Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
OK. The important thing with Quebec is ensuring that you cover “psychological harassment”. Effective January 1, you also need to cover “intimate partner violence” in the workplace. I don’t really need all the appendices if you’re not federally regulated. Explanation: The Canada Labour Code has extensive and unique requirements for investigating and processing complaints, among other things. If you’re not federally regulated, that’s not an issue.
Although without access to the Appendices it’s hard to tell, this should work in most jurisdictions. However, it may require tweaking if you operate within Quebec or are subject to federal regulation under the Canada Labour Code. Caveat to keep in mind:
I’m neither qualified nor allowed to provide legal counsel. This is just a personal opinion, one based on a partial view without access to the attached materials. The one recommendation I can make is that you run the policy past qualified legal counsel for a definitive opinion.
I apologize for not getting back to you sooner. I’m just returning from bereavement leave. I haven’t seen the policies but will be happy to review them for jurisdictional harmony. You can either post them as an Ask The Expert question or email them to me at glennd@bongarde.com.
in reply to: Cannabis training #110703First, I want to give my love to your organization, people and work.
Cannabis use by employees away from work is a personal matter over which employers have very limited responsibility. But that changes when employees use cannabis at work or show up for work impaired as a result of using it away from work. In other words, employers have a right and even a duty to require employees to come to work sober and fit for a duty and discipline them if they don’t, especially if the impaired employee performs a safety-sensitive job.
Training plays very little role in these principles. Employees need to know about the organization’s drug policies and testing procedures and understand that being buzzed or high at work isn’t permissible, whether due to cannabis, alcohol, legal prescription drugs, or any other substance whether legal or illegal. I guess the employer effort would be better described as providing education and information rather than training.
Hope this helps and keep up the great work, March of Dimes people. Feel free to follow up if you’d like to continue. Glenn
in reply to: Cannabis training #110699Hi. It’s me/Glenn again. One thing I should have mentioned is the importance of ensuring that all employees understand your company’s Fitness for Duty/Sober Workplace policy and drug/alcohol testing protocols, including:
* Triggers for testing, e.g., post-incident, reasonable cause, random, etc.
* How determinations to test are made
* The testing methods
* Who performs the tests and where
* The safeguards in place to ensure privacy and sample integrity
* The consequences of testing positivein reply to: Cannabis training #110698Strictly speaking, “cannabis training” isn’t specifically required under OHS or employment laws. However, such training may be implicitly required to the extent it directly impacts a worker’s safety, accommodation rights under human rights laws, or other aspects of the job.
Can you please give me some more information. Specifically, can you clarify exactly what you mean by “cannabis training”? What kind of business are you in, who are the employees you want to train and for what purpose? Once I know these details, I’ll be able to give you a more specific answer and analysis of your legal responsibilities. Thanks and sorry to keep you waiting. G
Glenn Demby, OHS Compliance Insider, Editor in Chief
in reply to: OHS Info Posted on Site #110569Awesome. Glad we could help. Stay in touch. We’re a great resource, if I do say so myself.
in reply to: OHS Info Posted on Site #110562Great questions.
1. Multiple Floors: The basic standard is a location that’s “reasonably conspicuous” and likely to be noticed by the workers to whom the posted info is targeted. I would interpret that as including any and all floors on which those workers work. A case could be made that posting on every floor isn’t needed if: a. No workers work on a floor; and/or b. The info is posted in a central location on one floor that ALL workers must pass by during their shifts at least once a day regardless of which floor they actually work on.
2. Digital Board. To analyze this, I’d apply the standards that regulators use to determine whether digital access to Safety Data Sheets (SDS) meets the WHMIS requirement that SDS’ be “readily accessible” to affected workers. Thus, the digital board would probably work if: a. All workers have access to the site at all times; b. They don’t need special training to access the site; and c. There are paper copies available in case of blackouts or disruptions to digital service.
3. Telecommuters. I think the Digital Board analysis would work for SharePoint and remote workers as well. Another key thing to keep in mind is that the posted info must pertain directly to the telecommuter’s safety. Thus, a telecommuter doesn’t need a map of the office evacuation routes if they don’t work in the office; however, they do need to know how to exit their home or other place in which they perform the work. Fire exits, contact info, and other safety info is something you need to provide for, in cooperation with the worker, when setting up the initial remote work arrangement. There should also be inspections and updates of posted info on a regular and as-needed basis thereafter.
I hope this helps. Sorry if I hit you with more (or less) info than you need. Feel free to post a follow up if you need further help.
Glenn Demby, Editor in Chief, OHS Insider
in reply to: First Aid Kits #110200Good question. Whether Uline or any other first aid kit, for Type 2 or any other type, complies is based on the particular requirements for first aid kits for your particular workplace. If you want, I can help you make that determination, provided that you tell me:
1. Which jurisdiction you’re in
2. How many workers are at your facility
3. The kind of work performed there and
4. Location, in terms of accessibility and proximity to a hospital or other emergency treatment
5. What’s actually in the Uline kitFeel free to email me at glennd@bongarde.com if you want to discuss. I’ll wait to hear back from you.
Editor in Chief, OHS Insider
in reply to: Fire Watch #109157ANSWER
You basically need a fire watch to be in place any time hot work requiring a permit is done in an underground mine.
EXPLANATION
The only exception when a fire watch for a hot work operation requiring a permit would NOT be required would be where all of the following things are true:
• The hot work doesn’t create ignition risk
• There’s no combustible material nearby, either because it doesn’t exist or has been completely removed
• There is combustible material nearby but is completely shielded, wetted down, or protected in such a way that there’s no residual combustion risk—risk that’s simply been reduced doesn’t eliminate the need for a fire watchAlso keep in mind that if required, the fire watch must remain in place even after the hot work is done to detect smouldering materials, rekindling, or other lingering or residual fire or ignition risks. Post-fire watches may be necessary for 30 to 60 minutes or even more depending on the situation and risks involved. The hot work permit should specify the required post-fire watch duration for the particular operation.
Thanks for the question and I that answers it.
OHS Insider, Editor-in-Chief
in reply to: Fire Watch #109136Can you please provide a little more detail about the operation? And what province/territory are you in–or are you federally regulated?
in reply to: Employer Responsibilities under OHSA #109127WSIB reporting isn’t a concern if you’re not covered by workers’ comp. Just be sure to check and comply with all requirements and deadlines of any of your private insurance policies that may apply.
Unfortunately, not having to report to the WSIB isn’t automatic exemption from OHS “critical injury” reporting requirements. Remember that the key issue is whether the staffer’s stroke happened in the workplace. The fact that the staffer isn’t a telecommuter offers some but not complete comfort on that count. However, I believe you do have to look into what the staffer was doing at the time the stroke happened. If the staffer was, in fact, carrying out admin. duties or traveling to the site, it may be deemed a “workplace” critical injury that must be reported to the MOL. Have you talked to anyone at the MOL about this? If not, consider doing so.
Are you in a clearer place now? If not, shoot me another follow up and I’ll try my best to help.
OHS Insider, Editor in Chief
in reply to: Employer Responsibilities under OHSA #109113ANSWER
It depends.
EXPLANATION
From an OHS/Workers’ Compensation perspective, the key question is whether the staff member suffered the stroke in the course of employment. If so, you might have to report it. Let me break it down:
WSIB
Employers must submit a Form 7 report of strokes and other illnesses to the WSIB within three business days of learning of the event, provided that the stroke is work-related. If the staffer suffered the stroke at home, it wouldn’t be deemed work-related UNLESS either:
a. The staffer was performing work functions at home when they suffered the stroke; or
b. Employment conditions, for example, exposure to a hazardous substance, contributed to its occurrence. If you know for sure that this isn’t the case, then you don’t have to report it. However, if there’s any doubt or possibility that the work environment or conditions might have been a cause, you’re best off erring on the side of caution and submitting the Form 7 to the WSIB, which will then determine causation and whether the stroke was work-related.
OHS
Similar principles apply to OHS reporting. Under Ontario OHS laws, employers must notify and submit a written report of a “critical injury,” such as loss of consciousness or a life-threatening condition, to the Ministry of Labour within 48 hours. However, notification and reporting are required only if the critical injury occurs in the “workplace.” Keep in mind that “workplace” is defined broadly as including any location where a worker is normally expected to perform their job, including the worker’s home if the worker telecommutes or works remotely.
*****
Since I don’t know all the facts, I can’t give you a definitive answer. But hopefully I’ve given you the legal framework you need to apply the facts and make your own determination. Remember, if you’re not completely sure that the stroke was NOT work-related or a workplace incident, you might want to report it just to be safe.Feel free to follow up if this doesn’t answer your question.
OHS Insider, Editor in Chief
Additional thought. Logically, you wouldn’t need a fall protection system if a worker in a scissor lift is protected from falling by a guardrail. Such protection would be required only when the worker is at actual risk of falling. But that’s not what the Reg. says. What it says is that the fall protection system is required where “work is to be performed” from equipment 3 meters or higher. I can only presume that this is deliberate. Still, it’s kind of a head scratcher. . . .
Regrettably, I can’t confirm this, at least not under COHS Regs. While some jurisdictions write their OHS fall protections to cascade down, starting with guardrails or other fixed barriers, followed by fall protection systems where fixed barriers aren’t reasonably practicable, the COHS Regs. don’t take that approach. They basically say that a fall protection system is required where workers are exposed to risk of falling 3 meters or more, including from equipment (like a scissor lift).
The Regs. also provide for an exception in the case where an employee has to work from a vehicle and it’s “not feasible” for the employer to put a fall protection system in place, provided that the employer, in consultation with the JHSC or safety rep:
* Performs a job safety analysis (JSA) to eliminate or minimize the need for the employee to climb onto the vehicle or its load;
* Provides every employee who may be required to climb onto the vehicle or load with instruction and training by a qualified person on the safe method of climbing onto and working on it;
* Gives the government a written report explaining why the fall protection system isn’t feasible along with a copy of the JSA and description of the safety instruction and training required by the bullet above; and
* Gives a copy of the above report to the JHSC or safety rep; and
* Updates the JSA every 2 years.
I’ve pasted the relevant portions of the COHS Regs below. Hope this answers your question. If not, feel free to loop back with me either via this thread or glennd@bongarde.com. Glenn Demby, OHSI Editor in Chief
******
COHS REGS
Fall-protection Systems
12.07 (1) Subject to subsection (2), an employer must provide or put in place a fall-protection system if work is to be performed(a) from a structure or on a vehicle at a height of 3 m or more;
(b) from a ladder at a height of 3 m or more if, because of the nature of the work, the person performing it is unable to use at least one hand to hold onto the ladder; or
(c) at a height of less than 3 m if the surface onto which the person might fall would present a greater risk of injury than a solid, flat surface.
(2) If an employee is required to work on a vehicle and it is not feasible to provide or put in place a fall-protection system, an employer must
(a) in consultation with the policy committee or, if there is no policy committee, the work place committee or the health and safety representative,
(i) perform a job safety analysis to eliminate or minimize the need for the employee to climb onto the vehicle or its load, and
(ii) provide every employee who could be required to climb onto the vehicle or its load with instruction and training by a qualified person on the safe method of climbing onto it and working there;
(b) make a report in writing to the Head of Compliance and Enforcement setting out the reasons why it is not feasible to provide or put in place a fall-protection system and include in that report the job safety analysis and a description of the instruction and training referred to in paragraph (a); and
(c) provide a copy of the report referred to in paragraph (b) to the policy committee or, if there is no policy committee, the work place committee or the health and safety representative.
(3) The job safety analysis, instruction and training referred to in paragraph (2)(a) must be reviewed every two years in consultation with the policy committee or, if there is no policy committee, the work place committee or the health and safety representative.
SOR/2019-243, s. 4SOR/2021-118, s. 6
-
AuthorPosts
