Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
in reply to: Private: Does WHMIS Training Have to Offered #103449
Okay
in reply to: Hazard Assessments #103448Thank you:)
in reply to: Heat & Humidex #103447Thanks
in reply to: covid-legislation-changes #103446Thank you
in reply to: document-retention-format #103445Apologies for keeping you waiting. I thought you were requesting IT help. Now I get it.
The short answer is yes, in most cases you can store documents digitally. However, they must also be immediate accessible if they’re requested by OHS officials. In addition, digital storage could be problematic to materials that must be kept at the work site and made immediately accessible to workers or the JHSC. The most obvious example are SDS’ required by WHMIS. Digital storage is OK as long as workers can access them any time without help. In other words, they should have access to the computers on which they’re stored and know how to access the materials. They shouldn’t have to rely on another person to get the documents for them. Hope this helps and sorry for the confusion. Glennin reply to: Ladder Use – Feet at 6 ft., body at 10 ft. #103444Thanks Glenn!
in reply to: Ladder Use – Feet at 6 ft., body at 10 ft. #103443Oops. I think I might have misled you. Fall protection would probably be required if any part of the body is above 3 metres. I guess I was thinking that the workers weren’t ascending up the ladder high enough to exceed the limit. You could make the case that since the center of gravity would be anchored below 3 metres, fall protection wouldn’t be required. But that’s a risky position. I apologize that I wasn’t clearer in my original answer. Feel free to follow up with me directly at glennd@bongarde.com if you want to hash it out.
in reply to: Ladder Use – Feet at 6 ft., body at 10 ft. #103442First, I apologize for the delay in responding. I’m just returning from bereavement leave. This is a tricky question. Let me break it down.
1. Workers required to use fall protection must receive fall protection training.
2. Workers exposed to the risk of falling 3 metres/10 feet or more from a portable ladder do have to use fall protection–a personal fall arrest system (OHS Code, Sec. 137(1))
3. A case could be made that the worker standing in the middle of a portable ladder with his/her core only 6 feet above ground is NOT at risk of a 10-foot fall, in which case personal fall arrest and fall protection wouldn’t be required (I’m assuming that there’s no risk of the worker’s falling thru an opening or onto a hazardous substance or object, in which case fall arrest would still be required even if the fall is less than 10 feet (Sec. 139(1)(c))
4. Even if the fall would be deemed to be 10 feet or more, the Section 137(1) requirement for personal fall arrest wouldn’t apply if it would be not reasonably practical and: (a) the work is a light duty task of short duration at each location, (b) the worker’s centre of balance is at the centre of the ladder at all times even with an arm
extended beyond the side rails of the ladder, and (c) the worker maintains 3-point contact whenever the worker extends an arm beyond a side rail.
Bottom Line: From what you describe, especially the fact that the worker’s body will be in the center of the portable ladder well below the 3 metre/10 foot threshold at which fall protection is required is that you would NOT have to provide the worker fall protection and detailed fall protection training. Caveat: This is just a personal opinion and should in no way be considered legal counsel, which I’m neither qualified nor allowed to provide you. Still, it is an informed opinion. Sorry to go on so long and I hope this was worth the wait. Glennin reply to: Harassment and Violence training #103441Those are excellent questions.
1. The required content of workplace harassment/violence training under OHS laws varies little from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. The potential exception is the Canada Labour Code for federally-regulated employees. But that’s probably academic since employees generally remain federally regulated regardless of where their site is located. But there’s a big caveat: Workplace violence training must be specific to the workplace and its unique risk factors and conditions. Accordingly, when employees move from one workplace to another, they DO need to be retrained on the specifics of that new workplace. For example, maybe the lighting, physical configuration, violence response and call for help procedures are different at the new location.
2. Workplace harassment is NOT workplace specific. So you don’t have to retrain workers you transfer.
3. There’s no stipulation–other than perhaps under the Canada Labour Code which I admittedly didn’t look up–that violence and harassment training be repeated each year or at any predetermined interval for that matter. The general rule is that retraining or refresher training must be provided as necessary in response to workplace incidents, significant changes in operations or procedures that weren’t covered in previous training or other indications that the previous training isn’t effective or up to date and needs to be revised.
I love these questions and bet you’re not the only person who harbors them. Hope the answers work for you. Have a great weekend. Glennin reply to: Private: Tick Bites – #103440Thanks Glen. We are in Ontario and we are a Federally regulated company.
in reply to: Private: Tick Bites – #103439It depends in part on what jurisdiction you’re in but generally, no, tick bites that don’t require first aid or transfer to a hospital or care facility aren’t reportable. In other words, you don’t have to report a tick bite merely because of the possibility of infection later on since it may never happen. However, you should, of course, keep records for your own files. Hope that helps.
in reply to: BC – Blocking for support #103438Wow. This question calls for more technical knowledge and understanding than a poor lawyer like me possesses. But I’ll do whatever I can to see you get an answer. There are 2 options: 1. Contact me directly at glennd@bongarde.com and walk me through your question so I can at least figure out where in the regulations to search for an answer. If you don’t feel like “dumbing it down” for me, we can try posing the question to the OHSI members as a whole. Sorry for coming up short like this but the worst thing I can do is to fake that I know what I’m doing with this one. Glenn
Thank you very much Glenn for this detailed explanation, it’s so clear.
Apologies for keeping you waiting for so long. As a general rule, you’re not allowed to factor the attenuating impact of PPE into the calculation of an employee’s exposure level to a product or hazard for which there’s a specific exposure limit–in this case 87 dBA for noise. As a result, you would have to submit the required report to the Head of Compliance and Enforcement, even though workers in the danger zone are equipped with hearing protection. At least that’s my interpretation of the COHS Regulation.
Regrettably, I was unable to find a template for such a report. But I don’t think it needs to be a complex document. Your basic obligation is to just explain in writing why you can’t keep the noise level below 87dBA and give a copy to the workplace JHSC or health and safety representative, if any. According to government guidelines, “the officer cannot ‘accept’ or ‘reject’ the report but may use it as a basis to decide whether further investigation is required by the Labour Program.” Check out https://www.canada.ca/en/employment-social-development/programs/laws-regulations/labour/interpretations-policies/074.html
Thanks for the question and I hope this answers it. Feel free to follow up with me directly, glennd@bongarde.com -
AuthorPosts
