A worker in Alberta is operating a mill that prepares rubber to retread industrial tires. Rubber gets stuck to the back roller. The worker goes to the back of the mill to fix the malfunction. He climbs over a guardrail, loses his balance, falls onto a roller and gets his hands caught in a pinchpoint. Part of the worker’s right arm and several fingers on his left hand have to be amputated. The company that operates the plant is convicted of a safety violation and fined $70,000. The appeals court upholds the conviction, ruling that the company didn’t exercise due diligence. The court notes that the company had an experienced mill operator train the worker when he started. But it never instructed the experienced operator on how to train the new worker or verified that the training he received from the operator was adequate [R. v. Kal Tire Ltd.].
THE PROBLEM
Employers must provide workers with the necessary information and training to perform their jobs safely. Training can be provided in a variety of ways. But what doesn’t vary is the employer’s obligation to ensure that all workers are trained by qualified and competent trainers and understand and are able to apply their training when they perform their jobs. The Kal Tire case is a good illustration of the legal consequences that can befall a company that takes shortcuts in training its workers.
THE EXPLANATION
The OHS laws require safety training but generally don’t specify the actual safety training techniques employers must use. Acceptable training methods may include group classes, one-on-one training and hands-on training. Training can also be provided by a variety of instructors, including outside trainers such as OHS consultants. But using outside trainers can be expensive. And companies don’t necessarily have to opt for the most expensive training methods. For example, instead of hiring a pricey outside consultants, the company might opt to have all training done in-house. And there’s nothing inherently wrong with this approach. Adequate safety training can be provided in many cases by, say, senior managers, supervisors, safety coordinators and yes, even experienced workers.
But what companies can’t do is sacrifice the effectiveness of its training in order to save a few bucks. The company in Kal Tire learned this lesson the hard way. The company’s decision to delegate the training of the injured worker to a senior worker who was experienced in operating the mill wasn’t inherently illegal. The reason it was found liable for a training violation is that it didn’t give the experienced worker specific and appropriate instructions on how to train the new worker. The company just left it to the worker to learn by watching the senior worker, copying him and asking him questions. And as the trial court said, it’s not enough to simply tell an experienced worker to “show the new guy how it’s done.” Instead, a company must “train the trainer”—that is, it must ensure that whoever it chooses to train a worker is given proper instruction on how to adequately do so.
In addition, the company in Kal Tire didn’t verify the effectiveness of its chosen training method. The company made no effort to determine whether the injured worker had been adequately trained by the senior worker to do his job safely. For example, it didn’t test the worker or require anyone other than the senior worker to check that the training was complete and exhaustive.
THE SOLUTION
Complying with training requirements isn’t about how much money the company spends on safety training but whether it spends enough to provide the training each worker needs to work safely. You must ensure that the company provides appropriate training to every worker—regardless of how much the company spends and who does the actual training. To do so, you need to know how the company’s training program works and actively take measures to verify that:
Loading ...
