No mobile distractions: a good call p7

WorkSafe Tools for building safer workplaces | worksafemagazine.com | July / August 2015 No mobile distractions: a good call p7 Remote wood wedge to ...
Author: Noah Wilkerson
44 downloads 0 Views 3MB Size
WorkSafe Tools for building safer workplaces | worksafemagazine.com | July / August 2015

No mobile distractions: a good call p7 Remote wood wedge to protect fallers p13 Coquitlam gets tough on asbestos p16

Highlight

City of Vancouver workers tout new stay-at-work program p24

Contents Features

5

Ask an Officer

Get ready for WHMIS 2015

WorkSafeBC occupational hygiene officer Terry Teng suggests investing early in training sessions to prepare for the new hazard ID system. By Gord Woodward

7

On the Cover

Check your phone at the door

A growing push to rid worksites of mobile distractions offers significant safety benefits. By Helena Bryan

Departments

July / August 2015 | Volume 15 | Number 4

13

Work Science

A safe distance between faller and tree

A new remote-controlled device has been shown to dramatically improve safety in manual logging. By Gail Johnson

24

Safety Spotlight

Vancouver employees get better on the job

The City’s new stay-at-work program helps injured workers successfully recover while remaining connected to the workplace. By Susan Kerschbaumer

27

Safety Talks

Langley workers stay sun smart

Municipal workers are among the many required to take extra precautions while working outdoors in summer. By Lynn Welburn

4 | From the editor 11 | Policy notes 16 | WorkSafeBC update 26 | What’s wrong: you tell us 29 | Penalties

Centre Pullouts What’s wrong with this photo? —Crane work demands extra precautions

On the front cover: Jeannine Hoefner, customer service representative for Homex Development, switches off her cellphone for a safe day at work at the Orabella multi-site in Kamloops.

July / August 2015 | WorkSafe Magazine

3

From the editor

Asbestos risks as real as ever It’s astonishing to think that more than 30 years after asbestos was identified as being the source of chronic and fatal lung disease, it remains one of B.C.’s leading worksite killers. It’s even more astonishing to realize that despite all we know today about asbestos hazards — and how heavily asbestos has been regulated since the mid-1980s — workers are still being exposed at an alarming rate. In this issue, we look at asbestos from a couple of angles. On page 16, we uncover new partnerships with municipalities that align with the goals of this year’s asbestos enforcement initiative. The City of Coquitlam’s stringent new demolition permit requirements, for example, help us raise the stakes for those who continue to put workers and the public at risk. Later, on page 19, we highlight a new WorkSafeBC video recounting the history of asbestos use and one family’s tragic loss to asbestos-related disease. There’s no question asbestos is an insidious adversary: silent, invisible, and deadly. But by sending a strong message and creating partnerships with other committed organizations, we can — and must — make the dangers of asbestos a thing of the past.

WorkSafe Editor-in-chief: Terence Little | Managing editor: Dana Tye Rally Assistant editors: Laine Dalby and Glenda Troup Graphic designer: Graham Coulthard Photographer: Khalid Hawe | Photo safety advisor: Andrew Lim WorkSafe Magazine is published by the WorkSafeBC (Workers’ Compensation Board of B.C.) Communications department to educate workers and employers about injury and disease prevention, promote positive safety culture, and provide links to WorkSafeBC resources for safer workplaces. Disclaimer WorkSafeBC strives for accuracy; however, the information contained within WorkSafe Magazine does not take the place of professional occupational health and safety advice. WorkSafeBC does not warrant the accuracy of any of the information contained in this publication. WorkSafe Magazine and WorkSafeBC disclaim responsibility for any reader’s use of the published information and materials contained in this publication. WorkSafeBC does not warrant or make any representations concerning the accuracy, likely results, or reliability of the contents of the advertisements, claims made therein, or the products advertised in WorkSafe Magazine. WorkSafeBC does not warrant that any products advertised meet any required certification under any law or regulation, nor that any advertiser meets the certification requirements of any bodies governing the advertised activity. WorkSafe Magazine is published six times a year by WorkSafeBC. The yearly issues include January/February, March/April, May/June, July/August, September/October, and November/December. The magazine can be viewed online at worksafemagazine.com. Contact the magazine Email: [email protected]. Telephone: Editorial 604.232.7194. Subscriptions 604.231.8690. Mailing address: WorkSafe Magazine, PO Box 5350 Station Terminal, Vancouver, B.C. V6B 5L5. Courier: WorkSafeBC Communications, 6951 Westminster Highway, Richmond, B.C. V7C 1C6. Subscriptions To start or stop a free subscription to WorkSafe Magazine, or to update mailing information, follow the “Subscribe” link on our website at worksafemagazine.com. You can also email [email protected] or call 604.231.8690. Editorial enquiries/feedback If you’d like to comment on an article or make a suggestion, please email [email protected]. Advertising For information about advertising your product or service in WorkSafe Magazine, please contact OnTrack Media at 604.639.7763 or [email protected].

Terence Little Editor-in-chief

4

July / August 2015 | WorkSafe Magazine

Shannon Ward OnTrack Media

Copyright The contents of this magazine are protected by copyright and may be used for non-commercial purposes only. All other rights are reserved and commercial use is prohibited. To make any use of this material, you must first obtain written authorization from WorkSafeBC. Please email the details of your request to [email protected]. WorkSafeBC™ is a registered trademark of the Workers’ Compensation Board of B.C.

Contributors

Helena Bryan Vancouver writer Helena Bryan has always known electronic devices were a distraction, but now she’s glad she can finally tell her digital-generation kids why that’s the case.

Ask an Officer

WHMIS 2015: Get an early start Terry Teng WorkSafeBC occupational hygiene officer Region: Abbotsford Years on the job: 7

Lynn Easton After working on stories about safe asbestos removal, Lynn Easton says she’s more inclined to ask questions when considering a demolition or renovation. She’s currently writing a new list of questions for her own long-awaited home renovation project.

With the three-year rollout planned for WHMIS 2015, we talked with WorkSafeBC occupational hygiene officer Terry Teng about how employers can begin the transition to the upgraded system.

Q. Why is the Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System (WHMIS) so important? A. WHMIS ensures all workers get standardized and necessary information about hazardous materials used in their workplace. By following WHMIS regulations, you and your workers can safely use chemicals and reduce chemical-related incidents and diseases.

Susan Kerschbaumer Having yet to experience anything more than a paper cut in her home office, communications specialist Susan Kerschbaumer is intrigued by the City of Vancouver’s commitment to the recovery of seriously injured workers.

Q. How is WHMIS 2015 different from the WHMIS program you’ve been using? A. It isn’t a huge departure. The new WHMIS is still based on hazard alerts,

pictograms, and labels. But you will see some new hazard classification groups with classes and categories that make it easier to understand which materials pose the greatest dangers. There are also new label requirements with new and more standardized hazard statements, signal words, pictograms, and precautionary statements. And, you’ll see that Material Safety Data Sheets are now just called Safety Data Sheets (SDS), with their own specific information requirements.

Q. When do these changes take effect? A. WHMIS 2015 will be in force throughout B.C. as of June 1, 2018. To Lynn Welburn While researching this month’s Safety Talks on the vulnerability of outdoor municipal workers to skin cancer, Lynn Welburn finally scared herself into ending her lifelong love affair with the sun.

allow time for suppliers, employers, and workers to adjust to the new WHMIS 2015 requirements, a multi-year transition plan is in effect now through December 1, 2018. We’ll be consulting with employers during that time. (Prevention officers, however, may play more of an enforcement role if employers are continually non-compliant or not working toward implementation of the new requirements.)

July / August 2015 | WorkSafe Magazine

5

“We encourage you to start educating and training your workers in the new system as soon as possible.” — Terry Teng, WorkSafeBC occupational hygiene officer During the transition period, you may, as an employer, face one of three possible scenarios:

• If you don’t have any WHMIS 2015 labels and SDS in your workplace, you can continue to follow WHMIS 1988 requirements. • If you receive a product that has a WHMIS 2015 label and SDS, you must comply with the new requirements. • If you have products that meet both WHMIS 1988 and WHMIS 2015, you’ll use both systems concurrently.

Q. Does this change your responsibilities in any way? A. Not at all. You’ll continue to ensure all hazardous

products are properly labelled and up-to-date SDS are available to your workers. And, you’ll provide worker and supervisor education and training.

Q. What can you do now to ensure a smooth transition? A. Since some manufacturers are already rolling this

out, we encourage you to start training your workers on the new system as soon as possible. That way you’ll be ready, whenever your suppliers make the switch. Besides, it’s never a good idea to rush into educating your workers at the last minute.



You can start by telling your employees that WHMIS 2015 is in the implementation phase, and then revise your current WHMIS education and training program to cover the following:

• The new hazard classes, pictograms, and labels • The meaning of signal words and hazard statements found on your workplace labels and SDS • The new SDS format, and how to locate information needed to work safely with a product • Safe work practices for hazardous products in your workplace

Q. Where can you find WHMIS 2015 education and training resources? A. WorkSafeBC and the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety have many free resources for your use. These include the following:

• An introduction to WHMIS 2015: www2.worksafebc.com/Topics/WHMIS/ WHMIS2015.asp • WHMIS 2015 fact sheets: www.ccohs.ca/ products/publications/whmis_ghs/ • An online worker training course: www.ccohs.ca/ products/courses/whmis_workers/ • A Q&A on education and training: www.ccohs. ca/oshanswers/chemicals/whmis_ghs/ education_training.html Looking for answers to your specific health and safety questions? Send them to [email protected] and we’ll consider including them in our next Ask an Officer feature. W

WorkSafeBC prevention officers cannot and do not provide advice on specific cases or issues referenced in this article. WorkSafeBC and WorkSafe Magazine disclaim responsibility for any reliance on this information, which is provided for readers’ general education only. For more specific information on prevention matters, contact the WorkSafeBC prevention line at 604.276.3100 or toll-free at 1.888.621.7233.

6

July / August 2015 | WorkSafe Magazine

On the Cover Cody Bain, an electrical trades student at Thompson Rivers University in Kamloops, safely stows his cellphone before heading to class.

Employers tout distraction-free zones

By Helena Bryan

Every year, the construction trades program at Thompson Rivers University in Kamloops turns out 40 young apprentices and journeymen. Spend some time watching these students learn their trade, and you’ll soon realize this isn’t your average apprenticeship classroom.

University in Kamloops. “And, if students aren’t prepared to go along with it, they can’t work in the shop.

Despite these 20-something adults being part of a cellphone-dependent generation, no one is stopping to check for text messages — or dashing off a text in between bouts on the power saw. You won’t hear any blaring ring tones or noisy one-sided conversations either. In fact, nary a cellphone, iPod, MP3 player, or BlackBerry is in sight.

Kamloops senior regional officer Vince Strain believes graduates like those from Thompson Rivers are the wave of the future. “It’s about encouraging safe behaviours before these students head out into the workforce.”

The absence of such devices is not by accident; it’s by design. “There’s a strict no-cellphone-use policy for the shop,” says Peter Poeschek, electrical senior lecturer for construction trades at Thompson Rivers

“We talk at length to our students about digital distractions. Not only are we teaching the foundation of the trade, we are preparing them to work for employers that we know have less and less tolerance for cellphone use on the jobsite.”

Companies — including those in the residential construction sector where injury rates and non-compliance are historically high — are beginning to recognize that cellphone use is not just a traffic safety issue (see Motor vehicles are workplaces too, page 10).

July / August 2015 | WorkSafe Magazine

7

“The notion that we can multi-task well is a myth.” — Heather Kahle, WorkSafeBC human factors specialist What’s more, these employers are enforcing no-electronic-devices policies that have workers leaving their cellphones — and anything else digital — away from the worksite until break time (see Creating a no-cellphone zone on the next page).

Productivity and safety go hand in hand Such policies might start as a productivity measure, but they end up going a long way to protect workers’ safety, Strain says. Cellphones are distracting, he points out, because they require attention to operate and because even a conversation engages a worker’s mind on something other than the job at hand. “If you’re on a cellphone, you don’t have 360-degree awareness. And on a construction site, or in a sawmill or on an assembly line, you need that awareness to be safe.” It’s no surprise that the employers he sees implementing no-digital devices policies start to see fewer trips and falls, as well as fewer incidents involving vehicles or mobile equipment like forklifts, excavators, and cranes.

Science supports fewer distractions Extensive research on brain function shows why digital devices hamper safety, says WorkSafeBC human factors specialist Heather Kahle. “The notion that we can multi-task well is a myth,” she says. “The brain deals with information sequentially, switching between tasks so quickly that we’re given the impression that we can do two tasks at once, but each task suffers a little.” What’s more, we only have so much attention capacity. “If there’s too much information to process,” Kahle says, “the brain starts to decide what to process and what to filter out. And what’s filtered out is not attended to. This applies to what we hear and what we see.” On a busy, risk-filled worksite, this filtering-out process can present a hazard, where the amount of information

8

July / August 2015 | WorkSafe Magazine

the brain has to process is already at a maximum. “Throw in even a casual conversation on a cellphone, and there’s your tipping point,” Kahle says. “Typically, much of your safety relies on what you can see or hear; so not being able to do either can get you hurt or even killed.”

Risks override perceived need Southview Sorting Ltd. clearly recognizes the dangers of cellphone use on the job. “We apply the ban to mobile equipment and machinery for all the same reasons the Motor Vehicle Act bans cellphone use in motor vehicles,” says Scott Fortnum, health and safety manager for the Chilliwack-based lumber sorting yard. “A distraction in a car will be a distraction in a skidder, rock truck, or excavator. You can’t safely operate one and text your wife about dinner at the same time. Distracted machine operation is dangerous. And most of the people working the tools here are smart enough to know a no-cellphone policy is reasonable.” To weed out those resistant to putting away their phones, all new machinery operators and drivers for Southview must sign off on the company’s policy before they step foot in a vehicle or piece of machinery. Kamloops construction company Homex Development Corp. implemented a no-cellphone and a no-smoking policy at the same time two years ago. Superintendent Pete Hoefner introduces both policies to prospective employees at the interview stage. “That way, we weed out the people who won’t want to comply before they even step on site,” Hoefner says. Even long-term employees have been receptive, he says. “When we first implemented the policy, I said, ‘Hey, would you want your dentist to be on his cellphone while he’s drilling your teeth?’ It must have made sense to them, because so far nobody has had any complaints about either policy, and two employees have even quit smoking.”

Employers have right to enforce Strain would like to see more companies implement such policies, but some employers are under the false impression they don’t have the right to tell employees what to do with their personal property. And while electronic devices are not specifically covered in the Occupational Health and Safety Regulation, under the

general duty clause, an employer has an obligation to guard against known risks, Strain says. “As such, they can assess digital devices as a hazard and take measures to control those hazards.”

Fortnum explains Southview’s policy to employees this way: “You don’t have the right to be on a personal device on the job. What you do have the right to is a safe workplace. And that’s what this is all about.”

Creating a no-cellphone zone Pete Hoefner, superintendent for Homex Development Corp., and Scott Fortnum, health and safety manager for Southview Sorting Ltd., recommend setting up a digital distractions policy as follows:

• Explain the policy’s purpose to ease resistance. • Restrict all forms of digital devices, including iPods, BlackBerries, text pagers, etc., and specify whether the policy applies to hands-free devices as well. • Allow for reasonable cellphone use in circumstances such as family emergencies, or for employees who must use cellphones to do their jobs properly (supervisors or employees working alone, for example). • Be clear that the policy covers driving any vehicle on work-related business — regardless of who owns the vehicle — and that it covers operating mobile equipment, such as forklifts, excavators, and cranes. • Ensure the policy covers contractors on site, in addition to your own employees.

WHMIS 2015 Now Available! This updated bilingual training program incorporates the implementation of GHS as set out by Health Canada. Many workers use or are exposed to controlled products at work every day. Complete YOW Canada’s course and become WHMIS 2015 certified! Visit our website for a full list of online courses and products available. www.yowcanada.com

1.866.688.2845 [email protected]

Safety Compliance Made Easy!

July / August 2015 | WorkSafe Magazine

9

Motor vehicles are workplaces too Did you know that distracted driving — defined as any non-driving activity a person engages in while operating a motor vehicle — now causes more car crash fatalities than drinking and driving? That’s why the provincial Motor Vehicle Act has made it illegal to drive while using a handheld cellphone or other electronic device.

are responsible for making that mobile workplace safe, which means implementing policies that minimize distractions like cellphones.” To reduce the use of mobile devices while driving, Ordeman advises employers direct their workers to do as follows:

• Lock their phones in the glove box or trunk.

Did you also know that, in B.C., motor vehicle collisions are the leading cause of traumatic death in the workplace?

• Set up a voicemail that says, “I’m currently driving and will get back to you as soon as I’m parked.”

Combined, those statistics add up to one imperative: to keep working drivers safe, employers have an obligation to adopt a policy around cellphone use in vehicles, whether company- or employee-owned, and whether driving is a primary duty or a secondary one in the course of other work.

• Avoid using hands-free mobile devices. (Research shows that while these devices leave your hands free, a telephone conversation is a cognitive distraction.)

“A motor vehicle is a workplace, too, and should be treated as such,” says Mark Ordeman, WorkSafeBC manager of Industry and Labour Services. “Employers

• If cellphone use is unavoidable as part of the job, schedule specific times to pull over and make calls.

“On the road, the smartest phone is off,” Ordeman says. For more tips on safe driving on the job, see roadsafetyatwork.ca. W

Join us for the 10th annual

Bridging the gap

construction safety conference November 13–14, 2015 Sheraton Vancouver Airport Hotel, Richmond, B.C. (Pre-conference courses November 12)

Whether you work in construction or promote health and safety in the industry, join us for a jam-packed two-day conference to network with others and increase your knowledge about a wide range of health and safety issues in construction. Visit bridgingthegapsafely.ca to register or learn more about the conference.

CAN A

FE

10

July / August 2015 | WorkSafe Magazine

RI

SA

NG

OF TY

AN SOCIE DI

TY

EN GINE

E

Policy notes Expanded stop work order powers — There are two major changes to stop work orders. First, the threshold for being able to issue a stop work order has changed. Changes now provide that WorkSafeBC may consider a stop work order in two circumstances:

• When there are reasonable grounds to believe there is a high risk of serious injury, serious illness, or death Or Provincial legislation will strengthen WorkSafeBC’s enforcement capacity on B.C. worksites.

New tools to protect worker health and safety Bill 9 received Royal Assent on May 14, 2015, and contains a number of changes to Part 3 of the Workers Compensation Act (the Act).

Why were these changes made? The goal of the changes is to improve workplace health and safety, and strengthen the tools we use to enforce the Act and the Occupational Health and Safety Regulation.

What are the changes? Some of the changes to the Act are effective May 14, while others will follow later in the year or in 2016. Accordingly, four amendments to the Act (available on worksafebc.com under “OHS Regulation”) are now in effect:

• Expanded stop work order powers • Changes to employer incident investigations • Expanded injunction powers • Changes to penalty due diligence Other sections of the new legislation, including a provision that establishes compliance agreements, are expected to come into effect later in 2015. Occupational health and safety citations for employers are expected to be introduced in early 2016.

• When an employer (1) fails to comply with a provision of the Act or the Occupational Health and Safety Regulation, and (2) has failed to comply with an order under that provision in the previous year, and (3) there are reasonable grounds to believe that there is a risk of serious injury, serious illness, or death. Second, the potential scope of the stop work order has been changed. A stop work order may also be made applicable to one or more of an employer’s other workplaces (a “stop operations order”) if there are reasonable grounds to believe that the same or similar unsafe working or workplace conditions exist at the other workplaces. Changes to employer incident investigations — There are two major changes to the requirements for employer incident investigations. First, section 175 of the Act has been amended to require an employer to undertake a preliminary investigation within 48 hours of the incident. Second, section 176 of the Act is amended to require an employer to submit a full investigation report to WorkSafeBC within 30 days of an incident, unless WorkSafeBC grants an extension. There are no changes to the types of incidents that employers are required to investigate. They must continue to investigate all the incidents they’re currently required to by section 173 of the Act (e.g., fatalities, serious injuries, or near misses where there is a potential for serious injury, etc.). Expanded injunction powers — The amendment provides a mechanism to address individuals who fail to comply with the Act or Regulation after WorkSafeBC has exhausted other appropriate enforcement methods. Section 198 of the Act currently allows WorkSafeBC to apply to the British Columbia Supreme Court for an injunction to either restrain a person (which includes

July / August 2015 | WorkSafe Magazine

11

corporate and individual employers, owners, supervisors, suppliers, workers, etc.) from continuing or committing a contravention, or require a person to comply with the Act, Regulation, or an order. The amendments to the injunction provisions will enable the Court to also grant an injunction restraining a person from carrying on in an industry, or an activity in an industry, indefinitely or until further order of the Court. An injunction is an exceptional remedy that’s handled by the WorkSafeBC Legal Services department in consultation with the relevant prevention officers and managers. Changes to penalty due diligence — Section 196 of the Act deals with administrative penalties. Previously, WorkSafeBC had the obligation before imposing a penalty of determining that an employer failed to exercise due diligence. The amendment now places on the employer the onus of demonstrating due diligence.

What related policies are in place? WorkSafeBC currently has created two interim occupational health and safety policies regarding employer incident investigations and interim changes to the stop work order policy. These policies and amendments will apply to incidents that occur between May 27, 2015, and December 31, 2015.

How can you provide feedback? You will have an opportunity to discuss these changes during upcoming stakeholder consultation sessions.

12

July / August 2015 | WorkSafe Magazine

You can find out about current consultations and policy updates by checking our website (worksafebc.com). Specific consultation details will be available under the “Regulation & Policy” tab. Look under “Public involvement,” then “Policy.” You can also go directly to www.worksafebc.com/regulation_and_policy/policy_ consultation/default.asp

Where can you get more information? In the coming months, we’ll be working to ensure all stakeholders are informed and knowledgeable about any new legislative, regulatory, and policy changes as they relate to these new enforcement tools. We’ll also be regularly updating this information on worksafebc.com and providing information through our officers and your local health and safety association. You can search for Regulation and policy updates through WorkSafeBC’s OHS Regulation mobile app, available for Android, Apple, and BlackBerry mobile devices. (Find out more about the app by going to worksafebc.com and looking for “OHS Regulation” under the “Publications” tab.) In the meantime, you can find a variety of helpful resources, including a detailed look at the new enforcement tools and information on completing a preliminary investigation, in a special section of our website devoted to these changes to the Act: www. worksafebc.com/regulation_and_policy/legislation_ and_regulation/new_legislation/bill_9/default.asp W

Work Science

Video still by Ionut Aron, research coordinator for Malcolm Knapp Research Forest

University of B.C. forestry researcher Kevin Lyons uses the university’s nearby research forest to demonstrate a remotely operated safety device for manual fallers.

Tree-falling tool cuts down risk Of all the jobs in B.C., manual tree falling is one of the most dangerous. While fallers have to contend with remote locations and harsh environmental conditions, the greatest hazards exist at the base of a tree itself — just when it’s starting to topple. Branches and tree tops can break off and fall from above. Trees can fall in unintended directions. Fallers face the occupational dangers of being hit or crushed by heavy trees, tree limbs, and logs. To avoid being struck, fallers need to have planned escape routes, and move away from the base of the tree as it’s beginning to fall. It’s a precarious situation that doesn’t always go as planned.

By Gail Johnson

To keep fallers away from potentially treacherous falling spaces, University of B.C. (UBC) researcher Kevin Lyons has developed a novel system that permits falling to be initiated by a remotely operated tool. This new falling wedge is dubbed the “wood duck.” When combined with a cutting pattern that prevents a tree from moving while the faller is at the base, the wood duck has the potential to drastically reduce the injury rate in the forestry industry. “A lot of unexpected events can happen when you’re falling trees,” says Lyons, a former logger and logging supervisor, currently associate professor at UBC’s department of Forest Resources Management. “Sometimes trees can split and go in different directions. Sometimes there’s rot and trees fail in ways you don’t expect. We need to find new ways to improve faller safety.”

July / August 2015 | WorkSafe Magazine

13

“People are being safer, but we need to find other ways to keep fallers safe that involve thinking outside the box.” — Kevin Lyons, associate professor for the University of B.C.’s faculty of Forestry

New tool proves effective Building on his earlier research, Lyons redesigned a scissor jack fitted with a drill motor that fallers attach at the base of a tree after making a series of specific, initial cuts. Once the fallers have moved away from the tree, they pull a trigger on a remote control to activate the wedge. Then, they watch the tree fall from a safe vantage point.

A new “wood duck” falling tool allows manual fallers to remotely fell trees at a safe distance.

With a grant from WorkSafeBC’s Research Services department, Lyons undertook a study of prototypes of the remotely controlled wedge that included field testing — to great success. The highest productivity the test group achieved in a six-hour day was 40 trees, all of which were felled successfully using the wood duck. On average, the device showed a 98 percent success rate. “The results demonstrate that it is possible to develop falling methods that remove a faller from the hazardous position at the base of a tree when it begins to displace,” Lyons says. “The goal is to have something in widespread use that achieves the goals of reducing the fatality rate and serious injury rate.” The injury rate for the manual tree falling and bucking classification unit is indeed high — 26.8 in 2013, with a serious injury rate of 8.4 that same year. What makes falling-related incidents particularly serious is the enormous amount of energy and powerful, dynamic forces involved. “Anytime there’s contact, either from a falling branch or tree kickback, the impact on the human body is bound to be devastating,” says WorkSafeBC manager of Industry and Labour Services Tom Pawlowski. “Manual fallers are masters at what they do and they usually manage to stay out of harm’s way every hour of their working day. But any technology that helps to keep them away from the most dangerous area around the base of the tree that’s beginning to fall may have

14

July / August 2015 | WorkSafe Magazine

—Video stills by Ionut Aron, research coordinator for Malcolm Knapp Research Forest

tremendous life-saving potential. And therefore, it should be explored.” Industry and WorkSafeBC have worked hard to improve falling safety in recent years, from standardized training and work procedures to increased awareness of the dangerous effects of factors like fatigue and dehydration on workers. “However, at the end of the day, tree falling is a very complex activity — with a multitude of factors that are difficult to anticipate, let alone control,” Pawlowski says.

Even in today’s automated age, forestry workers require protection. Fallers can use machines like feller bunchers, processers, grapple skidders, stroke de-limbers, and harvesters to take down nature’s giants, but they can’t be used everywhere: the equipment can only handle so much weight, and can’t access excessively rugged, uneven, or steep terrain. Typically, mechanized falling is more common in B.C.’s interior, while manual falling predominates on the precipitous slopes of the coast. Hence, the need for a smaller and portable safety-enhancing device.

“Working to keep tree fallers as safe as possible in a complex, dangerous environment is a high priority for WorkSafeBC,” says Lori Guiton, WorkSafeBC director of Research Services.

Future directions in faller safety

In the meantime, Lyons has fine-tuned the wood-duck prototype to make it lighter and more user-friendly.

At the same time, while manual falling will always have a role in timber harvesting, it’s important to look to new, emerging technologies that may limit workers’ exposure. For this reason, industry in B.C. is increasingly exploring mechanized harvest options that may decrease the risk to workers on the ground. WorkSafeBC is recognizing this potential as reflected in a recent call for research applications.

“Supporting the development and testing of tools like these is an important part of the Innovation at Work funding stream. Through a Specific Priorities grant opportunity, Research Services is seeking researchers to undertake a study focused on mechanized tree falling, which may be a safer alternative to manual falling.”

“People are being safer, but we need to find other ways to keep fallers safe that involve thinking outside the box,” he says. “The results of this study show that we can make falling safer.” W

July / August 2015 | WorkSafe Magazine

15

WorkSafeBC update

City of Coquitlam staff, including, from left, front counter supervisor Sylvia Tolksdork, plans examiner Darrell Bridge, and building permits–approvals manager Jim Bontempo, discuss the city’s stringent approval process for asbestos-related demolitions and renovations.

Partnerships support anti-asbestos drive The City of Coquitlam has joined forces with WorkSafeBC as part of a larger effort to prevent asbestos exposures in the residential demolition and construction industry. Jim Bontempo, who works as Coquitlam’s manager for building permits–approvals, says his department began tightening up its approvals process for demolition permits in the fall of 2014 — in consultation with WorkSafeBC occupational hygiene officer Ingrid Setosta-Bartel — to ensure it could refrain from issuing permits until all asbestos protection protocols were in place. WorkSafeBC senior regional officer Veer Singh, who worked alongside Setosta-Bartel to present the idea, says support from municipalities like Coquitlam is instrumental in a province-wide push to combat deadly asbestos exposures.

16

July / August 2015 | WorkSafe Magazine

By Lynn Easton

“They’re being very proactive,” says Singh, whose office often fields emails and calls from Coquitlam’s city staff. Bontempo says the city is glad to help combat potential exposures that can pose just as much of a risk to its citizens and homeowners as it does workers and city staff entering the site. “There’s no obligation for the city to ensure that hazardous materials are removed from the building prior to demolition,” he says. “According to our bylaw, we’re more concerned with making sure the building site is left in a clean and safe condition after removal of the home.” But Bontempo says he does feel a moral obligation to try to protect residents and others from exposures. “I’d rather say to WorkSafeBC: let’s work together on this and we can take care of the process at our end.”

Coquitlam’s building permits department works closely with contractors and homeowners to make sure they produce adequate hazardous material surveys before they’re allowed to demolish or renovate buildings built prior to 1990, and thereby likely to contain asbestos.

Municipalities play a key role Similar policies exist in other cities — such as Vancouver — but Coquitlam is even more stringent with its permitting requirements. Companies that demolish or renovate residential buildings must also produce a clearance letter, provided by a qualified asbestos inspector, to prove they’ve demonstrated proper cleanup and disposal of contaminated asbestos. Bontempo says Coquitlam issues building permits on the condition that the applicants have complied with all other applicable regulations, bylaws, and statutes. That means that applicants are required to meet WorkSafeBC’s asbestos regulations before commencing any work. “That’s a huge step,” Singh says. WorkSafeBC regional prevention manager Gary McComb says these municipal partnerships are

“I’d rather say to WorkSafeBC: let’s work together on this and we can take care of the process at our end.” — Jim Bontempo, City of Coquitlam manager of building permits–approvals

important tools to rid the industry of substandard hazardous material surveys, where work is sometimes falsified or not done at all. “We need multiple partners — like cities, industry, and employers.” Municipal oversight also levels the playing field for contractors that include the cost of asbestos cleanup in their bids. It can cost thousands of dollars for contaminated drywall to be shipped to Alberta, where it can be safely disposed of, instead of illegally dumped for less at a local garbage facility. “Contractors now have a better chance of bidding reasonably and successfully,” McComb says.

inspecting sites | protecting workers | preventing disease

Asbestos Enforcement Initiative 2015 Planned inspections of residential demolition and renovation sites June 1 to December 31, 2015 To learn more, visit the Safety at Work centre for construction at worksafebc.com. July / August 2015 | WorkSafe Magazine

17

A new series of WorkSafeBC videos targeting renovation and demolition contractors, workers, and homeowners highlights the deadly toll of asbestos-related exposure in B.C.

During last year’s asbestos enforcement initiative, officers found non-compliant hazmat surveys at 43 percent of 210 inspected sites. Surveyors either overlooked the asbestos, or didn’t even bother to check for it at all. To help keep unsuspecting contractors and their workers safe, WorkSafeBC began targeting those unscrupulous surveyors in June of this year and will continue through December as part of this year’s asbestos enforcement initiative. Employers can expect to see WorkSafeBC prevention officers at residential demolition and renovation worksites to ensure building contractors meet all necessary survey, abatement, and removal requirements. “We are trying to motivate people to do the right thing if they haven’t been — ­­ especially the chronic offenders,” McComb says.

Videos aim to raise awareness McComb points out that asbestos exposure remains the number-one occupational disease killer, with more

18

July / August 2015 | WorkSafe Magazine

than 500 new diagnoses a year. To illustrate the deadly effects of asbestos contamination, WorkSafeBC, in partnership with the BC Association of Restoration Contractors, has created three videos that show the human impact of the problem through the respective eyes of an employer, a worker, and a homeowner. WorkSafeBC manager of Industry and Labour Services Don Schouten invites construction employers to make use of these resources during orientation and training sessions with workers. “We all need to be aware,” Schouten says. “We can’t see it, but asbestos contamination can have a devastating effect on everyone who comes into contact with it.” You can find these videos at www2.worksafebc.com/ Publications/Multimedia/Videos.asp?ReportID= 37641. Alternatively, you can go to worksafebc.com, look under the Publications tab, and go to “Videos.” Then, look for “Asbestos in Construction.” W

Tracy Ford, who lost her father, David, (inset) to mesothelioma seven years ago, is the speaker in a moving new WorkSafeBC video recounting B.C.’s historically troubled relationship with asbestos.

The tragic story behind asbestos When David Ford retired, he was looking forward to travelling and spending time with family. He’d worked more than 35 years as an electrician at a pulp and paper mill in Powell River. Instead, shortly thereafter, he received a brutal diagnosis: mesothelioma. The disease is an aggressive form of cancer that affects the membrane lining of the lungs and abdomen. Caused by exposure to asbestos, it’s incurable. Sadly, Ford died in 2008 at age 70. What troubles Ford’s daughter, Tracy, is that her father’s death was preventable. She says those with a vested interest in the so-called “miracle mineral” suppressed information about asbestos hazards for decades, despite medical community warnings as early as the 1950s that asbestos was carcinogenic. These denials left workers like her dad unnecessarily and tragically exposed.

By Gail Johnson

“Had he known how dangerous exposure to asbestos was, he would have taken precautions to stay safe.” — Tracy Ford, daughter of fatally exposed worker David Ford

“My dad was so safety-conscious,” Tracy says. “Safety was a big deal for him. Had he known how dangerous exposure to asbestos was, he would have taken precautions to stay safe.”

New video puts asbestos use in perspective To raise awareness of the dangers of exposure to the deadly substance, Tracy is sharing her family’s story in

July / August 2015 | WorkSafe Magazine

19

a new video, the latest in a series WorkSafeBC produced in partnership with the Labour Heritage Centre. The gripping, 11-minute film does more than give a brief history of asbestos use in B.C. It also emphasizes that asbestos remains a very real workplace hazard. “The video is really a cautionary tale,” says WorkSafeBC media relations director Scott McCloy. “There’s a belief among the public that the asbestos problem is an old problem, and that’s not the case. There are thousands of buildings in B.C. with asbestos in them, hidden behind walls and used in drywall and floor tile — and buildings are being torn down. “Asbestos needs to be managed properly so that workers are not exposed,” McCloy says. “The history of exposure to workers in this province is one of enduring pain, and we don’t want that to happen again.” Last year, 77 people died of asbestos-related disease in B.C., and yet some parts of industry continue to turn a blind eye to its dangers.

“We can’t be complacent,” says WorkSafeBC senior occupational hygienist Geoff Clark. “People doing work on houses or newcomers to industry who haven’t been made aware of the health hazards of asbestos may not think it’s a big issue. But it is, and it will be well into the future. Workers can’t take shortcuts. Anyone being complacent today is going to be a victim tomorrow.” The video includes commentary from Larry Stoffman, health and safety director of the United Food and Commercial Workers of Canada; John Holland, environmental consultant with Pinchin West; Lee Loftus, third-generation member of the B.C. Insulators Union; and former WorkSafeBC occupational hygiene officer Don Ward, all of whom have worked tirelessly to raise awareness of the risks and hazards of asbestos exposure to workers in B.C. Tracy Ford also appears in the film, which can be seen on worksafebc.com. It’s also on the Labour Heritage Centre website (www.labourheritagecentre.ca), which has other videos on topics ranging from the building of the Ironworkers Memorial Bridge to profiles of health and safety pioneers. The centre serves as a reference point for labour and those interested in putting higher risk occupational health and safety issues in historical context. This most recent film is dedicated to all workers who have lost lives due to asbestos-related disease. Tracy Ford says the video sheds light on the truly hidden nature of asbestos. “People think asbestos was their dad’s or granddad’s generation, but it’s not. It’s our generation too,” she says. “It’s still out there. Exposure to asbestos is a public health issue. I’m hoping the video will raise awareness of the dangers of asbestos.” W

CONNECTED

one_third_ad.indd 1

20

July / August 2015 | WorkSafe Magazine

11/02/15 1:19 PM

From left to right: WorkSafeBC student safety video contest winners Alice Liu, Alexandra Yu, and Susan Bai say this year’s theme made them think about their own experiences with bullying and harassment.

Anti-bullying videos resonate with youth Alexandra Yu doesn’t have a job yet. But when she gets one, she expects she’ll be a little wiser for having participated in WorkSafeBC’s 2015 student safety video contest. “I have learned things more important than video editing skills,” says the grade 11 Richmond Secondary School student, who won first place in the contest for her video, Being Nobody. “I’ve learned that it’s important to be responsible for your own safety by getting all the knowledge you need for a job beforehand — and to stay strong if anyone discriminates against you. “These messages I learned from making the video give me courage and confidence when I think of finding a job.” Yu’s video, created with fellow students Susan Bai and Alice Liu, focuses on a young office worker who faces race and age discrimination from co-workers. The character, who calls herself “Nobody,” feels worthless until she finds the power to speak up against bullying and “see the superhero” within herself.

By Robin Schooley

Yu says the inspiration for the two-minute film came from recollections of her childhood, when she and her peers witnessed the negative effects of bullying and harassment. “People who are being bullied don’t always stand up for themselves. Being Nobody encourages people who are being bullied to take a stand, to be their own superheroes.” Bai suspects it would be a challenge to take a stand against bullying at work. “Most teens wouldn’t know how to react or would just simply take it, fearing they would lose their jobs if they spoke out.” The theme of the 2015 contest, “No bullies at work: my right to a safe and respectful workplace,” struck a chord with Yu and Bai, along with the 135-plus high school students who submitted a record 55 videos this year from 21 schools throughout B.C. These students showed they understood that bullying was not acceptable at school and expertly transplanted that concept to the workplace. For the makers of Being Nobody, the workplace was an office. Other entries re-imagined this theme in a variety of settings, including a forestry site, a wood shop, and a restaurant.

July / August 2015 | WorkSafe Magazine

21

Under the Occupational Health and Safety Regulation, employers must have policies and procedures that invite and address reports of workplace bullying and harassment. By the same token, workers are expected to declare any instances of bullying they observe or experience. “This topic, perhaps more than any other in the contest’s 10-year history, really seemed to resonate with youth,” says WorkSafeBC manager of Industry and Labour Services Glen McIntosh. “By raising awareness of workplace bullying and harassment among contest participants — and among everyone who views the videos — we’re hoping youth will better understand their right to a bully-free workplace and the employer’s responsibility for creating that environment.”

Here are this year’s winners:

Grades 8–10 1st Place: Billy and the Beast, SelfDesign High (a home and community-based learning program) Runner-up: Kitchen Bullies, Southridge School (Surrey) Honourable Mention: Haunted, Southridge School (Surrey)

Grades 11–12 1st Place: Being Nobody, Richmond Secondary School Runner-up: Work on Words, Heritage Woods Secondary School (Port Moody) Honourable Mention: Distracted, Port Moody Secondary School

WorkSafeBC extended its congratulations to teachers, WorkSafeBC Honourable Mention: Decisions, who encouraged their students to take part in the Port Moody Secondary School contest, and to the students for their artful takes on the theme. Actsafe, Asbestos ranks as a “Enviro-Vac™ is the go-to Kiewit Infrastructure, Ledcor Group of leading cause of worker asbestos-removal company Companies, London Drugs, and disease and death in BC. Canada-wide.” Seaspan Marine Corporation provided cash prizes to winning schools and their student teams. W

HIDDEN

To view the videos, go to www2.worksafebc.com/Topics/ YoungWorker/Past-Winners.asp

KILLER

Find out more at www.envirovac.com 604-513-1324 Toll-free 1-888-296-2499

Knowledge sharing the

22

HEALTH & SAFETY TRAINING

CERTIFICATE OF RECOGNITION (COR) PROGRAM

3E ONLINE MSDS MANAGEMENT

OFFICIAL DISABILITY GUIDELINES

BCMSA IS CREDIBLE, RESPONSIVE, INNOVATIVE

CLAIMS REDUCTION INITIATIVE

July / August 2015 | WorkSafe Magazine

CONTACT US

Cathy Cook, Executive Director P: 778-278-3486 F: 778-278-0029 E: [email protected] www.bcmsa.ca

Safe tractor use reduces the risk of serious injury We’re working with you to make sure all farmers go home safely.

For resources and videos on safe equipment operation, visit worksafebc.com/agriculture. July / August 2015 | WorkSafe Magazine

23

Safety Spotlight

City of Vancouver traffic operations worker Bhapinder Sandhu demonstrates post-trip documentation duties at Vancouver’s national works yard as part of the City’s new stay-at-work program.

Vancouver employees work to recover

By Susan Kerschbaumer

Late last summer, Marc DeLuca was shovelling concrete when the tendon in his right elbow gave out. With a job requiring heavy lifting, jack-hammering, reaching, and pulling, the general labourer and concrete finisher for the City of Vancouver knew an arm injury could potentially jeopardize his ability to work. Thankfully, though, that didn’t happen. Owing to the City’s innovative new stay-at-work and early return-to-work program, DeLuca never missed a single workday.

A focus on what workers can do

employees to stay at work and remain connected to the workplace while their bodies heal. “The old idea was that as soon as you were hurt, you went home to recover,” says WorkSafeBC employer consultant Patrick Whalen. However, stay-at-work programs, he says, recognize that injured workers can still be productive and include work as part of their recovery. “Before revamping the program, we saw people going off work and incurring lost time where it wasn’t needed,” says City of Vancouver human resources general manager Paul Mochrie. So the City decided to go beyond the traditional approach, by turning its return-to-work program into a stay-at-work program.

“We focus on people’s abilities rather than their disabilities,” says City of Vancouver organizational health manager Laurence Beatch. “It’s about what you can do, not what you can’t.”

“And WorkSafeBC was there to support us,” Beatch says, pointing to a strategic partnership between the City and WorkSafeBC that focused on the City’s changed outlook to injury management.

The City introduced its revamped program in the summer of 2013, and has gone on to establish it throughout roughly 90 percent of the organization. It enables injured workers to take on modified duties temporarily — with a philosophy of allowing

For DeLuca, this meant that he wasn’t off work at any point during his recovery. Throughout the fall, his supervisor assigned him non-physical duties as an inspector. And by December, he was back to his regular job with his usual crew.

24

July / August 2015 | WorkSafe Magazine

“In most cases,” Mochrie says, “folks are able to keep working; they just need some modifications to their assignment.” These modifications can involve transitional duties — such as those DeLuca took on — or a gradual build-up from partial to full days. Such was the case with Bhapinder Sandhu, a long-time City traffic operations worker. After severing his knee ligament and undergoing reconstructive surgery, he gradually increased his work time from four hours to six. Within a couple of months, he was working eight-hour days at a modified job involving administrative tasks and inspection duties. Today, he’s back to his full-time job as a traffic painter.

A steady drop in lost workdays “More and more employers are looking into stay-at-work programs because of the high human and financial costs of injury-related absenteeism,” Beatch says. “Part of my mandate was to reduce both of these costs.” After piloting the stay-at-work program in the Parks department and systematically rolling it out to other departments, the City soon saw a reduction in costs. Mochrie says he’s seen a steady decline in the number of employee lost workdays — a drop of 12 percent in the last 12 months — as more employees continue to work at modified duties immediately after an injury. What’s more, he says, during the past 12 months, he’s also witnessing a greater number of injured workers going back to work sooner than expected. During this period, 48 percent of City employees returned to work within five days. These figures mark a 20-percent improvement over the previous 12-month period, and a 36-percent improvement over the results prior to implementing a stay-at-work program. As a result, claim costs are continuing to decrease. In fact, since it began the revamped program, the City has also been reducing its short-term disability costs each quarter. On a human scale, the results have been equally dramatic. Mochrie says that staying at work after an injury can give employees the satisfaction of performing meaningful work while maintaining their income, job status, and connection to the workplace. For Sandhu, the opportunity to stay at work has helped him avoid “going stir crazy: I just wanted to get back into my regular lifestyle,” he says. “That’s what was really motivating me to get better.”

“It’s about what you can do, not what you can’t.” — Laurence Beatch, organizational health manager for the City of Vancouver

Employee, management buy-in As the roll-out of the new program nears completion, Beatch stresses the importance of early and continued engagement with employees. “The employee is the best person to know what he or she is capable of doing.” He advises listening to each employee as an individual, and finding the overlap between the needs of the employer and the abilities of the employee — without taking any risks with recovery. In DeLuca’s case, this close engagement meant that his supervisor heard him when he expressed boredom with the administrative tasks he’d first been assigned, resulting in a switch to inspection duties. In Sandhu’s case, the ongoing communication helped him overcome his fears about reinjury. Just as employee-supervisor engagement is crucial, so is buy-in from management. To be successful, Beatch says, “the process has to be owned from a corporate senior level, not just at a front-line level.” Beatch also credits the City’s clear policies and user-friendly procedures for the program’s success. Standardized letters outline each party’s responsibilities, while flow charts and checklists ensure everyone involved in the process takes all the appropriate steps and documents them. “The City of Vancouver is hitting all the right notes from a best practices perspective,” Whalen says. “They’re setting themselves up to be successful, and constantly looking at ways to improve.” As one of B.C.’s larger and more diverse employers, the City is setting a strong example and advocating for other municipalities to follow suit. “We’re happy to collaborate with other employers and share our experience,” Mochrie says. “Our rates go up and down together, so if everyone improves, we all benefit.” W

July / August 2015 | WorkSafe Magazine

25

Winner

What’s wrong: you tell us

Workers vulnerable near electrical lines Jay Nagra, transportation manager at Adesa Vancouver in Richmond, B.C., is the winner of our May/June “What’s wrong with this photo?” contest, and one of only two entrants who identified high-versus-low-risk hazards, as requested.

• The guy on the ground is lifting power lines with a shovel and resting the metal portion of the shovel right on the lines — high risk. • The driver does not appear to be wearing his seat belt — high risk. • The driver’s load is too high in the air — high risk. • The driver is not in his seat and is leaning out the side with his foot sticking out — high risk.

• An empty spool lying on the ground is a tripping hazard for the two guys, and the forklift driver can’t see it because his view is obstructed — high risk. • The guy in the orange jacket has his back turned to the guy holding the shovel; he could strike the other worker while he is pulling out long-handled tools — high risk. • The driver’s vision is completely blocked from seeing what the other two workers are doing — high risk. • The guy holding the shovel is standing on what appears to be wire, which is a potential tripping hazard — high risk. • The driver’s hard hat is sitting on the forklift, meaning he’s not wearing it — low risk. • The guy holding the shovel is not wearing a hi-visibility vest or hard hat — high risk. • The worker should only be lifting one spool at a time — high risk.

• The load is unstable because nothing is securing the two spools together — high risk.

• The second spool, which is stacked on top, is not secure while the driver is lifting the bottom one with forks — high risk.

• The guy holding the shovel is in a blind spot; the driver cannot see him — high risk.

• The load is not supported by the back rest on the forklift — high risk.

26

July / August 2015 | WorkSafe Magazine

W

Safety Talks

Wes Harman, Township of Langley operations maintenance manager, keeps a hydration source handy while leveling the pitcher’s mound at Philip Jackman Park in Aldergrove, B.C.

‘Hot jobs’ can be hazardous We all love a sunny day, but when your job means working for eight hours in the sunshine, you can be putting your health — even your life — at risk. Sun exposure causes more than 90 percent of skin cancer, and sunburns can lead to an often deadly melanoma. Outdoor workers are particularly vulnerable, municipal workers being one of them. In fact, if you work for a B.C. municipality as a street cleaner, recreation worker, road crew worker, or maintenance person — your working conditions put you at 2.5 to 3.5 times greater risk of developing skin cancer than those who work indoors, according to recent information gathered by the B.C.-based Save Your Skin Foundation.

By Lynn Welburn

A few simple precautions, however, can save you from exposure to most of the risks. “Unlike people on holidays, when you’re on the job, you can’t simply stay out of the sun,” says Cathy Cook, executive director of the BC Municipal Safety Association. “But you can cover up and use high-quality sun protection, and whenever possible, get out of direct sunlight.” Cook says that while sun exposure dangers are well known, many workers, particularly older ones, seem to ignore them. “I have observed many workers of a younger generation taking steps to prevent sun damage.” As a means to raise awareness about occupational sun safety, four Lower Mainland municipalities (Township of Langley, City and District of North Vancouver, and the City of Surrey) have partnered with the foundation to raise awareness of sun exposure risks at work.

July / August 2015 | WorkSafe Magazine

27

“I have observed many workers of a younger generation taking steps to prevent sun damage.” — Cathy Cook, executive director of the BC municipal safety association “It’s been a productive partnership,” says Sandra Ciparis, safety advisor with the Township of Langley. “The foundation has a lot of great resources.” Langley made sun safety education a focus of their North American Occupational Safety and Health Week activities. In addition to spreading the word about sun protection, they put sunscreen dispensers in many of their facilities and made tinted safety glasses available to employees. Here are the foundation’s top five tips for staying sun-safe on the job:

1. Cover up Cover all exposed skin with lightweight, UV-blocking clothing. Attach a back flap to your hard hat or other headgear to protect your neck.

2. Slather on the sunscreen Apply broad-spectrum sunscreen of 30 SPF or higher at least 20 minutes before sun exposure and reapply regularly to any skin not covered by clothing. Broad-spectrum products protect against UVA- and UVB-ray damage, and waterproof sunscreen lasts longer. Apply it liberally, remembering lips and ears.

3. Protect your eyes Wear sunglasses that offer 100-percent UVA- and UVB-protection or safety glasses that offer sun protection.

4. Stay hydrated Drink plenty of water and, if your work is very physical, consume sports drinks as well. Avoid caffeine products, such as coffee or colas that can dehydrate you.

5. Seek shade when you can The sun is strongest from 11 a.m. to 3 p.m., so take your breaks in the shade during those hours. Recognize the symptoms of too much sun, including blurred vision and nausea, and let your supervisor know if you experience them. Protect yourself on the job from the sun’s damaging rays. Before you head outdoors to work, check out the following sites for more information:

• www.saveyourskin.ca/about/sun-at-work/ • www2.worksafebc.com/pdfs/YoungWorker/ StudentWorkSafe2014/environmental_exposure. pdf?_ga=1.71023568.1179120579.1291748936 • www.cancer.ca/en/prevention-and-screening/ live-well/sun-and-uv/being-safe-in-thesun/?region=bc W

Driving to Improve Safety Providing quality occupational health and safety services to the transportation, logistics and warehousing industries in British Columbia.

The SafetyDriven Team can provide:

We are also the

transportation industry’s certifying partner for the Certificate of Recognition The Trucking Safety Council of British Columbia is an independent health and safety association funded, governed, and working for industry.

28

July / August 2015 | WorkSafe Magazine

Safety Training & Education Safety Advisory Services Safety Tools and Resources Safety Research & Best Practice Development Safety Program Support Injury Management Advisory Services

Explore our services and programs.

www.safetydriven.ca TOLL FREE: 1-877-414-8001

Penalties Construction 0902577 B.C. Ltd. / Roof Doctor | $8,291.58 | Kelowna | December 4, 2014 WorkSafeBC observed this firm’s worker walking around on the steep roof of a two-storey house under construction. The worker was wearing personal fall protection gear but was not connected to a lifeline. No other form of fall protection was in place. The uneven roof surface increased the worker’s risk of falling about 7.6 m (25 ft.). The firm’s failure to ensure that a fall protection system was used as required was a repeated and high-risk violation.

3D Environmental Groups Ltd. | $5,000 | Burnaby | March 20, 2015 This firm was performing asbestos abatement and removal activities at the site of a pre-1990 house prior to demolition. A demolition subcontractor’s workers had already partially demolished the interior of the house. WorkSafeBC inspected the worksite and found that the firm had issued a clearance letter stating that all the hazardous material had been removed from the house when asbestos-containing materials were still present, including textured ceiling material in the living room. The firm repeatedly failed to ensure that its workers complied with the Workers Compensation Act and the Occupational Health and Safety Regulation, in this case a violation committed knowingly or with reckless disregard.

A1 Kahlon Construction Ltd. | $2,500 | North Vancouver | February 4, 2015 WorkSafeBC observed three of this firm’s workers installing torch-on roofing membrane on the multi-level (flat and low-slope) roof of a two-storey house under construction. To access the membrane cutting station, the workers had to traverse a section of the roof that was only about 30 cm (12 in.) wide, with a drop of more than 3 m (10 ft.) on one side. None of the workers were wearing fall protection gear and no other form of fall protection was in place. The workers were exposed to a risk of falling as much as 6 m (20 ft.) onto construction materials, compact ground, and exposed concrete foundation walls. The firm knowingly or with reckless disregard failed to ensure that a fall protection system was used as required. This was a high-risk violation.

Aaron Micheal Gandy / Convoy Roofing | $2,500 | Port Coquitlam | February 26, 2015 WorkSafeBC observed four of this firm’s workers, including a supervisor, re-roofing a two-storey house. Two of them were using personal fall protection gear. The third was wearing a fall protection harness but was not attached to a lifeline. The fourth was not even wearing a fall protection harness. The roof did not have guardrails, nor was any other form of fall protection in place. The workers were exposed to a risk of falling 5 to 7.3 m (16 to 24 ft.). Hazards below included a balcony, a wooden fence, a metal disposal bin, and a concrete driveway. The firm’s failure to ensure that fall protection was used was a repeated and high-risk violation.

Administrative penalties are monetary fines imposed on employers for health and safety violations of the Workers Compensation Act and/or the Occupational Health and Safety Regulation. The penalties listed in this section are grouped by industry, in alphabetical order, starting with “Construction.” They show the date the penalty was imposed and the location where the violation occurred (not necessarily the business location). The registered business name is given, as well as any “doing business as” (DBA) name. The penalty amount is based on the nature of the violation, the employer’s compliance history, and the employer’s assessable payroll. Once a penalty is imposed, the employer has 90 days to appeal to the Review Division of WorkSafeBC. The Review Division may maintain, reduce, or withdraw the penalty; it may increase the penalty as well. Employers may then file an appeal within 30 days of the Review Division’s decision to the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal, an independent appeal body. The amounts shown here indicate the penalties imposed prior to appeal, and may not reflect the final penalty amount. For more information on when penalties are considered and how the penalty amount is calculated, visit our website at worksafebc.com, then search for “Administrative penalties.”

July / August 2015 | WorkSafe Magazine

29

Penalties

(continued)

Abby Roofing Ltd. | $7,500 | Abbotsford | February 23, 2015 WorkSafeBC observed four of this firm’s workers on the roof of a one-level house, two of them at the edge of the roof. No guardrails were in place and the workers were not using personal fall protection gear, so they were exposed to a risk of falling 3.2 to 4.7 m (10.5 to 15.5 ft.). The firm’s failure to ensure that fall protection was used where a fall of 3 m (10 ft.) or more could occur was a repeated and high-risk violation.

Accurate Roofing Ltd. | $11,582.50 | Burnaby | February 25, 2015 Three of this firm’s workers were re-shingling the roof of a one-and-a-half-storey house. Two were using personal fall protection gear but the third, although he was wearing a fall protection harness, was not attached to a lifeline. No other form of fall protection was in place. The third worker was exposed to a risk of falling 3.4 to 5 m (11 to 16 ft.). The firm failed to ensure that fall protection was used, a repeated violation.

Adriatic Concrete Cutting & Coring Ltd. | $2,500 | Vancouver | February 18, 2015 At a worksite where a house had been demolished, this firm was hired to make cuts in the concrete retaining wall system that had formed the base of the house. This would allow an excavator to knock the walls down without damaging the houses on either side of the narrow lot. The supervisor and another worker made several cuts in the walls, noting early on that the walls lacked reinforcing steel. As they were leaving, one wall collapsed onto the second worker, fatally injuring him. Having neither reinforcing steel nor footings, the wall system depended on its connectedness (it was poured as a unit) for its structural integrity. The firm’s failure to ensure that cut segments of the wall were supported as necessary was a high-risk violation of section 20.119 of the Occupational Health and Safety Regulation. By not taking measures to lower the risk of the unsecured walls becoming unstable, the firm failed to ensure the health and safety of its own and other workers at the site.

A G R Roofing Ltd. | $5,000 | Burnaby | February 20, 2015 WorkSafeBC observed this firm’s two workers installing tiles on the moderate- to steep-slope roof of a two-storey house under construction. They were wearing fall protection harnesses but were not connected to lifelines. No other form of fall protection was in place. Further, the roof surface was uneven and loose tiles on it posed a tripping hazard. The workers were exposed to a risk of falling about 7 m (23 ft.) to a metal fence and compact, frozen ground littered with construction debris. The firm failed to ensure that fall protection was used, a repeated and high-risk violation.

A-I Siding Ltd. | $11,252.33 | Coquitlam | February 26, 2015 This firm was installing siding on a newly built three-storey house. WorkSafeBC observed the firm’s young and new worker — in view of the firm’s supervisor — on a narrow, non-compliant work platform supported by a ladder-jack system. The ladder-jack system had been set up on uneven ground using unstable wood blocks. The work platform on it lacked guardrails and the worker was not using a personal fall protection system, so he was exposed to a risk of falling 3.5 m (12 ft.). The worker had not been instructed or trained in the use of fall protection. The firm’s failure to ensure that fall protection was used was a repeated and high-risk violation. Its failure to provide its worker with the information, instruction, training, and supervision necessary to ensure his health and safety was a repeated violation.

A-I Siding Ltd. | $3,541.03 | Surrey | March 19, 2015 WorkSafeBC observed two of this firm’s workers in the basket of a boom lift, applying siding to a new building. Neither of the workers were using personal fall arrest gear. They were exposed to a risk of falling about 4 to 5.5 m (13 to 18 ft.). The firm’s failure to ensure that fall arrest systems were used was a repeated violation of section 13.33(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Regulation.

All Pro Environmental Ltd. | $1,000 | Port Coquitlam | March 31, 2015 This firm issued a deficient hazardous materials survey for a pre-1990 house slated for demolition. WorkSafeBC inspected the jobsite and found that the firm had collected too few samples of potential asbestos-containing materials (ACMs). The firm left remnants of ACMs after collecting samples, potentially exposing workers and others to asbestos fibres. It also neglected to identify sample locations with a sample number. These examples show that the firm failed to monitor and assess workplace exposure to ACMs using occupational hygiene methods acceptable to WorkSafeBC. This was a repeated violation.

All Pro Environmental Ltd. | $1,000 | Richmond | March 31, 2015 This firm issued a hazardous materials survey for a pre-1990 duplex due to be demolished. The hazmat survey identified certain potential asbestos-containing materials (ACMs) inconsistently. It also failed to collect a sufficient number of samples of some ACMs and to identify the locations where they were collected. Dates on the survey did not match those in the field notes of the worker who collected the samples. The firm failed to monitor and assess workplace exposure to ACMs using acceptable occupational hygiene

30

July / August 2015 | WorkSafe Magazine

methods. This failure exposed workers to excessive levels of asbestos fibres, significantly increasing the probability of serious illness and death, and was a repeated violation.

Anthony Richard Delaurier / Tony Delaurier Construction | $2,500 | Fort St. John | February 12, 2015 WorkSafeBC observed this firm’s workers installing roof trusses on a two-storey house under construction. One of the workers was standing on the top plate of an exterior wall and no fall protection system was in use. The worker was exposed to a risk of falling 5 m (16 ft.). The firm knowingly or with reckless disregard failed to ensure that a fall protection system was used. This was a repeated and high-risk violation.

A&P Roofing Services Co. Ltd. | $2,500 | Surrey | December 31, 2014 Two of this firm’s workers were observed working on a narrow roof overhang, in excess of 3 m (10 ft.) above grade, without any fall protection system in place. The likelihood of serious injury in the event of a fall was increased by the concrete walkway and concrete steps below. WorkSafeBC officers had discussed fall protection requirements with the firm’s owners on three previous occasions. At the time of the violation, the owners were on site supervising the workers. The firm’s failure to ensure that a fall protection system was used was a high-risk violation, committed knowingly and with reckless disregard.

Arctic Roofing (P.G.) Ltd. | $7,500 | Prince George | March 24, 2015 WorkSafeBC observed two of this firm’s workers, one a new worker, re-shingling the roof of a townhouse complex. The workers were wearing fall protection harnesses but were not connected to lifelines and no other form of fall protection was in place. They were exposed to a risk of falling 7.5 m (25 ft.). The firm’s failure to ensure that fall protection was used was a repeated and high-risk violation.

Ayali Construction Ltd. | $2,500 | Delta | March 30, 2015 On August 1, 2014, WorkSafeBC ordered this firm to submit a Notice of Compliance with sections of the Workers Compensation Act and the Occupational Health and Safety Regulation dealing with fall protection. The firm had until August 8 to do so. As of September 26, 2014, the firm had not complied with this order. The firm is being penalized for its failure to comply with an order of WorkSafeBC, a violation of section 115(1)(b) of the Act. This was a repeated violation committed knowingly or with reckless disregard.

Baarts Bros. Enterprises Ltd. | $20,262.79 | West Vancouver | March 9, 2015 At a site where a new house was being built, this firm allowed its workers to enter an excavation more than 1.2 m (4 ft.) deep that was not sloped, shored, benched, or otherwise supported. The firm was ordered to obtain documents stating the conditions under which the excavation was safe to enter before workers went into it again. When a prevention officer revisited the site four days later, he found that the required documents had still not been acquired, but a worker had been in the excavation at least two more times. The firm’s failure to meet the sloping and shoring requirements of section 20.81(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Regulation was a repeated and high-risk violation.

Bassi Sofit and Siding Ltd. | $2,856.48 | Richmond | February 26, 2015 One of this firm’s workers was standing on an elevated work platform to reach the roofline of a newly built two-storey house. The work platform was less than the minimum required width and did not have guardrails. The worker was not using a personal fall protection

Rate Consultation Sessions Join us and employers in your region to learn more about the 2016 proposed rates for your industry.

To find a session in your region and reserve your seat, visit www.worksafebc.com/rateconsultations or call 604.247.7333.

July / August 2015 | WorkSafe Magazine

31

Penalties

(continued)

system. He was exposed to a risk of falling as much as 4.5 m (15 ft.) to a lower roof, an aluminum extension ladder, a concrete slab and column footing, and compact sand strewn with construction debris. The firm’s failure to ensure that fall protection was used was a repeated and high-risk violation.

Belfor (Canada) Inc. / Belfor Restoration Services | $15,000 | Langley | February 16, 2015 This firm was the prime contractor for the demolition and restoration of a fire-damaged retail space. A WorkSafeBC officer inspected the site and found workers without protective gear removing building debris and disposing of it in a large open bin. No hazardous materials survey or written safe work procedures were available on site. Subsequently, a hazmat report identified two flooring materials, which were being disturbed by the demolition activities, as containing chrysotile asbestos. The firm failed to have a qualified person assess the level of risk to workers before they began activities in proximity to asbestos. The firm also violated requirements to have a qualified person assess the risk that asbestos-containing materials (ACMs) would be damaged and release fibres; to control and handle ACMs using accepted procedures; to co-ordinate the activities of employers, workers, and others at the worksite related to health and safety; and to do everything reasonably practicable to ensure compliance with the Workers Compensation Act and the Occupational Health and Safety Regulation. Apart from the failure to assess the level of risk to workers, these were all repeated violations.

Bennett Contracting Ltd. | $15,961.63 | Kelowna | March 5, 2015 This firm was installing a new water main to service a townhouse complex under construction. The firm allowed its workers to enter a 2 m (6.5 ft.) deep trench that was not sloped, shored, benched, or otherwise supported as required. The workers were exposed to a risk of serious injury or death if the trench had collapsed. The firm’s failure to meet the sloping and shoring requirements of section 20.81(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Regulation was a high-risk violation.

Bernie A. Srochenski / Classic Building Construction | $2,500 | Prince George | March 10, 2015 Two of this firm’s workers were setting roof trusses on a two-storey house under construction. They were standing on the top plates of walls and were not using personal fall protection gear, although lifelines were available elsewhere on the roof. The workers were exposed to a risk of falling 6 m (20 ft.). Also, they were handling lumber overhead but were not wearing hard hats as required for such work. The firm knowingly or with reckless disregard failed to ensure that fall protection was used, a high-risk violation. It failed to ensure that its workers wore hard hats where there was a danger of injury from falling objects, a repeated violation. Finally, it failed to provide its workers with the information, instruction, training, and supervision needed to ensure their health and safety.

Best Choice Roofing Ltd. | $7,500 | Richmond | April 1, 2015 Three of this firm’s workers were on the roof of a two-storey house under construction. Two were on steep (12:12) lower roof sections. The third was on the upper part of the roof. No fall protection system was in use. The workers were exposed to a risk of falling 5 to 9 m (16 to 30 ft.). The firm failed to ensure that a fall protection system was used, a repeated and high-risk violation committed knowingly or with reckless disregard.

Best Stucco Ltd. | $8,250.95 | Vancouver | April 1, 2015 WorkSafeBC observed this firm’s worker applying stucco to a two-storey house under construction. The worker was positioned at a height of approximately 3.5 m (12 ft.), working from a job-built wooden scaffold that did not comply with WorkSafeBC regulations. For example, it lacked adequate bearing beneath some vertical supports and horizontal supports under its bearer bars. Several sections also lacked cross-bracing, and some of the work platforms were less than the required width of 50 cm (20 in.). Similar issues had been identified on previous inspections, including one three months earlier. This repeated violation was committed knowingly or with reckless disregard.

Brar Framing Ltd. | $2,500 | North Delta | January 15, 2015 This firm was hired to install roof trusses on a two-and-a-half-storey house under construction. WorkSafeBC observed one of the firm’s workers standing on the wall plate at the edge of the roof. The worker was not using fall protection gear, nor was any other form of fall protection in place. He was exposed to a risk of falling about 6 m (20 ft.). The electrical cord of his nail gun posed a tripping hazard, increasing the likelihood of a fall. The firm failed to ensure that a fall protection system was used as required, a repeated and high-risk violation. It also failed to provide its worker with the information, instruction, training, and supervision needed to ensure his health and safety. This was a repeated violation.

CC Coastal Construction Ltd. | $36,914.95 | North Saanich | February 26, 2015 WorkSafeBC observed two of this firm’s workers on the open second level of a multi-storey house under construction. They were working within 2 m (6 ft.) of the edge, which did not have guardrails. The workers were not using personal fall protection gear, so they were exposed to a risk of falling 5 to 5.5 m (16 to 18 ft.). The firm failed to ensure that fall protection was used, a repeated and high-risk violation.

32

July / August 2015 | WorkSafe Magazine

Chen & Tsan Construction Company Ltd. | $2,825.95 | Vancouver | February 4, 2015 This firm was building a two-storey house. WorkSafeBC observed the firm’s worker performing framing tasks on the second storey. To reach the work area, the worker had to walk on the tops of the wall plates and hug the outside wall, inching around the corner of the house. The worker was not using personal fall protection gear and no other form of fall protection was in place. He was exposed to a risk of falling 4.5 to 6.4 m (15 to 21 ft.) to concrete posts with rebar dowels sticking up and a recessed concrete stairwell. The firm knowingly or with reckless disregard failed to ensure that a fall protection system was used as required, a repeated and high-risk violation.

Choice Roofing Ltd. | $5,000 | New Westminster | December 24, 2014 WorkSafeBC inspected this firm’s worksite, an older two-storey house and a garage whose asphalt-shingle roofs were being removed and replaced. On the roof of the house, one worker was not wearing any fall protection gear and another was wearing a harness but was not connected to a lifeline. With no other fall protection system in place, the workers were exposed to a fall hazard of up to 6 m (20 ft.). The firm’s failure to ensure that a fall protection system was used where a fall of more than 3 m (10 ft.) could occur was a repeated and high-risk violation.

Christopher Daniel Verma / Titan West Construction | $2,500 | Maple Ridge | March 30, 2015 Two of this firm’s workers were preparing to sheath the roof of a two-storey house under construction. They were standing on the top plates of walls, frequently bending over and reaching toward the unguarded edge of the roof, and were not using personal fall protection gear. The workers were exposed to a risk of falling 7.3 to 8.3 m (24 to 27 ft.). The firm knowingly or with reckless disregard failed to ensure that fall protection was used, a high-risk violation.

Clearbrook Roofing Ltd. | $17,299.80 | Mission | March 5, 2015 WorkSafeBC observed four of this firm’s workers re-roofing a two-storey-plus-basement house. The roof slopes ranged from moderate to extremely steep. Three of the workers were wearing fall protection harnesses but were not attached to lifelines, and no other form of fall protection was in place. They were exposed to a risk of falling 5.5 to 10 m (18 to 33 ft.). No fall protection plan was on site as required for work where a fall of 7.5 m (25 ft.) or more could occur. The firm’s failure to ensure that fall protection was used was a repeated and high-risk violation. Its failure to provide a fall protection plan was a repeated violation. The firm also failed to provide its workers with the information, instruction, training, and supervision needed to ensure their health and safety, another repeated violation.

Coast Mountain Environmental Incorporated | $4,615.22 | Burnaby/Port Coquitlam | March 20, 2015 This firm conducted hazardous materials surveys that failed to identify asbestos-containing materials (ACMs) at two pre-1990 houses slated for demolition. In both cases, WorkSafeBC hired a third party to assess substances from the houses for hazardous materials. The third-party survey for the house in Burnaby identified ACMs that were not listed in Coast Mountain’s survey, including vinyl flooring, drywall joint compound, textured ceiling material, and carport roof mastic. The firm failed to monitor and assess workplace exposure to ACMs using occupational hygiene methods acceptable to WorkSafeBC. This was a repeated violation.

Comfort Development Ltd. | $3,749.62 | Richmond | February 3, 2015 This firm’s worker was on the second level of a two-storey house under construction, installing the subfloor. No guardrails had been installed around the perimeter of the open-sided second level or around the uncovered opening for stairs leading down to the first level, and the worker was not using a personal fall protection system. The firm’s failure to ensure that a fall protection system was used where a fall of 3 m (10 ft.) or more could take place was a repeated and high-risk violation.

C.P. Construction Ltd. | $2,500 | Burnaby | December 12, 2014 This firm demolished residential buildings without regard for regulatory requirements related to asbestos. On one site, it failed to submit the required Notice of Project (NOP) at least 24 hours before work began. WorkSafeBC inspected that site and found demolition underway, with several materials removed and debris littering the worksite. Tests on nine materials later came back positive for asbestos. The firm had not used asbestos controls during the removal work and had checked for asbestos only after the removals. On a second site, the firm also failed to have a qualified person complete a hazardous material survey before salvage, recycling, and demolition began. WorkSafeBC officers had repeatedly discussed hazardous materials requirements with the firm before these violations. The violations were thus committed with reckless disregard for the hazard to which the firm’s actions exposed workers and others.

Creative Home Development Ltd. | $3,250 | North Vancouver | February 3, 2015 This firm was the prime contractor on a worksite where asbestos abatement activities were taking place. Because asbestos-containing materials (ACMs) were not being properly contained, WorkSafeBC’s officer issued a stop-work order for the site. A follow-up

July / August 2015 | WorkSafe Magazine

33

Penalties

(continued)

inspection showed that work had proceeded on the site in violation of the order, and potential ACMs had been removed. The firm is being penalized because it failed to effectively coordinate worker activities and to do everything practicable to ensure compliance with the Occupational Health and Safety Regulation and the Workers Compensation Act — including compliance with a stop-work order issued under the Act.

David F C Lindstrom / DCL Roofing | $2,500 | Vanderhoof | February 18, 2015 WorkSafeBC observed three of this firm’s workers (one of them a supervisor) re-roofing a one-and-a-half-storey house. None of the workers were using personal fall protection gear and no other form of fall protection was in place. They were exposed to a risk of falling as much as 3.5 m (12 ft.). The firm failed to ensure that fall protection was used, a high-risk violation. Further, a worker using a nail gun was not wearing safety eyewear as required, a repeated violation. The firm failed in general to provide its workers with the training and supervision needed to ensure their health and safety in carrying out their work.

David Luc Morisette / Diego Framing and Forming | $1,000 | Maple Ridge | March 4, 2015 This firm’s worker was seriously injured by a circular saw while cutting plywood. WorkSafeBC ordered the firm to investigate the incident, as required under section 173(1)(b) of the Workers Compensation Act, and to submit its report to WorkSafeBC. The firm failed to do so. This was a violation of section 115(1)(b) of the Act.

Delta Framing & Renovations Ltd. | $1,750 | Langley | February 27, 2015 This firm’s worker was sheathing the steep roof of a newly built two-storey house. He was not using personal fall protection gear and no other form of fall protection was in place. This exposed him to a risk of falling 7 to 9 m (23 to 29 ft.). The firm failed to ensure that fall protection was used where a fall of 3 m (10 ft.) or more could occur. This was a repeated and high-risk violation.

Deol Framing Ltd. | $3,000 | Burnaby | February 19, 2015 At a worksite where a two-storey house was under construction, this firm allowed its workers to access the second floor via a ladder because stairs had not yet been constructed. In doing so the firm failed to comply with the requirement to provide a stairway with at least framing, treads, and a handrail before beginning construction of the next floor. This was a repeated violation.

Deol Framing Ltd. | $5,000 | Burnaby | February 19, 2015 WorkSafeBC observed three of this firm’s workers installing fascia boards on a two-storey house under construction. One worker was on a lower-level roof. The other two were on the highest part of the roof. All three were bending over the roof’s edge to work and none of them were using personal fall protection gear, nor was any other form of fall protection in place. The first worker was exposed to a risk of falling 3.5 m (11.5 ft.) to wood debris and a pile of lumber; the other two to the risk of falling as much as 7.3 m (24 ft.) onto an asphalt laneway. In addition, all three workers were frequently as close as 0.6 m (2 ft.) away from high-voltage power lines running alongside the house. The firm failed to ensure that a fall protection system was used, a repeated and high-risk violation. It also failed to ensure that persons and tools remained the minimum required distance away from power lines.

Devon Richard Knapfl / Aces Roofing | $2,500 | Courtenay | February 23, 2015 WorkSafeBC observed three of this firm’s workers on the extremely steep (12:12 slope) roof of a two-storey house. A representative of the firm was on the roof with the workers, but they were not using personal fall protection gear. No other form of fall protection was in place. The workers were exposed to a risk of falling 2.5 to 6 m (8 to 20 ft.) to roofing equipment and debris. The firm failed to ensure that fall protection was used, a repeated and high-risk violation. It also failed to provide its workers with the supervision needed to ensure their health and safety, a repeated violation.

Dosanjh Plastering & Stucco Ltd. | $2,500 | Richmond | February 19, 2015 WorkSafeBC observed two of this firm’s workers on the roof of a two-storey house under construction. They were working at the unguarded edge of the roof, with their backs to it, and were not using personal fall protection gear, despite being exposed to a risk of falling 5.5 to 6 m (18 to 20 ft.). No other form of fall protection was in place. One worker knew that anchors were available on the roof but chose not to use them. In any case, neither he nor the other worker knew how to use a fall protection harness. The firm knowingly failed to ensure that fall protection was used, a high-risk violation.

Elite Environmental Consulting Ltd. | $2,500 | Delta | February 16, 2015 This firm conducted a deficient hazardous materials survey of a pre-1990 house that was slated for demolition. The firm subsequently issued a clearance letter that incorrectly stated that the house was free of asbestos-containing materials (ACMs). The owner of the house hired a labourer, who began demolishing the interior. A WorkSafeBC inspection found that the firm failed to collect adequate samples from various areas likely to contain asbestos, and in some cases had not collected any samples from such areas. WorkSafeBC hired a third party to assess the house for hazardous materials. The third-party survey identified a number of ACMs. The firm’s failure

34

July / August 2015 | WorkSafe Magazine

to conduct workplace monitoring and assessment using accepted occupational hygiene methods was a repeated and high-risk violation that potentially exposed workers and others to asbestos, a known carcinogen.

European Environmental Ltd. | $2,000 | Burnaby | March 24, 2015 This firm conducted a hazardous materials survey of a pre-1990 house that was about to be demolished. WorkSafeBC found that the firm had issued a clearance letter stating that all hazardous materials had been removed from the house. In fact, asbestos-containing materials were still present in the form of duct tape on heating pipes. The firm repeatedly failed to ensure that its workers complied with the Workers Compensation Act and the Occupational Health and Safety Regulation.

Flatiron Constructors Canada Limited | $75,000 | Agassiz | February 16, 2015 This firm was the prime contractor for the installation of power transmission towers in a remote area accessible only by a forest service road. At one point heavy rains caused a bridge to wash out and triggered a landslide that crossed the road, so the firm shut down the worksite. The following week, after the worksite was reopened, an officer of WorkSafeBC travelled to the site to conduct an inspection. He found that although the firm had informed subcontractors of the need to assess heavy rainfall hazards and about specific weather patterns and hazards that could affect the site, it did not have a system for ensuring that subcontractors acted on the information. The firm had also failed to have the landslide assessed by a qualified person before clean-up activity began and the worksite reopened — exposing workers who performed remedial work to reopen the road to the risk of serious injury or even death. These failings showed that as the prime contractor at a multiple-employer workplace, the firm failed to co-ordinate the activities of employers, workers, and others related to health and safety. It also failed to do everything reasonably practicable to establish and maintain a system to ensure compliance with the Workers Compensation Act and the Occupational Health and Safety Regulation. These were repeated, high-risk violations.

Flora Framing Ltd. | $10,309.10 | Richmond | February 13, 2015 Three of this firm’s workers were observed in and around the roof area of a new two-storey house the firm had been hired to frame. One worker was not wearing a fall protection harness. The other two were wearing harnesses but only one was connected to a lifeline and the lifeline had so much slack that in the event of a fall, the system would not have prevented the worker from striking the ground. All three workers were exposed to a risk of falling 5 to 7.5 m (17 to 25 ft.). The firm’s failure to ensure that a fall protection system was used as required was a high-risk and repeated violation. The firm also failed to provide its workers with the information, instruction, training, and supervision needed to ensure their safety, a repeated violation.

Good Boys Framing Ltd. | $5,483.30 | Coquitlam | April 1, 2015 WorkSafeBC observed two of this firm’s workers (including a representative of the firm) standing on trusses laid across the top plates of walls on a two-storey house under construction. No fall protection system was in use. The workers were exposed to a risk of falling 6 m (20 ft.). The firm’s failure to ensure that fall protection was used was a repeated and high-risk violation.

Goshulak Construction Ltd. | $6,590.50 | Chilliwack | March 23, 2015 WorkSafeBC observed this firm’s worker on the steep roof of a two-storey house under construction. He was not using personal fall protection gear; no other form of fall protection was in place. He was exposed to a risk of falling 3.4 m (11.5 ft.). Three other workers of this firm were inside on the second level of the house. These workers too lacked fall protection gear and were exposed to a risk of falling as much as 4 m (14 ft.) due to window and floor openings that lacked guardrails. Also, a stairway to the second floor lacked the required handrails. The firm failed to ensure that fall protection was used and to provide guardrails and handrails. These were repeated violations, and the lack of fall protection and guardrails were also high-risk violations.

Great Tan Enterprise Ltd. | $3,051.25 | Richmond | March 18, 2015 This firm was performing asbestos abatement and removal activities at the site of a pre-1990 house prior to demolition. WorkSafeBC inspected the worksite when the interior of the house had already been partly demolished. The inspection found that the firm had issued a clearance letter stating that all hazardous material had been removed from the house when asbestos-containing materials (ACMs) were still present. The firm then stated that the ACMs would be removed and later issued another clearance letter for the house. However, third-party testing showed that ACMs remained even after that. The firm repeatedly failed to ensure that its workers complied with the Workers Compensation Act and the Occupational Health and Safety Regulation. This violation was committed knowingly or with reckless disregard.

G S Framing Ltd. | $4,128.80 | Richmond | February 5, 2015 Two of this firm’s workers were standing on eyebrow roof sections of a two-storey house under construction to install membrane around upper-level windows. A third worker from the firm was on a higher part of the roof sheathing it. The workers were not using personal fall protection systems and no other form of fall protection was in place. They were exposed to a risk of falling anywhere from

July / August 2015 | WorkSafe Magazine

35

Penalties

(continued)

3.4 to 7.3 m (11.5 to 24 ft.). The firm failed to ensure that a fall protection system was used where a fall of 3 m (10 ft.) or more could occur. This was a repeated and high-risk violation.

Herculano Dionisio Ribeiro / H. Ribeiro Contracting | $2,500 | Prince George | December 16, 2014 WorkSafeBC observed this firm’s worker on the roof of a house, performing re-roofing activities. Anchors were installed, and personal fall protection equipment was available on site but it was not being used. With no other fall protection in place, the worker was exposed to a risk of falling 3 to 5 m (10 to 17 ft.). Loose shingles and roofing paper on the roof increased the likelihood that he would slip and fall. The firm was aware that this worker had not used fall protection in the past and yet left him to work unsupervised. The firm is being penalized for repeatedly failing to ensure that a fall protection system was used as required.

Hi-Fi Construction Ltd. | $2,500 | Vancouver | February 12, 2015 This firm was building a turret roof on the second level of a three-storey house under construction. WorkSafeBC observed one of the firm’s workers without personal fall protection gear, where no other form of fall protection was in place. He was perched on the steep main section of the house’s roof, exposed to a risk of falling 3.5 to 6.5 m (12 to 22 ft.). The firm knowingly or with reckless disregard failed to ensure that a fall protection system was used. This was a repeated and high-risk violation. The firm also failed to provide its worker with the instruction, information, training, and supervision needed to ensure his health and safety.

H & I Roofing Ltd. | $5,000 | Maple Ridge | March 9, 2015 At the site of a two-storey house under construction, a mobile crane was delivering bundles of shingles to the roof. Four of this firm’s workers were on the roof of the house unloading the shingles. The roof lacked guardrails and none of the workers were using personal fall protection gear. No other form of fall protection was in place. The workers were exposed to a risk of falling 5 to 5.5 m (16 to 18 ft.) to the mobile crane, construction debris, and hard compact ground. The firm failed to ensure that fall protection was used, a repeated and high-risk violation committed knowingly or with reckless disregard. It also failed to provide its workers with the information, instruction, training, and supervision needed to ensure their health and safety, a repeated violation.

Inter Coast Holdings Ltd. / Inter Coast Construction | $2,500 | Chilliwack | January 22, 2015 This firm was the prime contractor for the construction of a poultry barn. WorkSafeBC observed three of a subcontractor’s workers standing on the top plates of the barn walls installing roof trusses. They were not using personal fall protection gear and no other form of fall protection was in place. The workers were exposed to a risk of falling 2.5 to 3.4 m (8 to 11 ft.). Frosty conditions and wind gusts of 27 km/h (17 mph) increased the likelihood of a fall. The firm failed to do everything reasonably practicable to establish and maintain a system for ensuring compliance with the Workers Compensation Act and the Occupational Health and Safety Regulation. This was a repeated and high-risk violation.

Jack Reems / JR Renovations | $2,500 | Penticton | March 19, 2015 Four of this firm’s workers were on the roof of a two-storey house under construction. None of them were using personal fall protection equipment and no other form of fall protection was in place. The workers were exposed to a risk of falling 4 to 6.4 m (14 to 21 ft.). An opening in the floor on the second level lacked guardrails around it, exposing workers on that level to a risk of falling 2.75 m (9 ft.) to a concrete floor below. The firm’s failure to ensure that fall protection was used and to provide guardrails for the floor opening were repeated and high-risk violations, committed knowingly or with reckless disregard.

Jagmohan Behniwal / ACC Roofing | $2,500 | Osoyoos | March 9, 2015 A representative of this firm and his worker were tiling the roof of a three-storey house under construction. The roof did not have guardrails. Although lifelines and anchor points were available on the roof, neither the representative nor the worker was using them. They were both within 1 m (3 ft.) of the roof’s edge, exposed to a risk of falling 8.5 m (28 ft.) to a neighbouring one-storey house, a retaining wall, and construction debris. No fall protection plan was on site as required for work where a fall of 7.5 m (25 ft.) or more could occur. The firm knowingly or with reckless disregard failed to ensure that fall protection was used — a repeated and high-risk violation — and to provide a fall protection plan, a repeated violation.

Jeff Lefler | $2,500 | North Saanich | March 16, 2015 WorkSafeBC observed this firm’s worker sheathing the roof of a two-storey house under construction. The worker was not using personal fall protection gear and no other form of fall protection was in place. He was exposed to a risk of falling 7.5 m (25 ft.). The firm’s failure to ensure that fall protection was used was a high-risk violation.

36

July / August 2015 | WorkSafe Magazine

Jerry Wakefield Construction Inc. | $2,500 | Sidney | February 26, 2015 WorkSafeBC observed six of this firm’s workers framing the second floor of a planned four-storey residential complex. Four of them were at floor level, often within 2 m (6 ft.) of the edge of the roof. The other two were walking and crouching on wall plates and ceiling joists up above, bending over to use nail guns. No guardrails had been installed and none of the workers were using personal fall protection gear. They were exposed to a risk of falling 4 to 7.3 m (14 to 24 ft.) to construction material, a metal fence, and compact soil. The firm’s failure to ensure that fall protection was used was a repeated and high-risk violation. Its failure to provide its workers with the information, instruction, training, and supervision needed to ensure their health and safety was a repeated violation.

Jesse Norman Sweder / Cowboy Construction | $2,500 | Fort St. John | April 1, 2015 This firm was framing a two-storey townhouse complex. WorkSafeBC observed two of the firm’s workers standing on the top plates of walls to install fascia board onto roof trusses. A representative of the firm was on site supervising their work. Neither worker was using personal fall protection gear, even though it was available at the site. No other form of fall protection was in place. The workers were exposed to a risk of falling 6.4 m (21 ft.). The firm’s failure to ensure that fall protection was used was a repeated and high-risk violation.

John Blaine (Zoe) Jacob / O & C Concrete | $2,500 | Burnaby | December 24, 2014 This firm violated requirements for occupational first aid attendants, mobile crane inspections, and certification of carriages used for lifting metal form panels with a mobile crane. The firm is being penalized for repeatedly failing to comply with WorkSafeBC orders to correct these deficiencies within a reasonable period of time.

Joshua Calob Wiggers / Kona Carpentry | $8,931.80 | Fort St. John | March 5, 2015 WorkSafeBC observed this firm’s workers installing roof trusses on a two-storey residential complex. One worker was standing on the top plate of an exterior wall and was not using a personal fall protection system. No other form of fall protection was in place. The worker was exposed to a risk of falling as much as 5 m (17 ft.). The firm failed to ensure that fall protection was used, a repeated and high-risk violation.

Ken Tanninen Contracting Ltd. | $2,800 | Vanderhoof | March 31, 2015 WorkSafeBC observed two of this firm’s workers on the roof of a commercial building within 0.6 m (2 ft.) of the edge, attempting to hang a tarp over the side. The workers were not using personal fall protection gear, and no other form of fall protection was in place. They were exposed to a risk of falling 3.5 m (12 ft.). Snowy conditions and the large unwieldy tarp increased the risk of slipping on the roof surface. The firm failed to ensure that its workers used fall protection, a high-risk violation.

Key West Roofing Ltd. | $2,500 | North Vancouver | February 27, 2015 This firm’s workers were shingling the roof of a two-storey house under construction. Two of the workers were wearing fall protection harnesses but the lifeline on one was fastened to a roof jack, which was an insufficient anchor point. The lifeline on the other harness was tied to that of the first. A third worker was wearing a fall protection harness but was not tied off at all, and this worker was right at the roof’s edge. No other form of fall protection was in place. All the workers were exposed to a risk of falling 5 to 6 m (16 to 20 ft.). The firm failed to ensure that fall protection was used, a repeated and high-risk violation. It also failed to provide its workers with the information, instruction, training, and supervision needed to ensure their health and safety, a repeated violation.

Lillooet Contracting Ltd. | $8,141.23 | Lillooet | March 3, 2015 WorkSafeBC inspected a jobsite where this firm had excavated part of an empty lot to install sanitary sewer service. The excavation was 3.4 m (11.5 ft.) deep but was not sloped, shored, benched, or otherwise supported as required. Evidence indicated that workers had entered the excavation, in which case they would have been exposed to a risk of serious injury or death if its walls had collapsed. The firm’s failure to meet the sloping and shoring requirements of section 20.81(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Regulation was a high-risk violation.

Matharoo Construction Ltd. | $2,500 | Osoyoos | March 9, 2015 This firm was framing a three-storey commercial building. The firm’s workers (and other workers on site) had to use ladders to access the second and third levels of the building because the firm had not constructed stairs to these levels. Further, on the second storey, three window openings were missing guardrails, exposing workers to a risk of falling 4 m (13 ft.). The firm failed to comply with the requirement to provide a stairway with at least framing, treads, and a handrail before beginning construction of the next floor. It also failed to install guardrails as required. These were repeated and high-risk violations.

Matthew Veenman | $2,500 | Maple Ridge | March 2, 2015 WorkSafeBC observed three of this firm’s workers (including a representative of the firm) installing roof trusses on a two-storey

July / August 2015 | WorkSafe Magazine

37

Penalties

(continued)

townhouse development. They were standing on wall plates and end trusses, without personal fall protection gear. No other form of fall protection was in place. The workers were exposed to a risk of falling nearly 6 m (20 ft.) to compact gravel strewn with construction debris and a 15 cm2 (6 in.2) support pillar. The firm failed to ensure that fall protection was used, a repeated violation. It also failed to provide its workers with the information, instruction, training, and supervision needed to ensure their health and safety, a repeated violation.

MDM Roofing Ltd. | $7,500 | Vancouver | February 3, 2015 WorkSafeBC observed two of this firm’s workers on the roof of a one-storey house performing re-roofing tasks. The workers were wearing fall protection harnesses but were not connected to lifelines. No other form of fall protection was in place. They were exposed to a risk of falling 4.5 to 6 m (15 to 20 ft.). The firm failed to ensure that a fall protection system was used as required, a repeated and high-risk violation. It also failed to provide its workers with the information, instruction, training, and supervision needed to ensure their safety, a repeated violation.

Min Environmental Services Ltd. / Hazardous Abatement | $10,748.85 | Burnaby | March 25, 2015 This firm was performing asbestos abatement and removal activities at the site of a pre-1990 house due to be demolished. A hazardous materials survey had identified all exterior stucco as asbestos-containing material. The firm’s workers removed stucco from the house, except around the chimney. The firm’s representative issued a clearance letter stating that all hazardous materials had been removed from the house, but an inspection by WorkSafeBC found that the stucco on the chimney contained asbestos. Had the house been demolished, workers (demolition workers, dump truck operators, and landfill employees, for example) would have been exposed to friable asbestos fibres without their knowledge. The firm’s representative issued the clearance letter despite the fact that he knew or ought to have known that asbestos-containing material remained at the site. The firm knowingly or with reckless disregard failed to ensure that its worker complied with the Workers Compensation Act and the Occupational Health and Safety Regulation — a repeated violation.

Min Environmental Services Ltd. / Hazardous Abatement | $5,374.43 | Burnaby | March 9, 2015 This firm was performing asbestos abatement and removal activities at the site of a pre-1990 house slated for demolition. WorkSafeBC found that the firm had issued a clearance letter stating that all hazardous materials had been removed from the house. In fact, asbestos-containing materials were still present, such as drywall joint compound, duct tape on heating pipes, and vinyl flooring. The firm knowingly or with reckless disregard failed to ensure that its worker complied with the Workers Compensation Act and the Occupational Health and Safety Regulation — a repeated violation.

Modern Touch Construction Ltd. | $2,500 | Delta | March 19, 2015 WorkSafeBC observed two of this firm’s workers — one a supervisor — setting roof trusses on a two-storey house under construction. They were standing on the top plates of walls and were not using personal fall protection gear. No work platforms were in place, although material for building them was available on site. The workers were exposed to a risk of falling 7.5 m (25 ft.). The firm knowingly or with reckless disregard failed to ensure that fall protection was used, a repeated and high-risk violation.

Modern Touch Construction Ltd. | $5,000 | Burnaby | March 19, 2015 Two of this firm’s workers were setting trusses on the roof of a two-storey house under construction. One (a supervisor) was wearing a fall protection harness. The other was not using personal fall protection gear and was exposed to a risk of falling 6 m (20 ft.). No other form of fall protection was in place. The firm’s failure to ensure that fall protection was used was a repeated and high-risk violation committed knowingly or with reckless disregard. Its failure to provide its worker with the information, instruction, training, and supervision needed to ensure his health and safety was a repeated violation.

Mukesh Aujla | $2,500 | Coquitlam | February 19, 2015 This firm carried out a hazardous materials survey on a pre-1990 house slated for demolition. WorkSafeBC found that the firm had collected only two samples of potential asbestos-containing materials (ACMs) from the entire house. Mastic, drywall joint compound, and roofing shingles and felt, all common ACMs, had not been sampled at all. The firm failed to conduct workplace exposure monitoring and assessment using acceptable occupational hygiene methods. This was a repeated violation.

Mukesh Aujla | $2,500 | North Vancouver | February 19, 2015 This firm issued a hazardous materials survey stating that a house due to be demolished was free of asbestos-containing materials (ACMs). WorkSafeBC found that the firm had fabricated the survey based on another survey that a laboratory had produced for an unrelated address. A representative of the firm initially said he had collected samples of potential ACMs from the house, but then admitted he had not actually done so. The firm failed to conduct workplace exposure monitoring and assessment using acceptable occupational hygiene methods. It also knowingly provided a WorkSafeBC officer with false information, contravening section 186(2)(b) of the Workers Compensation Act. These were both repeated violations.

38

July / August 2015 | WorkSafe Magazine

New Columbia Tile Roofing Ltd. | $2,500 | Vancouver | February 4, 2015 WorkSafeBC observed two of this firm’s workers performing re-roofing tasks on the steep roof of a two-storey house. The workers were not using personal fall protection gear and no other form of fall protection was in place. Further, the firm had not developed a fall protection plan as required. Workers were exposed to a risk of falling 6.5 to 10.6 m (22 to 35 ft.). The firm failed to have a written fall protection plan for work where a fall of 7.5 m (25 ft.) or more could occur. It also failed to ensure that a fall protection system was used as required. These were repeated and high-risk violations.

New Columbia Tile Roofing Ltd. | $2,500 | Vancouver | February 4, 2015 WorkSafeBC observed two of this firm’s workers performing re-roofing tasks on the steep roof of a two-storey house. The workers were not using personal fall protection gear and no other form of fall protection was in place. Further, the firm had not developed a fall protection plan as required. Workers were exposed to a risk of falling 6.5 to 10.6 m (22 to 35 ft.). The firm failed to have a written fall protection plan for work where a fall of 7.5 m (25 ft.) or more could occur. It also failed to ensure that a fall protection system was used as required. These were repeated and high-risk violations.

Newton Roofing Ltd. | $7,500 | Delta | February 26, 2015 Two of this firm’s workers were on a steep, narrow lower roof section of a two-storey house under construction. Both were wearing fall protection harnesses but neither was connected to a lifeline. No other form of fall protection was in place. They were exposed to a risk of falling 5 m (16 ft.) to a concrete stairwell. The firm’s failure to ensure that fall protection was used was a repeated and high-risk violation.

Nijjer Homes Ltd. | $9,042.65 | Burnaby | March 6, 2015 WorkSafeBC observed three of this firm’s workers on the second level of a two-storey house under construction. They were all working at the north perimeter, which had not yet been enclosed by walls. One worker was standing at the edge pulling lengths of lumber up onto it. A second was on a stepladder. The third was crouching at the edge. None of them were using personal fall protection gear and no other form of fall protection was in place. They were exposed to a risk of falling 3.4 to 4 m (11 to 14 ft.). The firm knowingly or with reckless disregard failed to ensure that fall protection was used, a repeated and high-risk violation. It also failed to provide its workers with the information, instruction, training, and supervision needed to ensure their health and safety, a repeated violation.

North Shore Home Services Ltd. | $2,500 | North Vancouver | March 30, 2015 WorkSafeBC observed this firm’s worker on the steep roof of a townhouse complex. The firm’s lone worker at the site, he was accessing the roof by a ladder, hauling up lengths of gutter measuring 2.5 to 6.5 m (8 to 22 ft.) from ground level. The worker was not using a personal fall protection system. No other form of fall protection was in place. He was exposed to a risk of falling as much as 8.3 m (27 ft.). Further, no fall protection plan was on site as required for work where a fall of 7.5 m (25 ft.) or more could occur. The firm’s failure to ensure that a fall protection system was used was a repeated and high-risk violation. Its failure to provide a fall protection plan was a repeated violation. The firm also failed to provide its workers with the instruction, training, and supervision necessary to ensure their safety at the worksite, a repeated violation. All these violations were committed knowingly or with reckless disregard.

Noura Construction Ltd. | $3,648.36 | Coquitlam | March 2, 2015 This firm was the prime contractor for a jobsite where 20 three-storey houses were being built. WorkSafeBC inspected the site and found multiple violations of safety requirements related to work at heights above 3 m (10 ft.), use of boom lifts, new worker orientations, and access to first aid. As prime contractor at a multiple-employer workplace, the firm failed to do everything reasonably practicable to establish and maintain a system to ensure compliance with the Workers Compensation Act and the Occupational Health and Safety Regulation. This was a repeated violation.

O. K. Industries Ltd. / Duncan Paving Co. | $95,193.55 | Duncan | November 26, 2014 This firm was the prime contractor for a road-building project where a certified traffic control person (TCP) was struck and killed by a reversing loaded gravel truck. The TCP was employed by a traffic control firm contracted by O. K. Industries. WorkSafeBC’s investigation found that O. K. Industries did not properly plan the work that they were doing, nor did they communicate information about worksite hazards or safety in general, and that this failure to coordinate health and safety was an underlying cause of this event. As the prime contractor at a multiple-employer workplace, the firm had failed to ensure the health and safety of other firms’ workers at the workplace. This was a repeated and high-risk violation.

Pacific Peaks Roofing B.C. Ltd. | $8,120.05 | Surrey | February 16, 2015 Four of this firm’s workers were re-roofing a one-storey house whose roof was only equipped with three anchor points. A WorkSafeBC

July / August 2015 | WorkSafe Magazine

39

Penalties

(continued)

prevention officer observed one of the workers on the roof wearing a fall protection harness but not connected to a lifeline. No other form of fall protection was in place either. The worker was exposed to a risk of falling as much as 5 m (16 ft.). The firm failed to ensure that a fall protection system was used. It also failed to provide its workers with the information, instruction, training, and supervision needed to ensure their health and safety. These were both repeated violations.

Phoenix & Ediger Vinyl Sundecks Ltd. | $13,560.70 | Richmond/Maple Ridge | December 10, 2014 At two different locations, workers of this firm worked without personal fall protection systems on balconies that lacked guardrails for part or all of their width. At one site, two young and inexperienced workers were on a third-floor balcony about 9 m (30 ft.) above the ground. At another, a worker was on a third-storey balcony 5.5 m (18 ft.) above a concrete patio. All were exposed to a risk of serious or fatal injuries in the event of a fall. The firm’s failure to ensure that fall protection was used where a fall of 3 m (10 ft.) or more could occur was a repeated and high-risk violation.

Phoenix & Ediger Vinyl Sundecks Ltd. | $13,560.70 | Richmond | January 28, 2015 At an apartment complex, two of this firm’s workers were burned while resurfacing a deck. One worker was applying adhesive to the deck, preparing it for vinyl sheeting. Curtains of plastic sheeting and the deck’s low walls restricted ventilation, trapping the adhesive’s heavier-than-air vapours near the floor of the deck. The second worker was using a hot-air blower nearby to weld vinyl that had already been laid down. The hot-air blower ignited the adhesive’s vapours. The firm’s failure to provide its workers with the information, instruction, training, and supervision needed to ensure their safety while performing this work caused or contributed to this high-risk violation.

Popular Roofing Systems Ltd. | $5,000 | New Westminster | February 20, 2015 WorkSafeBC observed this firm’s worker on the roof of a two-storey house. The worker was not using personal fall protection gear and no other form of fall protection was in place. He was exposed to a risk of falling 6.5 to 7.3 m (22 to 24 ft.). A supervisor was on the roof with the worker and fall protection gear for the worker was available on site. Nonetheless, the firm failed to ensure that fall protection was used, a repeated and high-risk violation. It also failed to provide its worker with the supervision needed to ensure his health and safety, a repeated violation.

Prime B. Customs Homes Ltd. | $1,000 | Burnaby | March 18, 2015 WorkSafeBC inspected a worksite where a three-storey house was being built. This firm was the prime contractor for the project. On June 28, 2014, WorkSafeBC ordered the firm to submit a Notice of Compliance with sections of the Workers Compensation Act and the Occupational Health and Safety Regulation dealing with its obligations as prime contractor. As of November 6, 2014, the firm had not complied with this order. The firm is being penalized for its failure to comply with an order of WorkSafeBC, a violation of section 115(1)(b) of the Act.

Professional Top Class Roofing Ltd. | $7,500 | Delta | March 6, 2015 WorkSafeBC observed three of this firm’s workers on the steep roof of a two-storey house under construction. The workers were wearing fall protection harnesses but were not attached to lifelines. No other form of fall protection was in place. They were exposed to a risk of falling 3.4 to 6 m (11 to 19 ft.). The firm knowingly or with reckless disregard failed to ensure that fall protection was used as required, a repeated and high-risk violation. It also repeatedly failed to provide its workers with the information, instruction, training, and supervision needed to ensure their health and safety.

Pro Ridge Homes Ltd. | $2,500 | Burnaby | March 26, 2015 This firm was the prime contractor for the demolition of a pre-1990 house. WorkSafeBC inspected the site. The interior of the house had already been partly demolished and was strewn with various potentially asbestos-containing materials, indicating a lack of asbestos abatement protocols at the worksite. WorkSafeBC issued a stop-work order. The firm failed to ensure that hazardous materials were safely removed before demolition began. This was a repeated violation.

Pro Ridge Homes Ltd. | $2,500 | Burnaby | March 26, 2015 This firm was the prime contractor for a site where a pre-1990 house was slated for demolition. The firm misrepresented its involvement with the site, specifically regarding high-risk asbestos removal work. In providing an officer of WorkSafeBC with false information, the firm knowingly or with reckless disregard violated section 186(2)(b) of the Workers Compensation Act. This was a repeated violation.

Pro-Seal Roofing Ltd. | $2,500 | Richmond/Surrey | March 11, 2015 During inspections at three different worksites (two in Richmond and one in Surrey), WorkSafeBC observed this firm’s workers on the moderate- to steep-slope roofs of houses under construction. The workers were not using personal fall protection systems and no

40

July / August 2015 | WorkSafe Magazine

other form of fall protection was in place. They were exposed to a risk of falling anywhere from 4 to 8 m (14 to 26 ft.). Also, at one of the jobsites workers were using nail guns but were not wearing safety glasses. The firm failed to ensure that fall protection and safety eyewear were used, both repeated and high-risk violations. It also failed to provide its workers with the information, instruction, training, and supervision needed to ensure their health and safety, a repeated violation.

Pro-Seal Roofing Ltd. | $2,500 | Richmond | March 11, 2015 This firm’s worker was working alone, roofing a two-storey house under construction. The roof lacked guardrails and the worker was not using personal fall protection gear. He was exposed to a risk of falling 6.4 m (21 ft.). The firm failed to ensure that fall protection was used, a repeated and high-risk violation committed knowingly or with reckless disregard. It also failed to provide its workers with the information, instruction, training, and supervision needed to ensure their health and safety, a repeated violation.

P.T. Framing Ltd. | $28,753.95 | Mission | March 23, 2015 WorkSafeBC observed this firm’s worker installing guardrails on a job-built work platform outside a two-storey house under construction. The worker was not using personal fall protection gear and no other form of fall protection was in place. He was exposed to a risk of falling 4.5 m (15 ft.) to protruding joist ends and compact ground strewn with construction materials. The firm’s failure to ensure that fall protection was used was a repeated and high-risk violation.

PTL Contracting Ltd. | $6,045.20 | Burnaby | March 5, 2015 This firm allowed its worker to enter a 2.75 m (9 ft.) deep trench that was not sloped, shored, benched, or otherwise supported as required. The worker was exposed to a risk of serious injury or death if the trench had collapsed. The firm’s failure to meet the sloping and shoring requirements of section 20.81(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Regulation was a repeated and high-risk violation. The firm also violated section 115(1)(a) of the Workers Compensation Act by failing to ensure the health and safety of its own and other workers at the jobsite.

Quorum Construction (BC) Ltd. | $70,345.27 | Vancouver | February 10, 2015 On this firm’s large downtown building site, it was not possible to keep the required minimum distance from energized high-voltage conductors so the firm had the utility company set up guarding around them. When guarding is used around conductors, no equipment or unqualified persons may touch the guarding. Despite this, WorkSafeBC’s officer found a work platform butted up against it. The three workers who set up the platform as well as workers subsequently in contact with or conducting work on the platform, and the operators of any cranes in the area or supplying materials to workers on the platform, were exposed to a risk of serious injuries, such as burns or limb amputations, or death. The firm’s failure to follow safety requirements for working near energized high-voltage electrical conductors was a high-risk violation.

Robert Allen Smith / RASmithRoofing | $2,500 | North Vancouver | February 5, 2015 Three of this firm’s workers were re-shingling the roof of a two-storey house. None was using a personal fall protection system and no other form of fall protection was in place. They were exposed to a risk of falling as much as 10.6 m (35 ft.) to grade, where concrete, fences, and rock walls increased the likelihood of serious injuries or death in the event of a fall. Some fall protection gear was available on site, but the firm had failed to instruct the new, young worker in its use. Likewise, the two workers who identified themselves as supervisors had received no training for that role. The firm failed to provide its workers with the information, instruction, training, and supervision needed to ensure their health and safety. The firm also failed to ensure that a fall protection system was used where a fall of 3 m (10 ft.) could occur; to ensure that its workers were instructed in the fall protection system for the area and the procedures to be followed; and to provide a written fall protection plan for work where a fall of 7.5 m (25 ft.) or more could occur. The fall protection violations were all high-risk.

Robert Shawn Robertson | $2,500 | Coquitlam | February 19, 2015 WorkSafeBC observed three of this firm’s workers, including a representative of the firm, on the steep roof of a house that the firm had been subcontracted to re-roof. None of the workers were using personal fall protection gear and no other form of fall protection was in place. The workers were exposed to a risk of falling 6 m (20 ft.) to concrete surfaces and roofing debris. The firm knowingly or with reckless disregard failed to ensure that its workers used fall protection on a roof with an 8:12 or greater slope, a repeated and high-risk violation.

Rokstad Power Corporation | $75,000 | Agassiz | February 17, 2015 This firm was subcontracted to assemble and install towers for power transmission lines in a remote area accessible only by a forest service road. At one point during the work, heavy rains caused a bridge to wash out and triggered a landslide that crossed the road, so the prime contractor shut down the worksite. The following week, when the worksite was reopened, an officer of WorkSafeBC travelled to the site to conduct an inspection. Despite the recent weather conditions, the firm’s supervisor on site at the time of the inspection had not been informed about hazards posed by heavy rainfall, instructed and trained in procedures for determining when rainfall poses July / August 2015 | WorkSafe Magazine

41

Penalties

(continued)

an imminent hazard, or instructed in a protocol for shutting down the worksite when imminent hazards existed. As a result, workers at or accessing the site were exposed to risks such as being swept over a road bank, struck by falling debris such as large boulders and trees, or engulfed by flowing mud and debris, any of which would likely cause serious injury or death. The firm’s failure to provide the information, instruction, training, and supervision needed to ensure its workers’ health and safety was a repeated, high-risk violation.

Roman Vido & Robert Vido / Vector Construction | $2,500 | Coquitlam | February 19, 2015 WorkSafeBC observed two of this firm’s workers clearing snow from the top of the second level of a three-storey townhouse complex under construction. They were both young workers and neither was wearing personal fall protection equipment. Most of the work area was without guardrails. Slippery conditions on the roof increased the workers’ risk of falling 6 m (20 ft.) to frozen ground, crushed gravel, a concrete sidewalk and concrete footings, PVC pipe upstands, and construction materials and debris. The firm failed to ensure that adequate guardrails were used, a high-risk violation. It also failed to ensure that fall protection was used — another high-risk violation — and to provide its workers with the training and supervision needed to ensure their health and safety while performing their work. The lack of guardrails and of training and supervision were both repeated violations.

Royal Golden Construction Group Limited | $2,500 | Richmond | March 10, 2015 This firm was performing asbestos abatement and removal activities at the site of a pre-1990 house prior to demolition. WorkSafeBC inspected the site and found that the firm had issued a clearance letter stating that all the hazardous material had been removed from the house when asbestos-containing materials were still present. The officer issued a stop-work order for the site. A follow-up inspection found that the firm had allowed the house to be demolished before complying with the requirements set out in the stop-work order. The firm is being penalized for its failure to comply with an order of WorkSafeBC, a violation of section 115(1)(b) of the Workers Compensation Act.

Ryder Roofing Ltd. | $93,558.96 | Kelowna | March 6, 2015 WorkSafeBC observed this firm’s worker on the roof of a one-storey house. The worker was not using personal fall protection gear; no other form of fall protection was in place either. He was exposed to a risk of falling 4.5 to 5.5 m (15 to 18 ft.) to a concrete sidewalk and driveway. The firm’s failure to ensure that fall protection was used was a repeated and high-risk violation.

Safeline Roofing Ltd. | $2,500 | Richmond | February 26, 2015 WorkSafeBC observed this firm’s worker on the roof of a two-storey house under construction. The worker was wearing a fall protection harness, but the harness’s lifeline was not attached to an anchor. No other form of fall protection was in place. The worker was exposed to a risk of falling 5 to 7.5 m (17 to 25 ft.). The firm failed to ensure that fall protection was used, a repeated and high-risk violation. It also failed to provide its worker with the information, instruction, training, and supervision needed to ensure his health and safety, a repeated violation.

Samra Bros. Roofing Ltd. | $7,506.13 | Surrey | March 12, 2015 Four of this firm’s workers were re-roofing a two-storey house. They were wearing fall protection harnesses but were not connected to lifelines. No other form of fall protection was in place. The workers were exposed to a risk of falling as much as 6.5 m (22 ft.) to a concrete driveway and a metal disposal bin. Because the disposal bin was full, the workers were piling old roofing material on the roof as they removed it, which increased the likelihood of slipping or tripping. The firm failed to ensure that fall protection was used, a repeated and high-risk violation. It also repeatedly failed to provide its workers with the training and supervision needed to ensure their health and safety.

Satnam Construction Ltd. | $16,349.60 | Richmond | February 5, 2015 WorkSafeBC observed two of this firm’s workers on the moderate to steep roof of a two-storey house under construction. They were standing among the trusses and on the plywood sheathing, wearing fall protection harnesses, but were not attached to anchors (even though anchors were available on the roof). No other form of fall protection was in place. The workers were exposed to a risk of falling as much as 8.5 m (28 ft.). The firm failed to ensure that a fall protection system was used as required, a repeated and high-risk violation. It also failed to provide its workers with the information, instruction, training, and supervision needed to ensure their health and safety, a repeated violation.

Sawchuk Developments Co. Ltd. | $64,812.15 | Kelowna | March 24, 2015 This firm’s workers were on the flat roof of a commercial building, installing steel studs for a parapet wall that protruded from the roof. The parapet wall was close to the roof’s edge. Guardrails had not been installed. The firm had set up a control zone at the edge of the roof, consisting of cones and caution tape, but it was inadequate. WorkSafeBC observed one of the workers, who was not using personal fall protection gear, cross into the zone within 1.2 m (4 ft.) of the roof’s edge. This worker was exposed to a risk of falling 6.5 m (21.5 ft.). WorkSafeBC also observed three workers without fall protection access a lower section of the roof and climb down a ladder

42

July / August 2015 | WorkSafe Magazine

to reach the ground, exposing them to a risk of falling as much as 5 m (16 ft.). The firm failed to ensure that fall protection was used, a repeated and high-risk violation committed knowingly or with reckless disregard. It also failed to provide its workers with the information, instruction, training, and supervision needed to ensure their health and safety, a repeated violation.

Sea to Sky Precision Construction Ltd. | $3,171.48 | Coquitlam | February 3, 2015 WorkSafeBC observed two of this firm’s workers on the second level of a three-storey house under construction. They were walking on open joists to install fascia above the garage. Neither worker was wearing a fall protection harness and no other form of fall protection was in place. The workers were exposed to a risk of falling 3.4 m (11 ft.). Electrical cords and pneumatic air lines among the joists increased the likelihood of tripping and falling. The firm’s failure to ensure that a fall protection system was used as required was a repeated and high-risk violation.

SKR Contracting Solutions Incorporated | $3,000 | Richmond | February 25, 2015 This firm was hired by a homeowner to oversee asbestos removal from a pre-1990 house slated for demolition. Relying on a flawed hazardous materials survey of the house performed by another firm, this firm issued a clearance letter for the property stating that all asbestos-containing materials (ACMs) had been removed. WorkSafeBC’s inspection of the property found ACMs still present in duct tape and vinyl floor tile. The firm repeatedly failed to ensure that its workers complied with requirements to take reasonable care to protect the health and safety of workers and others who could be affected by their workplace actions or omissions.

SPS Roofing Ltd. | $5,000 | Vancouver | December 5, 2014 At two separate new-home construction sites, WorkSafeBC observed this firm’s workers performing roofing activities without any fall protection system in place. On both sites, workers were positioned at the extreme edge of the roof and were exposed to a risk of falling at least 7 m (23 ft.). The firm’s failure to ensure that a fall protection system was used at heights over 3 m (10 ft.) was a repeated and high-risk violation. The firm also repeatedly failed to provide its workers with the supervision needed to ensure their safety.

S.S Roofing Ltd. | $15,000 | Abbotsford | February 5, 2015 WorkSafeBC observed two of this firm’s workers re-roofing a house. They were not using personal fall protection gear and no other form of fall protection was in place, so they were exposed to a risk of falling 5 to 6 m (17 to 20 ft.). A wooden fence below increased the likelihood of serious injury or death in the event of a fall. The firm failed to ensure that a fall protection system was used as required, a repeated and high-risk violation.

Star Framing Ltd. | $4,549.30 | North Delta | February 25, 2015 WorkSafeBC observed seven of this firm’s workers on the open second level of a two-storey house under construction. They were carrying lumber and sheets of plywood and bending over to use nail guns, often within 2 m (6 ft.) or less of the roof’s edge. No guardrails were in place and none of the workers were using personal fall protection gear. They were exposed to a risk of falling 3.4 to 6 m (11 to 20 ft.) to compact rock-strewn soil and lumber debris. The firm’s failure to ensure that fall protection was used was a repeated and high-risk violation.

Sunmark Developments Ltd. | $1,045.97 | Surrey | April 1, 2015 WorkSafeBC inspected a worksite where a townhouse development was being built. This firm was the prime contractor for the project. On October 27, 2014, WorkSafeBC ordered the firm to submit a Notice of Compliance with sections of the Workers Compensation Act and the Occupational Health and Safety Regulation dealing with its obligations as prime contractor. As of January 6, 2015, the firm had not complied with this order. The firm is being penalized for its failure to comply with an order of WorkSafeBC, a violation of section 115(1)(b) of the Act. The firm also repeatedly failed to do everything reasonably practicable to establish and maintain a system for ensuring compliance with the Act and the Regulation.

Sunny Stucco Ltd. | $1,978.92 | Vancouver | March 17, 2015 On September 5, 2014, WorkSafeBC ordered this firm to submit a Notice of Compliance with sections of the Occupational Health and Safety Regulation and the Workers Compensation Act dealing with fall protection and training. The firm had until September 19 to do so. As of December 2, 2014, the firm had not complied with the order. The firm is being penalized for its failure to comply within a reasonable time with an order of WorkSafeBC, a violation of section 115(1)(b) of the Act.

Swift Demolition Services 2013 Ltd. | $2,500 | Vancouver | March 10, 2015 WorkSafeBC inspected a worksite where a pre-1990 house was slated for demolition. This firm’s worker was on the premises. The officer found that the worker had not been trained in safe asbestos removal procedures. The firm allowed him to work without being clean-shaven, which meant that his respirator might not have been properly sealed to his face. As well, a pre-demolition hazardous materials survey for the house was not available at the worksite. The firm was ordered to provide a Notice of Compliance with asbestos

July / August 2015 | WorkSafe Magazine

43

Penalties

(continued)

removal requirements. Despite being given numerous extensions, six months later the firm still had not complied. The firm knowingly or with reckless disregard failed to comply with a WorkSafeBC order within a reasonable time, a violation of section 115(1)(b) of the Workers Compensation Act.

Teale’s Water Utility Services Ltd. | $6,633.93 | Kelowna | March 4, 2015 This firm allowed its worker to enter a 2 m (6 ft.) deep trench that was not sloped, shored, benched, or otherwise supported as required. The worker was exposed to a risk of serious injury or death if the trench had collapsed. The trench had been created using hydro-dredging, which left its sides wet, increasing the risk of collapse. The firm’s failure to meet the sloping and shoring requirements of section 20.81(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Regulation was a repeated and high-risk violation.

Thind Properties Ltd. | $21,746.51 | Vancouver | March 13, 2015 WorkSafeBC inspected a construction site where this firm was the prime contractor and found multiple violations of safety requirements, including those related to electrical wiring, fall protection, floor openings and confined spaces, and pedestrian and equipment traffic. The firm repeatedly failed to ensure that the activities of employers, workers, and other persons at its workplace relating to occupational health and safety were coordinated. It also repeatedly failed to do everything reasonably practicable to establish and maintain a system for ensuring compliance with the Workers Compensation Act and the Occupational Health and Safety Regulation.

Thind Properties Ltd. |$56,334.86 | Abbotsford | March 13, 2015 This firm was the prime contractor for the construction of three commercial-residential buildings. The firm’s violations of the safety requirements for traffic control at the worksite put its own and other workers at high risk of serious injury or death: it allowed its traffic control persons (TCPs) to use a lane closure set-up inappropriate to visibility and traffic conditions. As a result, a passing vehicle struck one of the TCPs, who sustained serious injuries. WorkSafeBC’s investigation found that the firm failed to provide its TCPs with an effective means of communication when they were not visible to each other, a high-risk violation. The firm repeatedly failed to ensure that the activities of employers, workers, and other persons at its workplace relating to occupational health and safety were coordinated. The firm also repeatedly failed to do everything reasonably practicable to establish and maintain a system for ensuring compliance with the Workers Compensation Act and the Occupational Health and Safety Regulation.

Traffic King Enterprises Ltd. | $27,025.96 | Abbotsford | February 11, 2015 This firm was retained by the prime contractor of a building construction project to provide traffic control services. The firm failed to arrange its worksite, which was on a busy public road, so that it met the requirements of the Ministry of Transportation’s Traffic Control Manual for Work on Roadways. As a result the firm put its own and other workers at high risk of serious injury or death. This was a repeated and high-risk violation.

Tricity 1313 Enterprises Ltd. | $2,000 | Vancouver | March 2, 2015 This firm conducted a hazardous materials survey of a house due for demolition. WorkSafeBC inspected the property and reviewed the hazmat survey. The firm had not collected adequate samples of various materials likely to contain asbestos, and in some cases had not collected any samples of such materials (e.g., duct tape on heating pipes, drywall joint compound, exterior stucco, and floor, wall, and ceiling tile). The firm failed to monitor and assess workplace exposure to hazardous substances using methods acceptable to WorkSafeBC, a repeated violation.

Triple A Roofing Ltd. | $15,000 | North Vancouver | March 2, 2015 WorkSafeBC observed two of this firm’s workers re-roofing a house. Some parts of the roof had a steep slope. Neither worker was using personal fall protection gear, although two sets of it were on the roof, and no other form of fall protection was in place. The workers were exposed to a risk of falling as much as 6 m (19 ft.). A week later, the officer revisited the jobsite. Again, the two workers were on the roof without fall protection of any kind, this time exposed to a risk of falling 3.4 to 4 m (11 to 14 ft.). The firm knowingly or with reckless disregard failed to ensure that fall protection was used, a repeated and high-risk violation. It also failed to provide its workers with the information, instruction, training, and supervision needed to ensure their health and safety, a repeated violation.

Vanco Roofing Ltd. | $7,500 | Richmond | February 18, 2015 WorkSafeBC observed two of this firm’s workers standing on the roof of a two-storey house, one of them close to the edge, using shovels to remove old roofing material. Both were wearing fall protection harnesses but neither was connected to a lifeline and no other form of fall protection was in place. The workers were exposed to a risk of falling 5 to 6.4 m (17 to 21 ft.). Hazards below included a balcony with a metal railing, a metal disposal bin, a concrete sidewalk and driveway, a wooden fence, and a vehicle. The firm’s failure to ensure that a fall protection system was used was a repeated and high-risk violation. The firm also failed to provide its workers with effective supervision to ensure their safety in carrying out their work, a repeated violation.

44

July / August 2015 | WorkSafe Magazine

V-Line Construction (1992) Ltd. | $13,598.29 | Blue River | March 13, 2015 This firm allowed its worker to enter a 2.5 m (8 ft. 4 in.) deep trench that was not sloped, shored, benched, or otherwise supported as required. The worker was exposed to a risk of serious injury or death if the trench had collapsed. The firm’s failure to meet the sloping and shoring requirements of section 20.81(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Regulation was a repeated and high-risk violation.

Waraich Roofing Ltd. | $7,500 | Burnaby | December 22, 2014 WorkSafeBC inspected this firm’s worksite, a new three-storey house, and observed two workers — one of them the supervisor — on the roof. They were wearing personal fall protection harnesses but were not connected to lifelines. No other fall protection system was in place, leaving the workers exposed to a fall hazard of about 7 m (23 ft.). The firm failed to ensure that a fall protection system was used where required and to provide its workers with effective supervision to ensure their safety in carrying out their work. Both were repeated and high-risk violations.

West Shore Roofing Ltd. | $2,500 | Coquitlam | February 24, 2015 WorkSafeBC observed this firm’s worker on the steep roof of a three-storey townhouse development under construction. The worker was not using a personal fall protection system, nor was any other form of fall protection in place. He was exposed to a risk of falling 9 m (30 ft.). Further, no written fall protection plan was in place, as required for work at 7.5 m (25 ft.) or more. The firm’s failures to ensure that fall protection was used and to provide a written fall protection plan were repeated and high-risk violations.

Williams Roofing & Drainage Ltd. | $13,132.55 | 100 Mile House | February 26, 2015 WorkSafeBC observed this firm’s worker on the roof of a commercial building distributing bundles of shingles that a truck-mounted crane had delivered. Guardrails had not been installed on the roof, nor was any other fall protection system in place. The worker was wearing a fall protection harness but was not attached to a lifeline. He was exposed to a risk of falling as much as 6 m (20 ft.) to an asphalt parking lot. The risk of falling was increased because he could have tripped on the stacks of shingles or been struck by the crane’s forks. The firm failed to ensure that fall protection was used, a repeated and high-risk violation.

Williams Roofing & Drainage Ltd. | $19,698.83 | North Vancouver | March 30, 2015 This firm’s worker was on the flat roof of a single-storey house dismantling a chimney when the roof decking he was standing on gave way and he fell 3 m (10 ft.) to the ground, sustaining head injuries. The roof lacked guardrails, and the worker had not been using personal fall protection gear. The firm failed to ensure that fall protection was used, a repeated and high-risk violation.

Worman Resources Inc. | $2,575.19 | Kelowna | December 16, 2014 This firm was the prime contractor for the demolition of four 1940s-era houses on adjoining lots. A WorkSafeBC officer inspected the site after the houses had been demolished and found an excavator operator preparing to leave. No hazardous materials survey was available on site as required. The hazmat survey WorkSafeBC eventually obtained from the firm showed that the firm had submitted for lab analysis only three samples of substances likely to contain asbestos (such as roofing materials, vinyl flooring, and pipe insulation) from all four houses. The firm failed to do everything reasonably practicable to ensure compliance with the Workers Compensation Act and the Occupational Health and Safety Regulation, as well as to co-ordinate the activities of employers, workers, and others at the worksite related to health and safety.

Worman Resources Inc. | $6,437.98 | Kelowna | December 16, 2014 WorkSafeBC found multiple violations of safety requirements when it inspected a commercial construction worksite where this firm was the prime contractor. A worker cleaning up debris was not wearing adequate work clothes, and another worker using a cut-off saw did not have safety eyewear. Unsecured vertically stacked lifts of drywall compromised safe movement around the worksite. Workers without the required fall protection were exposed to a risk of falling 3.5 m (12 ft.) onto scaffolding or 12 m (40 ft.) to grade and the subcontractor employing them had submitted an inadequate written fall protection plan to the firm. These violations showed that as the prime contractor at a multiple-employer workplace, the firm had failed to ensure that hazards were addressed throughout the duration of work at its site. It had also failed to do everything reasonably practicable to establish and maintain a system to ensure compliance with the Workers Compensation Act and the Occupational Health and Safety Regulation. This penalty was based on these repeated and high-risk violations.

Yau Mui Chung / NF Construction | $2,500 | Vancouver | January 28, 2015 WorkSafeBC observed three of this firm’s workers on top of a two-storey house under construction. Two workers were standing on exterior wall plates, neither of them using personal fall protection gear. The third worker was perched on a roof truss above them and also lacked personal fall protection gear. No other form of fall protection was in place. The workers were exposed to a risk of falling 4.5 to 7 m (15 to 23 ft.). The firm failed to ensure that a fall protection system was used as required, a repeated and high-risk violation. It also failed to provide its workers with the information, instruction, training, and supervision needed to ensure their health and safety, a repeated violation. July / August 2015 | WorkSafe Magazine

45

Penalties

(continued)

Yongfeng Enterprises Inc. | $1,608.79 | Burnaby | April 1, 2015 WorkSafeBC inspected a multiple-employer construction site where this firm was the prime contractor and found numerous violations of safety requirements, including those related to fall protection, safety headgear and eye protection, excavations, and traffic control. The firm repeatedly failed to do everything reasonably practicable to establish and maintain a system for ensuring compliance with the Workers Compensation Act and the Occupational Health and Safety Regulation.

Yongfeng Enterprises Inc. | $4,021.98 | Burnaby | February 18, 2015 WorkSafeBC observed three of this firm’s workers sheathing the roof of a two-storey house under construction. None of the workers were using personal fall protection gear and no other form of fall protection was in place. The workers were exposed to a risk of falling about 6 m (20 ft.). Window and door openings on the second floor of the house lacked the required guardrails. The firm’s failure to ensure that fall protection was used was a repeated and high-risk violation, as was its failure to ensure that guardrails were used.

Manufacturing D & D Glazing Inc. | $2,815.17 | West Vancouver | March 31, 2015 This firm was subcontracted to install skylights above an indoor pool at a house undergoing renovations. To get at the work area, the firm’s worker was lying on a work platform atop manufactured scaffolding set up over the pool by another firm. When he started to get up, one end of the platform was dislodged. The worker fell about 6 m (20 ft.) into the empty pool and was injured. WorkSafeBC’s investigation found that the work platform had not been constructed to safety standards and lacked guardrails. The worker had not been using personal fall protection gear. The firm’s failure to ensure that fall protection was used was a repeated and high-risk violation.

K-C Recycling Ltd. | $33,494.46 | Trail | February 3, 2015 This firm operates an automotive battery recycling plant. The firm directed two of its workers to go onto the flat roof of a building at the plant to replace damaged corrugated metal panels. The workers removed the panels, creating an opening in the roof concealed by a layer of insulation underneath. One worker fell through the opening; his co-worker tried to catch him and also fell. They landed on a concrete floor 6.5 m (22 ft.) below. Both sustained serious injuries. WorkSafeBC’s investigation found that the firm did not conduct a risk assessment or develop a work plan for this high-risk activity. Neither worker was given personal fall protection gear, nor were roofing tasks part of their regular job duties. The firm failed to provide its workers with the information, instruction, training, and supervision needed to ensure their health and safety, a repeated violation. The firm also knowingly or with reckless disregard neglected to ensure that a fall protection system was used, a high-risk violation.

Patara Framing Enterprises Ltd. | $2,500 | Richmond | February 18, 2015 Two of this firm’s workers were framing the moderate to extremely steep roof of a two-storey house under construction. They were not using personal fall protection systems and no other form of fall protection was in place, exposing them to a risk of falling 6.4 to 9 m (21 to 29 ft.). The firm failed to ensure that a fall protection system was used, a repeated and high-risk violation. The firm also failed repeatedly to provide its workers with the training and supervision needed to ensure their health and safety.

Urban Metals Ltd. | $2,000 | Port Coquitlam | February 16, 2015 This firm manufactures metal fences and railings. In late 2013 and early 2014 WorkSafeBC ordered the firm to fit-test workers required to wear respirators, provide a local exhaust ventilation system, and obtain material safety data sheets for controlled products. By October 2014 the firm had failed to comply. The firm is being penalized for its failure to comply with WorkSafeBC orders, a violation of section 115(1)(b) of the Workers Compensation Act. The firm is also being penalized for repeatedly failing to equip hand-held grinders with protective hoods.

Primary Resources 562712 B.C. Ltd | $25,125.15 | Campbell River | March 24, 2015 This firm was the prime contractor for a remote worksite where log-loading activities were taking place. Another firm’s worker was operating a log loader owned by this firm when its cab tilted forward suddenly. The worker was thrown against the windshield of the cab and sustained serious injuries. WorkSafeBC’s investigation found that the firm had failed to ensure that modifications to the equipment made during repairs were in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions. This was a high-risk violation indicating that the firm failed to ensure the safety of its own and other workers at the site. As well, the firm did not ensure that the workers who repaired the loader were properly instructed or supervised. This was a violation of the requirement to provide workers with the information, instruction, training, and supervision needed to ensure their own and other workers’ health and safety.

46

July / August 2015 | WorkSafe Magazine

Adams-Stewart Forest Products Ltd. | $2,500 | Port Clements | December 10, 2014 This firm’s worker was operating a log loader, helping a truck driver load logs onto his truck. The log loader was positioned at the rear of the truck. The boom of the loader contacted the logs already on the truck. Two logs fell off the truck, and at least one of them struck the truck driver, causing fatal injuries. WorkSafeBC’s investigation found that the firm failed to provide its workers with the information, instruction, training, and supervision needed to ensure their health and safety. This was a high-risk violation.

CGG Services (Canada) Inc. / CGGVeritas Canada Land Acquisition | $47,218.07 | Fort Nelson | April 2, 2015 This firm was the prime contractor for a multi-employer seismic operation in a remote area. The firm subcontracted tree-falling duties at the worksite to another firm. The subcontracted firm’s worker (a certified faller) was falling a tree when a chain reaction occurred, causing a secondary tree to fall in an unintended direction and strike him. He sustained serious injuries. CGG Services had supervisor-trainers on site for fallers, but WorkSafeBC’s investigation found that their responsibilities were not clearly defined and that their site inspections were inadequate for ensuring safe work practices around tree falling. The firm failed to ensure the health and safety of workers at its worksite. This was a repeated and high-risk violation.

Coles Marine Diesel Repair Ltd. | $10,654.20 | Campbell River | March 24, 2015 This firm’s worker was operating a log loader at an isolated log dump when its cab tilted forward suddenly. The worker was thrown against the windshield of the cab and sustained serious injuries. WorkSafeBC’s investigation found that modifications made to the loader during repairs contributed to the cab tipping forward. The firm failed to ensure that each piece of equipment in its workplace was capable of safely performing the functions it was used for. This was a high-risk violation. The firm also failed to ensure the health and safety of its own workers and other workers at the site.

D.W. Thomas Holdings Inc. | $2,500 | Queen Charlotte | March 4, 2015 This firm was responsible for diving operations on a vessel when a commercial seafood harvest diver died. The diver had been coming to the surface when an unknown event caused him to rapidly descend; he was recovered but could not be revived. WorkSafeBC’s investigation determined that violations of multiple safety regulations contributed to this incident. The firm failed to evaluate the hazards involved in diving operations and to provide the information, instruction, and supervision needed to ensure workers’ health and safety. These were high-risk violations committed knowingly or with reckless disregard.

Service Sector Brick Environmental Consulting Ltd. | $1,000 | Richmond | February 3, 2015 The owner of a house had hired Brick Environmental Consulting to conduct a pre-demolition hazardous materials survey. An officer of WorkSafeBC reviewed the hazmat report and found that too few samples of textured ceiling material had been taken and tested. (At least three samples of each type of surfacing materials, such as textured coatings, should be collected and tested to identify any asbestos.) The firm’s failure to conduct workplace monitoring and assessment using accepted occupational hygiene methods was a repeated violation that potentially exposed workers and others to asbestos, a known carcinogen.

Brick Environmental Consulting Ltd. | $1,000 | Richmond | February 3, 2015 WorkSafeBC’s officers inspected a worksite where a house 50-to-60 years old was being demolished. They found that the hazardous materials survey of the site prepared by Brick Environmental Consulting was deficient. A single sample of textured ceiling coating had been taken and tested, and based on this sample, the report stated that the textured coating was free of asbestos. Conclusive testing requires a minimum of three samples of such materials. The firm’s failure to conduct workplace monitoring and assessment using occupational hygiene methods acceptable to WorkSafeBC was a repeated violation.

ESS Environmental Ltd. | $1,000 | Richmond/North Vancouver/Coquitlam | February 19, 2015 This employer failed to submit within a reasonable time adequate Notices of Compliance with WorkSafeBC orders triggered by pre-demolition hazardous materials surveys it conducted at three worksites in the Lower Mainland. This was a repeated violation.

ESS Environmental Ltd. | $1,000 | Richmond/Vancouver | February 19, 2015 This firm produced pre-demolition hazardous materials surveys on two pre-1990 houses that missed numerous potentially asbestos-containing materials (ACMs), including window glazing putty, textured wall coatings, and vinyl sheet flooring. WorkSafeBC hired third parties to assess the houses for hazardous materials. The third-party surveys confirmed the presence of ACMs not detected by this firm’s assessments. In both cases the firm failed to conduct workplace exposure monitoring and assessment using acceptable occupational hygiene methods, a repeated violation.

July / August 2015 | WorkSafe Magazine

47

Penalties

(continued)

ESS Environmental Ltd. | $1,000 | Burnaby | February 19, 2015 WorkSafeBC inspected a pre-1990 house slated for demolition. The interior of the house had already been partly demolished and was littered with piles of potentially asbestos-containing materials (ACMs). This firm had conducted a hazardous materials survey on the house that missed numerous potential ACMs, including textured ceiling material and vinyl floor tiles. WorkSafeBC hired a third party to assess the house for hazardous materials; the third-party survey confirmed the presence of various ACMs. The firm failed to conduct workplace exposure monitoring and assessment using acceptable occupational hygiene methods. This was a repeated violation.

Modern Diesel Truck & Trailer Repair Ltd. | $5,531 | Surrey | March 26, 2015 This firm’s worker sustained fatal injuries when the tandem-axle truck tractor he was working underneath moved forward unexpectedly. The worker beneath the truck had asked a co-worker to enter the vehicle to release the brakes. To do so, the co-worker had to start the truck. The workers did not realize that the position of the inter-axle differential would cause the truck to move forward when it was started. WorkSafeBC’s investigation found that the firm failed to provide its workers with the information, instruction, training, and supervision needed to ensure their health and safety, specifically resulting in unsafe work practices relating to unattended mobile equipment and energy transmission. These were high-risk violations.

Overseas Autobody (1989) Inc. | $20,558.87 | Surrey | December 4, 2014 WorkSafeBC inspected this firm’s autobody shop and found that its workers were not equipped with supplied-air respirators as required when exposed to airborne chemicals involving sensitizing agents. The firm’s failure to provide its workers with acceptable respirators was a repeated and high-risk violation.

Williams Lake Rental Management Ltd. | $1,000 | Williams Lake | March 16, 2015 This firm operates two rental apartment buildings constructed before 1990. A WorkSafeBC inspection found that in allowing renovation work to be performed on its property, the firm contravened requirements related to asbestos abatement. Before renovation work began, the firm should have had a qualified person inspect the premises to identify hazardous materials, prepare an inventory of all asbestos-containing materials (ACMs), and perform a risk assessment on the ACMs identified in the inventory. Its failure to do so risked exposing workers to asbestos fibres, increasing their risk of serious illness and death.

W

Did you know? All workers in B.C. have the right to refuse unsafe work.

Marketplace directory

48

July / August 2015 | WorkSafe Magazine

UBSafe inc.

Penalties, claim costs and downtime can be disruptive and costly for your business – contact us for a free consultation

Your safeguarding experts – from start to completion [email protected] www.ubsafe.ca 778.847.4047

Marketplace directory (continued)

A New Look For A Trusted Advisor From Pacific Environmental to TOTAL SAFETY

The Early Years

Pacific Environmental Consulting becomes Pacific EHS

One Brand to Unite Us All

1995-2011

2012

2014

PacificEHS.TotalSafety.com

6 0 4. 2 9 2 .4 7 0 0

IMPROVE SAFETY AND SAVE MONEY We help you grow your business with best in class safety products and services tailored to your needs WWW.TREENSAFETY.COM | 604.253.4588 | 1.800.665.1564

10% OFF YOUR FIRST ORDER PROMO CODE #WS10 - EXPIRES AUGUST 31, 2015

July / August 2015 | WorkSafe Magazine

49

You’ve got the training, now get the equipment. EXC

A full range of health and safety kits and equipment for your workplace. E E DS

Both WorkSafeBC and Federal requirements

OFA Level 1-3 First Aid Kits Workplace Emergency Preparedness Kits

Automated External Defibrillators (AEDs)

Includes FREE CPR training for up to 2 people. (depending on model purchased)

Available at your local branch, online at shopsafetyproducts.ca or call Customer Service at 1.866.321.2651