervis B. Webb Company of Canada Ltd.

This firm is a member of one of IAPA’s two Burlington-area chapters. Worker activities include welding, grinding and using power tools. The company has already completed three years with the Safety Group. “Our safety program was implemented in bits and pieces, and both the severity and frequency of injuries was quite high,” says Safety Manager Joe Lekhram. “We saw immediate benefits on joining. We had 47 reportable injuries in the year we joined. So far this year, we've had only three.”

Lekhram says that, with the assistance of IAPA consultant and trainer Bob Deline, he’s introduced training modules, new legislation, useful web links and effective documentation techniques.

To help ensure worker buy-in, Lekhram attends the five yearly Safety Group meetings with a worker representative. “We’re both responsible for program implementation,” he says. “He’s the ears and eyes of the program on the shop floor.”

Snapshot: UNICCO Facility Services Canada Company

This firm offers maintenance, operations, cleaning, lighting and administrative/office services to a broad range of clients. Janitorial services workers are subject to back strain from lifting and twisting, and to slips and falls on slippery surfaces. The company has been an IAPA Safety Group member for over five years.

“For us, the biggest advantage has been in developing effective documentation,” says Stanley Yau, regional manager of health, safety, security and the environment with UNICCO. “IAPA does scheduled spot checks of our progress, and we look forward to that.”

As a manager with multiple responsibilities, Yau says he appreciates the structure of the program. Twice-yearly status reports to the WSIB help to keep the health and safety program on track. Seed documents and prototype forms supplied by IAPA help to quickly cover ground that many have covered before. Fellow chapter members help to fine tune the safety program to suit the company’s unique requirements.

“We initially exchanged business cards, but now many of us are also networking outside of meetings,” he says. “There are a lot of good ideas out there and we’re sharing them—as well as the rebates that we enjoy when the group meets its target.”

IAPA wants you

With benefits and member testimonials in hand, IAPA often approaches potential members on a one-to-one basis.

"There are two types of companies we recruit,” says Dianne Tolgyesi, a principal consultant in IAPA’s Eastern Region and pinch-hitter for chapter leaders. “If firms are doing the things they’re supposed to be doing, we want them as mentors. We ask them if they would consider earning a financial benefit in the form of a Safety Group rebate while they continue doing what has already made them successful.” Companies who are struggling and need help sometimes need more encouragement.

“The biggest obstacles we encounter,” says Tolgyesi, “are the claims that they don’t have the time, and that they don’t have a person to champion the program in house. This is especially common among workplaces with 40 to 50 people or fewer, where the plant manager and the HR manager and the safety manager are all the same person. Our greatest success is proving to them that IAPA has the resources available to help them, that they’re not starting out from square one, and that there are other companies committed to mentoring them.”

A case in point is a company of about 50 employees that consultant Kimberly O’Connell had been courting. The firm was on the ministry’s inspection priority list, and was paying WSIB surcharges. “They had five to six lost-time injuries per year, and joined the Safety Group four years ago,” Tolgyesi says. “At this point they haven’t had a lost-time injury in about a year, no ministry visits in two years, and they’re earning a rebate through the program. They tell us that the program helped them to make a corporate culture shift, where safety has gone from last priority to first.”

Peter Kenter is a Toronto-based feature writer and consultant; kenter@fastmail.net. This article is an excerpt of a feature article appearing in the August/September issue of Accident Prevention magazine.

Taking the next step

IAPA’s Safety Group is now recruiting for 2010. Find out more, including dates of free information sessions near you.

Turning 30: an OHS milestone

On October 1, Ontario’s Occupational Health and Safety Act turns 30. Few have read it in its entirety, but many have benefited from its impact on health and safety performance.

“It’s the cornerstone of everything we do,” says Peter Fonseca, Ontario’s Minister of Labour.

In anticipation of the anniversary, Fonseca and Assistant Deputy Minister Sophie Dennis spoke with Accident Prevention e-News about the act’s contribution to health and safety in Ontario.

Revolutionizing health and safety

Essentially, the act transformed how workplaces manage health and safety, most notably by extending to most Ontario workers three key rights:

• to know about workplace hazards
• to participate in matters affecting their health and safety
• to refuse unsafe work

 But with rights come responsibility. Accordingly, the act set out specific health and safety duties for all three workplace parties: workers, employers and supervisors. These duties helped create what became known as the Internal Responsibility System.

“This was a revolutionary step,” says Fonseca. “The act created a level playing field for everybody in terms of employer, supervisors and workers’ rights, duties and responsibilities. Everybody became accountable for the health and safety of the individuals in their workplace.”

Why was this important? “The toll of workplace injuries is just too high,” says Fonseca. “Injuries cost our province $12 billion a year, and the pain and suffering is incalculable. They fly in the face of our right to work in a safe and healthy environment, and they compromise our productivity and competitiveness.”

Context is everything

Sophie Dennis explains why recognizing progress achieved under the act is important. “I think people don’t really recognize the change that has occurred in the last 30 years, or why health and safety operates the way it does in our workplaces. For all of us, and especially those new to the workplace—young workers, new immigrants—understanding how the legislative structure came about and what it’s trying to achieve helps us contribute to reducing injuries and illness. And frankly, it’s also a reminder that, while things have improved, there’s still more work to be done.”

Dennis has a unique perspective on the act and its impact, having started with the ministry as an inspector in April 1980, just months after the act came into force. The act was so transformational, says Dennis, that it took time to understand what the implications were. “It was an understanding that had to happen, not only for those of us who were applying the legislation, but for workplaces, the legal system, and the public domain. ‘What does it really mean? How does it affect me? How does it affect my workplace?’ These were questions we were all exploring.”

Implementation of the act was also just the beginning, says Dennis. “To really make it sing required additional tools that would help achieve what was really the intent of the act—to reduce and eliminate injuries, illness and fatalities. So the ministry started to develop additional tools—regulations, such as WHMIS, the Designated Substances Regulations, pre-start health and safety reviews… “ (See Milestones in Ontario’s OHS Evolution.”)

How the ministry has changed

The Ministry of Labour's mandate is to set, communicate and enforce workplace standards. While legislation and enforcement remain ongoing priorities, the Internal Responsibility System—a product of the Occupational Health and Safety Act—has led the ministry to focus increasingly on communication.

“Part of our job is to enforce,” explains Dennis, “but it’s also a means of educating workplaces and the workforce about what needs to be done, and drawing attention to various issues that need to be addressed… We want to be able to tell people what they need to be doing, as well as why they need to do it.

“As part of explaining, ‘Here’s a hazard. Here’s what can happen,’ we also want them to know the requirements they need to take to prevent or mitigate exposure to that hazard… so that even when we’re not there, they have that knowledge. When we come to a workplace,” continues Dennis, “there should be no surprises about what we’re looking for, why we’re looking for it, and what the outcomes are that we’re trying to achieve… We don’t have to be there to help workplaces through that. We can guide them to support through system partners, such as the WSIB and health and safety associations like IAPA.”

Greater communication with workplaces and collaboration with other health and safety system partners have helped generate significant results. “The ministry has had tremendous success,” says Fonseca, “especially over the last five years. We’ve seen the rate of lost-time injuries fall by well over 20%—60,000 fewer injuries than we had five years ago, and a lot less pain and suffering… Our Safe at Work Ontario strategy allows our inspectors to look at workplaces with more inherent hazards, as well as those employers with poor safety records. Rather than taking a broad approach, we’re able to hone in on where we’re having serious problems, and have some major wins and positive impacts for the workers of Ontario. All our health and safety system partners—the health and safety associations, the WSIB—are part of the structure that we’ve put in place that will allow us to achieve the type of results that we want.”

Looking ahead

“I think we’ve made significant progress,” says Dennis, “and I think that there has begun an understanding in society as a whole that lost-time injuries and fatalities are socially unacceptable. I think that our inclusion of workplace health and safety in the curriculum of the public school system will change people’s perception about work and their tolerance for accepting certain risks at work. The fact that we’ve included health and safety now in business and engineering schools is going to grow a different kind of business leader.

“The next phase in the evolution of health and safety will be the engineering out of hazards—fully integrating health and safety at the design stage rather than trying to retrofit health and safety.

“By improving knowledge and understanding in those early, formative years, we’ll have new workers and new business leaders saying, ‘No, this is not acceptable.’ We have to engineer out exposures.”

According to Fonseca, “We all understand that we cannot afford injuries. At a time of economic constraint, health and safety presents an opportunity to make significant improvements that will offer significant financial savings, and eliminate pain and suffering that many are experiencing, unnecessarily. Workplace injuries and illness are preventable.”

How IAPA can help

• Purchase a copy of the Occupational Health & Safety Act and Regulations for Industrial Establishments
• Understand your legal obligations.
• Visit the online legislative compliance questionnaire.

• Sign up for courses on your legal responsibilities. Here’s a sampling:
  
  
  • 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)

IAPA also offers a range of courses on specific legal responsibilities, such as certification training, confined space entry, lockout/tagout, WHMIS, and other topics. View the entire training catalogue.

Upholding solicitor-client privilege
By Cheryl Edwards and Jeremy Warning

A recent decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in R. v. Bruce Power Inc., [2009] ONCA 573 (CanLII), affirms that an internal accident investigation report protected by solicitor-client privilege is not subject to seizure by the Ontario Ministry of Labour.

In Bruce Power, the court held that the Crown’s seizure of a solicitor-client privileged accident investigation report was prejudicial to Bruce Power’s right to a fair trial. All charges against Bruce Power and two of its supervisors under the Occupational Health and Safety Act were stayed.

The context: the employer’s investigation and its potential use by prosecutors

When a workplace accident occurs, employers often conduct their own internal investigation, and produce a detailed report. Such reports can help

• the employer to identify preventive steps to prevent another accident
• the employer’s counsel to defend any charges that may be laid

These reports could also greatly assist the prosecution in obtaining convictions on OHS charges. Increasingly, safety inspectors or officers are asking for these internal investigation reports.

Why Crown prosecutors are interested in the reports

Crown prosecutors do not have direct knowledge of the facts and circumstances involved in a
case. Their first involvement may come only when given the inspector’s brief recommending prosecution, by which time the Crown’s ability to collect further information or evidence is strictly limited. Moreover, a defendant has no obligation to disclose its defence to the Crown prior to trial. As such, the Crown prosecutor’s knowledge of a case, and any defence that may be put forward, depends, almost entirely, on the information and evidence gathered during the investigation.

Therefore, it makes good sense for any employer to control, to the extent permitted by law, the amount of information it provides to the Crown. This includes limiting access to internal accident investigation reports.

The contents of such reports can be tremendously helpful to the Crown as the prosecutor could make use of

• witness statements. The report may contain statements from witnesses who were not interviewed by the OHS officer. These additional witness statements may provide additional information to the prosecutor which could be used to identify additional prosecution witnesses, expand upon the evidence of witnesses the Crown was already intending to call or identify potential problems or weaknesses in any witness’ evidence – whether they are called by the Crown or defence.

• admissions. Internal accident investigation reports may contain damaging conclusions regarding the cause and preventive measures and procedures that were not in place.

• expert reports. In complex or technical cases, an employer may decide to retain an expert to assist in determining the cause of an accident. These reports may contain conclusions that are damaging to the employer and, conversely, assist the prosecution’s case.

• photographs. The internal report may contain more or better photographs than those taken by the officer which could assist the Crown in telling its story in court.

• theory of the case. Taken as a whole, an internal investigation report may reveal the employer’s theory of the case and allow the prosecutor to prepare a response to it. The report may also allow the prosecutor to prepare a new or alternative theory of liability.

Lessons in privilege

Two types of privilege are available to employers: solicitor-client privilege and contemplated litigation privilege.

Internal investigation reports may be protected by either or sometimes both types. However, while the two types of privilege are complementary, there are important differences between them.

• There is a key difference in what is being protected by the privilege. Litigation privilege serves to facilitate the litigation (or adversarial) process, while solicitor-client privilege aims to protect the relationship between a lawyer and a client.

• Solicitor-client privilege applies to confidential communications between a lawyer and client, whereas contemplated litigation privilege can attach to communications that do not involve a lawyer but occur for the purpose of preparing for reasonably apprehended litigation.

• Solicitor-client privilege applies any time a client seeks legal advice from a lawyer regardless of whether litigation is involved or contemplated. Conversely, contemplated litigation privilege applies only where litigation is ongoing or reasonably apprehended.

• Litigation privilege expires when the litigation has ended or is no longer reasonably apprehended. Solicitor-client privilege, on the other hand, never expires. One benefit of a solicitor-client privileged communication or document, colloquially put, is: “Once privileged, always privileged.” Either form of privilege could be waived by the disclosure of privileged material to a third party such as the union, a worker, physician, or another employer interested in or having involvement in the incident.

The facts of R. v. Bruce Power Inc.

On January 21, 2002, a worker was seriously injured in a fall at the Bruce “B” Generating Station. In December 2002, Bruce Power Inc. (“Bruce Power”) was charged with three offences, and two supervisors were each charged with an offence under the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA).

The Ministry of Labour was notified and began an investigation on the day of the incident. That same day Bruce Power’s in-house legal counsel contacted a lawyer specializing in OHSA matters (“OHSA counsel”). The OHSA counsel requested that Bruce Power investigate the incident and provide a report to be used to provide legal advice to Bruce Power and its employees and in the defence of anticipated charges under the OHSA.

Bruce Power struck an accident investigation committee the next day, which included management and unionized employees. Terms of reference were established which expressly provided that the investigation was being undertaken in contemplation of litigation, and that all documents created during the investigation, including the investigation report, were to be held in confidence by Bruce Power’s legal department.

Witnesses interviewed by the committee, including one of the individual defendants, were told that

• any report of the interview would remain confidential for use by counsel in anticipated charges under the OHS
• information obtained during the interviews would not be shared with the MOL or other third parties

A draft report, marked “Confidential” was prepared and distributed to committee members, along with written instructions to keep the information confidential. The committee members were also instructed to either return or destroy all copies in their possession. All but one committee member returned their copies. This committee member undertook to destroy his copy, but did not do so.

During the ministry investigation, the officer became aware of the report and was urged, by the member, to order its production. Bruce Power’s in-house counsel learned of the request and advised the inspector that the report was privileged.

The inspector did not order production of the report. However, in advance of the trial, the inspector and the Crown prosecutor interviewed the member. During the interview, the member provided a copy of the report to the inspector and prosecutor. As it was required to do, the Crown disclosed the report to Bruce Power and a co-defendant who was awaiting judgment on its charges, which had already proceeded to trial.

The Crown indicated to the OHSA counsel that it intended to use the report at the pending trial of Bruce Power and its supervisors. In response, Bruce Power and its supervisors brought a motion for a stay of proceedings. They alleged that the report was subject to solicitor-client and litigation privilege, and that the Crown’s seizure of the report violated their rights to fair trial under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The trial and first-level appeal decisions

The trial court found that the report was subject to both solicitor-client and litigation privilege. It held that solicitor-client privilege attached because OHSA counsel had been retained immediately following the incident, thereby establishing a solicitor-client relationship at the outset. The Court found the report was also subject to litigation privilege because it was immediately reasonable to anticipate that charges would be laid and the report would be used to assist in the defence of those charges.

The Court noted that, though the report did not contain any legal strategy or thoughts or opinions of legal counsel, it clearly set out items that could be used to the disadvantage and prejudice of the defendants, and that those items were intended to be privileged. The Court also found that:

• the inspector was aware that Bruce Power claimed privilege over the report at the time it was provided by the member
• the Crown had taken no steps to limit access to the report and had provided no evidence that it had not used the report to prepare its case

Ultimately, the Court found that sections 7, 8 and 11 of the Charter had been violated, and that a trial of the charges would be an abuse of process. It stayed all charges and awarded costs against the Crown. The Crown appealed.

The appeal court set aside the stay of proceedings, abuse of process finding and the costs award. The appeal court held that the remedy for the seizure of the privileged report was to prohibit the Crown from using the report at trial. It further held that any further prejudice to the defendants could not be presumed but should be evaluated by the trial court during the course of a trial. Bruce Power and its supervisors appealed to the Court of Appeal.

Decision of the Court of Appeal

On July 17, 2009, the Ontario Court of Appeal overturned the appeal court’s decision. It restored the stay of proceedings and invited costs submissions from the parties, which suggests that costs may be awarded against the Crown.

A key factor in the Court’s decision was the fact that the report was subject to solicitor-client privilege. Following decisions from the Supreme Court of Canada, the Court held that solicitor-client privilege is fundamental to the administration of justice in Canada and closely linked to the right to a fair trial. The Court rejected the proposition that the prejudice could be remedied by having a new prosecutor, who had not received any details about the report, assume carriage of the prosecution. The Court concluded that the breach of solicitor-client privilege was such that information contained in the report could be used to the detriment of the defendants, that a witness would not be able to erase the contents of the report from his or her consciousness, and that it would be near impossible for the trial court to determine if a witness’s testimony or the prosecution’s strategy had been influenced by the report.

Ultimately, the Court of Appeal held that, where the Crown comes into possession of privileged information, prejudice to the defendant will be presumed but the Crown can rebut that presumption by explaining what information has been learned and the steps taken to avoid the resulting prejudice.

In Bruce Power, the Crown was unable to lead evidence to rebut the presumption of prejudice. Indeed, the Court of Appeal inferred that the MOL officer’s failure to testify on the stay application before the trial court was because there was no credible explanation for the conduct of the prosecution.

The Court of Appeal was careful to point out that not every breach of solicitor-client privilege will result in a stay of proceedings—the law treats this as a remedy of last resort. However, the Court of Appeal held that allowing the trial to proceed would provide the Crown with a second opportunity to rebut the presumption of prejudice where the evidence suggested the Crown would not be capable of doing so. When coupled with the trial court’s finding that the information in the report could be used to the disadvantage or prejudice of the defendants the Court of Appeal held that the stay of proceedings should be restored.

Lessons learned: protecting reports with privilege

Some of the measures suggested below are gleaned from and supported specifically by Bruce Power; others, we routinely advise upon after any serious workplace incident:

• ensure that the internal investigation report is prepared at the direction of legal counsel. This can be accomplished by having legal counsel make this request by email or correspondence before materials are gathered and the report is prepared
• if retaining counsel specializing in OHS matters, do so as soon as possible in order to obtain advice on how to protect reports and other internal material
• ensure that the report clearly states it is being prepared for potential litigation, and that every person involved in preparing it understands the purpose and that all information collected is to be confidential. Mark all materials intended for legal counsel “Solicitor-Client Privileged.” Mark all materials gathered using contemplated litigation privilege “Confidential – In Contemplation of Litigation.” Similarly mark all files containing privileged information when kept in the workplace and keep such files segregated from other accessible material in the workplace
• ensure that all persons interviewed during the internal investigation are told that the investigation is for the purpose of anticipated litigation and that the information they provide will be confidential and for the use of legal counsel
• if the internal privileged report is requested or the government OHS officer becomes aware of its existence, ensure that the officer is advised that the internal report is solicitor-client and/or litigation privileged
• ensure that the privileged investigation and report are prepared independently of any other workplace investigation
• ensure that any dissemination of the report to third parties (experts, physicians, other parties) is done only by or on the advice of legal counsel
• ensure that, if the report is disseminated to small numbers of involved parties in the workplace, it is disseminated for a strictly defined purpose and that the recipient is fully aware that solicitor-client and/or litigation privilege is not being waived. Such dissemination risks waiving the privilege, and should usually occur only after advice from counsel

Employers and management have important obligations under OHS legislation. But when a workplace incident occurs and there may be allegations respecting employer or management contraventions, they are entitled to protect their legal interests. Ensuring that probing and detailed internal accident investigations remain confidential and are not used by OHS enforcers and Crown prosecutors to advance their case is a key element in an employer’s accident response plan.

Cheryl A. Edwards is a former Ontario Ministry of Labour prosecutor and leads Heenan Blaikie’s national Occupational Health and Safety and Workers’ Compensation Practice Group; Tel: 416.360.2897, cedwards@heenan.ca.

Jeremy Warning, also a former OHS Prosecutor, is a Senior Associate and member of the Heenan Blaikie OHS and Workers’ Compensation Practice Group; Tel: 416-643-6946, jwarning@heenan.ca.

How IAPA can help

1. Purchase a copy of the Occupational Health & Safety Act and Regulations for Industrial
2. Understand your legal obligations.
3. Complete an online legislative compliance questionnaire.
4. Sign up for courses on your legal responsibilities. Here’s a sampling:
   • 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)

IAPA also offers a range of courses on specific legal responsibilities, such as certification training, confined space entry, lockout/tagout, WHMIS, and other topics. View the entire training catalogue.

H1N1 – 8 steps to mitigate the threat

While there’s no doubt the H1N1 influenza will return in force to the northern hemisphere, just how severe the resulting illnesses will be remains uncertain.

The US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) expect more communities may be affected this fall and winter than in the spring and summer 2009, with wider transmission of the flu and possibly greater impact. Add to this the effects of seasonal influenza viruses.

Employers can play a key role in protecting worker health and safety, minimizing the risk of business disruption, and limiting the effects of influenza outbreaks on the community and the economy. Here’s how.

• Determine normal seasonal absenteeism rates and watch for any unusual increases in absenteeism through the fall and winter.
• Assess essential business functions now to determine at what threshold of absenteeism those functions would be threatened. Use this information to plan measures to protect continuity as absenteeism approaches those thresholds.
• Work with public health partners so that timely and accurate information can guide your response. The intensity of an outbreak may differ according to geographic location. Also, consider working with public health and community leaders on ways to improve accessibility to vaccinations.
• Advise sick employees at work to go home. CDC recommends that workers who appear to have an influenza-like illness upon arrival or who become ill during the day be promptly separated from other workers and sent home.
• Keep sick workers home. This is one of the best ways to reduce the spread of influenza. CDC recommends that workers with symptoms of influenza-like illness stay home and not return to work until at least 24 hours after their fever has dissipated. Note: some people with influenza, including those ill with H1N1, do not have fever.
• Prepare to institute flexible workplace and leave policies. Be prepared if schools dismiss students or child care programs close. Absenteeism spikes resulting from workers who are sick, or must stay home to care for ill family members or children if schools are closed, will affect your firm’s functioning.
• Share your pandemic response measures with all employees, and explain what human resources policies, workplace and leave flexibilities, and pay and benefits will be available to them.
• Share best practices with other firms in your community, especially members of your supply chain).

Slowing the spread of influenza

Influenza viruses are thought to spread mainly in respiratory droplets of coughs and sneezes. Consider adopting the following measures.

• Distribute messages on the importance of covering coughs and sneezes with a tissue or, in the absence of a tissue, one’s sleeve.
• Place posters in the worksite that encourages cough and sneeze etiquette.
• Provide tissues and no-touch disposal receptacles for use by employees.
• Promote hand hygiene. Encourage employees to wash their hands often with soap and water or use an alcohol-based hand cleaner, especially after coughing or sneezing. Place posters that encourage hand hygiene. Provide soap and water and alcohol-based hand sanitizers in the workplace.
• Clean surfaces and items that are more likely to have frequent hand contact, especially all commonly touched surfaces in the workplace, such as workstations, countertops, and doorknobs.
• Encourage employees, especially those at greater risk of complications, to get vaccinated for seasonal as well as H1N1 influenza when the vaccines become available. Offer opportunities on site for influenza vaccination, or consider giving employees time off to get vaccinated elsewhere. People at greater risk include pregnant women; children under 5 years of age; those who are 65 years or older; and adults and children with chronic lung disease (such as asthma), heart disease, diabetes, diseases that suppress the immune system and other chronic medical conditions.

If the severity increases

Consider increasing social distancing in the workplace. The goal should be for at least 2 metres of distance between people at most times. This is not a simple or easy strategy, and typically requires considerable flexibility. Measures may include

• avoiding crowded work settings
• cancelling business-related face-to-face meetings
• spacing workers farther apart
• cancelling non-essential travel
• increasing use of teleworking
• using staggered shifts to allow fewer workers in the workplace at the same time
• cancelling non-essential business travel
• seeking out back-up suppliers

How IAPA can help

1. Check out the pandemic planning section

• What businesses can do to protect employees and critical processes

2. Sign up for these two courses:

• Pandemic Planning: Is Your Business Ready, a half-day course that will help you develop strategies and take steps to minimize the impact on your business and your employees. It will also be available as a one-day on-site session, in which an IAPA consultant can help you start developing and implementing measures immediately.
• Emergency Response Planning, a 1.5-hour e-course. Although the course does not address pandemic planning directly, it offers guidance on developing and implementing a response plan for workplace emergencies.

In the News

IAPA partners with ESA on electrical safety offerings

IAPA is gearing up to provide member firms with electrical safety training from the experts in the field, as a result of a proposed memorandum of understanding (MOU) between IAPA and the Electrical Safety Authority (ESA). Later this year, IAPA members will have access to ESA’s Understanding CAN/CSA Z462-08, a new one-day training course focused on electrical safety.

“When the standard was released last year, we recognized there was a knowledge gap among member firms that we could fill,” explains Michael Whitson, Alliance Manager for IAPA’s Strategic Alliances business unit. “We approached ESA, responsible by law for public electrical safety in Ontario, because of its strong expertise and enforcement, and because it too is a not-for-profit organization.”

For ESA, the agreement was also a win-win: “IAPA’s reputation is strong, and we were very interested in partnering in order to increase our brand and encourage many more IAPA firms to take part in various offerings,” says Ron Schertzer, ESA’s vice-president, programs and customer service.

In addition to learning about the standard, course participants will have access to experts on how to set up an electrical safety program. Furthermore, notes Whitson, “there will be enough flexibility that participants can get answers to some of their own technical questions from a highly qualified trainer who also specializes in enforcement.”

Among the topics to be covered in the first course:

• interpretation and application of CSA Z462-08
• categories of electrical hazards
• flash and shock hazard specific practices
• appropriate selection of personal protective equipment
• temporary protective grounding equipment
• other precautions and practices

Two or three additional offerings are already being explored, one of which, says Schertzer, may be “the mutual development of an online course, again probably related to CSA Z462-08.”

“Independently, our organizations are very strong,” concludes Schertzer, “but collectively, we can make our safety initiatives much more accessible for workers throughout the province.”

For more information on the upcoming course offering, visit www.iapa.ca or www.esasafe.com.

16 CSA hand tool injury prevention tips

In 1985, CSA introduced standards for portable electric tools and electric bench tools. Since that time, incidents of injuries have continued to drop on a yearly basis. In 1994, 7,000 hand tool injuries were recorded in Canada. By 2005, that number had dropped to less than 3,900.

Just one slip of the hand, an unsteady load or an uneven surface can result in pain and suffering when dealing with powered hand tools. Reduce the number even further with the following tips for safer usage of hand tools:

• Use the right tool for the job
• Ensure your tools are certified by CSA or another agency
• Ensure your tools are in good working order
• Read the instruction manual and ensure you know how to properly use your tools
• Be aware of flying debris
• If in doubt, check it out
• Be aware of hazards and other people in your working environment
• When a tool begins to show signs of wear, repair or replace
• Never carry a tool by the cord or hose
• Never yank the cord or hose to disconnect it from the receptacle
• Keep cords and hoses away from heat, oil, and sharp edges
• Disconnect tools when not in use, before servicing, and when changing accessories such as blades, bits and cutters to prevent unintended start up
• Secure work with clamps or a vise, freeing both hands to operate the tool
• Avoid unintended starting—do not hold a finger on the switch button while carrying a plugged-in tool
• Keep good footing and maintain good balance
• Wear proper apparel (loose clothing, ties, or jewelry can become caught in moving parts)