Fair warning

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
March / April 2013 WorkSafe Magazine
Satendra Prasad & Ronald Chandra /
Island Asbestos Removal & Renovation
$2,500
Vancouver, November 28, 2012
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
This firm’s principal and two of its other
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
Burnaby, November 21, 2012
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
Surrey, November 21, 2012
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
Vancouver, November 19, 2012
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