Forum Replies Created
-
That’s a really good question. The short answer is that current OHS protections against workplace violence and harassment DO pertain to psychological and mental health and well-being even though they don’t expressly say this. The closest they get is in including references to psychological and mental harm in the definition of “harassment” or “violence” that employers must protect workers against. But even that varies by province. The most progressive law is the Canada Labour Code governing federally regulated employers, which defines “workplace violence and harassment” together “as any action, conduct or comment, including of a sexual nature, that can reasonably be expected to cause offence, humiliation or other physical or PSYCHOLOGICAL INJURY OR ILLNESS to an employee, including any prescribed action, conduct or comment” (emphasis added)
Quebec is the flipside. In Quebec, workers are protected against “psychological harassment” but “violence” isn’t mentioned. However, the definition of “psychological harassment” is broad enough to include violence. Thus, workers in Quebec are protected against violence via the right to be free of psychological harassment, whereas workers everywhere else are protected against psychological harm via the right to be free from workplace violence and harassment. The other weird thing about Quebec is that psychological harassment protections come from the Labour Standards Act rather than the OHS Act.
At the end of the day, though, the protections are basically the same everywhere. It might help to put things in historical context. When the original OHS laws were first enacted, they didn’t include workplace violence or other socio-psychological harm done by human beings as factors. In the first decade of the 2000s, the provinces began adding workplace violence protections to their OHS laws; then they expanded those protections to harassment. Now, led by the federal government and Bill C-65, which took effect a couple years ago, they’re starting to lump violence and harassment together as one big psycho-social hazard and address the issue from the standpoint of mental/psychological rather than just physical harm.
The takeaway from all of this is that YES employers do have legal obligations to protect workers’ mental and psychological well-being under current OHS laws and those duties will likely be better refined and clarified in the future. If you tell me what jurisdiction you’re in, I’ll look up the exact requirements pertaining to you.
-OHSInsider Staff
The best way to answer that question is to give you the actual language of the relevant Regs. You should be able to piece it together from these sources:
1. HERE’S WHAT THE OHS REG SAYS:
OHS Regs: 147. Control: In any establishment supplied with drinking water by a distribution system exempted from the application of Division I of Chapter III, “Quality control of drinking water”, of the Regulation respecting the quality of drinking water (chapter Q-2, r. 40), the employer must have a sample of that water analyzed for the control of total coliform bacteria and Escherichia coli bacteria before the water is put at the disposal of the workers for the first time and, subsequently, once a month.
2. HERE’S THE EXEMPTION REFERRED TO:
QUALITY CONTROL OF DRINKING WATER
DIVISION I
WATER SUPPLIED BY DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS
10. The provisions of this Division do not apply to a distribution system that supplies only one of the following users:
(1) 20 persons or less;
(2) one or more enterprises;
(3) 20 persons or less and one or more enterprises3. HERE’S WHAT ELSE THE OHS REG SAYS (SECTION 147)
The first and second paragraphs of section 30 of the Regulation respecting the quality of drinking water apply to that sample.
4. HERE’S WHAT SECTION 30 OF THE DRINKING WATER REG SAYS
METHODS, ANALYSES AND RESULTS
30. Every person who is bound by a provision of this Regulation to collect or have collected a water sample for analysis purposes must ensure that the samples are collected and kept in accordance with the provisions of Schedule 4. That person must also ensure that the samples are shipped to the analytical laboratory as soon as possible.
Every person who collects a water sample pursuant to this Regulation must sign the analysis request form that complies with the model provided by the Minister to certify that the sampling, preservation and sending of the sample to the laboratory accredited by the Minister under section 118.6 of the Environment Quality Act (chapter Q-2) have taken place in compliance with the provisions of this Regulation.5. HERE’S THE REMAINDER OF SECTION 147 OF THE OHS REG.
Upon receiving the analyses results, the employer must keep them posted in a visible location that is easily accessible to workers until the following results are received. In default of such a location, the employer must communicate each of the results to the workers by any appropriate means.
To answer your second question, I believe that Quebec is the only province this applies to because the references are to provincial rather than federal law.
-OHSInsider Staff
It’s not mandatory to install AEDs in a private workplace in any part of Canada. That will change if and when Ontario adopts Bill 30, Working for Workers Seven, which requires AEDs be installed at large construction project sites expected to last at least 3 months. Once the law passes, the MOL will create regulations specifying the details, including how and how often AEDs must be inspected. But that probably won’t happen until 2026.
Meanwhile, if you voluntarily choose to have AEDs at your site, regardless of where in Canada you are or what kind of industry you’re in, your obligation is to maintain and inspect the equipment in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations. There’s a lot of excellent content on OHS Insider about how to set up and implement an AED program which specifically addresses inspections, among other things. Just search for “AEDs.” If you have any problems finding the materials on the site, let me know and I’ll help you out.
-OHSInsider Staff
Interesting question. When this question comes up, it’s usually about whether employers have to exempt turbans and other religious head garments from hard hat policies as a reasonable accommodation for a worker’s religion. But this is about adjusting the religious gear to the safety gear. Let me do some research. But can you tell me what jurisdiction you’re in so I can see if there are any government OHS guidelines on the subject? Thanks.
-OHSInsider Staff
Fair question. It occurred to me that experience rating wasn’t what you were after. I did look into this but couldn’t find anything addressing the denied claims issue other than in the premiums setting sections of the respective WCB Policy Manuals. My suggestion:
Call the WCB of your jurisdiction and ask them directly.
I’ll keep my eyes open in the meantime.
I researched Alberta, BC and Ontario:
Alberta: In calculating an employer’s experience rating for the year, the WCB considers BOTH the number of claims AND total claim costs, among other factors. https://www.wcb.ab.ca/assets/pdfs/public/policy/manual/printable_pdfs/0702_1.pdf
BC: “POLICY As a general rule, all acceptable claims coded to a particular firm are counted for experience rating purposes. Whether the firm was at fault is not considered.” ASSESSMENT MANUAL, Experience Rating Cost ITEM: AP5-247-2 Inclusions/Exclusions
The notion that only accepted claims count toward ER is reinforced by the ASSESSMENT MANUAL policy on the Experience Rating plan which notes that ER adjustments are based solely on claims costs and that the Board’s admin costs don’t get counted in ER calculations. In addition, the claims costs that are included are subject to caps of 100% of the first $70,000; 50% of the next $50,000; and 10% of all costs above $120,000.
ONTARIO: Like BC, Ontario counts just accepted claims. Here’s a cite from the WSIB NEER Policy: “The premium rate calculation methodology considers all of an employer’s insurable earnings, claim count and the associated claim costs over the six year period before the year premium rates are set. . . . THE CLAIM COUNT REFERS TO ALLOWED CLAIMS with an accident date within the review period. The claim costs refer to the actual costs that are paid in respect of claims with an accident date falling within the review period. (emphasis added) https://www.wsib.ca/en/operational-policy-manual/employer-level-premium-rate-setting
I didn’t research any of the other provinces but will if there’s a specific province you want me to look in. But at the end of the day, counting just accepted claims makes sense because it’s in line with the overall workers’ comp policy of allocating premiums to employers based on how much they cost the workers’ comp system; moreover, employers are still required to report all time loss injuries to the WCB regardless of whether the claim is compensable.
-OHSInsider Staff
That’s a tricky question that will require some research. I’ll do the research and get back to you in the next couple of days. For now, what I CAN tell you is that:
1. Whether a denied claim counts toward lost time frequency is dictated not by industry standard but the requirements of the workers’ comp laws themselves, specifically, the definition of “lost time.” That’s what I need to research.
2. My theory is that the rules governing what you include in your lost time injury frequency rate is based on whether a worker actually misses time rather than whether the WCB accepted the claim. But I need to do the research to see if that theory holds water.
3. FWIW, I believe that most WCBs in Canada count only accepted claims when calculating their own provincial lost-time injury rates, injury totals and fatality totals.
-OHSInsider Staff
Where JHSC certification training is expressly required by OHS laws, which is the case in 4 provinces–Ontario, Alberta, Newfoundland and Quebec, I believe–it must be delivered by a govt approved trainer using a govt approved course. In other words, a company can’t just develop its own inhouse program and use it to satisfy the OHS requirement. However, such a training module might still be useful to acquaint JHSC members and co-chairs about committee functions, powers, rights, etc., in any of the 10 jurisdictions where JHSC certification training isn’t specifically required. This might help https://ohsinsider.com/how-to-perform-a-jhsc-training-compliance-audit/
-OHSInsider Staff
Generally, JHSC certification training, where it’s required, must be delivered by an officially certified/govt approved provider. But I can’t give you a precise answer unless I know what province you’re in (or whether you’re federally regulated). LMK and I’ll follow up.
-OHSInsider Staff
