Fair warning

Fair warning 

A true commitment to safety 

means speaking out about 

the dangers 

Tools for building safer workplaces 

WorkSafeMagazine.com • March / April 2013 

This issue: NEEDLE EASE | DEBRIS DOWNFALL | LOGGER LAUDED

2 

BCIT examines. 

BCIT protects. 

MAKE A DIFFERENCE IN THE LIVES OF OTHERS 

Turn your passion for helping people and love of science into a rewarding career in 

health. Join BCIT’s many Health Sciences grads that are making an impact in areas 

including occupational health and safety, environmental health, and food safety. 

Explore our programs. 

bcit.ca/path/health 

March / April 2013 WorkSafe Magazine 

BCIT advocates. 

BCIT cares. 

It’s your career. 

Get it right.

20 

Features 

March / April Volume 13, Number 2 

8 ON THE COVER 


Research shows that workplaces committed to 

reporting minor incidents and close calls are better 

equipped to prevent the most serious of injuries. 

By Helena Bryan 

12 NUTS AND BOLTS 

Drop zone 

Careful planning and coordination are critical to 

prevent construction workers from getting hurt by 

falling debris. 

By Gord Woodward 

14 WORK SCIENCE 

Helping hand 

A new device for chemotherapy syringes is designed 

to ease the pain and pressure associated with 

manually delivering anti-cancer drugs. 

By Gail Johnson 

20 SAFETY SPOTLIGHT 

The fall guy 

B.C.’s award-winning “faller-whisperer” sets his 

sights on training today’s fallers to survive what 

remains a high-risk occupation. 

By Kathy Eccles 

22 TOOL BOX 

Dangerous load 

If your work involves spending time at a busy 

loading dock, then you’ll need to be 

prepared for ever-changing hazards. 

By Lynn Welburn 

Contents 

17 

Departments 

4 From the editor 

5 What’s wrong: you tell us 

17 WorkSafeBC update 

27 Penalties 

Centre pullouts 

Day of Mourning 

What’s wrong with this photo? 

Cover illustration by Graham Coulthard 

WorkSafe Magazine March / April 2013 3

4 

FROM THE EDITOR 

If you’ve ever witnessed a close call 

at work — one of those hair-raising 

incidents that nearly costs a life or 

a limb — chances are the event still haunts you. But what are 

the chances that near-miss was ever reported? 

Even in some of the safest workplaces, I’m guessing the 

answer would be “slim to none.” 

Recent research suggests the most serious workplace 

injuries arise from problems that often go unreported — 

mishaps that, luckily, caused little or no injury the first time 

around. 

Let’s change that. To prevent a likely disaster, we need 

people to speak up when something goes awry. 

But how do we get everyone from construction workers and 

nurses to truck drivers and teachers to come forward to raise 

a red flag? Encouraging people to report close calls requires 

an entire shift in culture. 

In the first of a two-part series about combatting B.C.’s 

serious occupational injury rate, we look at what makes a 

strong reporting culture — and we examine how there’s much 

more to it than paperwork. (See Fair warning on page 8.) 

It requires being alert and aware at all times. It involves 

analyzing and responding to seemingly minor incidents. It 

calls for clear, open lines of communication. It takes genuine 

effort on all fronts: workers, supervisors, managers, and 

employers all have a role to play. 

And, it means no pointing fingers. The blame game has no 

place in a worksite built on injury prevention. 

There’s a business case to be made for a strong reporting 

culture, of course, but more importantly, there’s less 

likelihood of life-threatening injuries. 

After all, we all want to go home at the end of the day with 

peace of mind, rather than tragically wishing we’d spoken 

our minds instead. 

Terence Little 

Editor-in-Chief 


EDITOR-IN-CHIEF TERENCE LITTLE 

MANAGING EDITOR DANA TYE RALLY 

ASSOCIATE EDITORS LAINE DALBY 

CAROL-ANNE DOUCET 

ROBIN SHANTZ 

TANYA COLLEDGE 

GRAPHIC DESIGN GRAHAM COULTHARD 

PHOTOGRAPHY KHALID HAWE 

PHOTO SAFETY ADVISOR ANDREW LIM 

WORKSAFE MAGAZINE is published by the WorkSafeBC (Workers’ Compensation Board of 

B.C.) Communications department to educate workers and employers about injury and disease 

prevention, promote positive safety culture, and provide links to WorkSafeBC resources for 

safer workplaces. 

DISCLAIMER WorkSafeBC strives for accuracy; however, the information contained within 

WORKSAFE MAGAZINE does not take the place of professional occupational health and safety 

advice. WorkSafeBC does not warrant the accuracy of any of the information contained in this 

publication. WORKSAFE MAGAZINE and WorkSafeBC disclaim responsibility for any reader’s 

use of the published information and materials contained in this publication. WorkSafeBC 

does not warrant or make any representations concerning the accuracy, likely results, 

or reliability of the contents of the advertisements, claims made therein, or the products 

advertised in WORKSAFE MAGAZINE. WorkSafeBC does not warrant that any products 

advertised meet any required certification under any law or regulation, nor that any advertiser 

meets the certification requirements of any bodies governing the advertised activity. 

WORKSAFE MAGAZINE is published six times a year by WorkSafeBC. The yearly issues 

include January/February, March/April, May/June, July/August, September/October, and 

November/December. The magazine can be viewed online at WorkSafeMagazine.com. 

CONTACT THE MAGAZINE Email: Dana.TyeRally@worksafebc.com. Telephone: Editorial 

604 232-7194. Subscriptions 604 231-8690. Mailing address: WORKSAFE MAGAZINE, PO Box 

5350 Station Terminal, Vancouver, B.C. V6B 5L5. Courier: WorkSafeBC Communications, 6951 

Westminster Highway, Richmond, B.C. V7C 1C6. 

SUBSCRIPTIONS To start or stop a free subscription to WORKSAFE MAGAZINE, or to update 

mailing information, follow the “Subscribe” link on our website at WorkSafeMagazine.com. You 

can also email worksafemagazine@worksafebc.com or call 604 231-8690. 

EDITORIAL INQUIRIES/FEEDBACK If you’d like to comment on an article 

or make a suggestion, please email Dana.TyeRally@worksafebc.com. 

ADVERTISING For information about advertising your product or 

service in WORKSAFE MAGAZINE, please contact OnTrack Media at 

604 639-7763 or worksafebc@ontrackco.com. 

Diana Stirling 

COPYRIGHT The contents of this magazine are protected by 

OnTrack Media 

copyright and may be used for non-commercial purposes only. All other 

rights are reserved and commercial use is prohibited. To make any use 

of this material, you must first obtain written authorization from WorkSafeBC. Please email 

the details of your request to Dana.TyeRally@worksafebc.com. WorkSafeBC is a registered 

trademark of the Workers’ Compensation Board of B.C. 

Scan the MS tag with your 

smartphone to view: 

WorkSafeMagazine.com

What’s wrong: you tell us 

Merv has won 

an auto safety kit 

for his entry! 

Smoking while refueling is asking for 

trouble 

Editor, WorkSafe Magazine (Re: January/February issue, 

“What’s wrong with this photo?”) 

• The work area has not been cordoned off with tape, safety 

cones, signage, barriers, or warning lights of any sort. In this 

case, workers are exposed to vehicle traffic dangers and 

pedestrians are endangered. Caution signs should be 

deployed, warning of the dangers of slipping or the 

hazardous conditions created by high-pressure washing. Also, 

noisy, pressure-washing activities will make it difficult for 

these workers to hear approaching cars. 

• The worker is smoking while refueling. Bad idea. The worker 

should be using both hands to control that fuel jug, as well. If I 

were him, I would be refueling from the other side of the 

machine, just in case. Fuel can dribble onto hot machine parts 

from the area connecting the flexible nozzle to the fuel jug. 

• The stepladder needs to be in the locked position as indicated 

by the spreader bars. I’m very sure this aluminum ladder is 

rated for light, household-use only, making it unsuitable for 

the job. Also, a person cannot safely use a pressurized spray 

wand from a ladder, because the opposing hydraulic forces 

could throw him or her off the ladder. 

• Runners are inappropriate footwear for the slippery 

conditions workers have created. Pre-existing oil, grease, and 

other residues created by vehicular traffic do not mix well 

with water, and create an extremely slippery walking and 

working surface. If I were these workers’ supervisor, I would 

demand properly fitted and properly rated non-slip, steel-toed 

work boots for this job, preferably non-electrically conductive 

and of waterproof rubber construction. 

• Safety glasses and a face shield would certainly offer a 

necessary, dual-level of protection for these workers. The 

high-pressure water stream can propel loose material, such as 

rocks, dirt, and paint flecks, turning them into high-speed 

projectiles that are certain to cause serious eye and facial 

injuries. 

• The high-pressure hose appears to be wrapped around one 

worker’s leg and is also under or wrapped around the leg of 

the stepladder. The incoming water supply line should be 

redirected, with the machine moved out of the immediate 

work area, to prevent tripping. The pressure hose should not 

be coiled like that. It has created additional tripping and 

control hazards for both of these workers. 

• The portable, high-pressure washer is obviously running, as 

evidenced by the water spray coming out of the discharge 

nozzle. It should be shut off during refueling operations and 

allowed to cool down a bit. Where is the fire extinguisher? It 

should be close by, in the event of a refueling emergency. 

• Coveralls should be worn: preferably waterproof and of 

substantial construction. Why bring home all the 

contaminants that are certain to be generated by this job? 

Why expose your family to this needless risk? In addition, 

any exposed skin should be covered in case of accidental 

contact with the pressurized spray. 


• Those overhead electrical junction boxes, the aluminum 

6 

ladder, and the water spray, taken in combination, are going 

to conspire to create an electrical emergency. There is a real 

potential for electrocution, given this lethal triple-whammy. 

• If this job has been contracted out, the contractor could be 

potentially liable for the outcome. If this worksite is under 

WorkSafeBC jurisdiction, then lawyers are sure to be kept 

busy sorting out the many violations of statute law, including 

a lack of proper supervision. Hopefully, no one is injured or 

killed in the interim. This job requires an immediate 

stop-work order. 

• If cleaning solvents are being mixed with the water, both of 

these workers should be wearing approved and appropriate 

respirators. Unfortunately, for the one worker, his beard 

precludes the use of many common types of respirators, 

because he will not be able to effect a proper seal between his 

face and the mask. His only option would be a full face mask, 

which he probably wouldn’t wear anyway, given all of his 

other misdemeanors. 

• Both of these workers should be wearing industrial-quality 

gloves to protect their hands. They should also be using 

hearing protection to protect against internal combustion 

engine noise, which undoubtedly will be magnified within the 

close confines of this concrete structure. 

• These men need to be wearing high-visibility vests in this 

potentially dangerous work area. The lighting is not good, 

and there are lots of blind corners and visually disorienting 

shadows, as well as dark areas. Coming in from the bright 

daylight into a darkened parking arcade results in a moment 

of temporary disorientation, if not partial blindness. These 

workers are sitting ducks as cars drive around sharp, blind 

corners without any warning of work in progress. 

• There should be no parked cars in the area immediately 

surrounding the worksite. If there is an emergency, the cars 

located nearby are only going to make matters a lot more 

complicated for everyone involved. 

• The pressure-washer location is unfortunate. Why would 

anyone locate it right in the middle of an unrestricted traffic 

drive-through area? 

• It is painfully obvious that these men have not been trained, 

nor are they being properly supervised. Are they new 

workers? Is it obvious that safe work procedures have not 

been put in place or implemented at this jobsite? Based on 


the obvious hazards, has a risk assessment been done and 

appropriate controls put in place? WorkSafeBC inspectors are 

going to ask for evidence of appropriate training in the event 

of an accident, and my bet is they’re going to be disappointed. 

• While I’m sure it’s there, I see no evidence of a pressure 

gauge or pressure-relief device. Also, the spray wand 

should have some kind of a whip-check, where the incoming 

high-pressure supply line connects. An unguarded chain 

drive apparently exists under the main machine frame 

between the wheels. 

• In this kind of working environment, why not use an 

electric-powered spray washer or a power unit located outside 

the building, with lines leading up and into the working area? 

If this job is done on a regular basis, the investment would 

lead to both long- and short-term safety and health benefits. 

The advantages are obvious: toxic fumes are avoided, 

gasoline/diesel use is avoided, workplace clutter is reduced, 

and, the noise associated with an internal combustion engine 

is eliminated. 

• Unless the information is on the other side of the fuel 

container, I don’t see any evidence of required WHMIS 

(workplace hazardous materials information system) 

labelling. 

• Since these workers seem to enjoy working in close proximity 

to the smelly internal combustion engine driving their 

pressure-washer, ventilation may be an issue. Is this area 

being properly vented to protect against long-term exposure 

to the harmful exhaust gases released during the course of 

their shift? 

• The pressure-washing machine should be separated from the 

worker doing the pressure-washing by a greater distance, 

because two dangerous operations are happening in close 

proximity to each other: refueling and pressure-washing. 

• Because of the slipping and tripping hazards apparent on this 

job, as well as the real possibility of being struck by a vehicle, 

I would demand that both of these workers wear hard hats. 

These men desperately need proper supervision! 

Merv Hansen 

Millwright and joint occupational health and safety committee 

member 

Canfor 

Quesnel, B.C.

The act of lighting a cigarette is riskier 

Editor, WorkSafe Magazine (Re: January/February issue, “What’s wrong with this photo?”) 

With regard to the worker smoking while filling the gas tank of 

a pressure-washer; naturally, smoking in the workplace is a 

health hazard. There must be a half a dozen no-no’s in this 

photo. But there’s no risk of ignition here. 

The lit cigarette is simply not hot enough to ignite the gasoline 

fumes, even at an ideal 14-to-1 ratio. The act of lighting the 

cigarette would certainly provide a source, though: open flames 

Blowback is a big concern during power-washing 

Editor, WorkSafe Magazine (Re: January/February issue, 

“What’s wrong with this photo?”) 

• The hose is wrapped around the spraying worker’s ankle. 

• The workers are not wearing proper footwear. 

• The workers are not wearing safety glasses. 

• Neither worker is wearing ear protection. 

• The ladder is unsafe — it hasn’t been opened properly. 

• The hose is wrapped around the ladder legs — it’s unsafe. 

• Smoking is a fire and health hazard. 

• Filling gas with the engine running is a fire hazard. 

• They should be wearing waterproof, protective clothing. 

• They should move the hose from the spray area to eliminate 

unnecessary blowback. 

• No cones or barricades are in place to mark off a safe work 

area, away from vehicles and pedestrians. 

• The spraying worker should not blow the spray towards the 

other worker. 

• The pouring worker should wear gloves when handling fuel, 

in case of spillage. 

• The worker shouldn’t be laying anything on an engine while 

it’s running. 

• The worker should be wearing gloves to protect his hands. 

• The worker’s mask is not being worn — it’s hanging around 

his neck. Is it the correct type? 

and the sparks from flints are at a much higher temperature 

than the ash end of a lit cigarette. 

Peter Doherty 

Firefighter 

Campbell River Fire Rescue 

Campbell River, B.C. 

• Move the machine away from the spray. 

• One worker has no head protection — he needs a hard hat. 

• The other worker has improper head protection — he needs a 

hard hat. 

• The worker has no mask. 

• Operating a pressure-washer from this type of ladder could 

be unsafe, due to the push-back from the spray. 

• Loose clothing is a hazard. 

• Suds may be slippery — there is no warning or barricade for 

pedestrians. 

• One worker is reaching across the equipment. It’s better to 

fill from the opposite side, closer to the tank. It avoids 

spillage onto the muffler or engine. 

• One worker has bad posture for lifting fuel. He should move 

closer to the tank. 

• This worker should use two hands to hold the can. 

• The hose is a tripping hazard. 

Garry Geisler 

Project Manager 

Entek Engineering Ltd. 

Langley, B.C. 


8 

on the cover 


March / / April 2013 WorkSafe Magazine 

Sandra Oldfield, owner of 

Tinhorn Creek Vineyards in 

Oliver, B.C., has formally 

pledged to ensure her 

workers and supervisors 

report minor incidents 

and near-misses. 

Research shows that workplaces 

committed to reporting minor 

incidents and close calls are 

better equipped to prevent the 

most serious of injuries.

The following article is part one of a two-part 

series on combatting B.C.’s serious 

occupational injury rate. It examines the 

importance of a strong reporting culture in 

preventing “accidents waiting to happen.” 

By Helena Bryan 

In the early 1970s, Ray Roch was a university student working at 

a local mine in summertime. At the end of a long day, he, his 

buddies, and many of the full-time mine workers would head out 

on the highway to meet at the local bar. He and his friends would 

discuss one of the workers, who always put ‘pedal to the metal’ to 

get to the bar before everyone else. “He’d pass on double lines, 

drive on the shoulder, and go way over the speed limit to be the 

first one in the door,” Roch recalls. 

Roch, director of the Fire Inspection and Prevention Iniative 

(formerly WorkSafeBC director of emerging prevention issues), 

realizes this scenario provided the classic warning signs no 

workplace can afford to overlook. “The rest of us used to say, ‘one 

day he’s gonna kill himself, or he’s going to kill someone else.’” 

Sadly, Roch and his workmates were proven right. En route to the 

bar one night, the speeding worker crashed head-on with another 

driver. He survived, but a young, pregnant woman died, all in the 

rush for that first after-work drink. It’s a lesson that’s stayed with 

Roch to this day. And one he’s at great pains to communicate to 

employers and their workers — especially if it saves a life. 

“Close calls, minor incidents, and reckless behaviours are 

precursors to more serious events,” he says. “So if we see these 

warning signs, we need to report them.” 

Roch points to recent research suggesting the most serious 

workplace injuries arise from problems that often go unreported — 

near-misses or mishaps that don’t cause injury the first time 

around. And, in B.C., those injuries are on the rise (see What do we 

mean by “serious injuries?” on page 11). While the overall injury 

rate has either declined or remained steady, in the past four years, 

the serious injury rate has shown a slight increase. In an effort to 

combat that serious injury rate, Roch says employers need to train 

their employees to watch for the signs of dangers that could lead to 

serious injuries, and then encourage their employees to report them. 

“If you find yourself saying, ‘it’s only a matter of time before 

somebody gets hurt,’ it’s a strong indication that something needs 

to be done,” he says. “If not, someone is likely going to get hurt — 

seriously hurt.” 

While the incident from Roch’s past involved extreme behaviour, he 

says its lessons apply to worksites everywhere, including those that 

appear to have successful health and safety programs. 

The story behind the injury stats 

WorkSafeBC occupational safety officer Mark Phifer, who has 

recently conducted research into serious injury and fatality 

prevention, says the persistence of serious workplace injuries 

challenges a basic premise of health and safety management. “That 

premise assumes that if minor injuries are managed well, more 

serious incidents will also be averted,” he says. 

“Well, the numbers are telling us that there’s something we’re 

missing; they’re telling us that reducing serious injuries and 

fatalities requires a different focus in safety management.” 

This focus, Phifer says, begins with more effective reporting. While 

reporting is just one aspect of occupational health and safety, he 

says, it’s a starting point for preventing the serious injuries and 

fatalities that tear people’s lives apart. 

A strong reporting culture means more 

than paperwork 

The reporting Phifer is referring to goes well beyond filling out 

forms. “It goes right to mindset and culture,” he says. Typically, a 

number of smaller, less significant incidents precede a major injury 

or fatality. The workplaces with a good safety culture encourage 

their employees to report, track, and respond to these smaller 

incidents. “Strong reporting is about everyone being alert to those 

warning signs. It’s about getting workers to ask themselves, ‘what 

was the potential for this minor incident to be a major incident?’” 

Phifer points to a recent, real-life example: while employees in a 

shop were repairing a four-tonne screw auger conveyor, the stands 

used to support that conveyor collapsed. Thankfully, no one was 

hurt; a crane was used to lift the auger, and employees completed 

the repair without further incident. However, the absence of injury 

meant the collapse wasn’t reported or investigated, Phifer says. 

“This was a near-miss that could have been a serious incident, if 

someone happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. It 

was an indicator the worksite had certain hazards that weren’t 

properly identified and under control.” 


Going beyond the blame game 

What should this employer have done instead? “When this kind of 

close call occurs, where clearly something more serious could have 

resulted,” Roch says, “the incident should be reported, analyzed, 

and acted on — without assigning blame. 

“For example, say an incident is reported in which an employee 

named Tom was repairing a piece of equipment without locking 

out. It shouldn’t stop at Tom. Management and supervisors should 

be asking, ‘why didn’t Tom lock out?’ and trying to determine 

management’s influence in Tom making that decision,” Roch says. 

“A sound reporting culture goes beyond the last act before an 

incident occurs. The company as a whole has contributed to that 

unsafe act. And, if all that happens is the worker is blamed, people 

will stop reporting.” 

Roch says that means employees must receive the support and 

resources they need to make those reports. And it means actively 

encouraging employees to be on the alert for any indications that 

suggest systems or processes are not working as smoothly as they 

ought to be. 

Progressive employers lead the charge 

Some industries are already taking matters into their own hands. 

A group of leaders in the B.C. manufacturing industry is working 

with the non-profit FIOSA-MIOSA Safety Alliance on a project 

expected to ramp up commitment to workplace health and safety 

at a senior level. 

So far, 46 CEOs have signed on to the Alliance’s new B.C. Safety 

Charter. The premise behind the charter is that effective health 

and safety management is critical to a company’s long-term 

success, profitability, and sustainability. And, part of that 

commitment to health and safety involves developing a strong 

reporting culture. 

Sandra Oldfield, who runs the Tinhorn Creek winery in B.C.’s 

Interior, is one of the charter’s inaugural signatories. Oldfield says 

10 

“If you find yourself saying, 

‘it’s only a matter of time 

before somebody gets hurt,’ 

it’s a strong indication that 

something needs to be done.” 

—Ray Roch, director of the Fire 

Inspection and Prevention Initiative 


her company’s commitment to reporting mishaps and near-misses 

is key to addressing health and safety oversights. Recently, in fact, 

she asked FIOSA-MIOSA to examine this issue as it conducted a 

“safety-gap analysis” on her operation. 

“I was confident we had a great health and safety program,” she 

says. “But we weren’t even close.” The 10-month analysis detected 

800 potential hazards in the vineyard and wine cellar, where 

employees face complex issues associated with pesticide handling 

and working in and around large tanks, heavy barrels, and 

confined spaces. 

“With the association’s help, we’ve since redone the program to the 

‘nth degree,’ with new, built-in systems for better reporting,” she 

says. “Now employees are expected to speak up about risky 

behaviours or near-misses.” What’s more, Oldfield is promising 

incentives for regular reporting. Recently, she offered a free bottle 

of wine to take home, for employees who catch her appearing to do 

anything unsafe — and who call her on it. “I want to hear about the 

hazards, no matter what, or who, is involved.” 

The company is reaping the rewards. “During the process, we’ve 

seen our premiums go down,” she says. “But the biggest savings 

are from rejigging our operations so that we’re more efficient. 

Looking at safety forces you to communicate, to get rid of overlaps, 

and to streamline. This revamped health and safety program is 

actually saving us tens of thousands of dollars.” 

Beyond lip service 

In order to reap the benefits of improved health and safety, 

however, Roch says supervisors and management teams need to 

demonstrate that they really care about safety — and that means 

welcoming employees who report problems and minor incidents on 

a day-to-day basis. “It means putting safety alongside production in 

terms of priorities. So, if I need 45 widgets by 4:30 p.m., and that’s 

a tall order, I have to ask myself, ‘how do my employees fulfill that 

order safely?’ There has to be an explicit reference to safety. I can’t 

just assume employees know I care about their safety; I have to

show I care by discussing how they can complete 

the task safely.” 

Roch’s group is developing a workbook for 

supervisors and management to help them do just 

that. “If we can change supervisors’ behaviour, they 

can then influence workers and the culture of safety 

at their workplace,” Roch says. He expects the 

workbook to be ready for distribution by this fall. 

In the meantime — as companies such as Tinhorn 

have learned — it’s worth asking the question, ‘is my 

company as safe as I think it is?’ If you don’t have a 

strong reporting culture, Roch says, the answer is, 

“no, it’s not.” And business case aside, there’s an 

even more compelling reason to make reporting a 

priority. 

“You don’t want to be one of those people whose 

‘aha’ moment comes too late — with the phone call 

informing you of the death of one of your 

employees. As an employer, that’s one report you 

never want to hear.” 

What do we mean by “serious injuries?” 

In 2008, WorkSafeBC developed a measure to track the province’s most 

serious workplace injuries. The serious injury rate was designed to monitor 

the effectiveness of WorkSafeBC’s prevention programs and strategies. 

According to that measure, serious injuries are those that result in 28 days or 

more of lost wages, or in health care costs equivalent to 28 days without 

wages. Ray Roch, director of the Fire Inspection and Prevention Initiative, 

puts it another way: “Serious injuries are life-altering or life-threatening, and 

they result in a serious medical diagnosis,” he says. “Amputations, spinal cord 

injuries, head injuries, third-degree burns, back strains, electric shocks, and 

similarly traumatic events are among those we deem most serious.” 

Recent WorkSafeBC statistics show that overexertion accounts for the 

highest percentage of serious injury claims, at 45 percent, followed by falls 

on the same level, at 14 percent, and falls from elevation, at 12 percent. 

Almost one in three claims is a serious injury, and serious injury claims 

account for 85 percent of all claim costs. 

Solutions That Fit 

Total Safety has the people, programs and 

processes to help mitigate risks during critical 

operations. Our skilled safety professionals have 

expertise in designing custom solutions that 

fit your specific needs, ensure safe operations, 

and protect your people and assets. Look to our 

dependable safety and compliance solutions to 

create the ideal working environment for your 

workers worldwide. 

SM 

Compliance 

Systems 

Safety 

Personnel 

Continued on page 25 

Professional 

Services 

604.292.4700 | TotalSafety.com 


NUTS AND BOLTS 

Construction sites in B.C. are proving famous physicist Sir 

Isaac Newton right hundreds of times a year. From an 

injury prevention perspective, that’s not a good thing. 

Just like Newton’s falling apple, objects such as hand tools and 

other construction equipment or building materials are all 

vulnerable to the laws of gravity. And when these items descend 

from high elevations, they all represent hazards to workers, not 

to mention others — including members of the public — who 

happen to be at or near the worksite. 

The risks go up when these materials land in congested areas. 

“Objects and materials fall from buildings all the time,” says Ron 

Morehouse, a WorkSafeBC occupational safety officer who deals 

full-time with high-rise and other large commercial construction 

sites in downtown Vancouver. “It’s a major safety issue, and a big 

concern.” 

12 


Falling construction 

materials — particularly 

from commercial 

high-rises — pose a 

significant danger to 

workers and others 

down below. 

Drop zone 

Careful planning and 

coordination are critical 

to prevent construction 

workers from getting hurt 

by falling debris. 

By Gord Woodward 

Over the last five years, WorkSafeBC processed nearly 11,000 

time-loss claims under the heading, “struck by falling object.” 

More than 200 of these incidents were related to construction 

materials or other objects, and are likely associated with falling 

objects or debris. 

The consequences can be tragic, as the close calls so clearly 

demonstrate. Last October, several workers narrowly escaped 

death when a 90-kg pane of glass fell from a downtown 

Vancouver condo tower under construction. The window pane 

landed on the cab of a parked truck that was occupied, and 

bounced onto another vehicle, nearly striking two workers. 

Miraculously, no one was hurt. But the circumstances were far 

too close for comfort. 

To protect workers, employers should practice what WorkSafeBC 

construction industry manager Don Schouten calls a 

“three-pronged safety approach.”

First and foremost, develop and coordinate work procedures 

among all contractors involved for securing tools, materials, 

and equipment. The key is to prevent these items from falling off 

the building when workers are working at the perimeter. Plan 

where materials will be stacked and stored on site, so they are 

less likely to fall or get blown over. 

Second, ensure tools and equipment are secured by using 

tethered lanyards or rope — even, if possible, while these items 

are in use. 

And third, pay attention to debris. Keep the jobsite clean 

throughout the workday. Keep on top of housekeeping so the 

worksite is well-maintained, so nothing can be inadvertently 

kicked off the building. 

“Always plan for the worst-case scenario,” Schouten says. 

Planning and awareness prevent 

unwanted surprises 

“How much is it going to cost you if something goes wrong?” 

—Mike McKenna, executive director of the BC Construction Safety Association 

Jeff Lyth, a safety advisor with the BC Construction Safety 

Association (BCCSA), encourages contractors and employees to 

Continued on page 26 

online safety training 

WHMIS 

English & French 

Dynamic: includes audio, 

animations and illustrations 

Easily managed with full 

tracking capabilities through 

a course administration site 

www.yowcanada.com 

carefully plan and coordinate the work to prevent objects from 

falling, and to issue daily reminders about potential hazards. 

“The prime contractor needs to coordinate work duties, so one 

contractor’s workers don’t endanger another’s.” 

On high-rises, for example, iron workers erecting steel shouldn’t 

be working above a window glazier on a swing stage. 

Under Section 20.9 of the Occupational Health and Safety 

Regulation, warning signs should be prominently posted to 

indicate the risk of overhead work. And areas below need to be 

properly barricaded or guarded to prevent workers from entering 

the danger area. 

In addition, protective canopies must be installed, or adequate 

catch platforms or nets must be provided around the danger 

area to stop materials from falling into places accessible by 

workers. Temporary washrooms, offices, and similar structures 

should also be located in areas where no one can be hit by 

falling materials. 

Fall 

Protection 

Convenient, effective, 

and easy to use 

Reliable: available 

24 / 7 from any PC 

with internet access 

Certificate included 

Visit our website today for a full listing of courses and products available. 

1.866.688.2845 

Inc. 


14 

WORK SCIENCE 

Helping 

hand A 

Lisa Kondo has been working as an oncology nurse at the 

BC Cancer Agency for more than a decade. Her job 

requires technical knowledge as much as compassion. 

Because she administers potent medication to patients who feel 

anxious and scared, she needs to approach every case with care. 

Kondo has to be mindful of more than just people’s emotions. 

She needs to be gentle with people’s veins. Some of the 

chemotherapy drugs cause so much irritation they have to be 

given manually, delivered via a syringe at a steady, unrushed 

rate, instead of being administered by an automatic pump. 

“Some of the chemotherapy is very caustic to people’s veins, so it 

has to be given very slowly,” she explains. 

“You have to be really delicate. It can take close to an hour, sometimes.” 

For Kondo, that means operating a small piece of equipment 



new device for chemotherapy 

syringes is designed to ease the pain 

and pressure associated with manually 

delivering anti-cancer drugs. 

over and over again in body positions that are less than ideal 

from an ergonomic standpoint. It’s a task she repeats day after 

day. She’s experienced the symptoms of repetitive strain injury 

as a result. 

“I’ve had to go for physiotherapy,” Kondo says. 

Repetitive strain injuries a 

concern for chemo nurses 

In fact, other oncology nurses report experiencing pain and 

discomfort. An ergonomic assessment conducted by a Provincial 

Health Services Authority (PHSA) ergonomist revealed that BC 

Cancer Agency nurses who administer chemotherapy drugs via 

large-volume syringes (20 cc. or greater) face a moderate-to-high 

risk of injury to the hand, wrist, forearm, and elbow. The risk of 

injury is a result of holding and pressing hard on the syringe, at

At left, BME biomedical engineer 

Dennis Schweers, education 

resource nurse Arlyn Heywood, 

and ergonomic advisor Rick Hall 

demonstrate a new device shown 

to ease hand and arm strain in 

administering chemotherapy drugs. 

WorkSafeBC’s Research Services 

provided funding to test the device. 

awkward angles, and for long periods. 

To overcome the problem, a team of B.C. researchers, 

inventors, and health care professionals joined forces to find a 

solution. With the support of WorkSafeBC, they developed an 

ergonomic syringe adaptor, intended to make chemotherapy 

nurses’ jobs easier and reduce their risk of injury. 

Rick Hall, PHSA ergonomic advisor and the project’s lead 

researcher, conducted ergonomic assessments on oncology 

nurses and sifted through injury reports to pinpoint the 

problem. 

“It became very obvious to me that the cause of the injuries was 

the result of awkward, sustained, hand-and-wrist postures, in 

combination with the prolonged grip-force they were using while 

administering chemotherapy medications,” Hall says. “Quite 

often, the nurses are using large-volume syringes. There’s always 

a risk that the needle inserted in the vein can come out and the 

chemotherapy drug could start to go into interstitial spaces 

(surrounding flesh) — and that can become very dangerous. The 

nurse has to be there to monitor that the needle is inserted in 

the vein and do a blood-return check by pulling back on the 

handle of the syringe or pinching off the saline line. And when 

they’re administering the drug, it has to be done at a constant 

rate or pressure. 

“They’re applying significant force against the plunger of the 

syringe and their fingers are outstretched for extended periods,” 

he says. “It’s not surprising they’re in pain and reporting 

injuries.” 

When working in awkward or fixed positions, tendons and 

nerves can become compressed. When muscles stay contracted 

for too long, blood flow can be affected. And doing repetitive 

movements often — and extensively — results in muscle and joint 

fatigue. Eventually, it takes more effort to perform the same 

task. With all that overuse and wear and tear on the same parts 

of the body, injuries can occur. 

Researchers devise solution to ease 

discomfort 

Hall was seeking a device that would allow the nurses to 

administer the drugs by using larger muscle groups of the back 

and shoulders, while avoiding inappropriate hand and wrist 

positions. He couldn’t find one, so he and others designed one. 

Working with Dennis Schweers — a biomedical engineering 

technologist at BC Children’s Hospital and BC Women’s Hospital 

& Health Centre — the team came up with a prototype. Next, 

they took it to oncology nurses for fine-tuning. From there, the 

technology development office at the BC Cancer Agency got on 

board, helping to fund patenting the product and find potential 

manufacturers. With the support of an Innovation at Work grant 

from WorkSafeBC’s research department, the Products and 

Process Applied Research Team at the British Columbia Institute 

of Technology further refined the adaptor. 

Next, the researchers recruited chemotherapy nurses to evaluate 

the adaptor in a mock setting. Sensors were used to determine 

hand-grip force and joint angles, and nurses gave feedback via a 

questionnaire about the adaptor’s usability, functionality, 

ergonomics, safety, hygiene, and aesthetics. 

The results were overwhelmingly positive. The adaptor was 

shown to substantially lower the risk of injury to the hand, wrist, 

and elbow by significantly reducing hand-grip force; to distribute 

that force over the entire hand and fingers rather than the two 

fingertips and thumb tip; and, to eliminate awkward 

hand-and-wrist postures. 

All 10 nurses who participated in the evaluation said they would 

use the adaptor if it was available to them, while eight of the 10 

who’d been having pain said they experienced less discomfort 

using the adaptor compared to a conventional syringe. 


“ [Oncology nurses] are applying significant force against the plunger of the 

syringe and their fingers are outstretched for extended periods. It’s not 

surprising they’re in pain and reporting injuries.” 

“It was definitely easier to use than the regular syringe,” Kondo says. 

Arlyn Heywood, BC Cancer Agency education resource nurse, has 

also tried the adaptor and says its use is straightforward and 

comfortable. 

“It didn’t seem to take much effort at all to deliver the medication,” 

Heywood says. “It could make a big difference in terms of nurses’ 

level of comfort.” 

Benefits of device could be far-reaching 

It’s not just oncology nurses who could benefit from an adaptor such 

as this one. So could pharmacists, who are required to prefill those 

syringes, and who face many of the same problems of pain and 

injury because of repetitive motions at awkward angles. 

Both Kondo and Heywood caution that their observations are based 

on the use of the adaptor in a mock setting and not on real people. 

However, the next step is clinical trials with actual patients, and the 

adaptor is poised for commercial production and distribution. The 

device won an Excellence in BC Healthcare Award last year from 

the Health Employers Association of BC: the 2012 Award of Merit 

for Workplace Health Innovation. 

16 

� Certificate of Recognition (COR) 

The program recognizes and rewards employers who 

implement health and safety management systems. 

Participate in the COR program, improve your overall safety 

performance, and your organization could be eligible to 

receive an incentive cheque from WorkSafeBC. 

Visit our website or contact us for more information on 

safety management systems and the COR program. 

� Are you looking for safety training? 

We can meet any training need, and 

will bring the training to you! 

Knowledge 

sharing the 


—Rick Hall, ergonomic advisor for the Provincial Health Services Authority 

Patrick Rebstein, associate director of the BC Cancer Agency’s 

technology development office, says it’s been exciting to see the 

concept of the adaptor come to fruition. 

“The PHSA’s goal is to be able to nurture and support this kind of 

innovation,” he says. “It’s been a team effort to identify a problem 

people on the frontlines are experiencing and then find a solution. 

We’ve worked together to move it forward. It’s been a thrill to see the 

adaptor be so effective. WorkSafeBC’s support was instrumental to 

this project.” 

Contact: Cathy Cook, Executive Director 

P: 778-278-3486 F: 778-278-0029 

E: ccook@bcmsa.ca www.bcmsa.ca 

WorkSafeBC director of Research Services Susan Hynes says the 

organization supports this kind of practical innovation, because of 

its effectiveness in reducing injury — a benefit to workers and 

employers alike. Furthermore, the methods used in this project 

could be applied to the development and evaluation of other 

ergonomic products in the health care field. 

“This project was truly innovative. It looked at something as familiar 

as a syringe in a new way, in order to minimize injuries,” Hynes says. 

“This kind of research is an example of how a relatively simple 

change can make a big difference to worker health and safety.” 

� Save the dates! 

The 2013 BC Municipal Occupational Health and Safety 

Conference will be held October 20-22, 2013, at the 

Victoria Conference Centre. This biennial conference 

provides a forum for all municipalities, school boards and 

other public sector organizations to exchange success 

strategies on health and safety issues through a series of 

presentations, workshops and panel discussions. 

� More information and resources are 

available on our website, or by calling 

or emailing Cathy Cook.

WorkSafeBC UPDATE 

Fresh 

thinking 

eases the 

load 

By Tanya Colledge 

Bad habits can be hard to break. And when it 

comes to the workplace, the bad habits we’re 

likely to ignore can lead to painful sprains and 

strains. Lifting tasks, for example, are something 

many workers don’t think twice about: they just do it 

— and often the wrong way. 

A recent contest, developed by WorkSafeBC 

ergonomists, encouraged employers to find innovative ways to 

ease the lifting load for their employees — and raised awareness 

about the simple ways they can prevent injury. 

“We need to change how people think,” says WorkSafeBC 

ergonomist Gina Vahlas. She describes lifting as one of the most 

common causes of musculoskeletal injuries (MSIs), often because 

people don’t look for an easier way to do the job. “We think that 

we need to lift, when in reality, there are better ways to get the 

job done. We just have to look at it with fresh eyes.” 

Last October’s WorkSafeBC Innovations contest, developed 

in conjunction with Occupational Ergonomics Month, asked 

employers to look for ergonomic solutions with fresh 

eyes — through either a physical change in the workplace or a 

The BC Cancer Agency’s Genome Sciences 

Centre is the winner of WorkSafeBC’s 

ergonomics contest for a crane-and-cart 

system to reduce injuries associated with 

lifting liquid nitrogen. 

change in the work process. Each contest submission was then 

subjected to professional scrutiny to ensure it wouldn’t go on to 

create new safety hazards. 

This year’s winner, Canada’s Michael Smith Genome Sciences 

Centre, developed a safer and easier way to work with 

liquid-nitrogen-filled transport containers. 

“Sometimes it takes a little head-scratching to change workflows 

and make improvements,” says Robin Coope, group leader for 

instrumentation at the centre. 

Coope’s team found a way to reduce the strain of handling heavy 

Cryoports — liquid-nitrogen-filled containers used to transport 

biological samples for extended journeys. 

Originally, staff faced the awkward task of extracting 30-kilogram 


Cryoports out of 80-centimetre-high shipping containers. 

Workers would then pour the liquid nitrogen into the Cryoport, 

place it on a scale, and then deposit it back into the shipping 

container. 

The centre’s biospecimens group brought the problem to Coope, 

whose team has several engineers at the BC Cancer Agency’s 

prototyping facility in Vancouver. They developed a custom 

solution via a simple crane and cart-lifting mechanism. The crane 

lifts the Cryoports high enough to get them into and out of the 

shipping containers, loads and unloads the cart, and drops the 

containers on the scale for weighing. Workers strap the 

Cryoports into the cart and can then tip them in a controlled way 

while the cart’s brakes are on. 

“The key to getting a design that really works is to build 

prototypes that the users can actually test, then modify those 

18 

“The best testament is silence; 

we’ve had no complaints.” 

—Robin Coope, group leader for 

instrumentation at Canada’s Michael Smith 

Genome Sciences Centre 


components, and test again — until the users are truly satisfied,” 

Coope says. 

Their clever, yet simple device earned the BC Cancer Agency the 

top prize, but Coope says, “The best testament is silence; we’ve 

had no complaints. The system simplifies the procedure and 

makes it safe — that’s what’s important.” 

The University of British Columbia’s (UBC) risk management 

services department was named runner-up in this year’s contest. 

This group improved a lifting task by making creative use of an 

existing piece of equipment. 

“The task was to move a 205-litre oil drum into a cargo container 

for storage,” says Bang Dang, technician for environmental 

services. “But without an access ramp, the driver had to unload 

the drum manually.” 

So, Dang placed a call to UBC ergonomist Abigail Overduin. 

Turns out, the best solution was right before their eyes: an eagle 

beak drum-lifter that had been purchased by the department 

years ago, but was no longer in use. “Now, the lifter and the 

forklift pick up the full drum and move it to the desired location,” 

Dang says. “There’s no manual lifting involved.” 

the Construction industry’s safety association 

Working With and for industry, the BC Construction Safety Alliance develops health 

and safety programs, tools, and resources for over 40,000 construction companies employing 

over 180,000 workers. We are dedicated to raising health and safety awareness and preventing 

or minimizing the rate and duration of accidents and injuries through: 

COR (Certificate of Recognition). Companies who earn COR get an 

effective safety management program and become eligible for 

incentive payments from WorkSafeBC; 

UNCOATED STOCKS (CMYK): 

Safety training, education, and personalized, on-site 

consultation; 

Injury management services; 

Tool-box kits, manuals, and other safety resources. 

Call, write, or visit our website for more information. 

COATED STOCKS (CMYK): 

Raising awareness, reducing injuries 604.636.3675 1.877.860.3675 info@bccsa.ca www.bccsa.ca

Another runner-up, the mechanical engineering services group in 

UBC’s chemistry department, conquered the risks associated 

with a variety of repetitive lifting tasks. The department had 

initially looked into commercial products to help ease the 

required manual labour, but found them too limited and 

expensive. So, they designed their own: a lifting cart featuring 

360-degree swivel, retractable outriggers, and a large storage 

area. 

Overduin says it’s important to take a step back before coming 

up with solutions to ergonomic problems. “Look at tasks 

step-by-step, and involve the workers in solving the problem,” she 

says. “Sometimes these problems are complex. But often we can 

find simple solutions — such as changes in work layout or flow — 

to eliminate risks.” 

Overduin says teamwork was a critical component in each of the 

UBC contest submissions. “An integral part of UBC’s ergonomic 


If you’ve had a chance to play our “What’s wrong with this photo?” 

contest online, then you know how quick and easy it is to submit 

your entry via the web. 

Well, now you can get your hands on an 

even easier alternative: workers and 

employers on the go can now take part 

in the contest using their mobile devices 

— from tablets to smart phones, be they 

Apple or Android. 

The increased accessibility of this 

popular workplace health and safety 

game comes care of WorkSafeBC’s 

Product and Program Development 

team. WorkSafeBC technical editor 

Carolyn Stewart says the new technology reflects the increasing 

popularity of mobile devices. 

“More and more often, people are using tablets and smart phones to 

access WorkSafeBC resources, so we’re always looking for ways to 

make them mobile-friendly,” she says. “One way is by converting the 

online “What’s wrong with this photo?” feature to HTML5, so it can 

be used on any platform or device.” 

Currently, “What’s wrong with this photo?” appears in every print 

issue of WorkSafe Magazine, and is available as an interactive game 

health promotions program involves training employees, 

supervisors, and managers, not only in proper lifting techniques, 

but also in risk assessment and the development of solutions. 

“The WorkSafeBC ergonomics contest helped us raise awareness 

of musculoskeletal injury risks and how to address them. And it 

gave us a chance to celebrate the successes of those striving for 

safer workplaces. We look forward to participating again next 

year.” 

Interested in learning more ergonomically friendly tricks for your 

workplace? WorkSafeBC is currently gauging interest in a 

possible ErgoNews e-newsletter. If you’d like to receive such a 

publication via email, contact AskAnErgo@worksafebc.com. 

In the meantime, check out the video, Lifting in the Workplace, 

on WorkSafeBC.com, which comes with a discussion guide on 

how workers and employers can reduce the risk of lifting-related 

injuries in the workplace. 

Popular photo challenge goes mobile 

at www2.worksafebc.com/Publications/Multimedia/Photos.asp. 

Each contest features a staged image illustrating dangerous work 

habits. Readers are invited to find and describe the hazards, then 

send in their answers to win a prize or 

have them published in the magazine. 

The injury-and-disease-prevention 

images have resonated strongly with 

readers ever since they started 

appearing in the September/October 

2009 issue of the magaine. Every issue 

garners hundreds of responses, from 

workers, employers, and safety 

professionals across Canada and the 

United States, not to mention Africa, 

Australia, Latin America, Europe, and the Middle East. 

“The online ‘What’s wrong with this photo?’ challenge is an 

engaging, interactive feature that’s great for safety meetings, 

toolbox talks, and even new worker orientations,” Stewart says. 

“Taking the photo challenge raises awareness of workplace 

hazards, helps develop hazard-recognition skills, and reinforces a 

positive safety culture in the workplace. 

“If you can do all that and have fun doing it, why wouldn’t you?” 


20 

Spotlight 

The fall guy 

B.C.’s award-winning “faller whisperer” sets 

his sights on training today’s fallers to survive 

what remains a high-risk occupation. 

When Bill Boardman talks about his 33-year career as a 

faller, there’s a lot of passion in his voice for a job he says 

he was born to do. And there’s anger, too. A 

third-generation faller, Boardman grew up in a logging camp in 

Knight Inlet owned by his dad and granddad. Though he wasn’t a 

faller, his great grandfather worked in the woods, and was killed by 

a falling tree. Boardman has grieved the loss of 19 fallers during his 

four decades in the woods — among them were two of his closest 

friends. 

He’s become an outspoken critic of any working conditions that put 

fallers at risk. 

So when Boardman received the Cary White Memorial Award for 

Lifetime Achievement from the B.C. Forest Safety Council last fall, 

he accepted the honour with a mix of pride and sadness. He 

acknowledges that much needs to be done to make the forests safer 

for fallers. But those who’ve worked alongside the man known as 

the “faller whisperer,” say it’s safety-driven professionals like 


By Kathy Eccles 

Boardman who offer hope for future generations working in the 

woods. 

Peter Sprout, manager of falling programs for the council, has 

worked with Boardman on new faller and remedial training. “I’ve 

sent him out to work with guys identified as having poor work 

practices. The first day they’re resentful. Pretty soon they’re sitting 

on a stump, saying, ‘I get it.’ He knows how to get into their heads.” 

“He has a unique way of getting his point across, and a rare talent 

for being demanding and diplomatic at the same time,” he says. 

“The students I see are glued to him.” 

Boardman says he remembers the days when fallers were looked up 

to like kings: they had their own table in the cookhouse and a 

separate bunkhouse. The work was steady, and others accorded the 

same respect to experienced fallers they might an ancient cedar. 

But controversy — and tragedy — has dogged the industry since the 

early 2000s, when falling became the focal point for the dangers in 

B.C.’s forests.

Faller Bill Boardman (kneeling) 

leads a new faller training session 

with, from left: Shandy Campos, 

Evan Schwartz, Dale Orchard, 

Trevor Munn, and Jesurun Marks 

in June of last year, southwest of 

Campbell River, B.C. 

In 2005, the BC Coroners Service reported 45 forestry-related 

fatalities, seven of them fallers. WorkSafeBC and the council have 

since worked together to create a culture of safety in the forests. One 

means of embarking on that safety mission has been through the 

certification of fallers under the new BC Faller Training Standard. 

From Boardman’s perspective, once the standard was brought in, 

“everyone had to step up to the plate.” Initially, he saw resistance, 

but since then, he says, acceptance has grown. “Now, the reality is 

chain brakes are like seatbelts.” 

Veteran faller insists on planning and 

preparation 

Former faller Dave Gaskill knows firsthand what it’s like to benefit 

from working with Boardman, a bull bucker (faller and bucker 

supervisor) with “an unprecedented focus on safety” years before the 

introduction of training and certification standards for fallers. 

“When Bill came to see you, he’d look at the quality of your stumps,” 

says Gaskill, now an occupational safety officer for WorkSafeBC. “He 

would comment if he saw sloppy work. He wouldn’t tolerate it. I’ve 

seen him let guys go for bad work.” 

Boardman would walk the quarter, inspecting the falling face and 

looking for hazards, document them, and then formulate a plan. 

“Nobody did that back then,” Gaskill says. “He’d inspect your 

equipment. And he’d make sure you maintained two tree lengths 

from your partner.” 

During helicopter tree removals, Gaskill recalls Boardman being 

particularly diligent. “On steeper ground, a tree can slide for a 

kilometre and cause fatalities,” he explains. “The tree can come 

down the mountain like a freight train.” Boardman would walk the 

ground until he was 100 percent sure that a tree wasn’t going to 

come down from above on a faller. “I learned from watching him.” 

Trainees benefit from a voice of 

experience 

Dave Gaskill’s wife, Wendy, a former certification coordinator for the 

Council, was the one who nominated Boardman for the award. She 

calls him the “faller whisperer,” because of his knack for getting 

fallers to listen to him — no easy task, she says. “Fallers are a tough 

“ In this business, you don’t make 

mistakes. There’s no margin for error.” 

—veteran B.C. faller and forestry safety 

award-winner Bill Boardman 

breed. They’re independent-minded, and can be reactionary at 

times.” 

She often sent Boardman out to work with fallers on additional 

training after they were certified. “I would unleash Boardman on 

anyone — usually someone stuck on the ‘way-back-when days’ — who 

scored low on their evaluation due to inability or unwillingness to 

meet the standard. His goal was to work with the men to raise their 

mark high enough, so my ‘evil eye’ would look elsewhere.” 

She feels personally grateful for his uncompromising stance. “He 

was one of the fallers who broke in my husband back in the day. I 

thank him for providing the tools that kept Dave safe throughout his 

career.” 

An affinity for safety spans four decades 

Boardman had no such safety mentor when he began falling trees in 

1976. “I’ve seen the full spectrum from: ‘Here’s a chainsaw. Good 

luck. We hope to see you tonight’ to big companies willing to do 

in-house training.” In addition, he’s witnessed a lot of changes in the 

industry itself. “My granddad logged the valley floors. My dad logged 

the side hills. I’ve been put in a helicopter to the top to where my 

granddad said, ‘They’ll never log that wood up there.’” And now that 

they do, fallers face a new set of risks. “On steeper, tougher, 

inhospitable ground, the danger goes up.” 

Since 2009, Boardman has been providing faller safety training for 

the council. These days, he leaves nothing to chance when he’s 

working in the woods. “Maybe I’m a glass-half-empty kind of guy, but 

in every single situation, I ask, ‘What can go wrong here?’ 

“In this business, you don’t make mistakes. You don’t get second 

chances. You get crushed, maimed, or killed. There’s no margin for 

error.” He cautions fallers to “leave their problems in the truck” and 

maintain a constant focus on the job. “It’s like playing chess: always 

stay five moves ahead so you can adjust the plan.” 

The faller whisperer turns 62 in May and is still falling and training 

others, still trying to make changes, one careful cut at a time. “I like 

taking these new guys and trying to implant in them safe work 

practices that will stay with them all their lives.” 

For information on B.C. faller training and certification, visit 

www.bcforestsafe.org/training/faller_certification.html. 


TOOL BOX 

Dangerous load 

If your work involves spending time at a busy 

loading dock, then you’ll need to be prepared 

for ever-changing hazards. 

The commonplace loading dock presents an uncommon 

22 

degree of danger for workers in a wide range of 

industries throughout B.C. 

“Businesses of all types and sizes may have a shipping and 

receiving component, so loading docks are found all over the 

place,” says WorkSafeBC occupational safety officer Andrew 

Lim. “They’re all full of hazards that increase in the busiest 

times, during periods of chaos, when loading and unloading is 

happening. 

“Things can get quite hairy, then, and the risk of injury is higher.” 

Loading docks are found in hospitals, warehouses, commercial 


By Lynn Welburn 

and industrial buildings, manufacturing plants, and offices. 

They’re always hectic and hard-to-predict environments, Lim 

says, with forklifts and workers moving products around, and 

then ramping up activity every time a vehicle arrives to load or 

unload. 

“No matter where a loading dock is — whether it’s part of a 

manufacturing plant or a warehouse — you’ll find common safety 

concerns,” Lim says. 

“Primarily, workers need to deal with traffic. You have people 

and vehicles both in the yards and inside the buildings. You can 

have visibility issues at night, and tonnes of heavy freight being

Sarwan Singh Bhango, a forklift operator for Simard Westlink in Richmond, 

B.C., loads his trailer only after locking out, securing the ramp, and relying 

on red-and-green-light sensors to confirm safe loading. 

moved around at all times. Plus, all of the 

work is being done as quickly as 

possible.” 

Workers should 

anticipate multiple 

hazards 

Loading dock risks range from repetitive 

stress injuries to major trauma — and 

even death — says WorkSafeBC 

occupational safety officer Sugavanam 

Prabhakaran. So, workers need to be 

vigilant in addressing both minor and 

major hazards if they want to stay safe 

and healthy. 

That means workers need to be trained to 

deal with heavy equipment, and ensure 

they work only on the equipment they’ve 

received training for, he says. They need 

to make sure vehicles that need loading 

and unloading are secure and immobile, 

keep the ground outside and the floor inside clear of obstructions 

or hazards, and have well-understood procedures so everyone 

knows what, when, where, and how to do their work. 

Among the more devastating injuries Prabhakaran has seen 

around loading docks are workers who were injured or crushed 

by falling freight. This is sometimes caused by load shifts in 

containers coming from overseas. 

“You can get 20-to-30-pound (9-to-14-kg) boxes falling. So, 

anytime you open the doors of a truck or container, it’s important 

to stand in a protected place,” he says. “Don’t ever try to stop a 

falling load, because you can be crushed.” 

“ No matter where a loading dock is — whether it’s 

part of a manufacturing plant or a warehouse — 

you’ll find common safety concerns.” 

—WorkSafeBC occupational safety officer Andrew Lim 

Ensure that a truck being loaded or unloaded has its tires 

properly chocked so the trailer doesn’t begin to creep away from 

the dock. That can lead to the ramp falling off, and sometimes 

the forklift and driver as well, he says. 

Other risks are less traumatic, but not without potentially 

long-term consequences. 

“If the ramp between the loading dock and the trailer that’s 

being unloaded is not adjusted properly, every time the forklift 

driver rolls over it, there will be a little bump,” Prabhakaran says. 

“It doesn’t seem like much: just a jump each time they pass over 

the ramp. But when you do that hundreds of times a day for 

years, it can cause serious back strain that’s debilitating and can 

lead to pain and lost time from work.” 

As well, Lim points out that forklift drivers aren’t the only ones 

who face risks on a loading dock. Sometimes their actions pose 

risks to other workers. 

“Employers need to set up a good system to keep pedestrians and 

workers using hand trucks out of the way of forklifts,” he says. 

“The onus is on the workers, who are working around equipment, 

to ensure they’re seen by the operator. That means wearing 

high-visibility vests and remembering that pedestrians don’t have 

the right-of-way in these locations.” 

Procedures and training protect dock 

workers 

Fourteen years ago, Sandra Kolberg worked for a warehouse and 

logistics company, driving forklifts and “throwing boxes” in a 

warehouse. Between 2005 and 2011, she worked as a supervisor 

for Damco (Maersk) Distribution Services Canada. She became 

the company’s health and safety manager in 2007, charged with 

improving policies and procedures for workplace safety — and 


most specifically, loading dock safety. 

“I had done the work myself in the past, and I talked a lot to the 

workers to get their input and made sure their ideas were 

heard,” Kolberg says. 

“The company was already on side about making changes. And 

since the workers had a good chance to be heard, they tended to 

buy into the health and safety program,” she says. These 

changes included providing clear, written loading dock 

procedures, educating and training the workers in all the 

procedures, maintaining consistency in procedures, and 

designating lead hands on the floor who wore differently 

coloured vests. 

“People knew the lead hands were the go-to individuals for any 

questions or problems,” she says. “They were very key people with 

extra training and experience, and without them, safety would just 

go down the tubes.” 

The improvements, she says, significantly reduced worker injuries. 

Now a disability case manager for WorkSafeBC, Kolberg says the 

main advice she gave new loading dock workers is as follows: 

“Find an experienced buddy on the floor and learn from them. 

Ask them questions and express any doubts you have. Don’t use 

any equipment you haven’t been trained on, as you’ll put 

yourself and others at risk.” 

And for the more experienced workers, she would remind them 

they’re being watched by new and young workers, so they need 

to work as safely as possible to model good behaviour and help 

protect their co-workers from getting hurt. 

24 

Get on board with the Trucking Safety Council of BC 

Conference & AGM 


“Workers need to remember that an injury on the job doesn’t 

just affect your job,” she says. “It can affect your whole life in 

many painful ways.” 

Stay grounded on the dock 

Health and Wellness: In it for the long haul 

JOIN US 

• Make sure the floor and ground are kept clear of all 

obstructions, including refuse, snow and ice, boxes and 

cartons. Keep traffic in the area to the minimum required to 

do the job. 

• Never operate equipment, such as forklifts or other material 

handling equipment, unless you’ve been trained in its safe 

and proper use. 

• Ensure that trailers and other vehicles have been 

immobilized, brakes are set, and tires are chocked to prevent 

vehicle movement. Also, make sure trailers are stabilized 

against tipping. 

• Reduce uneven surfaces between the loading area, dock 

plate, and trailer to prevent worker slips, trips, and falls, or 

musculoskeletal injuries among forklift operators who drive 

over such surfaces. 

• Speak out. If you have any concerns about falls or other 

hazards, tell your supervisor about them right away to keep 

everyone safe on the dock. 

—adapted from the following Health and Safety Ontario 

publications: www.healthandsafetyontario.ca/HSO/media/ 

PSHSA/pdfS/Loading_Dock_Safety.pdf and www.labour.gov. 

on.ca/english/hs/pdf/poster_loading.pdf. 

Friday, April 5th, 2013 

at Northview Golf & Country Club, Surrey BC 

for a day of thought-provoking speakers, �rst-rate food, and networking. Hear from the world 

renowned expert in fatigue risk management, Pat Byrne “the Canucks’ sleep doctor.” 

Meet the SafetyDriven team and learn more about what we can do for your business. 

COR (Certificate of Recognition) 

Free, confidential advice 

Online and in-class training 

Posters, forms, templates and more 

TSCBC - Driving to improve safety - led by industry 

Register online at 

www.safetydriven.ca 

604-888-2242 | 1-877-414-8001 | info@safetydriven.ca

Continued from page 11 


Spring campaigns promote stronger reporting culture 

If you’re a seasoned worker, you might neglect to report 

near-misses and minor incidents at work, chalking them up 

to “dodging bullets.” So imagine how difficult it is to 

complain about potentially lethal workplace safety hazards 

when you’re young and inexperienced. 

It’s a concern that’s often uppermost in 

the mind of WorkSafeBC new and 

young worker specialist Robin Schooley, 

especially during campaigns designed 

to change that kind of overly relaxed 

thinking on the job. “In certain working 

environments, particularly when 

someone new to the job experiences a 

near-miss, it can be really tough to find 

the rationale for reporting or for 

speaking up,” she says. 

In May of this year, during the 2013 North American 

Occupational Safety and Health (NAOSH) Week (May 5–11) 

and BC Youth Week (May 1–7), efforts to enlighten that 

culture of “see but don’t say” will shift into high gear. 

Throughout each of the overlapping weeks, both 

experienced and young workers around the province will be 

reminded of the importance of speaking up, and the 

rationale for reporting, along with a host of other issues 

related to health and safety. 

“For young people on the job,” Schooley says, “the whole 

idea of rights and responsibilities is crucial. They need to 

understand they have a right to know about the hazards of 

their jobs and a responsibility to report concerns, as well as 

the right to refuse unsafe work. The concept of rights and 

responsibilities — of empowerment — is also a big part of 

Youth Week, which is organized by youth, for youth.” 

The result is a full week of interactive and fun safety-related 

activities, especially designed for a young audience. Since 

the inaugural event in 1995, Youth Week has grown to 

include more than 30 B.C. municipalities, and is now a 

worldwide event. By contrast, NAOSH Week is a national 

event targeting a broader range of workers of all ages. And, 

workers are bound to feel an even greater sense of 

connection, since B.C. is hosting the event this year. The 

national kick-off, which takes place May 6 

at Shipbuilder’s Square in North Vancouver, 

will include such keynote speakers as 

Walter Gretzky — father of The Great One 

and former injured worker — and a lifeboat 

rescue demonstration, care of Royal 

Canadian Marine Search and Rescue. 

At the same time, this year’s NAOSH Week 

theme reinforces the concept of sharing 

hazard information at work. Similar to BC 

Youth Week, NAOSH uses a community-based approach to 

raise awareness about workplace health and safety. And its 

theme, “Are you as safe as you think?” ties in nicely with the 

concept of increased worker vigilance around the need to 

report near-misses and minor incidents — along with the 

importance of hazard assessment. 

WorkSafeBC industry specialist and B.C. NAOSH Week 

committee member Kathy Tull says the theme encourages 

employers and workers to think about their work and the 

hazards they see around them. “The idea is not to wait for 

an injury to happen.” 

Tull says employers can take advantage of both events to 

promote a stronger health and safety culture. This means 

workplaces can consider “lunch and learn” safety sessions, 

a safety celebration barbecue, site inspections to look for 

hidden hazards, annual inspections of personal protective 

equipment (PPE), a personalized “What’s wrong with this 

photo?” contest, and larger-scale attendance at the national 

NOASH Week launch. 

For more information on NAOSH Week and BC Youth Week, 

go to WorkSafeBC.com. 


Continued from page 13 

Drop zone 

If protective canopies are used, they must be designed to safely 

support all reasonable loads, in no case less than 2.4 kPa 

(50 pounds per square foot). 

Grant McMillan, president of the Council of Construction 

Associations, says falling debris is a significant concern for his 

association’s 2,200 members, about 70 percent of whom are 

trades’ firms. When incidents happen, they not only have the 

potential to hurt people, but often draw media coverage; “and, 

that paints all contractors with a pretty negative brush.” 

BCCSA executive director Mike McKenna cautions employers 

about the high cost of failing to plan ahead. Instead, they should 

use all necessary means to protect workers against the dangers of 

falling debris. 

Otherwise, he says, they could face lawsuits, repair bills, an 

increase in WorkSafeBC premiums, and worst of all, a devastating 

worker injury. 

“How much is it going to cost you — and ultimately your workers 

— if something goes wrong?” 

‘It’s the right thing to do’ 

Safety for its own sake is a message echoed by Lou Metcalf, 

district health, safety and environment manager for PCL 

Constructors Westcoast Inc. 

The firm was the prime contractor for the massive B.C. Place roof 

replacement between 2010 and 2011. Given the challenges of 

having workers and cranes in close proximity, hundreds of metres 

in the air, PCL implemented a rigorous safety system even before 

the project began. 

26 


The company’s initial assessment identified potential dangers, 

and then mapped out a grid system to get a sense of where 

workers would be during the various stages of construction. 

With that accomplished, PCL then launched a system requiring 

workers to get a permit for any site access. They met any 

violations with immediate disciplinary action. 

“We spent an inordinate amount of time policing the procedures,” 

Metcalf says. But it was worth it. “We still had a few minor 

near-misses with falling materials, despite our best efforts. 

However, with the measures we had in place, the probability of 

injury was very low.” 

Besides, he says, “we just know that taking those precautions 

was the right thing to do.” 

That safety-first approach spills over onto all of the company’s 

worksites, he says. Consequently, “we probably have fewer trips 

to the doctor than anybody in this business.” 

Other employers can follow that lead when it comes to dealing 

with the problem of falling construction debris. “It’s not a 

complex fix,” Schouten says. “But it does take the employer’s 

willingness to commit to planning and coordinating the work, 

and to strictly enforcing that plan among all contractors and 

workers on the worksite.” 

Schouten, who formerly worked in construction, says it’s 

important to also factor in the unexpected, including keeping an 

eye on weather forecasts, since gusts of wind can transform many 

building materials into deadly kites. 

Add to those safety steps a little due diligence, and preparation, 

and Schouten says employers have little 

to fear from Newton’s centuries-old 

discovery. 

“Like gravity, the rules for preventing 

falling debris are easy to understand,” he 

says. “For the most part, it’s about 

planning ahead and applying the rules of 

good housekeeping and safe storage and 

securing of materials. In other words: 

common sense.”

Penalties 

Administrative penalties are monetary 

fines imposed on employers for health 

and safety violations of the Workers 

Compensation Act and/or the 

Occupational Health and Safety 

Regulation. The penalties listed in this 

section show the date the penalty was 

imposed and the location where the 

violation occurred (not necessarily the 

business location). The registered 

business name is given, as well as any 

“doing business as” (DBA) name. 

The penalty amount is based on the 

nature of the violation, the employer’s 

compliance history, and the employer’s 

assessable payroll. Once a penalty is 

imposed, the employer has 90 days to 

appeal to the Review Division of 

WorkSafeBC. The Review Division may 

maintain, reduce, or withdraw the 

penalty; it may increase the penalty as 

well. Employers may then file an appeal 

within 30 days of the Review Division’s 

decision to the Workers’ Compensation 

Appeal Tribunal, an independent 

appeal body. 

The amounts shown here indicate the 

penalties imposed prior to appeal, and 

may not reflect the final penalty 

amount. 

For more information on when 

penalties are considered and how the 

penalty amount is calculated, visit our 

website at WorkSafeBC.com, then 

search for “Administrative penalties.” 

PRIMARY RESOURCES 

M.G. Logging Ent. Ltd. 

$3,250 

Prince George, November 30, 2012 

This firm was operating logging 

equipment on a single-lane public road. 

Since the road was too narrow for vehicles 

to pass each other, an effective traffic 

control system was required. The firm 

failed to implement such a system. The 

firm also failed to ensure that a qualified 

person was designated to supervise falling 

and bucking activities. Further, the firm 

allowed an unqualified worker to fall 

about 15 trees that were on the side of the 

road. The trees were felled in an unsafe 

manner. 

M & J Dhaliwal Green Acres Vegetable 

Farm Ltd./ Dhaliwal Green Acres 

$11,351.47 

Kamloops, November 14, 2012 

Three of this firm’s workers were 

seriously injured when a barn that was 

under construction at the firm’s farm 

collapsed. The workers were nailing 

lumber to the barn’s roof trusses at the 

time and fell about 7 m (23 ft.) to the 

concrete slab below them. The firm 

failed to ensure its workers’ safety by 

not ensuring that they used the required 

fall protection and by not providing them 

with the information, instruction, training, 

and supervision they needed to safely 

carry out construction work. Further, the 

firm knowingly provided WorkSafeBC 

with false information about the task its 

workers were performing immediately 

before the barn collapsed, and also 

instructed its workers to provide false 

information. 

Knighco Industries Ltd. 

$2,500 

Powell River, October 10, 2012 

This firm failed to promptly assess 

numerous snags that posed a possible 

hazard to users of a forest service road. 

WorkSafeBC ordered the firm to assess 

the trees and then either declare them safe 

or remove them. The firm failed to do so 

within a reasonable time. 

MANUFACTURING 

Neucel Specialty Cellulose Ltd. 

$15,000 

Port Alice, October 22, 2012 

This firm failed to involve a worker 

representative when it investigated 

an incident in which its power boiler 

was extensively damaged and put at 

risk of structural failure. The incident 

had the potential to seriously injure a 

worker, so the participation of a worker 

representative, if reasonably available, 

was required. The firm also failed to 

prepare the required report on the incident 

investigation. The firm had previously 

received several WorkSafeBC orders 

related to other violations of the incident 

investigation requirements. 

CONSTRUCTION 

Super Strong Roofing Ltd. 

$8,099.03 

Vancouver, November 30, 2012 

This firm’s principal and three of its 

other workers were working without the 

required fall protection as they replaced 

the sloped roof of a house. The principal 

was on the roof directing the work from 

positions between 7.5 and 9 m (25 and 

30 ft) above grade. One of the other 

workers was on a steep section of roof, 

tearing off old shingles. He was about 

9 m (30 ft.) above grade. The other two 

workers were on top of a sloped dormer 

roof, at heights ranging from 7.5 to 9 m 

(25 to 30 ft.) above grade. The firm’s 

failure to ensure the use of fall protection 

was a repeated violation. 

Younger and Younger Roofing 2008 

Incorporated 

$2,500 

Langford, November 30, 2012 

This firm’s young worker was working 

without fall protection as he installed 

shingles on the sloped roof of a two-storey 

house that was under construction. The 

young worker was alone and working near 

the edge of the roof, where he was at high 

risk of falling about 5.5 m (18 ft.) to the 

rock, gravel, and construction debris on 

the ground below him. The firm failed to 

ensure its young worker used the required 

fall protection and failed to provide 

him with the instruction, training, and 

supervision needed to ensure that he could 

work safely at heights. 


Navco Construction Corp. 

$5,861.15 

Tsawwassen, November 29, 2012 

This firm’s worker was working without 

the required fall protection on the sloped, 

unguarded roof of a two-storey house. 

The worker was working both near the 

edge of the roof and at its peak, which 

was about 7.5 m (25 ft.) above grade. The 

plastic sheeting and roofing materials that 

were on the roof, as well as other hazards, 

increased the worker’s risk of slipping 

or tripping. The concrete driveway and 

sidewalk below the worker increased his 

risk of serious injury in the event of a fall. 

The firm’s failure to ensure its worker 

used fall protection was a high-risk, 

repeated violation. 

BCS Contractors Ltd. 

$2,500 and $2,500 

Vancouver and Richmond, 

November 29, 2012 

This firm violated asbestos-related 

health and safety requirements on two 

separate occasions. In one case, after 

completing its asbestos removal work 

in a contained high-risk area, the firm 

dismantled the containment without first 

conducting air sampling to determine 

whether it was safe to do so. On a later 

date at a different house, the firm failed to 

maintain a containment where high-risk 

asbestos removal work was underway. 

The firm also failed to properly ventilate 

the containment area to ensure that 

contaminated air did not escape from it. 

Five Star International Development 

Ltd. 

$2,500 

Surrey, November 29, 2012 

This firm’s principal and two of its other 

workers were applying sheeting to the 

sloped roof of a two-storey house without 

using the required fall protection. They 

were at risk of falling about 4.5 m (15 ft.) 

to grade. Also, one worker was working 

near the edge of the roof, which put him 

at increased risk of falling to grade. The 

hard-packed soil below the work area 

meant that all the workers were at high 

risk of serious injury in the event of a fall. 

The firm’s failure to ensure its workers 

used fall protection was a repeated 

violation. 

28 


Satendra Prasad & Ronald Chandra / 

Island Asbestos Removal & Renovation 

$2,500 


This firm allowed its worker to issue a 

clearance letter incorrectly stating that all 

asbestos-containing materials had been 

safely removed from a house scheduled 

for demolition. Asbestos-containing duct 

tape, vermiculite, and other materials 

remained inside the house when the 

letter was issued. This was a failure on 

the firm’s part to ensure that its worker 

complied with the Workers Compensation 

Act, which requires workers to take 

reasonable care to protect the health and 

safety of other workers who could be 

affected by their workplace actions or 

omissions. 

H. & G. Roofing & Sheet Metal Ltd. 

$5,432.60 

Chilliwack, November 28, 2012 


workers were working about 6 m (19 ft.) 

above grade, near the unguarded edge of a 

sloped roof. A fall protection plan was not 

available and the workers were not using 

fall protection gear. The firm’s failure to 

ensure its workers were protected from 

falling was a repeated violation. 

Zipp Construction Ltd. 

$4,123.25 

West Vancouver, November 23, 2012 

This firm’s young worker was working 

more than 7 m (24 ft.) above grade without 

using the required fall protection. He 

was on the roof of a house, near its edge. 

Fall protection gear was available and 

required, but the worker was not using it. 

The firm failed to ensure its worker used 

fall protection and failed to provide him 

with the information, instruction, training, 

and supervision needed to ensure his 

safety. 

SPS Roofing Ltd. 

$2,500 

Burnaby, November 23, 2012 

Three of this firm’s workers were 

installing roofing tiles on the sloped 

roof of a two-storey house. The workers 

wore fall protection harnesses but were 

not attached to lifelines as they worked 

between 6 and 7 m (20 and 24 ft.) above 

grade. The firm’s failure to ensure that its 

workers used fall protection was a 

high-risk and repeated violation. 

BS Sanghera Roofing Ltd. 

$7,500 


This firm’s principal was working about 

5.5 m (18 ft.) above grade on a sloped 

roof. Although he wore a fall protection 

harness, he was not connected to a lifeline 

and so was not protected from falling. The 

principal was working near the edge of the 

roof, and the construction materials and 

debris on the ground below increased his 

risk of injury in the event of a fall. This 

was a high-risk and repeated violation of 

the fall protection requirements. 

Chiman Homes Ltd. 

$3,250 


This firm’s worker was fatally injured 

when he fell about 4.5 m (15 ft.) from the 

second-storey balcony of a house under 

construction. He was working alone on 

an overnight shift as a night watchman at 

the time. The firm failed to ensure that 

the balcony had the required guardrails 

to protect workers from falling. The 

firm also failed to provide its worker 

with training on how to safely perform 

his security duties, failed to identify and 

minimize hazards at the worksite, and 

failed to ensure there was a system for 

regularly checking on the worker’s 

well-being. 

Safr Demo & Bobcat Services Ltd. 

$10,229.20 


This firm violated numerous health 

and safety requirements while it was 

removing asbestos-containing materials 

from a commercial building. The firm’s 

violations included its failure to properly 

ventilate a containment area where 

high-risk removal work was underway. 

As a result of this failure, contaminated 

air might have escaped the containment 

and put workers at risk of exposure. The 

firm also failed to ensure that doorways 

next to the containment were secured so 

as to prevent the release of asbestos fibres 

into clean work areas. The firm’s failure 

to conduct the required daily inspection 

of the containment was evident from the 

presence of holes and an uncontrolled 

opening in the plastic sheeting used 

to contain the area. The holes and the 

opening made the containment ineffective. 

The firm also allowed its workers 

to remove asbestos-containing pipe

insulation by cutting it and capturing it 

with drop sheets. This was a failure to 

use handling procedures that prevent or 

minimize the release of airborne asbestos 

fibres. These, as well as other failures, 

demonstrated that the firm did not provide 

its workers with the instruction, training, 

and supervision needed to ensure their 

own safety and the safety of other workers 

at the workplace. 

G. B. Roofing Ltd. 

$2,500 



workers were working about 5.5 m 

(18 ft.) above grade on a sloped roof 

without using the required fall protection. 

The firm’s failure to ensure its workers 

used fall protection was a repeated 

violation. 

Salvatore Manno / Trinity West 

Construction 

$2,606.38 

North Vancouver, November 15, 2012 

This firm’s worker was working about 

9 m (30 ft.) above grade on the roof of 

a building that was under construction. 

He was not protected by guardrails 

or personal fall protection gear. The 

worker was near the edge of the roof 

and the presence of a pneumatic air hose 

increased his risk of tripping and falling 

to the concrete slab below him. The firm’s 

failure to ensure its worker used the 

required fall protection was a repeated 

violation. 

0852244 B.C. Ltd. 

$2,500 

Coquitlam, November 14, 2012 

This firm’s principal and three of its other 

workers were working about 6.5 m (22 ft.) 

above grade on a sloped roof. They were 

not protected by guardrails or personal 

fall protection gear. The concrete steps, 

hard ground, and construction debris 

below the workers increased their risk of 

serious injury in the event of a fall. The 

firm’s failure to ensure its workers used 

fall protection was a repeated violation. 

3 A Demolition Ltd. 

$1,000 

Richmond, November 13, 2012 

This firm allowed one of its workers to 

issue a clearance letter that inaccurately 

stated that all asbestos-containing 

materials had been safely removed from a 

house scheduled for demolition. The letter 

was inaccurate because various types of 

asbestos-containing materials remained 

inside the house. By allowing its worker 

to issue an inaccurate clearance letter, 

the firm failed to ensure the health and 

safety of its own workers and that of any 

other workers present where its work was 

carried out. This was a repeated violation. 

3 A Demolition Ltd. 

$5,000 


This firm allowed one of its workers to 

post a clearance letter that inaccurately 

stated that all asbestos-containing 

materials had been safely removed from 

a house scheduled for demolition. 

The letter was inaccurate because 

asbestos-containing flooring remained 

inside the house. This was a failure on 

the firm’s part to ensure that its worker 

complied with the Workers Compensation 

Act and the Occupational Health and 

Safety Regulation. The firm also failed 

to provide its worker with the supervision 

needed to ensure his safety and the safety 

of other workers at the workplace. 

Marier Enterprises Inc. 

$4,239.48 

Coquitlam, November 6, 2012 

Three of this firm’s workers were working 

on sections of the roof of a three-storey 

condominium, at heights ranging from 

about 8 to 11 m (27 to 37 ft) above grade. 

The workers were not protected by 

guardrails or personal fall protection gear. 

One of the workers was on the small roof 

of a lower balcony. He had been using a 

propane torch, which increased his risk of 

tripping and falling, and his risk of injury 

in the event of a fall. The firm’s failure to 

ensure its workers used the required fall 

protection was a high-risk and repeated 

violation. 

S.S Westwood Holdings Ltd. 

$1,000 

Vancouver, October 30, 2012 

This firm was ordered to submit a written 

report on its investigation of an incident 

in which one of its workers was injured 

and required medical treatment. The firm 

failed to do so within a reasonable time. 

The firm’s worker was injured when he 

fell about 5.5 m (18 ft.) from the steep roof 

where he had been working without the 

required fall protection. 

RG Roofing Ltd. 

$15,000 

Richmond, October 26, 2012 

This firm failed, on two separate 

dates, to ensure that its workers used 

the required fall protection. In the first 

case, the firm’s principal and one of its 

other workers were between 5 and 6 m 

(17 and 21 ft.) above grade on the steeply 

sloped roof of a two-storey house. Due to 

the roof’s steepness, either personal fall 

protection or personnel safety nets were 

required, but were not in use. Several 

weeks later at a different worksite, two of 

the firm’s workers were working without 

fall protection on the edge of a sloped 

roof. The workers were about 

6 m (20 ft.) above grade. These were both 

high-risk violations of the fall protection 

requirements. In both cases, the firm 

also failed to provide its workers with the 

instruction, training, and supervision they 

needed to carry out their duties safely. 

RG Roofing Ltd. 

$15,000 

Burnaby, October 26, 2012 


workers were working between 6 and 

7.5 m (20 and 25 ft.) above grade on a 

sloped, unguarded roof. The firm failed to 

ensure its workers used the required fall 

protection and failed to provide a written 

fall protection plan for the worksite. It 

also failed to provide its workers with 

the instruction, training, and supervision 

needed to ensure their safety. These were 

all repeated violations. 

Jason Pley / Pley Roofing 

$2,500 

Port Alberni, October 18, 2012 

Three of this firm’s workers were working 

without the required fall protection on a 

sloped roof. The workers were near the 

roof’s edge, about 3.5 m (13 ft.) above 

grade. The firm failed to ensure its 

workers used fall protection. 

Whitewater Concrete Ltd. 

$66,452.22 


This firm’s tower crane contacted a 25 kV 

power line while the firm’s workers were 

positioning the crane to lift materials off 

a delivery truck. The firm failed to ensure 

that its crane and its workers stayed the 

minimum required distance away from the 

power line. The firm also failed to provide 


its workers with the instruction, training, 


safety. 

Hi-Class Framing Ltd. 

$3,258.45 

Coquitlam, October 9, 2012 

Two of this firm’s workers were working 

without the required fall protection on 

the roof of a new three-storey townhouse 

complex. The workers were about 9 m 

(30 ft.) above grade, near the edge of the 

sloped, unguarded roof. The construction 

debris and concrete retaining wall below 

the workers put them at increased risk 

of serious injury in the event of fall. The 

firm failed to ensure its workers used 

fall protection. It also failed to provide 

the instruction, training, and supervision 

needed to ensure its workers’ safety. 

James Byers / Roof Goat Roofing 

$3,250 

Parksville, October 5, 2012 

Three of this firm’s workers, including 

a supervisor, were working without the 

required fall protection on a steep roof. 

The workers were about 7.5 m (25 ft.) 

above grade. One worker wore a harness 

but was not connected to an anchor point, 

and so was not protected from falling. 

The other two workers were not wearing 

fall protection harnesses. The firm’s 

failure to ensure its workers used fall 

protection was a repeated violation. 

Kuldip Singh Brar / Canucks Framing 

$2,500 


WorkSafeBC found several safety 

violations when it inspected a worksite 

where four of this firm’s workers were 

helping to build a new two-storey house. 

For example, the firm failed to provide 

safe access to the worksite. All four 

workers had to walk on and step over 

scattered lumber in the front yard to get 

to the house. Two of the workers were 

working on the house’s steep roof. To get 

to their work area, they had to climb a 

stairway that lacked the required handrail 

and an unsafe job-built ladder that had 

missing infill pieces between its rungs. 

The firm failed to ensure that these 

workers used the required fall protection 

when they were working about 4 to 6 m 

(14 to 20 ft.) above grade on the roof. 

These workers were also using pneumatic 

nail guns, and the firm failed to ensure 

30 


that they wore the required protective 

eye gear. One of the workers was allowed 

to stand on a platform that lacked the 

required guardrails. All the firm’s 

violations were repeated violations. 

B & W Framers Ltd. 

$5,000 

Vancouver, October 4, 2012 

This firm’s principal was working 

without the required fall protection while 

he was near the edge of a flat roof on a 

three-storey building. He was at risk of 

falling about 8.5 m (28 ft.) to the packed 

earth, construction debris, and protruding 

nails on the ground below. He was not 

protected by guardrails or any other form 

of fall protection. This was a repeated 

high-risk violation. 

Canadian Best Roofing Ltd. 

$2,500 


Four of this firm’s workers were working 

without the required fall protection on a 

sloped roof at heights ranging from 

4 to 6 m (14 to 20 ft.) above grade. The 

roof had no guardrails and the workers 

were not using any other form of fall 

protection. The firm’s failure to ensure its 

workers used the required fall protection 

was a repeated violation. 

TRANSPORTATION & 

WAREHOUSING 

P M H Holdings Ltd. 

$2,500 


This firm failed to cooperate with a 

WorkSafeBC officer who was carrying 

out his duties. WorkSafeBC’s officer 

had ordered the firm to provide 

documents showing that the firm had 

fulfilled its responsibility to ensure that 

all asbestos-containing materials were 

safely removed from a house before the 

firm demolished it. The firm did not 

provide these documents. 

TRADE 

Country Lumber Ltd. 

$46,096.18 

Langley, October 18, 2012 

This firm’s worker was seriously injured 

when the forklift he was operating tipped 

over, pinning him underneath it. The 

worker had been operating the forklift 

near a shallow excavation where a section 

of asphalt was under repair. When he 

turned the forklift, it cut across a corner 

of the excavated area and tipped. The 

firm failed to provide its workers with 

the information, instruction, training, 


safety. For example, the firm did not 

inform its workers about the timing of 

the asphalt repair work or clearly mark 

the excavation area. Also, the training of 

workers who operated forklifts was not 

current and did not meet the applicable 

standard. In addition, the firm’s 

supervisors were not informed about 

their health and safety responsibilities. 

The firm also failed to ensure that the 

forklift had a seatbelt and that its worker 

wore a seatbelt while operating the 

forklift. 

SERVICE SECTOR 

Connaught Motor Inns Ltd./ 

Connaught Motor Inn 

$3,781.15 

Prince George, November 29, 2012 

WorkSafeBC identified multiple safety 

violations when it inspected this firm’s 

worksite. For example, the firm required 

its staff to enter guest rooms and other 

areas where they could have been 

exposed to asbestos, mould, and various 

other hazards. These hazards had been 

identified in an earlier inspection but the 

firm failed to address them promptly. 

This was a repeated failure on the 

firm’s part to provide and maintain a 

safe workplace. The firm also failed to 

inform its young and new workers of 

their rights and responsibilities when it 

oriented them and failed to keep records 

of worker orientations. These were 

repeated violations. Finally, the firm 

failed to develop and implement a written 

procedure for checking on the well-being 

of workers it required to work alone or 

in isolation, such as housekeepers and 

staff on overnight shifts. These were also 

repeated violations.

499692 B.C. Limited / Subway 

Sandwiches & Salads 

$6,213.78 

Prince George, October 30, 2012 

WorkSafeBC found several safety 

violations at this firm’s worksite. For 

example, the firm allowed one of its 

workers to work alone without being 

checked on or having to check in with 

anyone. This was a repeated violation, 

as was its failure to provide new workers 

with a health and safety orientation. 

The firm failed to hold monthly safety 

meetings and maintain adequate first 

Marketplace 

Directory 

Canada’s Preferred Provider. 

Safety: Occupational Health & Safety Consulting 

Rescue Services: High Angle, Confined Space, Trench 

Training: Fall Protection, Confined Space & First Aid 

New Equipment Sales 

For more information: 

1-800-661-9077 www.ckrglobal.com 

aid records. It also failed to adequately 

instruct or train its workers about 

hazardous materials, and failed to provide 

them with safety gloves and an adequate 

eyewash station. 

Quick facts 

WorkSafeBC imposed $4.88 million in penalities in 2011. 

OPERATOR TRAINING 

Customized forklift and aerial lift training at your site. 

Any group size, flexible scheduling, competitive prices. 

WorkSafeBC and CSA compliant. 

Training where, when and how you need it. 

604-839-6517 

info@martinsforklift.com www.martinsforklift.com 


32 


• onsite hearing testing 

• custom molded earplugs 

To schedule, contact: 

604–888–7220 

800–331–2522 

bctraining@clac.ca 

Audiometric Services www.clac.ca/bctraining 

ARETE 

#102- 100 Braid St. 

New Westminster, BC 

V3L 3P4 

FIRST AID & SAFETY TRAINING 

� WorkSafeBC - Occupational First Aid Level 1, 2 & 3 

� WorkSafeBC - Transportation Endorsement 

� WorkSafeBC - Level One Instructor Courses 

� BCCSA - Traffic Control Person 

� Forklift Training 

� Fall Protection & Confined Space 

� Red Cross Courses (SFA/EFA/CPR-C/HCP) 

To register call 604.521.4227 or email: info@metrosafety.ca 

Visit us at www.metrosafety.ca 

Penalties, claim costs 

and downtime can be 

disruptive and costly 

for your business 

– contact us for 

a free consultation 

UBSafe 

inc. 

Your safeguarding 

experts – from start 

to completion 

safety@ubsafe.ca 

www.ubsafe.ca 

778.847.4047 

Sure Hazmat and Testing 

Our Services Include: 

• Asbestos Worker Training • Pre-Purchase Hazmat Assessment 

• Pre-Renovation Hazmat Assessment • Pre-Demolition Hazmat Assessment 

• Analytical Services: NIOSH 7400 & NIOSH 9002 Methods 

For more information, contact: John Shaw 

C: 604-724-2341 T: 604-444-0204 

E: surehazmat@shawbiz.ca 

www.surehazmat.com 

safety and protection inc. 

Immediately useful, engaging, practical and industry specific workshops 

ARETE Service to Safety - Workplace Violence Prevention Training 

ARETE OnSide Workplace 

Bullying & Personal Harassment: Prevention and Response Training 

ARETE Personal Safety and Corporate Security Training 

ARETE - The standard for workplace violence prevention across Canada 

604.732.1799 toll free 1.877.337.1122 www.arete.ca

The safety solution that saves lives. CheckMate automatically 

makes scheduled calls to lone workers and ProTELEC’s emergency 

response team responds to any unanswered call or alarm. 

Helps meet workplace safety legislation for working alone employees 

Automated • Precision-timed • 100% reliable calling 

Online or phone access lets you make any schedule changes 

No hardware or software purchase required 

Audit-proof call log for your records 

With the press of a button, a distress alarm that 

includes lone worker’s GPS location is sent to 

ProTELEC’s Emergency Response Centre. 

Man Down Alarm System built in to every 

CheckMate plus! 

Get the best protection for your 

employees who work alone! 

Free Set Up & 

15 day Free trial. 

Call 1-866-775-6620 

proteleccheckmate.com 


Your co-worker has a 

sudden cardiac arrest. 

You have 4 minutes 

to restart his heart.* 

What are you going to do? 

A defibrillator is the only thing that will restart his heart. 

Purchase an Automated External Defibrillator (AED) 

from St. John Ambulance for your workplace. It’s more 

affordable than you think, and easy to use. 

Visit shopsafetyproducts.ca/aed or call 1.866.321.2651. 

* After 4 minutes without oxygen, brain cells will begin to die.

Fair warning

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?