HSE Manager

Introduction

Until December 2015, Alberta was the only province in Canada to provide farmers with exemption towards the health and safety legislation and its enforcement [1]. Prior to this date, OH&S laws in Alberta did not apply to farms, officers were not allowed to enter farm premises, and fines or statutory prosecution was not administered in the event of occupational injuries to agricultural workers.  This affected approximately 43,000 farms; of which, saw an average of 18 people die and 450 hospitalizations each yea [2]. When Alberta elected its first ever NDP premiere in October 2014, they elected a government that was focused on protecting vulnerable workers [3]. This is the first left-leaning government in Alberta since 1970 [4]. Suffice to say, it would only take one tragedy for this new government to establish laws to include farms into the Alberta OH&S Act, Regulation and Code. This tragedy, unfortunately, was the death of three young girls on a family farm.

Withrow Tragedy

           On October 13th, 2015, three sisters died from asphyxiation when engulfed by grain while they were playing the back of the truck bed while it was being loaded with canola seed [5]. The fatalities took place at dinner time in Withrow Alberta, a small hamlet in a County with less than 12,000 residents [6]. The details of the accident have not been released due to the fact that it did not receive an inquiry under the Alberta Fatality Inquiries Act. The Justice and Solicitor General typical inquires fatalities of children under government care, accidents that are occupational, or accidents of patients under the care of a health professional, none of which applied to these children [7]. If trying to imagine the details, common practice is to have a truck travel alongside a combine during the harvest, or in the case of one person working the task, have the combine store some of the grains during harvest and then pour it into a nearby parked trailer or truck. It’s likely the latter scenario took place and the children were playing in the parked truck bed while the combine operator was unaware of them when loading the seed. The children could not escape the danger given that canola seed is oily and the children were small enough to be engulfed quickly.

           This event made widespread news and struck the hearts of parents given that two of the girls were 11-year-old twins, while the oldest sister was only 13 years old [8]. The Premier of Alberta was overcome with emotion when addressing the media, while the minister of agriculture and other officials also released a statement [9]. Two major news outlets in Toronto wrote biographies on the three sisters, despite these news outlets being 3500 kilometers from the small town where the tragedy took place [10]. So much media surrounded this accident that a local neighbor to the victims wrote an article in the news asking the public to stop posting judgment online towards the parents of the diseased children [11].

Impact of Bill 6

The government reacted to the incident by introducing a Bill called Enhanced Protection for Farm and Ranch Workers Act on November 17th 2015, only 36 days following the Withrow Tragedy [12]. Bill 6 underwent a few days debate and suffered from a large number of farming protesters rallying in front of the legislature, but nevertheless entered into Royal Assent [13]. Originally the Bill included safety and injury compensation for family members working on farms, however, given the protests and the urge for the new government to prove itself to voters, the Agricultural Minister issued an apology for expediting the bill without due process and revised the Bill to exempt family farms [14]. The government then held consultations with farmers and industry stakeholders, as well as received feedback from the public after receiving recommendations of technical working groups [15]. The government has now provided resources on its new FarmSafe Alberta website, while the industry association AgSafe Alberta has recently launched to also assist employers [16]. Although there has not been specific regulations released as of yet, WCB premiums and compensation has taken effect and a basic standard of care is required for farm workers until further specifics are published [17].

This means that farm workers now have the rights and protections of all basic working Albertans, including refusing unsafe work, receiving competency training, and the ability to report unsafe conditions to the government authority [18]. These employers are now required to investigate serious incidents or near misses and assess the workplace for hazards, while workers have the right to participate in that process. Farm workers now have exposure limits to hazardous substances, toxins and noise, as well as access to medical monitoring in the event of an exposure. Workers are given access to Joint Health and Safety Committees, as well as protections against mental health hazards, such as violence, bullying and discrimination. Farmers now receive compensation for occupational injuries free of blame or employer punishment – all of which is fully funded by employers. Lastly, but most importantly, farming companies are now subject to the Criminal Code of Canada and can be imprisoned for negligence towards worker’s health and safety.

Conclusion

Farm workers have been waiting since 1976 to receive the same occupational health and safety laws as the rest of Albertans and 45 years to receive the same compensation rights [19]. It took a new style of government in Alberta and the death of three young sisters on a farm to illicit the change that now helps 43,000 farm workers across the province. The death of three children prompted the Premiere of Alberta – a mother of two teenagers -- to choke up during interviews and then promptly introduce a Bill addressing farm safety. Even though the new legislation resulted in protests and critics, the loss of three siblings left enough of an impression on the public that the government stood firm in its desire to mandate safety on farms. Two years after the tragedy and the laws that followed, farm workers can finally receive injury compensation, have OH&S programs available to them, and safety associations and resources are now provided to employers.

References

[1] https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/albertas-updated-safety-laws-to-protect-farm-workers/article27290988/

[2] http://edmontonjournal.com/news/politics/opposition-mounting-against-alberta-farm-safety-bill

[3] https://www.albertandp.ca/rachel_notley_leader  

[4] https://www.assembly.ab.ca/lao/library/PREMIERS/index.htm

[5] https://calgary.ctvnews.ca/three-sisters-die-in-farm-incident-near-withrow-alberta-1.2608648

[6] http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/dp-pd/prof/details/page.cfm?B1=All&Code1=4809002&Code2=48&Data=Count&Geo1=CSD&Geo2=PR&Lang=E&SearchPR=01&SearchText=Clearwater+County&SearchType=Begins&TABID=1

[7] https://justice.alberta.ca/programs_services/fatality/Pages/default.aspx

[8] http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/canola-seed-girls-deaths-farm-safety-1.3270620

[9] https://globalnews.ca/news/2275246/2-young-girls-dead-1-critically-injured-in-alberta-farming-incident/

 [10] https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/10/14/alberta-girls-playing-in-loaded-canola-truck-die-after-suffocating-under-seeds.html

[11] http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/withrow-farm-deaths-sisters-neighbour-blog-public-space-1.3272336

[12] https://www.assembly.ab.ca/net/index.aspx?p=bills_status&selectbill=006&legl=29&session=1

[13] http://edmontonjournal.com/news/politics/opposition-mounting-against-alberta-farm-safety-bill

[14] http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/agriculture-minister-admits-bill6-mistake-1.3415855

[15] https://www.alberta.ca/farm-and-ranch-consultations.aspx

[16] https://www.agsafeab.ca/news/

[17] https://www.ohscanada.com/1003355283-2/

[18] http://www.qp.alberta.ca/1266.cfm?page=O02P1.cfm&leg_type=Acts&isbncln=9780779800490&display=html

The Alberta Government is seeking consultation from the public about possible regulations being considered for the implementation of Bill 30. More specifically, they want feedback for possible regulations surrounding harassment, violence and safety committees. One unusual proposal in particular is the training requirements for members participating in the joint work site health and safety committee (JWSHSC).These requirements are very specific and seems to offer employers little flexibility at training their people to perform well in this role. 

The Province believes that committee members should receive training in OH&S legislation, conducting hazard assessments, performing inspections, investigations, and legislative obligations. That all sounds fairly reasonable on the surface, however, the province believes these training courses should be subjected to auditing and therefore only a select few agencies would meet this standard. In other words, organizations like Energy Service Canada would have to seek government approval for a committee training course and that program must be audited to ensure its effective. 

Interestingly, this deviates from the type of training Alberta has allowed for in the past. Competency is currently defined as “being trained, qualified, and experienced” for the task. That’s all there is to it. No expiry dates or “brand” name training is required. Employers could even perform training in-house for nearly every type of task in the workplace. This was a performance-based model that gave employers a lot of flexibility, so why deviate from it for committee members?

Sometimes the best training is in-house, specific to the company operations. Does a committee member for a roofing company need to receive information on the legalities of general non-compliances? Perhaps at some point, sure. But an immediate need for roofing JWSHSC members could be information on fall protection techniques, rescue planning, and harness inspecting. If your receptionist is on the committee, more insightful training could be operational courses, allowing that receptionist to follow along to the discussions about the real safety issues in the field. Consider the fact that a worker could remain on the committee for several years, are they going to spend 16 hours each year on the same government-approved course? Or what if you’re a night shift worker? Is it fair to expect them to take a 9:00am to 5:00pm training course because that’s the only one government approved?

Ontario is the first province in Canada to pass laws intended to address concussions among amateur athletes and protect children from unreasonable exposure to head trauma. Under the proposed legislation, there will be mandatory concussion education for all young athletes, parents and coaches. When a concussion is suspected, the athlete must be removed from play and cannot return until medically cleared. Furthermore, the law states that the organization must have protocols allowing athletes with concussions to safely return to play and return to school. Many of these requirements will be at the registration level, therefore athletes and parents cannot register for sports unless they become fully aware of the impact, symptoms, and treatment of concussions. 

Sadly, Canada has been late in addressing this problem. Washington state passed law back in 2009 and now 50 states have been joining the cause to protect children playing sports [1]. Ontario had an opportunity to be a leader in 2012 when Bill 39 was introduced, but failed to re-introduce it after their parliament was prorogued. A year later, a child dies playing Rugby and it took 4 years of investigation, inquiries and recommendations and to get bills back into the legislature. How long will the rest of the provinces wait before they look to prevent similar deaths? Will another child have to die before the rest of Canada takes action? 

Roman Stringer was doing what kids should be doing: staying active. This is a girl who participated in swimming and gymnastics at a young age, later playing soccer, ringette, lacrosse and rugby [2]. Days before her death she suffered from headaches and had bags under her eyes; she even Googled “concussion” and told friends that she recently took a blow to the head. But like all kids, they’re having too much fun to worry about dying. Unless they’re informed about the consequences, they won’t see a little bruise to the brain as a risk. She took another blow to the head, and despite EMS arriving quickly and rushing her to a hospital, neurologists could not relieve the pressure in her head and she was taken off life support. It was clearly preventable and the thankfully there are now laws in Ontario to prevent it from happening to other kids. 

Now we need every other province to step up or it will happen again. I still hear of parents “toughening” their kids up. One of my good buddies bought my kids a huge NERF gun so that they could get tougher by shooting each other. I have another friend who doesn’t like hockey anymore because he spent every drive home after each game listening to his father berate him for his play. I broke my foot last year playing basketball with my cousin and he thought I was faking it because he was winning. So its no wonder some kids are groomed to ignore head trauma. We live in a culture of action heroes and need laws to protect our children because they can’t be expected to make rational decisions when the championship game or a scholarship is on the line. Under no circumstance should a child be playing contact sports while healing from a concussion. 

[1] https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-rowans-law-how-a-teenagers-concussion-related-death-will-help-save/

WCB Alberta is looking to make some shocking changes to claims management and return-to-work programs, thereby affecting every worker and company in Alberta.  As it stands now, if a worker receives an injury and went on WCB, the company isn't obligated to bring that person back to work (isn't obligated by WCB, anyways). The company can terminate employment anytime after an injury. This will no longer be the case and the circumstances involved in accommodation are significant. If adopted, all workers who have one year tenure in a company are required to receive accommodation by their company post-injury. Here’s a summary of major changes:

Failure to do so can result in WCB issuing a penalty worth up to the worker's net annual salary

If the company terminates this worker within 6 months post-injury, its presumed the employer has not fulfilled its duty to accommodate

If the worker is able to physically perform essential duties, the company must offer a comparable position (at no wage loss)

If the worker is unable to perform duties, the employer must offer first opportunity of suitable employment that becomes available. 

It sounds like WCB is no longer taking full responsibility of workers still in-recovery, on modified, or have been fired due to their injury. They want employers to take on some burden. What’s really interesting, however, is that WCB is taking on the responsibilities of the Alberta Human Rights (AHR) Commission. Employer’s were always required by Human Rights Act to accommodate a physical disability until undue hardship, however, the onus was on the worker to fill a complaint to the AHR Commission. Now that WCB is placing the onus of employers to prove that termination of employment -- or at least the lack of injury accommodation -- wasn’t related to the injury, WCB is circumventing the AHR process. 

With the AHR process, worker’s filed a complaint with the Commission, and the Commission would investigate it. So if you suspect your company fired you because you’re handicap, you would contact the Human Rights Commission. After an initial investigation, they would take it to mediation, which likely results in some financial settlement. If no settlement is reached, it goes to a Tribunal. That’s the process Albertans understand and adopted. However, since WCB is judge and jury over injuries, they’re automatically assuming the employer violated the worker’s human rights and potentially punishing employers based on that assumption. 

Firefighters across Canada are advocating changes to the National Building Code, implying that firefighters cannot respond fast enough to save lives or property due to flammable properties of new furniture and materials, as well as the spread of fires with new open-concept lay-outs. Does it sound reasonable that we mandate the proper protection of having sprinklers in every home going forward? Well, let’s examine the risk. 

The director of Canadian Association of Fire Chiefs estimates the costs of installing sprinkler lines being 1-2% of the value to a newly built home, and retrofitting costs about 5% of the existing house’s value. Right now the average home price in Canada (excluding Vancouver and Toronto) is $374,500 [1]. Therefore the cost of changing the building code would be about  $5, 617 for new homes and $18,775 for older homes. It would be far more expensive for residents of Vancouver and Toronto, both of whom are suffering an affordable home crisis. Not to mention the municipal costs (and therefore the associated taxes) with installing larger underground water lines to support all the sprinklers systems being installed in each home. 

For those who assume that a change in the building code won’t affect them if they refuse to install the sprinkler lines, allow me to ask you, have you ever tried to sell a home that doesn’t meet code? A change in the building code absolutely affects every property in Canada. But what about the fires? Are they affecting everyone in Canada? According to Stats Canada, only 96 people died in a fire in 2014. That’s 0.00026% of the population, not mentioning if these 96 people were illegal basement dwellers in a poorly renovated basement or seniors who couldn’t hear the fire alarm because they weren’t wearing their hearing aid. 

For the remaining 99.997% of Canadians either effected by their living costs who will survive a fire or otherwise not experience one, should we be burdened with a whopping new expense? Even those of us who experience a fire but suffered damage, what would the insurance savings be? According to the NFPA -- an advocate for installing fire sprinklers -- the average savings is somewhere between 5 and 10% of your insurance costs in BC [2]. The same average premium in BC is $925, which means you save up to $92 a year, or $2,300 over a 25 year mortgage[3]. So insurance considered, you haven’t saved any money. Not surprising since water damage associated with spinklers cost the insurance companies as well. 

The Alberta Government has finally wrapped up it meetings with farmers when it comes to OH&S laws applying to the Alberta Farm, in what was called a Technical Working Group (TWG) consultation. This involved two different groups of 11-12 people going through all the sections of the current OH&S code and arguing their applicability to the farming industry and making recommendations to ensure they apply to the farming industry. Not all of the 23 people who made up this TWG were farmers, but most of them (17 total) were working in the business of agriculture, leaving the rest of the members as nurses, WCB reps, advocates, and human resources professionals.

After reading all twenty-three pages of the report, I must say I was impressed with the arguments made by this small group of people in charge of representing the Alberta agriculture industry. These 17 people represented the interests of 71,000 farmers and were in charge of reading all 414 sections of the OH&S code, arguing its merit towards farming and making recommendations where needed. They did this in 13 days between June of 2016 and January of 2017; its taken nearly a year to publish their findings.

What sort of things are important to a farmer you might ask? Well, asking your workers to go to the bathroom in the bushes is one thing you cannot legally do in Alberta, given that employers are required to provide sufficient washroom facilities. Asking your workers to jump in the back of a pick-up truck because there aren’t enough seats and seat belts for everyone is obviously not legal for most employers, but something farmers don’t agree with. Another disagreement was found when the Province required of employers to ensure a journeymen welder was carrying out that particular tradecraft, when obviously farmers were just picking up welding machines and doing it themselves.

Another interesting note was how many sections of the code that farmers could not agree to and how many sections received no recommendation because a consensus could not be made. Farmers could not agree to sections 12 to 15, one where employers are required to adhere to the specifications of machinery or equipment manufacturers. Farmers also could not agree to the fall protection requirements in the Province. Some were pretty strange, mind you. Apparently farmers are very passionate about not wanting to wear high visibility apparel, even when exposed to high vehicle traffic hazards. 

Another Albertan worker dies on November 25th, only this time, the man was in his 30′s. An age where men start working for their children’s future, saving for retirement, and spend their money on enjoying life before the body takes its toll. The outcome could not have been more tragic; as there is nothing more horrifying than being crushed to death by a pre-cast concrete wall. If you can bring yourself to imagine that feeling of immense pressure surrounding your body, slowly taking your life away, then surely you can understand how devastating this workplace fatality is. 

Was this incident preventable? There hasn’t been a lot of details released as of yet, but given that its a pre-cast plant and the crane was able to access the rubble to free the deceased, that’s enough to deduce that it was in fact preventable. An order comes into a plant, the form work and production plan is established, and the product is poured and cured. Somewhere after that, a worker was killed by 150lbs per cubic foot of hardened concrete. So there was enough time to plan, prepare, and control the hazards. At no point was a supervisor unaware that a concrete wall being cured, handled, or stored didn’t have the potential to crush nearby workers. 

How else do I know it was preventable? Because its Lefarge -- one of the largest companies in the world. In 2014, Lefarge made 770 million dollars profit, after completing over 12 billion in sales. This company advertises on its website carrying over 200 million share holders (as of 2014) and offering a 1.27 dividend for further investors. When the current CEO makes 5.7 million (2015) and the average manager clears 120K (as per glassdoor Canada), there’s no justifying cutting back on safety measures. The person who lost their live was averaging between $22 and $30 dollars an hour according to most glassdoor salaries for Lafarge in Canada. 

Sometimes I can understand a little company on tight margins that is trying to survive is having to make tough investment decisions that could affect worker safety. Perhaps the budget went towards sales and marketing to garner future work. Or perhaps quality control was a focus to please current customers. Maybe Human Resources was the priority to ensure people are not quitting and are without proper compensation. There’s always many avenues a business can take and some companies have to worry about keeping their workers employed and paid before they can ensure staff are completely clear of safety risks.

Many Albertans are excited with the Government’s introduction to Bill 30 because its being marketed as giving worker’s a full right to refuse unsafe work and allowing worker’s voices in the safety program by legislating joint committees in the workplace. There is no shortage of critics however, seeing as many are upset WCB premiums are going up with the changes in compensation policies. One particular oversight with this Bill was the fact that serious injuries have now been defined as admittance to hospitalization, whereas before the OH&S Act defined it as 2 days or more hospitalization. 

What does this mean exactly? Whenever a worker goes to a hospital, the workplace has to shut down the scene and report it to the government, resulting in the Province dispatching its own Peace Officer to investigate the incident. Prior to Bill 30, a worker had to be in the hospital for two days before this type of event was triggered. So what’s the big deal? It makes sense that the province is investigating accidents, right?

Let me tell you there is no end to workers going to a hospital. I’ve investigated countless minor first aid accidents that has resulted in hospitalization. Everything from small cuts to minor burns has resulted in a worker clogging the emergency room. Maybe its due to workers in Alberta depending too much on Google searches for their own healthcare, but I tend to come across a lot of hypochondriacs who has seen too many episodes of Grey’s Anatomy. Or maybe the worker’s just want to take a break from work and sit in a hospital room for several hours? Either way, workers in distraught after an accident really want to see a doctor, even though its usually a case of anxiety that subsides in an hour. 

To add to this, many employers automatically send workers to the hospital for the purposes of injury claims management. There is a system in AB where specialized doctors are trained in the WCB financial impacts, so these specialists prescribe modified duties as both a treatment option and cost-savings option. If a company sends a worker to see these specialized doctors immediately, this allows companies to remove the risk of the worker seeing an untrained doctor who prescribes 2 weeks off-duty due to a minor cut -- all of which would be paid for by WCB (in turn, the employers who fund it). Family physicians are just people subject to influence. They’re overloaded with patients and need to make quick decisions based on what’s being reported, so if a worker cuts their finger and wants two weeks paid holiday, they simply tell their family doctor that they can’t work without a healed finger. So the doctor believes them. 

Based on these facts, the government is committing themselves to dispatching OH&S peace officers to potentially every cut finger and every sore muscle in the province. Even if they hired 1000 new officers to handle this workload, it still wouldn’t be enough to fulfill this commitment. People forget, the province of Alberta is the size of most countries (such as Afghanistan) and there’s workplaces in every nook and cranny of this landmass. So the result will be a backlog in officers being dispatched.  Can you imagine shutting your workplace down for 2 days waiting for an officer to finally show up and investigate? Or the result will be neglect. Officers will simply tell companies to investigate it themselves because the province is overloaded with minuscule investigations.

Despite all public awareness efforts surrounding distracted driving and increasing legal ramifications, people simply cannot help themselves but to drive with a phone in their hands. I am not shocked that the number of car crashes are rising. More often I find myself at green lights honking at drivers who forget they were already tasked with driving a giant motor vehicle. I find myself dodging cars who are swerving into my lane because they got bored travelling at 60km/h, so they decided to take a selfie to spice up their day.  Even though I assume people want to travel somewhere (hence they’re in a car), I’m surprised how wrong I am when I’m having to wait for someone to stop driving so slow because they needed to finish sending their text message safely. 

There’s something fundamentally human about this epidemic I’m not fully qualified to understand, but I suspect its biological. Firstly, there’s a habituation process at the root of the problem. How many commuters find themselves daydreaming in traffic, yet come to the realization they just traveled several kilometers without even remembering how we got there? Ever miss your exit for no real reason? We take the same route to and from work twice a day, roughly 240 days in a year. At what point does the brain get used to it, thereby allowing it to relax and think about other things? When we’re running late for work, we’re like James Bond racing through the openings of traffic and could never be so focused on avoiding collisions. When we’re driving home in no hurry for anything special, we’re like zombies following the herd.

A second culprit here is the human’s inability to accurately calculate risks. For example, most people could stand at an edge of a 10ft drop and believe they could fall without suffering any injury. In reality, however, the numbers suggest otherwise. We all suffered from these errors in human judgement during the 2008 housing crisis, when we trusted that banks knew how to hand out mortgages without crippling the system. So we drive each day not fully aware of the likelihood of accidents, and even if we were informed, for some reason our judgement calculates safety in areas where the probabilities are not. We all know accidents happen closest to home, yeah? 

Lastly, there’s a social reinforcement element behind it all. We’re an evolutionary pack animal who’s survival depends on our social skills. This means that you could only survive in the jungle with lions and cheetahs if were you’re in a group of humans working together -- and that only happens if other people actually enjoy your company -- so the importance of social situations are hard-wired into our brains. My favorite display of this is the famous “Robber’s Cave” experiment; where a group of teenage boys unreasonably hated another group just because they were outsiders. Is social safety more important than physical safety? Basically, If you had to choose between running from a lion with blood lust and checking your epic Facebook post for comments, would you stop running in order to whip your phone out? Would you try the ol’ run-&-check at the same time?

While it seems intuitive that fire fighters get exposed to carcinogenic hydrocarbons when entering burning structures, it may come as a surprise to some that the exposure isn’t from inhalation, but rather from skin contact. Fire Fighters actually have very good respiratory protection if they are applying it, given that nearly every firefighter uses a  pressure-demanding self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA).You know, the gas-tank backpack with the face mask? This type of SCBA has a protection factor (APF) of 10,000 compared to an APF of 10 seen with half-mask respirators -- the type of respirator you see a doctor wearing during surgery. 

Basically, if you picture a cubic space of breathing air around the head of fire fighter and then fill that space with 10,000 particles, one particle is found inside the mask to be inhaled by the firefighter. Compare that to the 1000 particles a doctor would breath in if exposed to the same amount. If you picture a smoke-filled hallway that firefighters crawl through when attacking an apartment fire, its safe to assume they’re exposed to 10,000 particles (or 10 ppm). But firefighters are trained to ventilate structures with air, crawl below the dangerous smoke, and of course are limited to about 30-45 minutes of exposure per oxygen tank. 

What’s interesting is that skin exposure is still taking place despite firefighters wearing full turn-out gear. While the focus has been on protection of toxicity from materials absorbed during respiration, the skin can absorb an average of 64% of the contaminants it was exposed to (1). I can tell you first hand as a trained firefighter that if any inch of skin surface is exposed during a structural fire, you feel it burning that area of exposure. The turn-out gear is designed to thermally insulate every part of the body because we are asking firefighters to use tools, rescue people, and otherwise focus on delicate tasks in high temperatures, so they can’t be subjected to skin-boiling pain while doing their job. There’s even a moisture layer inside the turn-out gear to protect your skin from feeling the burn of steam when you spray a fire with water. So why are firefighters being exposed to harmful hydrocarbons with all this skin protection in place? 

The bulk of the seals around the arms, neck, face, and torso are made from elastic fibres and velcro seals. Both are easily penetrated by particulates and vapors, thereby subjecting the worker to skin exposure. The moisture barrier in turn-out gear is generally made from Aramid fibres with high thread counts, intended to provide breathability so that sweat can evaporate and travel off the person’s body (1). So again, turn-out gear likely allows smoke to permeate through the moisture barrier. Even though rubbers and vinyls have better skin protection factors due to their low permeation rates, they melt in the face of high temperatures, something a firefighter would encounter (2). So how do we protect fire fighters from cancer, knowing we want to provide a skin barrier against smoke, as well as protect the skin against high temperatures? We need to research and redesign the turnout gear, perhaps using neoprene coated glass material and study the permeation rates of them (3). 

A very young person died at work in what was most likely a preventable occupational incident in Grimshaw Alberta, a town that carries a small population of 2700 people in remote Northern Alberta. The only details release so far is that the victim was trapped underneath the bucket of a skid steer while him and the operator were attempting to add gravel to fence post holes, a project that was intended to install chain link fences at a business that sells farm seeds and chemicals. 

OHS was forced to place a stop work order and Alberta Labour spokesperson said “Not the entire site [was placed under stop work order], just the equipment that was part of the incident”. Based on these details its clear the bucket disconnected from the lift arms and fell onto the worker, whether due to poorly maintained skid steer hydraulics or because the operator failed to connect it properly. Had the whole site been under stop work, we could assume more complex events were involved. 

I’ve investigated near misses very similar to this before and I believe this was likely preventable by the operator, had he not been lazy. Skid Steer connections have visible indicators when the bucket is soundly secure, because you can literally see thick steel pins locking into holes in the bucket. And if you can’t see them very well due to mud, snow, low light, or perhaps they’re in an awkward position, you can tilt your bucket forward, press it against the ground, and then travel in reverse like this to test the connection of the pins. If the connection is weak, the bucket will fall off the lift arms during the test. 

I assume the operator 1) failed to check these pins after connecting to the bucket, and/or 2) failed to test the connection immediately after changing attachments (such as from forks to a bucket). The only way I can see the operator not being at fault is if the hydraulics gave away after the connection was secure, but even in those cases such a scenario is largely preventable with pre-use inspections, scheduled maintenance, and diligent listening to the equipment. 

A worker died yesterday in Edmonton, while paving a cemetery. Sadly, the worker was run over by a asphalt paver, and without knowing the exact details, it sounds like the most painful and horrible way to die next to being fed into a wood chipper. Asphalt pavers heat up aggregates and petroleum to over 200 degrees and very slowly apply it with a weights of up to 30 thousand pounds, depending on the size. So I’m thinking about a man who was crushed to death by a heavy, burning oil. And not just rapidly, but by a machine that applies it at maximum speeds of 2 miles per hour.

Very tragic indeed. News reports are saying the worker was alone. This is extremely dangerous, if true. Even small pavers are used by at least two people. There’s too much going on for one person. You have to feed the hopper with aggregates and oil, run the machine’s travel speed and height, plus consider the curvature and height of the screed (since roads have a curved look in order to allow water run off). Not to mention shovel and scrap away the edges of the asphalt, plus find a way to pack it down before it cures. Asphalt might technically take a while to cure, but it hardens very quickly where one man would be rushed juggling all these tasks. 

What we do know is that this wasn’t some cemetery volunteer trying to fill in pot holes by himself due to budget constraints, rather it was a hired contractor. So a company priced out a job during the fall season, when paving is absolutely slammed due to demand before winter, which involved some good money because we’re talking about mobbing a truck, trailer, paver and tools. Cheaping out and sending one man? Not cool. Especially when one of his colleagues stated the victim was “one of the nicest people you will meet.” 

Investigators said it was unknown as to when the man became trapped. So immediately the company violated part 28 of the code, which requires the employer to have regular communication or checking-in. Had they complied with that section, we would have a rough idea as to when the incident had occurred. The employer is also required to prove they trained the operator to Part 19 of the code, which was violated when the operator failed to “maintain control of the equipment” (section 256) and was instead within the “range of the moving parts” (section 258). Violations of Parts 3, 7, 11, and 22 will also thrown at the employer by crown prosecutors, as manufacturer’s specifications were likely not met, clearly first aid and emergency preparedness was not adequate, and the machine was not safeguarded to prevent this. 

A medium-sized earthworks and utility company based out of Calgary wins the prestigious 2017 Canada’s Safest Company award in the field of Construction, having been the runner up for the past two years. Borger has also won the award in 2014 and was a runner up in 2013, proving that it continually deserves recognition for the its efforts towards safety. 

How did the company win it? Here’s a summary of activities that it has implemented to earn this award:

Developed a Wiki app of its safety manual

Supervisors are mandated to mention the app 3-5 times a week

Weekly broadcasts from the CEO on company-developed social media

“Borger Bucks”, the company-developed currency

Borger Bucks rewards program for innovation within the company

Colour decals to indicate experience levels within the company

That’s really it -- nothing extremely costly or challenging. They didn’t invent a new form of PPE, nor did they invest millions of dollars. They made an app, which can now be developed using drag-and-drop options for free, while the CEO spends hours on his phone anyways, so why not “tweet” within the company? The coloured decal program is really just a glorified green-hand program that we see in industry already, while the Borger bucks is a simple branded rewards program. What else? Oh, the supervisors receive rewards for mentioning a website like cheap salesmen. Not very complicated at all, is it?

Well, in my experience that’s a lot for most companies. There’s no shortage of companies who care little about innovation, culture, and safety in general. Most CEOs have the sole purpose of being as productive as possible for as cheap as possible, in order to be as profitable as possible. Which might make for good quarterly reports for investors, or longer vacation time for the executives, but makes for short-sighted business. 

In a tragic irony, a worker testing the air quality gets killed by the particulates in the air as a result of his allergies.  Justin Mathew was allergic to nuts, entering an atmosphere filled with fine walnut dust that resulted in anaphylaxis and prolonged loss of oxygen to the brain. Mr. Mathew was working as a air-quality tester and assigned to test the atmosphere of a firefighter station recently sandblasted. He was likely unaware that sandblasting operations can sometimes be used with walnut shells instead of silica sand, and inhaled large quantities of walnut dust.

As it stands, occupational health and safety regulations in Alberta do not specifically address allergens in the workplace. It does, however, state very generically that hazards in the workplace must be controlled. Had this been a classic case of silica sand being used in the sandblasting, an industrial hygienist would be needed to test the concentration of the hazards in the air in order to see if a hazard is even present and if so, how best to control it (such as ventilation or filtration). Silica sand is not fatal in the short-term to those who breathe in a large concentrated amount, but it causes a lung disease when inhaled over many exposures, so an atmospheric tester could conduct its job without worrying about immediate death. This was not the case for someone with an allergy. 

Currently there are no guidelines in Alberta that the sandblasting company (or fire station) could have referred to in order to prevent this fatality. They would have needed to establish their own methods and hope it passes the test of diligence, which it clearly failed. There is no exposure limits for walnut particulates, and if that sounds silly, note that there are exposure limits to wood dust, coal dust, glass fibres, and wool dust. However, the list of chemicals in Alberta (Schedule 1) do mention a “particulate not otherwise regulated” and provide an 8-hour exposure limit to 10 milligrams per cubic meter. That would not have helped Mr. Mathew because he only needed a few minutes of exposure to cause anaphylactic shock. That vague “otherwise particulate” is only in the OHS code so that the Province can cover its basis with whatever random substance that exists in the world but didn’t make the list of the extra highlighted substances to be concerned about.

But should there be exposure limits for walnut shells, knowing only 0.6% of the population is allergic to tree nuts? Well, an estimated 200 people die each year from allergies in the US, most of which are caused by nut allergies. That’s most than the number of people who die from silicosis (101 annually), and sand used in sandblasting has an exposure limit (keep in mind, allergies-related fatalities are easier to identify than silicosis). You can also find Safety Data Sheets (SDS) from the producers of sandblasting nuts, which state nothing in terms of being an allergen despite the obvious hazard of having an 100% walnut shell ingredients. In fact, to prevent inhalation, the SDS only requires the exposed person to wear a  “Nuisance dust mask”, and if that fails, the firs aid measure is to “remove to fresh air and seek medical attention if irritation persists”. So even the manufacturer’s of walnut sandblasting grains are being vague, allusive, and perhaps even negligent. A nuisance dust mask would not prevent anaphylaxis in high airborne concentrations (such as post-sandblasting)  and since the safety data sheet is a referral tool for the first responder, you would think there would be some statements of epinephrine and allergies. 

Sadly, a fire station in Alberta is not able to carry an Epipen in its first aid kits, even though it is a life-saving device and its a facility full of trained first responders. A first aider would not be allowed to administer it either (they can only assist a patient with their prescribed pen), since Alberta medical protocols only allow EMTs or higher trained medics to inject an epipen. While it may seem understandable given that epinephrine injections can cause life-threatening conditions to those with heart conditions (or if given too much dose or poorly injected), it is fairly safe to use on healthy people. This is not a universal standard either. In fact, the UK allows any first aider to inject any form of epinephrine to someone without a prescription, and Brampton Ontario has even gone so far as to allow auto-injectors to be carried by security guards and stored in restaurants, so even a non-trained member of the public can inject an epipen into someone.

The Government of Alberta will conduct a full review of the regulations affecting the workplace with the legalization of marijuana in July, even though the Province also stated that it recognizes there already being rules in place to prevent impairment in the workplace. The concern surrounding the legalization of marijuana has been frequent and loud, with OHS Canada releasing a headline article in its summer edition of its magazine, writing about the spread of panic among safety professionals across the country. 

I’ve personally heard this outcry in a recent construction industry safety committees, which receives the attendance of safety professionals who are employed by the biggest companies in the province. I was hearing concerns that “marijuana joints will be carried inside cigarette packs on job sites” and that “work sites could be beside private backyards growing a few marijuana plants”. While these scenarios are certainly plausible, I fail to see the need for concern.

Obviously nobody wants a heavy equipment operator high on dope speeding through a construction site and crushing our fellow workers. Can that happen when marijuana is legalized? Yes, but it could happen right now too. Under the current laws in Alberta, a worker can be impaired on marijuana and come into work and the employers have little or no recourse if that worker gets hurt or hurts another worker. Not only is WCB a no-fault system that compensates work-related injuries regardless of who-did-what, but the Human Rights Commission deems it unlawful for an employer to terminate or remove opportunity from a worker with a physical disability, such as marijuana dependence. So it’s currently a substance that could technically land you in jail and considered unlawful, yet employers can’t do a thing if marijuana users who come to work stoned, but they’re also stuck with the bill if that worker causes workplace accidents.

Sure, there’s “models” surrounding the use of marijuana in the workplace, but human rights tribunals are case laws, as are WCB appeals. Both of which takes years to set precedence, and both have very little cases to examine. Its simple: when workers get fired for being on marijuana, they usually realize they deserved to get fired and continue on with their life without making a long, dragged-out legal battle in a tribunal setting. What would be the point in battling for your employment, knowing that ultimately the company will fire you for coming to work late, or some other unrelated cause because you took them to court. There is no point in battling for your job. Human Rights cases usually settle in mediation. 

Many provinces in Canada are tackling high heels, with Ontario being the latest to take action. This may be a contentious issue with some women, seeing as a lot of women wear heels outside the workplace. While I cannot pretend to know a women’s perspective surrounding their choice in footwear - or in many cases, its not a choice but instead a mandated (sometimes sexist) requirement - I can look to similar examples of contentious items creeping into the workplace, which then carries different legal ramifications not otherwise considered in the home.

But first let’s explore what it is about heels that makes it a workplace issue before making a comparison. It’s not ergonomic for the wearer for prolonged periods, making it a potential WCB claim. It serves as a hazard in cases where the job requires mobility, making it a liability for the employer (which also assumes liability for the user). Lastly, any workplace that demands it serves as a violation of the worker’s right to self-preservation, making it a human rights issue. Why any employer would require heels in the workplace to begin with is beyond my comprehension of logic. If you require your workers to be mobile in order to be productive and thereby profitable, why impede that? Even if you believe it yields repeat business from customers who want to see women in heels, is that really a good model of human resources? All the effort and tools spent to finding a right candidate is void because of shoe fashion? Really? 

I’ve now digressed. It’s clear there are legal issues with heels in the workplace. However, if you take them away, you’re also taking away a fashion freedom and potentially encroaching on the choices of those who actually want to wear them, regardless if its unsafe and litigious. I can think of perhaps an art curator or make-up artist who would prefer wearing heels because their appearance empowers them... or something along that line of reason I can’t truly understand because I’ve never worn heels before. I can, however, appreciate how good fashion choices in the workplace yields a personal benefit in the form of opened opportunities or improved interpersonal relationships, but fortunately (and perhaps systemically designed), my fashion options are all relatively safe for me. So how do we tread carefully, knowing to some women heels are a staple to their footwear fashion choices?

A gas station attendant in Alberta was run over while attempting to stop a thief from driving away without paying for the fuel he stole. Ki Yun Jo (54) was the owner of the Fast Gas in Thorsby, a small town in Alberta with a population of 1025 people. Customers and friends of the victim, say Mr. Jo was a trusting person and allowed them to fuel up without having to pay before hand, hoping they will pay afterwards. A policy that has now cost him his life. 

Alberta Labour Minister Christina Gray said the government is working on bringing in measures that prevent these incidences and keep workers safe. In this victim’s case, such measures would likely be futile, since Mr. Jo was the owner of the gas station as well as the worker, so in a way, he can choose how safe he wants to be in his own workplace and would never face the same liabilities as an owner who fails to provide safe conditions for a number of workers. 

The government is probably looking to the 2015 fatality of Maryam Rashidi as a case for new measures -- a nearly identical scenario and involved a death of worker attempting to stop a thief from driving away with stolen gas. There has been cases in the past where employers would take losses off a worker’s paycheck, such as stolen fuel from gas stations. The government already has made it clear in its employment standards regulations that such deductions are not lawful. However, there is no current requirement for employers to provide training, procedures, or to have other types of controls in place to keep workers safe in these robbery-type events.