[vickyp]

in reply to: Private: Workplace Violence and Harassment Prevention Policy #103224

1. Conciliation is an informal legal process in which sides to a dispute work with a (typically neutral) third party to reach an out of court resolution to stay out of trial. It’s less formal than mediation. C-65 allows the sides to use it as long as: i. They agree on the methods and third party; and ii. The incident isn’t already under investigation.
2. Annual Report: The Regs. don’t specify a form and the MOL hasn’t posted any form; so, as long as you include all the info and submit it to MOL by March 1, you should be OK
3. Employer OR Designated Recipient (DR). I know, I was confused by that, too. I’m pretty sure that the reason it’s separate is to ensure that the witness or alleged victim can submit the Notice of Incident to somebody OTHER THAN the employer. The fact that employers receive complaints is a big problem that C-65 seeks to resolve
4. I’m not sure what you mean by “Geographical resources for external violence and harassment.” If you want to loop back with me, try glennd@bongarde.com and I’ll follow up once I get clarification
5. The principal party and accused should probably be represented by a union rep, if they belong to a union, or personal (not company) counsel.

These are all great Qs and thx for asking them. Try glennd@bongarde.com if you want to follow up.

[vickyp]

in reply to: Regulations on Caustic Mist #103223

Yes and Yes. But the specific source of those regulations–OHS, environmental laws, etc.–depends on the use and setting of the substance. Thus, for example, workplace use would be regulated under OHS/OSHA laws. The specific concentration levels and health and safety requirements depend, in turn, on the chemicals in the product, either individually or in a chemical mixture. But heck yes, it is regulated somewhere. Maybe if you give me a little more information, I can point you to the correct regulatory source.

[vickyp]

in reply to: Private: What are the updates in the Z259 CSA standards for the last 5 years? #103222

In 2017, CSA rolled out a new standard in the Z259 series, CSA Z259.17, Selection and use of active fall-protection equipment and systems, to provide criteria for the safe selection and use of fall- protection equipment and systems. In Aug. 2019, they revised the standard for the first time for self-retracting devices. https://blog.msasafety.com/revision-highlights-to-csa-z259-2-2-17-for-self-retracting-devices/
Also in 2017, CSA updated Z259.11 dealing with energy absorbers and lanyards. Highlights:

1. Update of definitions
2. Addition of a class Y lanyard
3. Elimination of energy absorber classes E4 and E6
4. Addition of minimum performance factors, the maximal deceleration force and an average deceleration factor for energy absorbers
5. Revision of the dynamic fall test
6. Modification of the lanyard mass test and drop test
7. Addition of a static resistance test for the Y class lanyard
8. Addition of new labelling requirements

Hope that helps. Glenn

[vickyp]

in reply to: Private: covid-in-the-office-aftermath #103221

None of the above. Send them home immediately and require them to self-isolate and urge them to get tested. If they test positive, self isolation for 14 days; if they test negative, 10 days or symptoms fully resolve, whichever is longer. Not sure why you’re letting them stay at office unless there’s something you haven’t told me. If I’m missing something, pls feel free to clarify the situation and I’ll take another crack at it. glennd@bongarde.com

[vickyp]

in reply to: covid19 response plan #103220

No, you can’t. But you can strongly encourage them to get tested. And, of course, you can bar them from workplace if they have symptoms or risk factors, i.e., travel outside Canada or close contact with confirmed case. In those situations, employees might want to get tested so they can get back to work by testing negative.

[vickyp]

in reply to: covid19 response plan #103219

Thanks, Glen.

And to confirm, we can not legally require employees be tested for COVID?

[vickyp]

in reply to: covid19 response plan #103218

1. Ask them to go home immediately and self-isolate if those cold symptoms are also COVID symptoms, i.e., Cough; Sore throat or trouble swallowing; Runny nose, stuffy nose or nasal congestion; Difficulty breathing or shortness of breath; Decrease or loss of smell or taste; Nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal pain; Not feeling well, extreme tiredness, muscle soreness; and Fever or chill
2. 10 days from onset symptoms or until symptoms completely resolve, WHICHEVER IS LONGER
3. Employees should be tested if: a. They have symptoms; b. They’ve been out of Canada in past 14 days; c. They’ve had recent close exposure, within 2 meters, of a person confirmed as having or who probably has COVID; or d. Their doctor otherwise advises them to get tested;
4. You’re not required to pay for time off under employment standards laws, but you may be required to pay under the terms of your employment contract, collective agreement or health plans
5. Go to the OHSI website and check your province page. We regularly update new legislative, regulatory and even case law changes.

Hope that helps. Glenn

[vickyp]

in reply to: COVID-19 in Winter months #103217

Great questions. In fact, we just created a Special Report on precisely that topic. I don’t know if it’s been posted yet, but if you can’t find it, email me at glennd@bongarde.com and I can send you a word doc version.
My take is that employees and employers will be unusually diligent about flu shots and flu prevention this year. Surveys in the US show that something in the order of 80% of Americans said that the pandemic would make them more likely to get a flu shot this year. I feel the same way. I also believe people will be more apt to stay home if they have the flu. Ditto for wearing masks.
Legally, it’s a bit complicated. The emergency orders and special powers that employers have to deal with COVID technically don’t apply to flu. At the same time, flu and COVID symptoms overlap since they’re both respiratory infections. That means you CAN require employees to self-isolate with flu even if they’re not confirmed as having COVID. But unlike COVID, you don’t have to report cases of the flu to public health authorities. Take a look at the Special Report and you’ll find all kinds of help on this. Glenn

[vickyp]

in reply to: Private: Workplace Screening in Ontario #103216

Oops again. Gave you the wrong link above. The Model Policy is OK but the analysis should be https://ohsinsider.com/social-distancing-the-10-things-to-include-in-your-covid-19-screening-policy/

[vickyp]

in reply to: Private: Workplace Screening in Ontario #103215

Oops. I should have added that you should also use the MOH screening tool, especially the list of symptoms.

[vickyp]

in reply to: Private: Workplace Screening in Ontario #103214

Confirmation provided. Screening is required. Here’s why: The actual Ministry of Health screening recommendation is entitled a “recommendation” and uses the word “should” instead of “shall.” However, as you pointed out, Ontario adopted a new Regulation for Stage 3 of Reopening on Sept. 26 specifying that businesses “SHALL” follow those MOH recommendations. In other words, those recommendations now carry the force of law and you must comply with them. Here are some materials you can use to implement a legally sound screening policy.

COVID-19 Re-Opening: The 11 Things to Include in Your Social Distancing Policy

https://ohsinsider.com/covid-19-pre-screening-temperature-checks-policy/

[vickyp]

in reply to: Private: Covid Data #103213

This is far beyond my expertise but I find the US OSHA https://www.osha.gov/Publications/OSHA3990.pdf  approach pretty helpful. The methodology classifies workers into 4 groups ranging from Very High Hazard for medical workers and others directly and frequently exposed to COVID patients, to High, Medium and Low, with Low being no different from what a person would face by just being out in public. The other key thing is that OSHA doesn’t use case rates but other risk factors based on industry, need for contact within 6 feet of persons known or suspected of having COVID (especially healthcare), availability of PPE, availability of physical barriers, etc. I also found some information from the US CDC that may prove helpful.
CDC assessment protocol, https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/downloads/php/open-america/Prioritizing-Nonhealthcare-Worksite-Assessments-Checklist.pdf
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/php/open-america/prioritizing-non-healthcare-assessments.html
Hope this helps and good luck with the assessment. Glenn

[vickyp]

in reply to: Work Place Harassment and Violence Prevention Regulations #103212

The new C-65 workplace harassment and violence rules that take effect on Jan. 1 apply only to employers that are federally regulated. If your company is subject to the Canada Labour Code, the changes cover you, regardless of where you operate. If you’re subject to provincial OHS rules, you’re not affected. I’ll just add that the rules are pretty progressive and I suspect that other jurisdictions, including Ontario, will eventually adopt similar changes to their own OHS rules. But that hasn’t happened yet. Hope that helps. Good question. Glenn.

[vickyp]

in reply to: When a COVID-19 positive person has been 48 hrs symptom free and it has been 14 days since their symptom onset, Public Health considers the person recovered and free to resume work and more. because of false positives due to dead viral shedding, Public Health does not support additional testing to get a negative test result. Can an employer expect further testing in this situation regardless? or, must we allow the worker to return regardless? #103211

No, you can’t require confirmatory testing.
Explanation: Your authority as an employer goes only so far as the current public health guidelines allow. Keep in mind that undergoing COVID testing is typically not just inconvenient but also uncomfortable since the most common form of testing, RT-PCR, is done on throat samples extracted with a big swab through the patient’s nose. You can, of course, always recommend that a recovered worker get tested but can’t bar his/her return to work if he/she refuses. Now if the guidelines change and call for confirmatory testing, you’re back on solid ground in requiring a negative before a return. But you can’t go that far today. Hope that helps and sorry for the delay in responding. Glenn

[vickyp]

in reply to: In BC, when using aerial work platforms, specifically mobile scissor lift and boom lifts, would you tie off fall protection to the anchor point on the basket or to a structure above the work zone so you fall "free" from the lift if it falls over? #103210

I’m not going to lie to you, Mary. I’m just a lawyer and don’t have the technical or engineering knowledge or understanding of fall protection systems to answer that Q. But I’ll bet at least some of our users do. Would u be interested in posting this as a general question to our members and see if u can get an answer. Feel free to contact me at glennd@bongarde.com

[Author]

Posts