[Jeffrey Turner]

in reply to: Subcontractor Management #102964

You’re welcome, Bruce. Please let me know how you fare.

[Jeffrey Turner]

in reply to: Subcontractor Management #102963

The OHSI site is the starting point. We have a rich selection of analysis and TOOLS covering contractor and subcontractor OHS (in Canada, HSE is “OHS” for Occupational Health and Safety). One caveat: We tend to cover it from the perspective of the host employer rather than the prime contractor or contractor with the understanding that the rules and requirements apply to the subcontractor downstream. The best place to go for an integrated Subcontractor management plan is Enform, the safety association for the Alberta Energy and Gas Industry. They’ve done an amazing amount of great work on this–albeit with an energy industry focus. Here’s a link to get you going, http://www.enform.ca/files/pdf/publications/contractor_management_May2010.pdf
Hope this helps. Glenn Demby

[Jeffrey Turner]

in reply to: WHMIS 2015 – SDS Expiry? #102961

That IS true but it’s only half the story.
WHMIS 2015 does eliminate the requirement that an MSDS–now SDS–be updated every 3 years.
HOWEVER, the SDS still must be updated on an ongoing basis in response to “significant new data” affecting the product’s classification or safe handling and usage. The supplier who prepared the SDS is required to provide the update within 90 days of becoming aware of the significant new data. Then, the downstream employer who receives the updated SDS from the supplier must as soon as reasonably practicable ensure that:

• The original SDS is replaced or revised to incorporate the significant new data
• The label on the product’s container is also revised accordingly to list the significant new data
•  Exposed workers are notified of and receive any necessary training to work safely with or near the product in light of the significant new data.

Hope that helps.

[Jeffrey Turner]

in reply to: Private: What is the Definition of Safety Sensitive #102960

Since you took the trouble to submit the original Q, I’ll go ahead and answer it as best I can without troubling you for clarification. But if I do miss the thrust, let me know and I’ll try again.
The term “safety-sensitive” comes not from OHS laws but court cases as a reference point for drug/alcohol testing. As you know, testing is very privacy intrusive and potentially discriminatory to the extent that alcohol and drug ADDICTION is deemed a “disability” under human rights laws. So to justify testing, the employer must show that it serves a critical, nondiscriminatory purpose and does so in a reasonable fashion that doesn’t intrude any more than necessary to accomplish that purpose. Nobody disputes that workplace safety is a critical, nondiscriminatory purpose. The real controversy is whether testing is reasonably necessary to accomplish it.
One factor is WHO is tested. The rule, which I believe comes from a 2000 Sup. Ct. case called Entrop Oil, is that for testing to be justifiable as a safety measure, it must target not all employees but those who occupy “safety-sensitive” positions. There’s no official or agreed-to definition of “safety-sensitive” but it’s also a pretty straightforward, noncontroversial issue–you pretty much know who is and isn’t safety-sensitive. The basic thing to look for is whether what the employee does has a direct and immediate impact on safety in the workplace–not only of the worker but co-workers and even members of the public directly affected by the work, like pedestrians walking below a skyscraper on which crane ops are being carried out. I also found a couple of definitions from key organizations that deal with this issue that might help you out:
Canada Human Rights Commission Guidelines on Drug/Alcohol Testing: A safety-sensitive job is one in which incapacity due to drug or alcohol impairment could result in direct and significant risk of injury to the employee, others or the environment. Whether a job can be categorized as safety-sensitive must be considered within the context of the industry, the particular workplace, and an employee’s direct involvement in a high-risk operation. Any definition must take into account the role of properly trained supervisors and the checks and balances present in the workplace.
Canadian National Railway Drugs Policy: Safety Sensitive Positions Safety-sensitive positions are those which the company determines have a key and direct role in rail operation where impaired performance could result in a significant incident affecting the health and safety of employees, customers, the public, property or the environment. This includes all employees who are in safety critical positions as designated by the Safety Critical Position Rule, as well as all employees who are required to rotate in safety sensitive positions or regularly relieve employees in these positions. This also includes supervisors and managers who perform the duties of safety sensitive or safety critical positions. Classification of positions as safety sensitive is given in the SAP-HR system (qualification).
Hope this is what you were looking for. If not, contact me at glennd@bongarde.com or 203 354-4532

[Jeffrey Turner]

in reply to: Private: What is the Definition of Safety Sensitive #102959

Nuts, I should have left you my contact info in case you want to touch base directly. glennd@bongarde.com or 203 354-4532

[Jeffrey Turner]

in reply to: Private: What is the Definition of Safety Sensitive #102958

You mean for purposes of drug/alcohol testing’ The term “safety-sensitive” is commonly used to identify employees subject to testing under a workplace drugs and alcohol policy–as in testing is more justifiable if employees occupy safety-sensitive positions. Once I nail down the context–the reason you’re asking the Q–I’ll be able to give you a useful answer. Thanks.
Glenn

[Jeffrey Turner]

in reply to: Storage and transportation of empty barrels that have been used for Dangerous Goods in B.C. #102957

That’s a very broad question so let’s break it down a bit.
First,  while BC (like most provinces) does have its own provincial TDG enforcement infrastructure and accident/emissions reporting requirements, it basically follows federal TDG rules as far as substantive safety issues. That includes rules for containers, which are set out in Part 5 of the federal TDG Regulations, Means of Containment. So that’s where you should look first. Here’s the link, http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/tdg/clear-part5-300.htm
I was also able to find some federal TDG guidance from Transport Canada on reuse of drums that were previously used to contain dangerous goods. https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/tdg/moc-smoc-faqdrumreconditioning-280.html Some of the key points:

• Steel drums with a capacity greater than or equal to 150 L may not be reused to transport liquid dangerous goods in classes 3, 4, 5, 6.1, 8 or 9 unless the drums are reconditioned in accordance with the requirements of Part II of CGSB-43.126 before reuse;
• Plastic drums with a capacity greater than or equal to 150 L may not be reused to transport liquid dangerous goods in classes 3, 4, 5, 6.1, 8 or 9 unless the drums are reconditioned in accordance with the requirements of  Part III of CGSB-43.126 before reuse;
• The requirements for reconditioning are set out in Part II (for steel drums) and Part III (for plastic drums) of CGSB-43.126, but not limited to:
  • interior and exterior washing
  • interior and exterior inspection
  • chime straightening (for steel drums only)
  • leak testing
  • replacement of all non-integral gaskets
  • marking

There are also separate rules for drum remanufacturing–which I presume don’t apply to your situation. Hope this helps.
Glenn Demby, 203 354-4532

[Jeffrey Turner]

in reply to: Occupational Exposure to Grain Dust Change #102956

Sounds like you’re right on top of things. As you note, public consultations were held last July on reducing the OEL for grain dust from of 10 mg/m3 to 4 mg/m3; and increasing the OEL for flour dust from 0.5 mg/m3 to 3 mg/m3. The current OHS Regs have been in effect since June 2017–a month before the consultations. https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/regu/sor-86-304/latest/sor-86-304.html  .
Accordingly, Part X (Section 10.19(1)(b)) still lists the OEL for airborne grain dust as 10 mg/m3.  (the OEL for flour dust is based on the ACGIH TLV, presumably, 0.5 mg/m3
In other words, the OEL changes have apparently NOT YET TAKEN EFFECT. That probably goes not just for grain and flour dust but all proposed OEL changes for 2018. As you also indicate, the revised Regs will take effect when they are published in Part II of the Canada Gazette–which is probably going to happen very soon. We’ll keep an eye on the situation and follow up if and when that happens.
Thx, Glenn Demby, 203 354-4532

[Jeffrey Turner]

in reply to: Employer Gym Facilities – Safety Policies & Liability #102954

Here’s what we found:
ONTARIO
We posed the Q to WSIB  and received the following email, verbatim:
“Thank you for your email enquiry of January 23, 2018 regarding accidents in the course of employment. In particular, your question is about injuries that occur at an employer provided gym.
“The Operational Policy Branch can provide policy information but cannot comment on specific cases or provide legal advice.
To determine if an injury occurred in the course of employment, decision-makers consider the criteria of place, time, and activity surrounding the injury as set out in Operational Policy Manual document 15-02-02, Accident in the Course of Employment.
“With regard to the place criteria, 15-02-02 provides that where the accident occurs on the employer’s premises, the worker will generally be considered to be in the course of the employment.
“With regard to the time criteria, if the worker has fixed working hours, the decision-maker will consider if the accident occurred within the normal working hours.
“When looking at the activity at the time of the accident, the decision-maker determines whether the worker was engaged in:

• the performance of an employment duty,
• in an activity reasonably incidental to the employment, or
• in an activity of a purely personal nature (i.e., not incidental to the worker’s employment).

“If a personal injury by accident occurred while the worker was engaged in the performance of an employment duty, generally the personal injury by accident will be found to have occurred in the course of employment.
“To determine whether an activity is incidental to the employment, the nature of the work, the work environment, as well as the customs and practices of the workplace are considered. If an activity is reasonably incidental to the employment, generally the personal injury by accident will be found to have occurred in the course of employment.
“Generally, injuries are not considered to arise in the course of a worker’s employment if participation in the activity that results in the injury is of a personal nature. However, if there is a strong employment connection between the activity and the worker’s job, the activity may be incidental to the employment and therefore work-related. Factors considered when determining whether a strong employment connection exists, may include whether the employer

• encourages or expects the worker to take part in the activity
• schedules specific times for the worker to take part in the activity
• approves, organizes, or arranges the activity
• provides supervision or control during the activity
• provides financial support, equipment, uniforms, etc.
• pays the worker for the time during which the worker participates in the activity or gives the worker time in lieu of wages
• benefits from the worker’s participation in the activity.

“The decision-maker would consider all factors to determine whether a strong employment connection exists, not just one factor in isolation. The more factors there are that establish a strong employment connection, the more likely that an injury will be considered to have occurred in the course of employment.
“As outlined in OPM document 15-01-02, Employers’ Initial Accident Reporting Obligations, an employer is required to notify the WSIB after learning of an accident to a worker employed by him, her, or it if the accident necessitates health care or results in the worker not being able to earn full wages. The WSIB will then determine whether the accident occurred in the course of employment. It is important to note that any determination regarding “in the course of the employment” will depend heavily on the unique facts and circumstances of each case.
“We hope this information is helpful and thank you for contacting the Operational Policy Branch.”

MANITOBA
We spoke to someone at SafeWork Manitoba who said the following: 
“In Manitoba, if the injury occurs while performing duties then it is covered; however, if the employer gives access to the gym as a perk to, for example, use at lunch if the employee wishes – in other words, is optional, then it is not covered.
“On the other hand, if the employer hosts a company picnic with fun and games where the employee is required to attend and participate, then any injury resulting from that would be considered workplace since they were required to participate.”
SASKATCHEWAN
We were unable to contact anyone at the WCB. The following information is listed on its site: 
http://www.wcbsask.com/w1/
“A work injury is the result of any work-related event that causes a need for medical treatment and/or time away from work. The WCB considers each work injury on an individual basis, but in most cases compensation would apply to injuries that occur while a worker is at work, on company premises or on company business. This includes an occupational disease caused by work.”

Unfortunately, the WCB doesn’t have a Policy directly addressing injuries in off-site recreational facilities. The closest is Policy 3.2.3 which deals with such injuries BUT at camps. Presumably, the WCB would apply the same time, place and manner criteria as the Ontario WSIB described above. 
********
I hope this helps and wish it were more conclusive. Thx for your patience.
Glenn Demby 203 354-4532

[Jeffrey Turner]

in reply to: Employer Gym Facilities – Safety Policies & Liability #102953

I know it’s been nearly a week since you posted this Q. I had to assign an associate to do the research. She just submitted her results today. I’ll go thru them and give you the official response tomorrow. Thx for your patience. . .
Glenn

[Jeffrey Turner]

in reply to: eyewash liquid mixing #102952

To answer that question, you’d need to read the safety instructions listed on the container of each liquid. Hopefully, they either came from the same manufacturer or constitute a common mixture that will be addressed in the safety instructions. However, if you are at all unclear, you need to contact the supplier or manufacturer and get the information and refrain from using the mixture unless and until you get the instructions you need to ensure you’re using safely and effectively.
Glenn Demby, 203 354-4532

[Jeffrey Turner]

in reply to: Impairment at the time of incident #102951

Unfortunately, there is currently no test capable of precisely detecting current impairment for marijuana. The diagnostic community is working furiously to come up with something–after all, whoever invents the perfect test is going to get real rich–but nothing is imminent. At least that’s what I was told by a HealthCanada scientific expert during a recent webinar. In the meantime, there are 2 basic testing methods:
POCT (Point of Care Testing) which is done on the spot using urine or an oral sample. But while it gives an immediate result, POCT is also notoriously unreliable, particularly the oral tests which often yield a high rate of false negatives.
LAB testing done on blood or urine on a remote lab sight is more reliable but entails all kinds of “chain of custody” problems, e.g., tampering with the sample, poor storage, etc. And even though more accurate than POCT, lab testing suffers from the same basic defect in terms of limited value in detecting CURRENT impairment.
(Blood testing is also generally more reliable than urine testing but much more intrusive.)
So let’s hope they come up with a reliable, relatively non-intrusive test for current marijuana impairment real soon. . .
Glenn

[Jeffrey Turner]

in reply to: Impairment at the time of incident #102950

Great question! The answer is that if she hadn’t cheated, she probably wouldn’t and couldn’t have been fired. The rule: USING cannabis isn’t grounds for discipline; using it or being impaired AT WORK is. And to the extent that a positive test doesn’t detect CURRENT cannabis impairment, it may be inadequate to justify discipline. The employer in this case was able to get around this because the employee gave her an alternative grounds for discipline–cheating on the test.
And, YES, this is a huge concern for employers. The key is to have a legally sound testing policy. Although RANDOM drug testing is extremely difficult to justify–especially in Alberta given the recent Suncor ruling–for-cause/post-incident testing is much more defensible, especially for safety-sensitive employees. Here’s a “sneak preview” of a drug testing policy article that we plan to run in OHSI in the next month or two. (The draft
THE 12 THINGS TO INCLUDE IN YOUR TESTING POLICY

1. Policy Statement

Like many employers do, you may want to set the tone by stating that your organization has a zero tolerance drug and alcohol use policy. But while stating larger principles is recommended, you need to be careful about phrasing your policy as a workplace safety rather than a moral or even legal imperative (especially after cannabis is legalized) [Policy, Sec. 1].

1. Statement of Purpose

Acknowledge that testing is intrusive but state that it’s essential to enforcing your zero tolerance policy and its workplace safety objective [Policy, Sec. 2].

1. Policy Scope

The policy must be balanced in scope. On the one hand, testing should generally be limited to safety-sensitive workers; on the other hand, the policy should apply broadly to any and all individuals that perform safety-sensitive jobs regardless of their employment status, including employees of contractors and people applying for safety-sensitive jobs at your organization [Policy, Sec. 3].

1. Employees’ Duties

If the testing policy is freestanding, you may want to restate or refer to workers’ duties under the organization’s drug and alcohol use policy, including coming to work sober and fit for duty and remaining in that state at all times while on duty [Policy, Sec. 5].

1. Bases for Testing

The meat of the policy are the rules for different bases of drug and alcohol testing, including:

• Pre-employment testing: Mandatory for applicants who receive offers for safety-sensitive jobs [Policy, Sec. 6.1];
• For-cause testing: Allowed when there’s grounds for reasonable suspicion of impairment with such grounds specifically listed [Policy, Sec. 6.2];
• Post-incident testing: A form of for-cause testing allowed after safety incidents and near misses [Policy, Sec. 6.3];
• Random testing: Permitted only in narrow safety-driven circumstances [Policy, Sec. 6.4];
• Post-Rehabilitation Testing: May be required for workers that test positive who are offered the opportunity for rehab in lieu of termination [Policy, Sec. 6.5]; and
• Scheduled Periodic Testing: May be required as part of a fitness for duty medical exam [Policy, Sec. 6.6].

1. Testing Procedures

There are 6 crucial procedural issues you need to address in your testing policy:

• How job applicants and workers give their consent to be tested [Policy, Sec. 7.1];
• How samples are collected and who can collect them [Policy, Sec. 7.2];
• The controls in place to ensure the integrity of the sample from collection to transporting to the lab and actual testing [Policy, Sec. 7.3];
• The methods used to confirm initial positive test results [Policy, Sec. 7.4];
• The criteria for a positive result—which should generally track the applicable regulatory limit for the substance tested for, e.g., BAC for alcohol [Policy, Sec. 7.5]; and
• Procedures for retesting and appeals after positive results [Policy, Sec. 7.6].

1. Privacy of Test Results

Acknowledge that test results are privacy-protected information that you will keep secure and refrain from using except as allowed or required by law. Also indicate that test records are organization property but that you’ll make them available for inspection and copying as required by law [Policy, Sec. 8].

1. Violations

Explain that violations include not just testing positive but tampering or attempting to tamper with samples and/or refusing to submit to testing in the first place [Policy, Sec. 9].

1. Consequences of Violations

Make it clear that workers who commit violations will be subject to discipline up to and including termination in accordance with your organization’s disciplinary policies and procedures and that job applicants who commit violations will have their job offered revoked (or terminated if the violation is discovered after the applicant has started working) [Policy Sec. 10].

1. Rehab Rather than Termination

Reserve your right to offer workers who test positive the opportunity to enter a last chance agreement in lieu of immediate discipline or termination. Typically, the worker is put on administrative leave and allowed to return to work provided they successfully complete a rehab program, which usually involves regular testing [Policy, Sec. 11].

1. Acknowledgment of Employee Accommodation Rights

To insulate against liability risks for discrimination, acknowledge that drug and alcohol addiction are disabilities under human rights laws and that you’ll provide reasonable accommodations to workers with addictions up to the point of undue hardship [Policy, Sec. 12].

1. Attach Consent Form

Last but not least, attach a copy of the form you require job applicants and workers to sign to consent to testing as an Exhibit to your policy [Policy, Exhibit A].

[Jeffrey Turner]

in reply to: Safety Shoes – by provinces #102949

There’s a great piece in OHSI that explains the PPE footwear rules of each jurisdiction for industrial settings, including warehouses. https://ohsinsider.com/topics/ppe/ppe-safety-footwear-requirements-ohs-laws Please let me know if you have trouble accessing the story or need further help. glennd@bongarde.com
Glenn

[Jeffrey Turner]

in reply to: Surveillance #102948

Sorry, Rita, I don’t mean to be dense but I don’t really understand the question. Can I trouble you to clarify the following :
Who is “they”–your employer’
Why are they installing the cameras–security, productivity, other’
What kind of facility is it’
What does (30<) mean
What do you mean by “policy or placement layout”’
You’re talking open, not secret surveillance cameras, right’
I should be able to answer the Q once I get that info. Thx for your patience.
Glenn Demby, 203 354-4532

[Author]

Posts