[Jeffrey Turner]

in reply to: Live Christmas Trees in the Office #102946

Tis the season! Although they don’t specifically address live Xmas trees–at least that I know of–OHS laws require employers to take general measures to assess and control fire hazards in the workplace. The source of requirements relating specifically to Xmas trees in offices and other indoor settings, if there are any, would likely be local fire codes.
The primary hazard posed by Xmas trees is, of course, fire. No electrical lights should take care of the electrical fire risks. Keeping the tree well watered and well away from heat sources is also a must. (Here’s a site you can check to get safety tips from the NFPA http://www.nfpa.org/Public-Education/By-topic/Seasonal-fires/Winter-holiday-safety/Christmas-tree-fires )
Secondary Xmas tree hazards would include obstructing exits and maybe even allergies.
Enjoy the holidays and sorry to be such a humbug and keep you waiting so long for a reply.
Glenn Demby, 203 354-4532

[Jeffrey Turner]

in reply to: Working Alone #102945

OHS Working Alone Regulations don’t vary by type of work site. All that matters is whether the worker meets the definition of “working alone or at isolated place of employment” under Sec. 35(1): “’to work alone’ means to work at a worksite as the only worker of the employer or contractor at that worksite, in circumstances where assistance is not readily available to the worker in the event of injury, ill health or emergency.”
Here’s the rest of the Reg. since it’s pretty short.
“(2) Where a worker is required to work alone or at an isolated place of employment, an employer or contractor, in consultation with the committee, the representative or, where there is no committee or representative, the workers, shall identify the risks arising from the conditions and circumstances of the worker’s work or the isolation of the place of employment.
“(3) An employer or contractor shall take all reasonably practicable steps to eliminate or reduce the risks identified pursuant to subsection (2).
“(4) The steps to be taken to eliminate or reduce the risks pursuant to subsection (3):
“(a) must include the establishment of an effective communication system that consists of: (i) radio communication; (ii) phone or cellular phone communication; or (iii) any other means that provides effective communication in view of the risks involved; and
“(b) may include any of the following: (i) regular contact by the employer or contractor with the worker working alone or at an isolated place of employment; (ii) limitations on, or prohibitions of, specified activities; (iii) establishment of minimum training or experience, or other standards of competency; (iv) provision of personal protective equipment; (v) establishment of safe work practices or procedures; (vi) provision of emergency supplies for use in travelling under conditions of extreme cold or other inclement weather conditions.”
Notice that the rules for an office are the same as the rules for a mfg facility–although the setting will likely affect the MAY INCLUDE measures listed in Sec. 35(4)(b)
Hope that helps. Wish I hadn’t kept you waiting so long.
Glenn Demby, 203 354-4532

[Jeffrey Turner]

in reply to: Extinguisher Requirement on Electrical Fork Lift #102944

Not specifically required in an electric forklift but ARE specifically required in an ATV (OHS Regs):
§ 5. — All terrain vehicles
286. Operating conditions: The use of an all-terrain vehicle is only permitted under the following conditions:
(1) the vehicle is mounted on at least 4 wheels;
(2) it is equipped with a portable fire extinguisher of the type ABC approved by Underwriters’ Laboratories of Canada (ULC), if the task involves any risk of fire;
Here’s a quick rundown of some other jurisdictions:
FED: Dry chem FE needed if forklift used to transport or handle \ flammable materials, (OHS Reg, Sec. 14.12)
AB: Nothing specific
BC: Powered Industrial Trucks (low lift and high lift) must meet ANSI Standard ANSI/ITSDF B56.1-2009, Safety Standard for Low Lift and High Lift Trucks(OHS Reg, Sec. 16&7)(d)) (Don’t know if standard requires FE but suspect it does)
ON: Nothing specific
Hope this helps and sorry for taking so long to reply.
Glenn Demby, 203 354-4532

[Jeffrey Turner]

in reply to: When do Chemical need to be Vented out from a Storage Cabinet? #102943

I’m not sure if I quite understand the question, but I think the answer is that venting is required any time it’s necessary to control combustible product ignition hazards. Here are some relevant provisions of the OHS Regs.
NB:
54An employer shall ensure that a bin, hopper or process vessel used to store bulk material
(a) is designed and built for removal of the material from the bottom,
(b) if the material is highly combustible, is provided with a lid and an adequate ventilation system and is fire-resistive,
65(2)An employer shall ensure that a carboy containing a liquid hazardous substance is
(a) individually encased in baskets or boxes cushioned with noncombustible packing,
260(1)An employer shall ensure that an enclosed or pneumatic conveyor used for carrying combustible or flammable material of an explosive nature is provided with an adequate explosion prevention system or with safety relief vents leading as directly as possible to the outside air and not connecting with any chimney pipe, vent or flue used for any other purpose.
PEI
43.25 Carboys (1) Carboys containing acids, which when in contact with living tissue will cause severe damage of such tissue by chemical action or in case of leakage will materially damage or destroy other material by chemical action or are liable to cause fire when in contact with organic matter, shall be encased singly in baskets or in boxes cushioned with non-combustible packing
43.36 Construction Bins used for storing highly combustible dry materials shall be of fire-resistant construction and provided with lids and an adequate ventilation system.
Hope that helps. If I missed the gist of your Q, feel free to give me another try. Or call me directly.
Glenn Demby 203 354-4532

[Jeffrey Turner]

in reply to: Medical Information #102942

Janelle: The very fact that you ask this Q tells me that you’re smart, compliance-minded and sensitive to your workers’ rights.
You are, in fact, allowed to ask workers for otherwise protected personal health information if:
1. It’s to carry out a legitimate and nondiscriminatory employment function–providing for emergency treatment passes that test;
2. The information is necessary to carry out the function–in this case, it certainly is;
3. You ask for and collect no more info than you need to carry out the function–allergies and such seems cool but don’t ask for the entire medical file; and
4. You take steps to secure and safeguard the confidentiality of the info and don’t share it with any other third parties not authorized to view it.
Hope that helps. Sorry for taking so long to reply.
Glenn Demby, 203 354-4532

[Jeffrey Turner]

in reply to: WHMIS Training #102941

John: And this goes for everybody in the same situation even outside Alberta.
First, kudos for even asking the Q. The fact of the matter is that many offices don’t provide WHMIS training to their workers even though they are exposed to controlled products–which, BTW, are now referred to as “hazardous products”–like cleaners, ink cartridges, etc.
Second point: If you had to provide WHMIS training to a worker under the old rules, you also have to do so under GHS. In other words, GHS doesn’t change the scope of workers requiring training, just the substance of what they must be trained in, i.e., the new SDS (as opposed to the now being phased out MSDS), new GHS labels and pictograms and GHS hazard classification.
Incidentally, the deadline for GHS training has passed. So if you haven’t already, you better make sure your exposed workers get their GHS training really fast–and certainly before the new GHS employer rules take effect Dec. 1, 2018.
Thanks and sorry for taking so long to reply.
Glenn Demby, 203 354-4532

[Jeffrey Turner]

in reply to: WHMIS Training #102940

In most office settings there are at least some controlled products; ink for printers, cleaning supplies, etc. When we did an inventory of our office it was amazing how many products were under sinks, and tucked in closets.

[Jeffrey Turner]

in reply to: First Aid Regulation 1101 Ontario #102938

ow, that’s a really good question. 1101 Regs. require each “place of employment” to provide first aid resources–first aid station, kit, or room–based on how many workers are employed during a shift. The problem is that there’s no definition of “place of employment.” As a result, I don’t know if they’d consider your company as having 1 or 4 places of employment. Some of the other jurisdictions have guidelines addressing this Q (or clarify it in the actual regs.) Unfortunately, WSIB doesn’t seem to have anything on this.
My suggestion would be to speak directly to a WSIB representative and run the question by him/her directly. And please let me know what the rep says.
Sorry I can’t provide a more definitive answer and that I took so long to give you the answer I did provide. Please stay in touch.
Glenn Demby, 203 354-4532

[Jeffrey Turner]

in reply to: What are the Requirements for Wet Floor Signs in Ontario? #102937

The OHS regulations require employers to ensure that walkways, stairs, entrys, exits, and other spaces over which workers travel are kept clean, dry and free of obstructions and tripping hazards. But I’m not familiar with anything that specifically mentions wet floor warning signs–at least not in the Industrial Estab. Regs. But there may be something in one of the other industry-specific regs, e.g., mining, construction, oil and gas. Let me know what industry you’re in and I can look it up for you.
Thanks and apologies for taking so long to reply.
Glenn Demby, 203 354-4532

[Jeffrey Turner]

in reply to: Does a Warehouse Need an Eyewash Station? #102936

Absolutely to the extent warehouse workers are exposed to eye injuries from chemicals or biohazards (the cite below comes from the OHS Regs for Indust Estabs.) The eye wash station must be located in a spot that’s readily accessible to exposed workers. Keep in mind that flushing must be immediate in many cases. So while I don’t know the layout of your facility, I’d be willing to bet that readily accessible means within the same building; if workers have to travel to a separate building, that’s probably not going to work.
PART III
INDUSTRIAL HYGIENE
124. Where a worker is exposed to a potential hazard of injury to the eye due to contact with a biological or chemical substance, an eyewash fountain shall be provided. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 851, s. 124.
Hope that helps and sorry for taking so long to reply.
Glenn Demby, 203 354-4532

[Jeffrey Turner]

in reply to: What are the Long-Term Health Effects of Cobalt Exposure? #102935

Although cobalt can be solid and even radioactive, the primary risk of cobalt exposure for most workers, including refinery and mining workers, comes from cobalt dust.
Routes of Entry: Inhalation, skin and eyes.
Potential Harms: Cobalt and cobalt compounds pose risks of harm to the human respiratory system. Although not conclusively proven at this point, cobalt exposure has been linked to death from lung cancer and cardiomyopathy. Other chronic effects include respiratory irritation, diminished pulmonary function, wheezing, asthma, pneumonia, and fibrosis.
If you want more detailed and clinical information about occupational cobalt exposure,there’s an excellent CDC source you should check out, https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp33.pdf
Hope that helps and apologies for taking so long to reply.
Glenn Demby
203 354-4532

[Jeffrey Turner]

in reply to: Equipment Only Being Moved A Few Feet – Circle Check Requirement? #102934

This is a QA that EVERYBODY should pay attention to because it involves a situation that affects just about every employer at one time or another.
The Question: What are you required to do when the OHS Regulations don’t prescribe a specific measure’
The Answer: Identify and assess the hazards you’re facing and implement reasonable measures to eliminate or at least control them.
Let me back up to Karen’s Q and show you how this all plays out: Like all jurisdictions, Ontario requires employers to ensure the safe operation and use of tractors and other vehicles and mobile equipment. But unlike some jurisdictions, Ontario OHS Regs don’t specifically mention anything about “circle checks” or “walk around” inspections prior to use.
HOWEVER, that does not necessarily mean that such checks aren’t required. Thus, for example, failure to do such checks could get an Ontario employer prosecuted for not “taking every precaution reasonable in the circumstances for the protection of a worker” under Sec. 25(2)(h) of the OHS Act.
And that begs a crucial Q: How does an employer (or a prosecutor, OHS inspector, court or tribunal for that matter) know what measures are “reasonable in the circumstances” to deal with a particular hazard’ More precisely, how do they know whether doing a circle check is one of those “reasonable” measures required in Karen’s circumstances’
Naturally, the OHS Regs. will be the first place to look for an answer. But when the Regs. are silent, the search needs to drill down deeper. Key evidence:
– Instructions of the tractor manufacturer;
– Industry standards: do other companies in Karen’s industry do circle checks even before short trips’
– Previous incidents: has there been an injury or near miss involving tractor short trips’
– Consultant/JHSC recommendations;
– The company’s own internal OHS policies and procedures–if circle checks are required for short trips, they better be performed;
– Any other evidence suggesting that even short tractor trips are really dangerous and should be preceded by a circle check.
Sorry for the length of the response but this is such an important issue that I wanted to make sure I got it all out.
Glenn Demby

[Jeffrey Turner]

in reply to: Non-Smoking Workers Requirements #102933

That’s a toughie. In an ideal world, this wouldn’t be a LEGAL Q at all. So if she hasn’t already done so, I’d advise your wife to talk to her supervisor, explain the problem and count on the employer to do the decent and respectful thing and relieve her of this nasty duty.
The law should come into play only if that doesn’t work. The first thing your wife could do is bring a work refusal. But Alberta’s work refusal rules are pretty tough. Refusals are permitted–in fact, required–where workers have “reasonable and probable grounds” to believe there’s an “imminent danger” to their health or safety. Simply finding a condition unpleasant doesn’t work. There must be a real health threat.
The good news is that Alberta is in the process of loosening up its refusal rules. I haven’t yet seen the proposed Bill, but I’ll bet my bottom dollar that it eases up on the “reasonable” + “imminent danger” standard. But those changes won’t take effect until next year anyway and your wife needs help right now.
Although I think it’s an uphill battle, if your wife does want to bring a refusal, it’s imperative that she follow the right refusal PROCEDURE and notify the employer “as soon as reasonably practicable.”
There’s one other legal theory–although it’s also a bit of a long shot. Your wife may be able to request reasonable accommodations, which would presumably include being relieved of smoking room cleaning duty, to the extent the adverse effects she’s suffering are caused by allergies or other impairments that constitute disabilities under the Alberta Human Rights Code.
I also strongly urge your wife to talk to a union rep, especially if she’s thinking about treating this as a refusal or accommodations matter.
–
Glenn Demby, 203 354-4532
****************************************************
HERE’S THE AB OHS ACT STUFF
Existence of imminent danger
35(1) No worker shall

1. (a) carry out any work if, on reasonable and probable grounds, the worker believes that there exists an imminent danger to the health or safety of that worker,

(b) carry out any work if, on reasonable and probable grounds, the worker believes that it will cause to exist an imminent danger to the health or safety of that worker or another worker present at the work site, or
(c) operate any tool, appliance or equipment if, on reasonable and probable grounds, the worker believes that it will cause to exist an imminent danger to the health or safety of that worker or another worker present at the work site.
(2) In this section, “imminent danger” means in relation to any occupation

1. (a) a danger that is not normal for that occupation, or

(b) a danger under which a person engaged in that occupation would not normally carry out the person’s work.

[Jeffrey Turner]

in reply to: Manual Material Handling #102932

There are dozens of case studies about how companies HAVE dealt with manual materials handling tasks but I don’t know of any studies addressing companies that HAVEN’T. I can also tell you that OHSI has written extensively about how to make the business case justifying investment in MSD prevention and ergonomic improvements (which is, of course, directly relevant to manual materials handling.) Here are a few items on the OHSI site to check out:
https://ohsinsider.com/topics/due-diligence/study-finds-workplace-resistance-training-can-help-prevent-msis
https://ohsi.wpengine.com/search-by-index/business-case-for-safety/how-to-ask-your-ceo-for-money-for-ergonomic-improvements-and-get-it
https://ohsi.wpengine.com/search-by-index/business-case-for-safety/how-to-justify-investing-in-ergonomics
Good luck and Good Xmas. Glenn, 203 354-4532

[Jeffrey Turner]

in reply to: covid-legislation-changes #102930

Unless your workplace is unusually sensitive or at greater risk of COVID, e.g., a seniors residence, healthcare facility or school, the safest course is to follow the public health guidelines issued by the Chief Health Officer of your province. Although COVID cases are increasing, no province has revived the quarantine, screening, social distancing and other measures that were in effect for workplaces during the height of the pandemic–at least that I know of. If the situation worsens, this might change. You need to continue to monitor the situation. As for what other employers are doing, can any of you OHS Insider members who are reading this weigh in’ Thanks and I hope this helps. Glenn 

[Author]

Posts