Workplace Safety and Health Act Review

Proposals

• Misnomer

  by Safej, over 3 years ago
  The term tagout refers to tagging out with a tag rather than locking out with a lock.

  The right name (and description of its function), is lockout tag.

  The term tagout refers to tagging out with a tag rather than locking out with a lock.

  The right name (and description of its function), is lockout tag.

• Regulations in Manitoba are clear. Education and enforcement is the issue.

  by Randy Pokrant, over 3 years ago

  I have been a member of the Health and Safety industry for the past few years. The current Manitoba legislation and specific regulations are very clear. The problem is a lack of education around all 44 Parts of the regulations and a lack of enforcement of the same. For organizations that do not comply, there appear to be minimal consequences. Non-compliance appears to be commonplace across Manitoba, particularly for Part 9 about Working Alone or in Isolation.

  More people are working alone or are isolated than ever before, and laws to protect them are already in place. Under current legislation... Continue reading

  I have been a member of the Health and Safety industry for the past few years. The current Manitoba legislation and specific regulations are very clear. The problem is a lack of education around all 44 Parts of the regulations and a lack of enforcement of the same. For organizations that do not comply, there appear to be minimal consequences. Non-compliance appears to be commonplace across Manitoba, particularly for Part 9 about Working Alone or in Isolation.

  More people are working alone or are isolated than ever before, and laws to protect them are already in place. Under current legislation, it is unacceptable for an employer to allow the safety of an isolated employee to go unchecked.

  What happens if someone working alone has a medical emergency, or encounters an aggressive member of the public while on the job? The law says they should be checked-on regularly, but this doesn't often happen. Without education about existing legislation many employers don't even know about this issue of workplace safety. Without enforcement, there's no incentive to comply, leaving workers in danger.

  Randy Pokrant – Safety Consultant

  
  

• Women and non binary persons work in industry, too

  by Beck_5s, over 3 years ago

  A number of regulations still only refer to "him" or "his" (Ex. Check section 5 -Duties of workers or section 6 - Duties of self employed workers for a cpuple of examples). There has been been more inclusion to add "her/she" but you could just use terms such as "their/they/oneself" to be more inclusive to all persons regardless of how they identify.

  
  

  It is already difficult sometimes to be a woman in certain fields, especially when the regulations and laws still sometimes don't recognize you or your gender.

  A number of regulations still only refer to "him" or "his" (Ex. Check section 5 -Duties of workers or section 6 - Duties of self employed workers for a cpuple of examples). There has been been more inclusion to add "her/she" but you could just use terms such as "their/they/oneself" to be more inclusive to all persons regardless of how they identify.

  
  

  It is already difficult sometimes to be a woman in certain fields, especially when the regulations and laws still sometimes don't recognize you or your gender.

• Mr Tyson Krunek NCSO

  by Tyson Krunek, over 3 years ago
  I would see two changes made to the WSH act; the first is to the reduction of falling injuries to workers on larger multi family housing projects and projects of similar size and construction the second to increasing the awareness to the WSH act in the training of new tradespeople entering into higher than average hazard work such as construction.

  
  I was a framer before I became a National Construction Safety Officer and have attended the first two years of carpentry at Red River Collage and I have seen a lot of Canada travelling for work. The thing I have... Continue reading

  I would see two changes made to the WSH act; the first is to the reduction of falling injuries to workers on larger multi family housing projects and projects of similar size and construction the second to increasing the awareness to the WSH act in the training of new tradespeople entering into higher than average hazard work such as construction.

  
  I was a framer before I became a National Construction Safety Officer and have attended the first two years of carpentry at Red River Collage and I have seen a lot of Canada travelling for work. The thing I have seen in the past is shoddy, sloppy guardrails that do not provide even a fraction of the restraint required because by design had to be temporary. The rails are all straight and at the same height but don’t have tie ins on the cantilevered areas or protrusions because they look like a continuing rail from a distance. I have been on a site where a coworker was part of a fall incident and it impacted all of us greatly, even though not directly injured in the incident. I would see an addition made to WSH legislation in regards to a basic design that’s acceptable for guardrails as letting people figure it out themselves by having the act and regulations book that you need a course to know how to read and apply. The basic guardrail should have a basic plan that we all know and can apply. Rather than give a minimum number for restraint required give the basic plan and the “why this is like this” in its instructions so that builders cannot continue to interpret the Act and Regulations as they see fit and the way it was written.
  Two: there are trade schools and places of learning about how to do your jobs, construction has multiple courses that can be taken to enter into a facet of the trades but the carpenters are being denied proper training in the basics of “how to do the job safely” which would include the requirements and design for the minimal acceptable guardrails and handrails.
  Three: thought of this after making my first two points, provincial officers to enforce the act and regulations, like at least another fifty or so, fifteen for Winnipeg ten for Brandon and the rest to be floats as required to travel to sites that are not in urban settings. The reason so many people get hurt is that so many builders know that the officers most likely either won’t show up or if they do and there is an issue they can just deflect it to their subcontractors through contract. First you need officers second you need enforcement and follow through rather than a slap on the wrists for builders who contract outside the law.
  
  I have a basic design for a guardrail system that I can provide if requested as I was inspired to come up with a basic one after having a discussion about guardrails with a subcontractors supervisor and after having to explain the book and convert it to imperial for him since the manual is in metric but the builders use imperial.
  my email is tysonkrunek@yahoo.ca if you want a copy of my guardrail system. It is designed to be a modular reusable through multiple projects system or to have its materials consumed by the process of finishing the buildings they are for.

  
  four: thermal stress cutoffs that are clear for both hot and cold weather. Sure the chart says “all non emergency work to cease” when it’s below -40 but you go past a site and they are still putting their workers at risk. That and the other extreme where there isn’t a “too hot to work” cut off and employers push employees to heat exhaustion then yell at them for being exhausted because they don’t have heat exhaustion because they are standing there supervising rather than actually doing anything.
  
  five: merge with the WCB and use their reporting system to root out unsafe employers and revoke the WCB coverage of company’s that contract outside the law so they can be sued rather than continuing to protect unsafe employers from 217.2 of the criminal code.

  
  Six: make it law that when incidents of violence are reported they must be reported to the RCMP and investigated, not be left to WCB suppressing the claims of injured workers because it’s cheaper than having to settle with them.
  
  I went past my original two ideas but after starting I felt inclined to continue.
  
  have a safe and great day
  Tyson Krunek

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

• Laws what laws

  by Carrie Hurteau, over 3 years ago

  It is illegal for an employer to terminate and employee for filing a harassment or safety complaint, but illegal is a term only as good as the paper it’s written on.
  What happens when an employee wins reprisal and the employer doesn’t pay? Absolutely nothing. The employee needs to hire a lawyer and go file in civil court. So basically the act should read we will issue orders but it’s up to said employee to get their money. When something is illegal it means it’s against the law and there are actions enforced. What actions are enforced within your act... Continue reading

  It is illegal for an employer to terminate and employee for filing a harassment or safety complaint, but illegal is a term only as good as the paper it’s written on.
  What happens when an employee wins reprisal and the employer doesn’t pay? Absolutely nothing. The employee needs to hire a lawyer and go file in civil court. So basically the act should read we will issue orders but it’s up to said employee to get their money. When something is illegal it means it’s against the law and there are actions enforced. What actions are enforced within your act?? This act is misleading and doesn’t help employees against employers. In fact employers win every time. They may loose the order but so what? What actually happens? I can tell you from experience nothing. The employer knows now he can do whatever he wishes and get away with it. Worst case an order comes out. Again it’s a piece of paper!! If employee goes civil law to recoup monies owed and the employer has everything leased and tied to corp guess what. Employer wins no money or garnishment order can take place. Employee gets an expensive piece of paper winning the judgement. Thanks WHS!
  If WHS wants to protect workers how about enforcing payment from employer. How about having the director make the final decision? How about truly having the workers back and truly protecting them?

  From my experience it’s all talk and no action. You want to have people believe your government agency helps and protects employees but it doesn’t. Not at the end of the day if the employer has no assets or has a high amount of debt you can’t repo assets as they are tied up. How does this act help? It’s time to change and help employees not employers.

• Don't re-invent the wheel

  by safetysam, over 3 years ago

  Many other provinces have detailed and well thought out laws, regulations and guidelines they have researched in depth and are proven effective. Why waste all this time, effort, and money creating new from scratch when we can adopt what we know works well from other provinces with a bit of research into what they do.

  Many other provinces have detailed and well thought out laws, regulations and guidelines they have researched in depth and are proven effective. Why waste all this time, effort, and money creating new from scratch when we can adopt what we know works well from other provinces with a bit of research into what they do.

• Amendment to Powered Mobile Equipment

  by MTherese, over 3 years ago

  An amended must be considered for 22.7(1)(b) due to the fact that manufactures may not supply Fire Extinguishers on the powered mobile equipment, therefore the powered mobile equipment is not designed or manufactured to support a fire extinguisher. In order the mount a fire extinguisher, authorization from the authorized dealer would have to be considered due to modification and altering the engineered design of the equipment; this is not practicable. Another consideration is the fire extinguisher impeding the operator ability to steer the equipment has been an identified hazard as well. Realistically, a fire extinguisher must be in close proximately... Continue reading

  An amended must be considered for 22.7(1)(b) due to the fact that manufactures may not supply Fire Extinguishers on the powered mobile equipment, therefore the powered mobile equipment is not designed or manufactured to support a fire extinguisher. In order the mount a fire extinguisher, authorization from the authorized dealer would have to be considered due to modification and altering the engineered design of the equipment; this is not practicable. Another consideration is the fire extinguisher impeding the operator ability to steer the equipment has been an identified hazard as well. Realistically, a fire extinguisher must be in close proximately to any identify hazards by conducting a thorough job hazard analysis. In conclusion, a fire extinguisher needs to be available in the area but not on the powered mobile equipment.

  Safety requirements

  22.7(1) An employer and a supplier must ensure that powered mobile

  equipment is equipped with

  (a) a horn or other audible warning device;

  (b) a portable fire extinguisher that meets the applicable

  requirements for extinguishers contained in the Manitoba Fire

  Code;

  (c) an effective braking system; and

  (d) an effective parking device.

• Grey area agreement

  by Benjy Loewen, over 3 years ago

  I believe the Manitoba Act and Regs would benefit from an adjustment to eliminate all reference "links". When money is charged for clear, accurate safety information for the workplace, it becomes a right only for the prosperous.

  My proposal is that all references to NFPA codes, building codes, and waste regulations are standardized, simplified, and posted in the Act and Regs book so that it can be found and read quickly. Safety in Numbers (Doug Wylie) does a fantastic job at unpacking what the Act and Regs are trying to say.

  Build this book for the volunteers or committee members... Continue reading

  I believe the Manitoba Act and Regs would benefit from an adjustment to eliminate all reference "links". When money is charged for clear, accurate safety information for the workplace, it becomes a right only for the prosperous.

  My proposal is that all references to NFPA codes, building codes, and waste regulations are standardized, simplified, and posted in the Act and Regs book so that it can be found and read quickly. Safety in Numbers (Doug Wylie) does a fantastic job at unpacking what the Act and Regs are trying to say.

  Build this book for the volunteers or committee members, or for the new nervous employees who feel like they have been harassed and don't know where to reach, not the safety professionals who are paid to spend hours unpacking a confusing or misleading regulations.

  
  

• part 14 (Fall Protection); anchor points (14.13 and 14.14)

  by Safe1, over 3 years ago

  The regulations should include an allowance that when there is no anchor point a worker can climb without fall protection, by the safest, most direct route to set up the anchor point. (e.g. when shingling a roof the worker has to climb to the peak of the roof to set up the anchor point).

  Secondly, I think it is silly that a permanent anchor point, designed and certified by a P.Eng must be rated for at least 22.2 kN, but a temporary anchor point, not designed by a P, eng needs to be only capable of supporting a static load... Continue reading

  The regulations should include an allowance that when there is no anchor point a worker can climb without fall protection, by the safest, most direct route to set up the anchor point. (e.g. when shingling a roof the worker has to climb to the peak of the roof to set up the anchor point).

  Secondly, I think it is silly that a permanent anchor point, designed and certified by a P.Eng must be rated for at least 22.2 kN, but a temporary anchor point, not designed by a P, eng needs to be only capable of supporting a static load of 8kN and no requirement for static load testing or validation by P.eng.

  Also if you could standardize some training (say, CSE 1, CSE 2, Fall protection, mobile equipment training) it would be easier to qualify a worker for work if we knew he had training that met a minimum standard. Saskatchewan and Alberta have training requirements for each directly listed in their regulations.

  Silica hazards should also be included in the regs

  
  

• Accountability

  by Argietee2020, over 3 years ago
  If fail-safes are in place (SWP, training, safe guards, PPE, etc) and it's proven that a worker is responsible for the accident and not for the lack of safe practices (examples: they decided to take a short-cut when no one asked them to, the opted not to wear a PPE and has been disciplined multiple times for failing to do so). Employers should not be penalized for an incident happening. It is very demotivating for an employer to be diligent in putting all these in place whereas some workers learned how to work the system as they would have to... Continue reading

  If fail-safes are in place (SWP, training, safe guards, PPE, etc) and it's proven that a worker is responsible for the accident and not for the lack of safe practices (examples: they decided to take a short-cut when no one asked them to, the opted not to wear a PPE and has been disciplined multiple times for failing to do so). Employers should not be penalized for an incident happening. It is very demotivating for an employer to be diligent in putting all these in place whereas some workers learned how to work the system as they would have to be accommodated even if they get disciplined.

  
  

  On the flip side, when Safety Committees bring forward concerns to management the company should be held accountable to respond to it and not let the meeting be a waste of time. There should also be some accountability for this.

  Lastly, being Safety Committee member is not a full-time job often the member would prefer to prioritize their work over this. We should mandate that for x number of employees in a company or also depending on the safety level of the industry a dedicated Safety staff should be hired so that someone is taking the accountability and the bucket is not passed around.