Fair warning

its workers with the instruction, training,
and supervision needed to ensure their
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
Richmond, October 4, 2012
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
March / April 2013 WorkSafe Magazine
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
Richmond, October 1, 2012
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
Richmond, October 16, 2012
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,
and supervision needed to ensure their
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.