THE DRAFT STANDARD

The draft standard requires employers to do three key things:

1. Draft a psychological health and safety policy. The draft standard requires companies to create a policy committing to the development, implementation, funding, continuous improvement and review of a psychological health and safety system (“PHS System”). That policy should also address the roles of various stakeholders. For example, “leaders,” that is, those with key responsibility for the company’s performance, have a duty to develop a “psychologically healthy and safe workplace” that “promotes workers’ psychological well-being and allows no harm to worker mental health in negligent, reckless or intentional ways” by:

• Leading in a “positive way”;
• Making psychological health and safety part of decision making; and
• Engaging workers.

Worker engagement is critical under the draft standard. Companies should engage workers to determine their psychological health and safety needs, encourage participation in programs to meet those needs and in the PHS System evaluation process, communicate the results of the evaluation process to them and evaluate the effectiveness of the system. To encourage engagement, companies must provide time and resources, identify and remove barriers, and train and consult workers on all aspects of the PHS System, including educating them on stigma and psychological illness.

2. Implement a PHS System. The draft standard requires companies to develop and implement a PHS System that includes these key components:
Psychological health and safety objectives, a plan to meet those objectives and a regular review (at least every three years) of the achievement of those objectives;

• Minimum psychological health and safety requirements;
• Training and support for workers and management to enable them to meet these minimum requirements;
• Identification and assessment of potential sources of psychological harm to workers; and
• Processes to eliminate or prevent the occurrence of psychological hazards, protect workers from them and foster a psychologically healthy workplace.

Once such a system is in place, the company must monitor it to determine, among other things, whether it’s meeting objectives and identifying, assessing and controlling hazards. If the company identifies any new or inadequately controlled hazards, it must promptly take action to address those hazards and implement measures to prevent their recurrence. The draft standard also requires organizations to establish audit programs to determine the system’s compliance with the standard and internal requirements and whether the system is effectively implemented and maintained.
3. Identify & investigate psychological safety incidents. As with “traditional” safety incidents, companies must identify events where psychological illness or injury have occurred or may occur to individuals and develop a process for investigating those events. For example, they should implement reporting and investigation processes for “work-related injuries, illnesses, acute traumatic events, chronic stressors, fatalities (including suicides), and PHS System incidents.” After an investigation of such an incident, companies must develop recommendations for improvements to the PHS System, communicate those recommendations to affected parties and use them as the basis for corrective action.

ANALYSIS

According to the Mental Health Commission of Canada, mental health problems and illnesses are the leading cause of short‐ and long‐term disability in Canada and the toll on Canadian workers and workplaces is substantial. The economic burden of mental disorders in Canada has been estimated at $51 billion per year—and almost $20 billion of that comes from workplace losses. So clearly something must be done to improve workers’ mental health. But is the draft standard really the solution?
To some extent, the current OHS laws require employers to address workplace psychological health and safety issues, such as violence and harassment. But the requirements in the draft standard go beyond any requirements under the OHS law and may be a challenge for any employer to meet. (For a detailed comparison of the draft standard and OHS law, read this white paper by OHS lawyers Cheryl Edwards and Shane Todd.)
Of course, CSA standards aren’t law and unless a jurisdiction formally adopts the standard once it becomes final into its OHS law, it technically isn’t binding on employers. But so-called voluntary standards such as this one can become accepted as best practice and thus influence courts and arbitrators. And it seems clear that many people are convinced that this standard is needed. So safety coordinators would be wise to be aware of the draft standard and be prepared when the final standard comes out to make some effort to address psychological health safety issues in their workplaces.

A patent filed in May 2010 describes a system that includes a cartridge of extinguishing agents comprised of carbon dioxide and halon, which will be released on the processor and certain portions on the mainboard while the power supply is disabled at the same time. The system also includes an infrared light-based flame detector.

IBM said that computers, which we are told are much more complex than the EDVAC from 1948, often short circuit, causing small fires in the computer–especially blade servers. Since a power supply will continue to supply electricity until it is taken out, IBM says that “depending on the location of the short on the system board, a fire can result until either the high impedance short opens completely or shorts completely, at which point the power supply over-current detection circuit shuts the power supply down.”

The company’s application goes on to note that “such small fires in a server or other computer often do not produce enough smoke to set off a smoke detector until the fire has spread to the point of endangering other servers and computers.”

IBM’s idea to extinguish a possibly dangerous fire is pretty simple: A fire detector would detect flames, shut the power supply off and puncture a hole into the “stored pressure unit containing the extinguishing agent.”

At Levitt-Safety we’re serious about being safe, and fire is no joke.  Fire suppression is critical for protecting assets.  What do you think?  Is IBM pushing safety overkill?

This achievement comes four months after fuel was safely and successfully loaded in Unit 2, and marks another milestone in the Restart project. Loading fuel in Unit 1 marks the final commissioning phase of the Bruce A Restart project.

“Following the successful completion of fuel load in Unit 2, just a few months ago, we are pleased to be now moving forward with fuel load in Unit 1,” said Duncan Hawthorne, President and CEO. “Fuel load in Unit 1 is another significant milestone as we move into the final stages of returning these units to service in 2012.”

Over the next few weeks, operators will manually install 5,760 fuel bundles into 480 fuel channels on the reactor face. Roughly the size of a fire log, each 22-kilogram bundle can produce enough energy to power 100 homes for a year.

Once restarted in 2012, Units 1 and 2 at Bruce A will produce 1,500 megawatts of affordable, safe and reliable nuclear power. The reactors have been undergoing a first-of-a-kind refurbishment and the project has represented the largest investment in CANDU technology in a generation by Bruce Power.

“This is the culmination of a lot of hard work and the quality of workmanship is a credit to the many people who worked on the program,” said Hawthorne.

With all eight units operating, the Bruce Power site has the capacity to produce 6,300 megawatts, roughly a quarter of the province’s electricity, and the biggest nuclear facility in the world.

“We’ve come a long way and we’ve developed a robust approach to safely completing this work,” said John Soini, Vice President of Restart Projects and Construction. “While loading fuel is another major milestone met on the project, we remain focused on the task at hand which is completing the remaining work and returning these units to service.”

Hundreds of employees at Xstrata Nickel’s Fraser and Nickel Rim South mines were sent home from the job Monday for what the company is calling a “short safety pause” after an increase in safety-related incidents at the two operations.

Mine Mill Local 598/CAW president Richard Paquin said about 300 workers at Fraser Mine have been told to think about safety for an “indefinite” period of time while the company devises a plan to make the mine safer. About 250 employees at Nickel Rim South were sent home Monday after sitting through a four-hour safety talk, he said. While Paquin said he has no problem with Xstrata wanting to draft a plan to make its workplaces safer, the question is whether members will be paid for the unexpected time off. Union and Xstrata officials began talking Monday night and spent all day Tuesday discussing the issue, said Paquin.

He was waiting to hear from Xstrata today about whether it intends to pay members or not. The union has sought legal advice on the matter. Xstrata spokeswoman Yonaniko (Iyo) Grenon issued a brief statement Tuesday afternoon in response to questions from The Sudbury Star prompted by calls to the paper from union members about being sent home. Grenon said Xstrata has experienced an increase in the number of safety incidents at Fraser and Nickel Rim South. “Although these incidents were minor, we took the initiative to institute a short safety pause at our two mines to address this trend. “Our first priority is for the health and safety of our employees and we will continue to strive

for zero harm within our operations,” said Grenon. If the company wants to send workers home with pay while it institutes new safety measures, that is fine with the union, said Paquin. “But it is totally not OK” for members to sit at home, unpaid, while the company drafts a new safety plan. Paquin also said he doubted the safety situation was as bad as the company was indicating. Paquin has received many calls from union members complaining about being sent home. On a Facebook site for the union, Paquin wrote: “The union had a very vivid discussion with senior management yesterday on this issue and strongly suggested that they pay everyone until they get their plan together. What is the most disturbing is that they are not sure how long that will take. Again, leaving our workers in limbo without pay. What they did say is that people will be back to work.”

Paquin said the union will meet with its CAW national representative about its legal options “as we will fight so that our workers get paid instead of being punished for something that most have no control over.

“What they did is totally uncalled for,” said Paquin, “and as I told them yesterday, I have never seen this in my career where an employer took such a drastic and unfair action to deal with such perceived safety problems.

“We will do what we can to ensure our workers get paid for that time off. The workers work hard for this company and deserve better than to be sent home unpaid to reflect on safety. We will keep everyone updated as this unfolds,” he wrote.

A spokesman with the Ontario Ministry of Labour, Matt Blajer, said Tuesday he was unable to obtain information about the situation at Nickel Rim South and Fraser mines, but that he would look into the matter today to see if the ministry was involved.

Waldemar Kozuchowski, sole proprietor of Infinity Marble of Canada, a synthetic marble and granite manufacturing company, was fined $17,000 for failing to comply with inspectors’ orders.

On May 22, 2009, Ministry of Labour inspectors visited Kozuchowski’s business in Carleton Place, Ont. They noticed several health and safety violations and issued Kozuchowski orders to comply with the legislation. Inspectors made several follow up visits but the violations remained and the inspectors had to write more orders.

Between May 22, 2009 and May 5, 2010, inspectors wrote a total of 23 orders for various violations. Of those orders, 15 were not complied with and mostly related to the following violations:
•    Flammable liquids were improperly stored
•    The mixing area was not properly ventilated
•    There was no system to contain spills
•    The spray booth was missing a make-up air system
•    Material safety data sheets for controlled products were not readily available to workers
•    Housekeeping practices were not adequate to control dust hazards
•    Kozuchowski failed to ensure that workers wore respirators

One of the orders, issued March 4, 2010, was a stop work order on the spray booth due to inadequate air flow. Kozuchowski admitted in court that he continued using the spray booth despite the stop work order.

Kozuchowski was found guilty of 15 counts of failing to comply with an order issued by an inspector. He was fined $3,000 for failing to comply with the stop work order and $1,000 for failing to comply with each of 14 additional orders.

The fines were imposed by Justice of the Peace Jacques Desjardins. In addition to the fines, the court imposed a 25-per-cent victim fine surcharge, as required by the Provincial Offences Act. The surcharge is credited to a special provincial government fund to assist victims of crime.

A system used by 1,769 health care and research workers to measure their workplace radiation exposure may have under-reported radiation levels since 2008, says the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission.

The commission says a “calculation error” in the management system used by the devices is responsible for the low readings.

The errors led to potential under-reporting of radiation doses by 25 to 40 per cent, the commission says in a letter to HealthCanada.

HealthCanadaoperates the National Dosimetry Services or NDS, which manages the devices.

Patsy Thompson, director general of environment and radiation protection for the nuclear safety commission, said in an interview it’s still not clear what went wrong.

On paper, it would appear everything was done properly, she said. But a test last week turned up the chronic problem.

“We need more information,” Thompson said. “That’s why we’ve asked for a detailed root cause analysis, so we can get to the bottom of this and see where the failures happened, and why.”

The workers affected are employed by 334 different organizations, the commission says.

It says that a recalculation shows only three individuals received doses exceeding the annual limit.

Those overexposures “are only marginally higher than the limit and well below levels at which health effects would occur,” the commission said in a release.

It has sent a letter to HealthCanada, asking the department for “corrective actions and a root cause analysis related to this event.”

HealthCanadaposted a notice on its website saying it is dealing with the issue.

“The calculation error has been resolved and a comprehensive review of the Quality Assurance process will be undertaken in consultations with our regulator, the Canada Nuclear Safety Commission,” it said.

Eric Pellerin, acting director of radiation protection at HealthCanada, said the rings and wristbands worn by the workers took accurate recordings.

But their raw information was fed into a program that used an incorrect mathematical formula to calculate the workers’ actual exposure.

Pellerin said the inaccurate readings weren’t noticed for four years because all the readings were well below the regulatory limit set by the nuclear safety commission.

Dosages are read in units called millisieverts, and the safety commission allows annual exposure of 500 units for workers, for devices worn on the hands or wrists.

Most of the readings were less than half the allowable dose, said Pellerin. Even if the readings had been doubled, he said, most would have remained under the acceptable guideline figure.

There were no health impacts, he said: “What we’re dealing with is more of an administrative nature.”

Thompson of the nuclear safety commission said HealthCanadastill must offer a fuller explanation.

She said the dosimetry service submitted its procedures to the nuclear safety commission, and everything looked adequate on paper.

The procedures included performance tests, she said.

“Performance tests when they are done appropriately would have flagged this problem,” she said.

But it was only last week that a test result rang alarm bells.

“Until we get the root cause analysis report from the NDS, we don’t understand why the performance tests did not identify this problem,” she said.

The nuclear safety commission issues separate licenses for measuring radiation doses to other institutions using radioactive materials, such as utilities that operate nuclear power plants.

Thompson said all licensees have been asked to review their tests and procedures in the light of the results from HealthCanada.

Mark Mattson of Lake Ontario Waterkeeper, who has opposed construction of new nuclear units atDarlington, said the incident raises question about the nuclear regulator – which also oversees nuclear power stations.

“The shocking thing here is that no one noticed the mistake for four years,” he said.

“Waterkeeper is very interested to see who is held accountable for this mistake. In recent years, we have become increasingly concerned that the CNSC is lax when it comes to enforcing the rules.”

Companies in the construction industry are facing an increase in applications for union certification and the recent Ontario Occupational Health and Safety Act changes underscore the importance of responding to safety recommendations from employees, according to speakers at an employment law conference Tuesday in Toronto.

The Ontario government recently passed Bill 160, which made several changes to the Occupational Health and Safety Act. That act was the result of a report from the expert panel led by Tony Dean, which in turn resulted from an accident in December 2009 that killed four construction workers who fell from a swing stage in Toronto.

In the past, recommendations from safety committees to employers had to come from the entire joint occupational health and safety committee, said Ryan Conlin, an employment lawyer specializing in health and safety.

The idea, he said, was to reach a consensus. However, Conlin said Bill 160 has changed the law to allow the worker to make a recommendation to the employer even if no consensus has been reached by the safety committee. “The employer has an obligation to respond to them,” Conlin said, adding the Ministry of Labour inspectors frequently ask to see minutes of safety committees meetings.

Recommendations are reviewed by labour inspectors and it is “very important to make sure” responses be fulsome, detailed and that issues are addressed.

“There does not have to be an accident for them to lay charges,” Conlin said of the Ontario Ministry of Labour. “They lay charges routinely where there has been no accident.”

Conlin made his remarks at the 25th annual employers’ conference, produced by law firm Stringer Brisbin Humphrey and held the Toronto Congress Centre.

Bill 160 also puts the onus on employers, in the event of a reprisal allegation, to prove that any action taken against an employee who had lodged a safety complaint was not retaliation that resulted from the complaint. “Has the Ministry of Labour ever been shy about litigation?” Conlin asked. “Have you ever read their website?”

In addition to the provincial health and safety law, employers can also be charged under the criminal code section 271.1 (established by Bill C-45), said Landon Young, a lawyer with Stringer Brisbin Humphrey’s occupational health and safety practice group.

He said there has been considerable pressure from the labour movement to lay more criminal charges in workplace accidents. The case involving Metron Construction Corp., which along with three individuals was charged with criminal negligence in connection with the 2009 Toronto swing stage collapse, will be “a very important test case,” Young said.

If the labour movement is “not satisfied with the outcome” of that case, we will see “more pressure brought to bear” from the labour movement, he said.

The role of unions in construction was one focus of a presentation at the conference by Jeffrey Murray, an employment lawyer with experience in health care, manufacturing and construction.

Murray said there’s a popular belief that “unions are beat” and “are no longer a threat” to non-unionized employers and are “easy to get concessions from,” but he showed numbers that suggest otherwise.

Although the number of unions applying for certification in the manufacturing sector has declined by 90 per cent in 10 years, Murray said the number of construction union applications has more than doubled during the same time.

Workplaces with racking and storage facilities may contain potentially serious hazards. The improper use, selection and installation, or maintenance of racking and storage systems may put workers at risk of injury.

Throughout November 2011, the Ministry of Labour will focus on racking and storage facilities used by workers at industrial workplaces across Ontario. The stepped-up enforcement is part of the ministry’s Safe At Work Ontario strategy, launched in June 2008.

Ministry of Labour inspectors will check whether the required precautions are being met by all who work in and around racking systems, as specified in the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA) and the Regulations for Industrial Establishments (R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 851).

Compliance: priority areas

Inspectors will focus on the following key priorities:

Installation and selection

Employers should determine whether they need to conduct a Pre-Start Health and Safety Review (PSR). [Reg. 851, section 7].

A PSR is not required when the employer has documentation showing that the rack has been designed and tested in accordance with the current applicable standards [Reg. 851, subsection 7(7)].

Read more about this review.

Condition, maintenance and repair

The OHSA requires the employer to ensure that the equipment it provides is maintained in good condition. Racks must be maintained in good condition by replacing/repairing damaged components of a racking system [OHSA, clause 25(1)(b)].

Use of racks

Employers must ensure lift trucks are being driven and products are being loaded and unloaded on pallet racks in a safe manner.

Employers must ensure that workers are provided with information, instruction and supervision to protect the health and safety of the worker [OHSA, clause 25(2)(a)].

Employers should consider providing worker training on:

• manufacturers’ loading recommendations
• procedures to report racking damage
• safe operation of mobile equipment in and around racking (i.e., forklift, pallet trucks)
• regular daily inspection/observation of racks, and
• any additional information relevant to their racking system

Other related issues

Employers should ensure:

• aisles are free of obstructions
• lighting is adequate
• pallets are in good condition

Employers must also ensure that:

• a floor used by any worker is free of obstructions and hazards [Reg. 851, subparagraphs 11(a)(i)(ii)]
• artificial lighting is provided where natural lighting is inadequate to ensure the workers’ safety [Reg. 851, section 21)]
• equipment such as pallets are maintained in good condition [OHSA, clause 25(1)(b)]

More than 600 inspections of residential construction sites in Alberta resulted in close to 400 orders issued.
Occupational Health and Safety did the inspections from Sept. 12 to Oct. 11 and issued 394 orders, including 83 stop-work orders.
A lack of fall protection, or a fall protection plan, accounted for 131 orders, about one-third of all orders issued.
Dave Hancock, minister of Human Services, responsible for Occupational Health and Safety, says the province needs to create a culture of workplace health and safety in all Albertans.
He says he wants to assess the impact of all three focused inspection campaigns the province conducted this year.
For the past several months, OHS has carried out a pilot program of evening and weekend inspections, including the recent residential construction campaign.
Hancock says the stepped-up schedule will continue on a regular basis.
”There are many sectors of our province’s workforce that don’t clock in from nine to five,” said Hancock.  ”Revising the working hours of our OHS officers to include weekends and evenings only makes sense.  This, along with our ongoing educational efforts and continuing to work with industry and safety associations, will help improve compliance in the workplace.”

Check out our Fall Protection services here.