Fair warning

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
Surrey, November 16, 2012
This firm’s principal and two of its other
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
Burnaby, November 13, 2012
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
This firm’s principal and two of its other
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
Richmond, October 11, 2012
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
WorkSafe Magazine March / April 2013 29