WorkSafe

WorkSafe
Tools for building safer workplaces | worksafemagazine.com | September / October 2015
Emergency prep a
smart business move p7
Hotel room attendants
get top billing p16
Doctors vital to
work-return success p21

Highlight
City of Surrey uses a balanced approach to ladder safety p27
Contents September
/ October 2015 | Volume 15 | Number 5
Features
5
Ask
7
On
an Officer
Armed can be dangerous
High injury rates suggest nail gun users accord their
tools the same respect as loaded weapons.
By Gord Woodward
the Cover
Savvy employers gear up
for potential disasters
Workplace emergency preparedness programs aim
to save lives while securing business operations.
By Helena Bryan
Departments
21
A new study finds physicians are instrumental
to the injured worker recovery process.
By Gail Johnson
24
27
Work Science
Recovering at work?
The doctor is in
Industry health and safety association Enform
is supplying new online tools to help oil and gas
employers control deadly exposures.
By David Carson
City of Surrey parks crews get a leg up on
mandatory practices for safe ladder use.
By Lynn Welburn
Safety Spotlight
Silica a serious health threat
Safety Talks
Three-point contact the key
4 | From the editor
13 | Policy notes
16 | WorkSafeBC updates
20 | What’s wrong: you tell us
29 | Penalties
Centre Pullouts
What’s wrong with this photo?
Orchard workers should position
themselves to work safely.
On the front cover: Heidi Sherwood, owner of Sapphire Day Spa in Victoria, B.C., reviews critical emergency
kit contents with her staff, from left, Ashlee Truesdell, Anna Lachmuth, Kenan Enyurekli, and Blair Chesal.
September / October 2015 | WorkSafe Magazine 3

From the editor
Emergency prep is
smart business
As a businessperson, you’ve got a lot on your
mind, including no doubt, the bottom line. You
probably spend a lot less time thinking about the
unexpected — earthquakes, fires, floods, and other
major emergencies.
But preparing for the unexpected is your shelter from
the storm. Having an emergency response plan in
place that you practice and improve upon just might
make the difference between going under and
surviving the proverbial storm.
In this issue’s cover story, starting on page 7,
committed employers like Victoria spa owner
Heidi Sherwood and others illustrate how preparing
for a potential disaster can not only save their
employees’ lives, but keep their businesses afloat
long-term. And our handy emergency prep list on
page 9 gives you an overview of your legal
requirements under the regulations.
Speaking of regulations, don’t miss our policy notes
on page 13, which outline important changes to the
Workers Compensation Act designed to improve
workplace health and safety by strengthening our
tools for enforcement.
Ultimately, knowing these rules — and preparing for
the unexpected — will enhance your organization’s
resilience, today and in the future. And that’s one less
thing to worry about.
Terence Little
Editor-in-chief
WorkSafe
Editor-in-chief: Terence Little | Managing editor: Dana Tye Rally
Assistant editors: Laine Dalby and Glenda Troup
Graphic designer: Jane Tang
Photographer: 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 enquiries/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.
Shannon Ward
OnTrack Media
Copyright The contents of this magazine are protected by 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.
4
September / October 2015 | WorkSafe Magazine

Contributors
Ask an Officer
Heather Allen
After researching the article on hotel room
attendant safety (page 16), Penticton writer
Heather Allen says she recognized her
own shortcomings as a housecleaner.
Nail guns
much like the real thing
Vince Strain
WorkSafeBC occupational
safety officer
Region: Kamloops
Years on the job: 10
David Carson
Vancouver writer David Carson says he
viewed his irrational childhood fear of
sandboxes in a new light while examining
the risks of silica exposure from everyday
sand and dust (page 24).
Don Hauka
Don Hauka, a writer based in
New Westminster, contributed to
this month’s editorial (page 4) on
emergency preparedness in the
workplace; it was a powerful reminder
of the need to purchase emergency kits
for his own home.
Jen Tsui
WorkSafeBC business writer coordinator
Jen Tsui wrote the story about Parkgate
Community Centre (page 19) offering
free earplugs at pre-teen dances. In
retrospect, she wishes she’d had free
earplugs to protect her hearing as an
awkward 12-year-old busting a move on
the dance floor.
This month, we talked with WorkSafeBC occupational safety officer
Vince Strain about the safe use of pneumatic nail guns.
Q. What makes this tool so dangerous?
A. A pneumatic nail gun can drive a nail through almost anything, and
shoot that nail a couple hundred metres in a fraction of a second. I often
tell crews to treat this tool just like a gun: Never point it at anyone. Never
press the trigger unless you’re in position and ready to use the gun.
Never keep your finger on the trigger when you’re carrying it. And when
you’re reloading it, make sure the air supply is disconnected.
Q. What industries should pay special attention to
nail gun safety?
A. Most injuries occur in residential construction — about two-thirds of
them in framing and sheathing work. Roofing, exterior siding, and
finishing are also high on the hazard list.
Q. What are the hazards we should be most
concerned about when using nail guns?
A. The biggest danger is an unintended discharge or misfire. When you
use the bump or rapid-fire-trigger setting, the risk of injury is twice as
high as when you’re using a single-shot, sequential trigger.
The work task you’re involved in when you’re using the nail gun can also
increase the risk. If you’re in an awkward position, such as a tight space,
the gun’s recoil can hurt you. If you’re on a ladder, co-workers below
could get hit by accidental discharge. If you need to hold lumber in
place for nailing, you could shoot yourself in the hand.
September / October 2015 | WorkSafe Magazine 5

“On every construction jobsite
I’ve been on, someone has
either been injured from using
a nail gun, or knows someone
else who’s been hurt.”
—Vince Strain, WorkSafeBC
occupational safety officer
Q. What are the most common
injuries associated with
these tools?
A. Hand and finger wounds make up more than half
of the reported injuries, but your whole body is
vulnerable. The damage can be serious: bone
fractures, paralysis, blindness, even brain damage.
On every construction jobsite I’ve been on,
someone has either been injured from using a nail
gun, or knows someone else who’s been hurt. I’d
estimate 20-to-30 percent of people in trades have
been injured at some point while using one.
Q. How can we make it safer for
our workers to use pneumatic
nail guns?
A. Training is the best thing you can do. A supervisor
or experienced nail gun user should teach your
workers the safest ways of using, carrying, storing,
cleaning, reloading, and transporting nail guns.
Manufacturers have good safety information in
their user manuals; have your workers read them.
Develop written procedures around the safe
handling of your guns. Effective supervision also
makes a difference; you should regularly check to
see that your workers and supervisors are
following procedures.
Always use the nail gun in sequential trip mode, if
possible. If not, use guns that can be easily
switched between trigger settings. When you don’t
require rapid fire, have your workers switch it to
sequential fire.
Q. Where can we get more nail gun
safety information?
A. Refer to the manufacturer’s instruction manual,
and use these free resources:
• A Toolbox Meeting Guide for safe use of
pneumatic nailing equipment —
www2.worksafebc.com/i/construction/Toolbox/
pdfs/TG07-12_nailing_equipment.pdf
• A safety guide for construction contractors —
www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2011-202/pdfs/2011-
202.pdf
Looking for answers to your specific health and safety
questions? Send them to Dana.TyeRally@worksafebc.com
and we’ll consider including them in our next Ask an
Officer feature. W
WorkSafeBC prevention officers cannot and do not provide advice on specific cases or issues referenced in this
article. WorkSafeBC and WorkSafe Magazine disclaim responsibility for any reliance on this information, which
is provided for readers’ general education only. For more specific information on prevention matters, contact the
WorkSafeBC prevention line at 604.276.3100 or toll-free at 1.888.621.7233.
6
September / October 2015 | WorkSafe Magazine

On the Cover
Heidi Sherwood, owner of the
Victoria-based Sapphire Day Spa,
educates staff about tsunami flood
zones as part of her employee
emergency training process.
Photos by Heath Moffatt
Emergency readiness makes
good business sense
By Helena Bryan
7

The unexpected happened one day in
2008, a day that seemed like any other
to business owners along downtown
Victoria’s View Street — until an
underground electrical fire caused a
136-kilogram manhole cover to shoot
skyward just outside Sapphire Day Spa.
Miraculously, the cover crashed onto the pavement,
missing cars and pedestrians, before a sickly green
smoke spilled out of the manhole and began to fill
the street.
Spa staff quickly called the fire department, and
fire officials told them to stay put until further notice.
When firefighters gave the order to evacuate,
employees were well-prepared, chaperoning clients
out of the building through well-marked exits to safety,
without panic or undue stress. They had practised
this before.
treatment room; well-lit and well-marked emergency
exits; and off-site data storage, just in case a disaster
destroys all of the spa’s computers and data.
Sapphire Day Spa also ensures new employees learn
about emergency preparedness in their orientations.
What’s more, they receive additional emergency
response training at special City of Victoria seminars
and participate in regular drills. One of the key drills
they take part in is the annual province-wide ShakeOut
BC, an earthquake response drill that happens every
October. (See ShakeOut BC: Drop, cover, and hold on
on page 12).
Sherwood happens to be among a committed group of
employers who go above and beyond the regulation to
be prepared for the unexpected. But those who do, say
they’re not only doing what they’re told — they’re
actually thinking like smart businesspeople: preparing
for the worst with a long-range view to maintaining
operations after the fact.
Employees’ ability to avert chaos reflected an employer
with a serious commitment — both to protecting her
staff through emergency planning and, by extension,
protecting her business as well.
Sapphire Day Spa owner Heidi Sherwood’s approach
to emergencies is commendable, but unfortunately, all
too rare. Smaller businesses generally tend to put less
emphasis on meeting minimum requirements for
emergency preparedness, let alone planning for
recovery after the fact. And that’s despite the fact that
it’s their legal obligation to be prepared.
Under the Occupational Health and Safety Regulation
— specifically sections 4.13 through 4.16 and Part 32
on emergency preparedness, response, evacuation,
and rescue — all employers are expected to plan,
prepare, and train their employees for any and all
emergencies. (See Emergency prep basics on page 9.)
Prepare, practice, and plan
And Sherwood takes those emergency response
planning duties to heart. In her business plan,
in fact, she ranks earthquakes a bigger risk than
market competition.
It’s no surprise, then, that she has procedures and
equipment in place for emergency response and
post-emergency business recovery, including the
following items: communication plans; on-site,
72-hour, 10-person emergency kits; flashlights in every
Sapphire Day Spa staff practice safely escorting
clients from the spa as part of their regular
emergency drill.
8
September / October 2015 | WorkSafe Magazine

“I invite staff and customers here and it’s my
responsibility to protect them,” Sherwood says.
“I worked hard for this business. I’d feel negligent
if I didn’t safeguard it against all risks — including
natural disasters.”
Emergency drills are paramount
Unlike Sherwood’s smaller scale spa operation, some
larger employers have a built-in workplace culture
around emergency preparedness. FortisBC, which is in
the business of providing natural gas and electricity to
customers, trains all of its employees to be
comfortable with emergency drill procedures and
ready to respond to crises in the short- and long-term.
In February 2015, the company simulated a major gas
leak, one of three full-scale, eight-hour emergency
response exercises slated for 2015.
“These are opportunities for employees throughout the
company to experience an emergency in a safe
environment,” says Michelle Petrusevich, FortisBC
public safety awareness manager. “They also prevent
“It’s about getting back to normal
as quickly as possible, because
even a short-lived crisis can ruin
a business.”
—Laurie Pearce, business continuity
management instructor at the
Justice Institute of B.C.
skills from fading, and help us maintain solid
relationships with first responders across the province.”
Large education centres, the occasional targets of
random violence, are also geared to think in terms of
large-scale disasters. Like FortisBC, Stacey Jyrkkanen,
manager of safety and emergency preparedness at
Thompson Rivers University in Kamloops, B.C., says
the university is well-versed in the effectiveness of
elaborate, on-site training exercises.
Emergency prep basics
It’s human nature to avoid thinking about the worst. But employers are legally bound to
be prepared for it under the WorkSafeBC regulations. In fact, all companies, big and
small, must be ready for emergencies, such as fires, explosions, and chemical spills, to
name a few.
Here’s an overview of the minimum requirements:
• Conduct a risk assessment to determine the most likely emergency situations in
your workplace.
• Develop appropriate written procedures for evacuation or rescue.
• Provide well-marked means of escape in the event of an emergency.
• Ensure that emergency procedures take into account the safety of disabled workers.
• Conduct drills at least once every year.
• Provide training to employees in emergency procedures and fire prevention.
• Have first aid resources onsite.
• Provide appropriate personal protective equipment for workers doing the rescue
or evacuation.
September / October 2015 | WorkSafe Magazine 9

Kamloops fire rescue personnel
practice their skills during a
massive emergency response
drill at the city’s Thompson
Rivers University.
Photo submitted by Thompson Rivers University
In May 2015, after more than two years of planning,
the university conducted a massive emergency
response exercise, involving hundreds of RCMP and
emergency response personnel — including an Air 4
helicopter — and staff and student volunteers. While
this particular exercise simulated a campus
hostage-taking with multiple shooting victims, the
lessons apply to any emergency, whether it’s a fire,
a hazmat incident, or an earthquake.
“The bottom line,” Jyrkkanen says, “is that you need to
be prepared, you need plans, you need to test those
plans and procedures, and you need to continuously
improve them.”
Plan for business recovery
Planning for a crisis is crucial, and so is planning for
the recovery afterwards. It can make the difference
between an enterprise that goes under and one that
survives, and even thrives.
Laurie Pearce is a faculty member in the Disaster
Management Program at Royal Roads University and
she teaches business continuity management at the
Justice Institute: “It’s about getting back to normal as
quickly as possible,” she says, “because even a
short-lived crisis can ruin a business.”
Most importantly, says fellow academic Robin Cox, in
planning for big emergencies, business owners should
be thinking about their effects on the overall well-being
of employees.
Cox, who is program head of Disaster and Emergency
Management at Royal Roads, and the lead researcher
in the university’s ResilienceByDesign research lab,
studied the process of recovery after a devastating fire
in the summer of 2003 that virtually razed Barriere,
B.C., north of Kamloops. “Businesses are made up of
people” she says. “And if you want your business to
continue after a disaster, you need people working. But
if employees are uncertain about the safety of their
families, friends, and pets, that’s where they’ll focus.
An employee’s first impulse after a disaster is to go
home to be with family.”
10
September / October 2015 | WorkSafe Magazine

And disaster can wreak longer-term effects on
employees’ mental health. “Displacement leads to a
loss of routine and a disruption of support networks,”
Cox says. “Often the environment is completely
changed, and that can be disorienting. And there are
complex, stressful decisions to make, all while catching
up on mounting workloads.
“Being concerned about the well-being of employees
is always important,” Cox says. “It’s even more so
when in crisis.”
But that work, of course, needs to happen well before
a crisis occurs. Cox recommends employers develop a
business continuity plan with employee input. “Consult
with them, educate and train them, and encourage
them to be prepared at home and on the road as well.”
Jackie Kloosterboer can’t emphasize enough the
importance of personal preparedness. She is the
emergency planning coordinator for the City of
Vancouver, and provides earthquake preparedness
training for downtown businesses; she has also written
a book on earthquake preparedness targeting families.
“It starts at home,” Kloosterboer says. “If employees
aren’t prepared at home and end up struggling
personally after a disaster, they’re likely not going back
to work any time soon.”
So, in the event of an emergency, how do employers
maximize the capacity for their businesses to recover
quickly, maintain profit margins, and, ultimately,
contribute to the recovery of the community
in general?
“Business recovery requires some extra
considerations,” Pearce says. “You need to look at
your supply chains, alternative facilities if your
worksite is damaged, off-site data storage, how you
can safeguard your computers, whether you have
business interruption insurance or not — all the things
you’ll need to get the business back to the state it
was in before.”
James Simpson, WorkSafeBC’s manager of corporate
security and emergency management, agrees. “In
addition to a business continuity plan that we regularly
test and update, we also educate our staff to be well
prepared at home, in their vehicles, and at work —
because we know that the organization’s resilience is
very much dependent on the collective resilience of
our staff.” W
Templates, checklists,
and more
• For flood and earthquake preparedness tools
targeting business, go to the Emergency
Preparedness for Industry and Commerce
Council’s website at www.EPICC.org
• For useful tips on everything from emergency
pet care to being prepared for an emergency
while travelling to business preparedness and
a range of plans, guides, and templates, go to
the North Shore Emergency Management
Office website at www.nsemo.org/
preparedness
FortisBC employees took part in a rope rescue drill
as part of a North American Occupational Safety
and Health (NAOSH) week activity in May 2014.
Photo submitted by FortisBC
September / October 2015 | WorkSafe Magazine 11

ShakeOut BC:
Drop, cover, and hold on
While the Occupational Health and Safety Regulation doesn’t cover natural
disasters such as earthquakes, many companies incorporate disaster preparedness
into their emergency planning programs.
One easy way to prepare your business for the worst is to participate in the annual
ShakeOut BC drill the third Thursday of every October, says Oak Bay fire chief
Dave Cockle, who sits on the ShakeOut BC committee. The event offers instruction
on practical procedures and raises awareness about the importance of personal
and workplace preparedness.
Cockle says there are four key reasons employers should build emergency
planning and business continuity into their business plans:
• Emergency-prepared employees will know how to better protect themselves
at work and at home
• Safety-minded employees are resilient, and will enable your organization to
quickly resume normal business operations after an emergency
• Regular drills and practice sessions will position your organization as a role
model for disaster readiness
• A strong emergency plan increases your organization’s ability to survive a
significant earthquake
“There’s a one-in-ten chance of a major earthquake on B.C.’s coast in the next 50
years,” Cockle says. “And we want to change the culture of apathy that exists
around that.
“On top of the drill, we have a tonne of resources on our website to help
businesses prepare for an earthquake and move forward afterwards. If you plan for
The Big One, you’re pretty much covered for every other emergency.”
Employers can register for the event at www.shakeoutbc.ca.
12
September / October 2015 | WorkSafe Magazine

Policy notes
New compliance agreements
will give compliant employers
the opportunity to sign
written agreements rather
than receiving orders.
Help shape enforcement,
other OHS policies
By Gord Woodward
The provincial government’s Bill 9 —
enacted on May 14, 2015 — amended the
Workers Compensation Act (the Act) to
improve workplace health and safety, and
strengthen WorkSafeBC’s tools for
enforcing the Act and the Occupational
Health and Safety (OHS) Regulation.
Accordingly, WorkSafeBC is currently asking for views
on policies to support these changes. Employers and
workers have until October 15 of this year to share
their views on the following four topics:
• The OHS Compliance Agreements policy
• The OHS Citations policy and new regulation
• The Stop Work Orders policy
• Employer Incident Investigations policies and
regulation changes
What are OHS compliance
agreements?
Once the related Act changes come into effect on
September 15, this new compliance tool will allow
WorkSafeBC to work with cooperative employers to
correct non-high-risk violations and improve workplace
safety. Instead of issuing an order, WorkSafeBC
prevention officers will have the discretion to enter into
a written agreement with employers in appropriate
circumstances. Compliance agreements are voluntary,
so employers are not required to participate.
Compliance agreements will specify the following
in writing:
• The corrective actions the employer agrees to take
• The deadline for the work to be done
• The deadline for the employer to report back to us
As long as the agreement is fulfilled, an officer won’t
issue an order for the specific violations that are
addressed in the agreement.
Who qualifies?
Officers can enter into a compliance agreement with a
willing employer, as long the following criteria apply:
• The violation isn’t high-risk, as defined in the
high-risk policy (D12-196-2) and doesn’t expose
workers to immediate risk.
• The employer has not committed the same violation
within the last 12 months.
• The employer has not had a previous compliance
agreement cancelled within the last three years due
to the fault of the employer.
• The officer is confident the employer is likely to
fulfill his or her obligations, based on factors that
include the following:
September / October 2015 | WorkSafe Magazine 13

○○
the employer’s compliance history
○○
the employer’s overall approach to managing
health and safety
○○
information provided by workers and union
representatives
How does this affect you?
If a prevention officer notes some non-high-risk
violations while he or she is inspecting an employer’s
worksite, and a compliance agreement is appropriate,
the officer may decide to offer it to the employer. The
employer then has the option to agree in writing to take
steps to comply, rather than being subject to orders
regarding those violations. For example, if an employer
has fallen behind in holding required monthly joint
OHS committee meetings, the employer may agree in a
compliance agreement to hold those meetings and
report back, rather than being ordered to do so.
What are OHS citations?
The following outlines WorkSafeBC’s model of
OHS citations under Section 196.1 of the Act, as well
as accompanying proposed new policy and regulation
to take effect in February 2016:
• Employers can receive an OHS citation — a
smaller, administrative penalty — for failing to
comply with a non-high-risk corrective order, or for
failing to prepare or send in a compliance report
when required. OHS citations are designed to
increase the level of compliance with orders.
Changes to
review requests
Under the new legislation, and starting
September 15, employers will have just 45
days — rather than the previous 90 days — to
request a review of an order or penalty.
• For example, if an employer receives an order to
replace some hard hats that don’t meet the
regulation requirements — and then doesn’t
comply with that order — WorkSafeBC may warn
the employer that further failure to comply with
that order could result in an OHS citation or OHS
penalty. If the employer still doesn’t comply after
the warning, WorkSafeBC could then issue an OHS
citation or OHS penalty for failing to comply with
the order.
• The first citation in a three-year period is for $500,
along with a second warning. If an employer has
received prior OHS citations in a three-year period,
any subsequent OHS citation will be $1,000.
How does this affect you?
An employer who always complies with orders will
never get an OHS citation. If an employer doesn’t
comply with an order and gets an OHS citation, further
We are also the
transportation industry’s
certifying partner for the
Certificate of Recognition
The Trucking Safety Council of British Columbia is an independent health
and safety association funded, governed, and working for industry.
Driving to Improve Safety
Providing quality occupational health and safety services to the
transportation, logistics and warehousing industries in British Columbia.
The SafetyDriven Team can provide:
Safety Training & Education
Safety Advisory Services
Safety Tools and Resources
Safety Research & Best Practice Development
Safety Program Support
Injury Management Advisory Services
Explore our services and programs.
www.safetydriven.ca
TOLL FREE: 1-877-414-8001
14
September / October 2015 | WorkSafe Magazine

non-compliance with that order will result in a larger
OHS citation or an OHS penalty. Or, if the employer is
already at the maximum citation amount, WorkSafeBC
could impose an OHS penalty.
There’s a financial incentive for employers to comply:
The maximum fine for a citation is $1,000; for an OHS
penalty, the fine is based on the employer’s payroll,
and could be as high as the statutory maximum (more
than $621,000).
How have stop work orders changed?
The legislation on stop work orders expands the criteria
and lowers the threshold for issuing them. The
legislation also allows WorkSafeBC to stop work at any
of an employer’s work locations, if similar unsafe
conditions are considered likely to exist at those
jobsites. WorkSafeBC may now issue stop work orders
for any high-risk violation, as well as where employers
fail to comply with the same order twice in the same
year and there is a risk of serious injury, illness, or
death to a worker.
How have employer incident
investigations changed?
Employers are still responsible for investigating
workplace incidents, but must now do so in two
stages, according to specific timelines:
• A preliminary investigation must be done within
48 hours of the incident; and if WorkSafeBC
requests it, the employer will need to submit a
report of his or her findings. An interim corrective
action report must then also spell out interim
corrective action that the employer will implement
while conducting a full investigation.
• A full investigation must be finished within 30 days,
although the employer may, in limited
circumstances, be eligible for an extension. A copy
of the “full investigation report” must be submitted
to WorkSafeBC. A final corrective action report
must identify corrective action to be taken, resulting
from the conclusions of the full investigation report.
Where can you get more information
and provide feedback?
You can view discussion papers on each of these
topics and find out how to provide feedback by the
October 15 deadline by going to the following links:
• OHS Compliance Agreements
www.worksafebc.com/regulation_and_policy/
policy_consultation/law_40_10_1200.asp
• OHS Citations
www.worksafebc.com/regulation_and_policy/
policy_consultation/law_40_10_1220.asp
• Stop Work Orders
www.worksafebc.com/regulation_and_policy/
policy_consultation/law_40_10_1190.asp
• Employer Incident Investigations
www.worksafebc.com/regulation_and_policy/
policy_consultation/law_40_10_1210.asp W
Knowledge
sharing the
HEALTH
& SAFETY
TRAINING
OFFICIAL
DISABILITY
GUIDELINES
CERTIFICATE OF
RECOGNITION
(COR) PROGRAM
DURATION
REDUCTION
INITIATIVE
3E ONLINE
MSDS
MANAGEMENT
CLAIMS
REDUCTION
INITIATIVE
CONTACT US
Cathy Cook,
Executive Director
P: 778-278-3486
F: 778-278-0029
E: ccook@bcmsa.ca
www.bcmsa.ca
September / October 2015 | WorkSafe Magazine 15

WorkSafeBC updates
Nelly Wong, a room attendant for
Vancouver’s Coast Coal Harbour
Hotel, strives to maintain the
correct, upright posture while
replacing pillows on a bed.
Room attendants take
centre stage
By Heather Allen
Cleaning hotel rooms is a tough job, and
when it’s not done properly, there are
countless ways to get hurt. This year,
members of the tourism industry went
straight back to the source — the room
attendants themselves — to enlist their
help in demonstrating safe cleaning
techniques to their co-workers, many of
whom speak English as a second language.
Their solution? Develop an injury-prevention video that
relies largely on images, rather than words, and involve
the room attendants directly in video content
development and production. That way, workers are
more likely to view the video and use it to develop
safer work habits.
The video, which was filmed at two downtown
Vancouver hotels — the Sylvia and Coast Coal Harbour
— features real room attendants. “That was an
important decision,” says Ross Dyck, manager of the
Sylvia Hotel and a member of the hotel industry’s
technical advisory committee. Sylvia Hotel workers
helped with video production. “During the filming, you
could see that the room attendants were interested in
getting every detail just right. You can tell the difference
between an actor and someone who takes pride in,
and really knows how to do the job.”
Nelly Wong has been a room attendant with Coast
Coal Harbour Hotel since it opened in January 2010,
and has recently been promoted to room checker after
her employer cited her “high standards for cleanliness
and guest service.” She sees the video as a useful
resource. “It definitely helps all of us, especially people
who speak different languages to be able to see and
understand the proper movements, and prevent us
from getting hurt while doing the job,” she says. “It’s
a great way to encourage us to always be thinking
about safety.”
A made-to-order safety message
Members of the technical advisory committee came
together to design, plan, script, and film the video in
question, with the goal of trying to reflect the specific
causes and types of injuries they were seeing at their
own hotels. “This really was the industry’s brainchild,”
says Trina Pollard, industry health and safety manager
at go2HR, B.C.’s tourism and hospitality human
resource association, and overseer of the committee.
16
September / October 2015 | WorkSafe Magazine

“It was pretty inspiring to see competing hotels work together like this.”
—Trina Pollard, industry health and safety manager for go2HR
The committee included their findings in the video,
which features six distinct how-to cleaning
demonstrations designed to prevent strains and
sprains: bed-making, bathroom cleaning,
cloth-wringing, high-surface dusting, garbage-can
emptying, and vacuuming.
The video is also available in the Filipino language
of Tagalog, a language shared by many room
attendants. Viewers can watch the video from start to
finish, or simply watch one of the 60-to-90-second
demonstrations.
Pollard says employers can choose to watch the video
with their staff, and then try the activities together. At
the Coast Coal Harbour, for example, room attendants
currently watch a section of the video at the beginning
of each morning shift.
Goal to improve safety across B.C.
Committee members say they designed the video with
the hope of spreading the safety message beyond their
own hotel employees. Within the hotel industry,
housekeeping staff are at the greatest risk of injury.
Between 2008 and 2012, 50 percent of all hotel injury
claims were associated with housekeeping staff, mostly
involving injuries from overexertion and falls.
“We felt this was an important way to improve safety
across the province,” says Sandra Stewart, committee
member and people & culture advisor for Coast Hotels.
While WorkSafeBC took part in video production,
WorkSafeBC industry specialist Lorne Scarlett says
industry really took the lead on this initiative. “I’ve been a
part of resource development in the past, and this is the
first time I’ve seen this much anticipation and excitement
for a safety product; it’s kind of amazing.”
Pollard, too, was pleased with the level of collaboration.
“It was pretty inspiring to see competing hotels work
together like this.”
To view the video, visit the Tourism and Hospitality page
on worksafebc.com and look in the Spotlight box. W
September / October 2015 | WorkSafe Magazine 17

WorkSafeBC occupational
safety officers such as Anna
Billingsley (right) are working
to educate agricultural
employers about the many
hazards associated with
confined spaces.
Confined spaces
inventory goes mobile
By Ryan Parton
At the International Society for Agricultural
Safety and Health conference in Normal,
Illinois, this past June, an app developed
by WorkSafeBC in consultation with the
Farm and Ranch Safety and Health
Association (FARSHA) impressed delegates
from around the world, with its potential to
make agricultural workplaces safer.
It’s here in B.C., though, that FARSHA executive
director Wendy Bennett expects the new “My
Confined Spaces” app to be embraced by employers,
who are becoming increasingly aware of the potential
dangers of confined spaces.
“Nobody’s ever done this before,” says Bennett, who’s
been working with her field staff to promote the app
among her organization’s approximately 5,000
members. “Every employer — if you have a confined
space on your property — is required to have an
inventory of those confined spaces. This app allows
you to create that inventory.”
A confined space is any fully or partially enclosed area
that’s big enough to enter but not designed to be
occupied regularly. Examples include silos, sumps, and
valve boxes, with potential hazards ranging from toxic
or explosive gases to oxygen deprivation, entrapment,
and electrical shocks.
Know the risks of confined spaces
Industry awareness around the dangers of confined
spaces has grown since 2008, when three workers died
in a pump shed on a Langley mushroom farm. Since
then, WorkSafeBC, FARSHA, and others in agriculture
have been working to develop a suite of occupational
health and safety resources related to confined spaces
in agriculture. The app, released in May, is the latest
evolution of that initiative.
It enables employers to attach maps, photos, and
specific safety information for each confined space on
their properties. Any worker with a mobile device can
then quickly see where those confined spaces are,
what they look like, and what particular hazards are
applicable to each one. They can also access a vast
library of occupational safety information related to
confined spaces, customized for their particular type
of operation and available in seven languages.
“The app doesn’t permit anybody to enter the
confined space, but it does all the preliminary work,”
Bennett explains.
Just two months after its release, the My Confined
Spaces app had been downloaded nearly 300 times —
a number Bennett expects will rise significantly. It’s
available on the agriculture portal on worksafebc.com
or at www2.worksafebc.com/Portals/Agriculture/
csAgriculture.asp. W
18
September / October 2015 | WorkSafe Magazine

North Vancouver’s Parkgate
Community Centre recently
used the occasion of a
pre-teen dance to educate
future workers about the
importance of hearing safety.
Photo by Dale Cheyne
Hearing awareness
hits the right notes
By Jen Tsui
What do you get when you have loud
music, a dance floor, and 500 pre-teens
in one place? A great opportunity.
That’s how the staff at Parkgate Community Centre
saw it when they started offering free earplugs
at pre-teen dances to protect the hearing of
everyone attending.
Dale Cheyne, Parkgate’s youth services supervisor,
says the purpose of centre events is to educate
pre-teens on how to best protect themselves
emotionally, socially, and physically. “We don’t want
to have ‘just a dance,’ but bring a sense of social
responsibility into it.”
And part of physically equipping youth, he says,
involves raising their awareness about the importance
of workplace safety.
In keeping with that philosophy, Parkgate recently
requested sponsorship funds from WorkSafeBC for
one of its pre-teen dances during BC Youth Week.
The idea behind participation in the May event was to
raise awareness among future young workers about
the importance of hearing protection.
“We don’t want to have ‘just a
dance,’ but bring a sense of
social responsibility into it.”
—Dale Cheyne, youth services supervisor for
Parkgate Community Centre
“Supporting events like this allows us to reach out
directly to youth with messages about young worker
rights and responsibilities, and hazard awareness,”
says WorkSafeBC new and young worker specialist
Robin Schooley.
Free safety gear a welcome surprise
While Parkgate offers free earplugs at every dance,
$200 from WorkSafeBC allowed the group to purchase
slightly pricier and more colourful earplugs for the
event — earplugs that were a lot more appealing to
the dance-goers, and thus, a lot more likely to be used.
“As the youth entered the dance, they were all
encouraged to take a set of the earplugs. Many of them
were stoked and surprised they were free,” Cheyne
says. Participants also received WorkSafeBC young
worker safety resources to take home.
In addition to the earplugs, event organizers projected
a slideshow of workplace safety information
throughout the dance, which included safety tips about
noise pollution and hearing protection. They
encouraged youth to ask dance workers safety
questions in exchange for prizes.
According to Cheyne, the emphasis on safety meant
staff and volunteers had to be equally familiar with the
resource materials — another avenue for reaching
future workers. But reaching this pre-teen group was
key, he says. “It’s our hope that some of the knowledge
delivered at the dance will carry over into their daily
lives — including when they start working in a
few years.” W September / October 2015 | WorkSafe Magazine 19

What’s wrong: you tell us
Winner
Crane work demands careful planning
Rob Moller, project
technician at Mainroad
Contracting LP in
Cloverdale, B.C., is the
winner of the July/August
“What’s wrong with this
photo?” contest.
• The outrigger doesn’t appear to have the proper pad
— section 14.69 of the Occupational Health and
Safety Regulation
• The outrigger is not fully deployed — section 14.15
• The crane set-up is not level (the outriggers are at
different heights) — section 14.2
• The worker is not wearing proper personal protective
equipment:
○○
steel-toed boots (8.22)
○○
a hard hat (8.11)
○○
a hi-viz vest (8.24)
• No top guardrail is installed on the man basket —
sections 13.2 and 13.33
• No cones are used or work zone established to keep
pedestrians and vehicles away from the work area —
section 4.33
• The operator appears to be ready to operate, but is
not paying attention and is talking on the phone —
section 14.37.1
• The load is not directly under the centre of gravity,
which will cause it to swing when lifted —
section 14.46
• The operator shouldn’t be operating while in the man
basket — section 14.37.1
• The operator isn’t wearing a harness — section 13.33
• It’s the wrong type of man basket for this high-risk
application — section 13.2
• There is no anti two-block system in place —
section 13.28
• This is the wrong type of crane for the application —
section 13.27
• I don’t see a marker on the outrigger that would
indicate it is fully deployed — section 14.67
• If the worker is going to be working near these power
lines, he needs to stay within his limits of approach,
or have the proper training and paperwork to work
within those limits — section 19.24 or 14.52.1
• There should be a critical lift plan in place for lifts
involving a man basket — section 14.42.1
• The crane truck is parked in a marked area that could
pose a risk — section 4.33 W
20
September / October 2015 | WorkSafe Magazine

Work Science
Dr. James Mason (centre), a former physician
with Care Point clinic in Coquitlam, took part
in a Doctor Outreach event in January as part
of the launch of an on-site worker recovery
centre in Port Moody, B.C.
Doctors vital to
on-the-job recovery
By Gail Johnson
When a worker gets hurt on the job, family
physicians can play a key role in safely
helping that person get back to work —
and remain healthy and productive in the
long term.
Yet, despite good intentions and the decades-old ethos
of “doctor knows best,” doctors’ knowledge about
worker recovery, stay at work (SAW) or return to work
(RTW), and prevention of work-related disability is
frequently limited.
A new research project aims to change that.
“Enhancing Physicians’ Knowledge and Skills on
SAW/RTW, Disability Prevention, and Management”
is a study designed to give primary care physicians
throughout B.C. the skills and tools they need to help
to better manage patients’ medical leave, and set
reasonable expectations around staying at work or
returning to work — all for a safe and smooth transition
for workers and their employers.
The project, funded by WorkSafeBC and conducted by
the University of B.C.’s Faculty of Medicine’s Division
of Continuing Professional Development and the BC
Collaborative for Disability Prevention, aims to fill a
gap: medical students and practising doctors typically
receive little to no education related to unnecessarily
prolonged absences from work, as well as stay-at-work
or return-to-work programs.
That gap is gradually closing, says Dr. Peter Rothfels,
WorkSafeBC chief medical officer and director of
clinical services.
September / October 2015 | WorkSafe Magazine 21

“Work itself is a form of rehabilitation.”
—Dr. James Mason, former physician for Care Point medical centre in Coquitlam, B.C.
But, he acknowledges that even when those subjects
are taught in medical schools, they’re covered only
briefly. “In years past, essentially minimal-to-no
training has been given to physicians or physicians in
training around work disability prevention or disability
management,” Rothfels says.
Doctors and employers need to talk
to each other sooner
And helping patients return to work involves so much
more than filling out a form. “What we’re talking about
is changing physician behaviour, so they better
understand what it means to return to work and
resume life’s activities,” he says.
“We want physicians to understand the differences
between medically necessary time-off and medically
discretionary or unnecessary time-off. It’s up to
the physician to help set reasonable expectations
about returning to work, whether it’s in a modified
or light capacity — and at least starting that
conversation early.”
To help doctors support injured or ill workers, the
project’s researchers surveyed patients, employers,
and physicians, and then used the responses to
develop content for a physician education program.
Physicians reported lacking confidence in identifying
individuals at high risk for prolonged disability. They
said they would be better able to help patients return
to work if they had the following: more support to
assess ill and injured workers’ functional capacity;
more information on stay-at-work and return-to-work
guidelines and the role of patient confidentiality; more
information from employers about job demands and
support services; and more training to help patients
understand the importance of returning to work.
Work-return benefits patient health
It’s a concept that can’t be emphasized enough:
Scientific evidence abounds about the negative
physical and mental effects of prolonging a work
return. “There’s still a lack of awareness about the
serious health risks associated with being off work,”
says WorkSafeBC senior medical advisor
Dr. Craig Martin.
The longer people are off work, the less likely they
will ever return. The likelihood of an employee
returning to work from a prolonged health-related
absence falls to 50 percent after just six months away
from the workplace, according to the Conference
Board of Canada.
“A lot of family physicians don’t recognize that work
is a social determinant of health,” says Andrea Keesey,
director of Continuing Professional Development at
the UBC Faculty of Medicine. “What’s needed is a
cultural shift.
“One of the study’s objectives was to encourage
physicians to ask patients about return-to-work
expectations during a first visit, and we realized that’s
not happening as often as it should,” she says.
“Patients’ — as well as physicians’ — expectations are
part of the prevention of unnecessary work disability.”
The study also identified the importance of opening up
communication between employers and doctors.
Surveyed employers said they wanted better
communication, as well as standardized forms for
illness and disability cases.
“There can be a collegial relationship working together;
being aware of each other’s roles is vitally important,”
says Brenna Lynn, associate dean for Continuing
Professional Development (UBC Faculty of Medicine).
Work disability prevention a key goal
Nearly 300 physicians participated in the pilot
educational program, which consisted of
community-based workshops and webinars.
The pilot program proved hugely successful.
Participating physicians felt increasingly able to
22
September / October 2015 | WorkSafe Magazine

identify patients who may be at risk for prolonged
work absences, create an “activity prescription” for
patients with a timeline for recovery, and complete
employer and insurance work-absence forms.
Participants said the program also increased their
understanding of language specific to work disability
(such as “limitations” and “restrictions”) and boosted
their confidence in managing patients on sick leave.
Dr. Celina Dunn, WorkSafeBC manager of medical
services, says medical schools, residency programs,
and continuing education programs for doctors
should more extensively cover stay-at-work and
return-to-work principles.
“People do tend to listen to their doctors. And, it is
beneficial to have doctors help patients fulfill their
work roles and manage that transition time with
safe modifications in consultation with employers,”
Dunn says.
Based on the success of the pilot program, the doctor
outreach process is now in its second phase, with a
planned provincial roll-out consisting of more
workshops next year.
Doctors gain a new appreciation for
their role
Doctors say they’re also interested in building bridges
with employers to help patients get back to work.
“I see a doctor’s role largely as a cheerleader,” says
Dr. James Mason, a family physician of more than
40 years. “Work itself is a form of rehabilitation.
Success for these workers comes from all of us being
on the same page — the employer, the patient, and the
rehab team.”
Rothfels says a successful return to work encompasses
much more than a person’s professional role. “Work is
a significant part of people’s lives. It’s not only about a
return to work, but a ‘return to life.’”
Lori Guiton, WorkSafeBC director of Research
Services, says everyone benefits when doctors receive
the right tools to better support injured and ill workers.
“This pilot project is a great example of how research
can show us where the gaps are and make the whole
system stronger for health care practitioners, workers,
and employers.” W
September / October 2015 | WorkSafe Magazine 23

Photo by Mike Breitenstein
Safety Spotlight
An Arkansas oil drilling site that previously
lacked engineering controls presents an
illustration of the presence of airborne
particulate, and, most notably, silica dust.
Oil and gas puts lid on
silica dust
By David Carson
Silica exposure is a growing concern in the
oil and gas industry, where workers face
dangerous exposures to this deadly dust
during a variety of activities, yet often
remain unaware of the health threats
associated with it.
“For WorkSafeBC and Enform, the oil and gas
industry’s safety-focused association, raising
awareness around silica exposure is top of mind for
2015,” says WorkSafeBC manager of Industry and
Labour Services Joy Piehl.
In oil and gas sectors involving hydraulic fracturing,
seismic drilling, and construction, silica exposure
poses risks to workers — and having the right controls
and awareness in place can be the difference between
a safe and a potentially life-threatening worksite,
Piehl says.
Workers doing “completions work” (transforming a
drilled well into a productive well) while fracking, for
example, are at an elevated risk of exposure because of
a number of factors. These factors include the
immense volumes of sand the process requires, the
speed at which the sand is pumped into well bores,
and the amount of dust it produces.
“In a single frack, workers in this industry might pump
635 tonnes (700 tons) of sand down a reservoir,” says
WorkSafeBC regional prevention manager Budd
Phillips. Based in Fort St. John, Phillips has watched
the oil and gas industry in his region grow from 20 rigs
in peak drilling season to upwards of 90 rigs during the
past 23 years.
“That’s a lot of sand to move and a lot of potential for
dust,” he says, “especially when it’s being transferred
from one belt to another or dropping out of a hopper
(sand dispenser). You have the potential for the silica to
become airborne — and that’s where the health risks
start to occur.”
Airborne dust poses serious threat
So just what sorts of health risks are associated
with silica?
If you’ve been to the beach, driven on a road, or
walked on a sidewalk, you’ve come in contact with
silica. “But as dust, silica becomes a serious health risk
to anyone regularly exposed to it,” Phillips says.
Workers exposed to dust as part of their job risk
developing silicosis, a disease that leads to scar tissue
on the lungs, severe coughing, and in some cases, lung
24
September / October 2015 | WorkSafe Magazine

cancer. It can develop in a matter of months or linger
undetected for decades, and can be fatal.
Generating awareness in oil and gas
To address these concerns, Enform is developing
resources aimed at reducing these exposures, such as
their silica exposure control plan, which is now
available on their website.
Piehl says the Enform initiative offers a clear set of
guidelines for assessing exposure risks and putting a
plan in place to reduce them. “The silica exposure
control document is fairly extensive, and would have
required a lot of effort for each employer to put in
place had Enform not created a template.”
Within their exposure control plans, companies are
obligated to bring down any identified silica exposure
through a series of controls. The first and best option,
she says, is to eliminate the hazard altogether. If this is
not possible, the next step is to look at engineering
controls, such as enclosing the dust at transfer points
on the conveyor, or limiting the number of places sand
has to drop during a transfer, or moving workers away
from hazardous exposure areas and instead providing
remote monitoring via cameras. Finally, employers
should implement administrative controls by ensuring
workers are using appropriate personal protective
equipment (PPE).
It takes a culture shift
It’s one thing for employers to create a plan to reduce
exposures, but changing industry culture is another
challenge altogether. To its credit, Piehl says, the oil
and gas industry does have a strong safety culture
regarding injury prevention. But the challenge, she
says, is to start seeing safety from a health perspective.
The key to making that shift, Piehl says, is to target
oil and gas workers as they enter the workforce.
“They need to understand — at the earliest stage
possible — the hazards of silica in an industry that
already has many potential risks,” she says.
“Especially when there’s an industry expansion to
using liquefied natural gas: we’ll need even more of an
emphasis on making sure everyone has the right health
and safety information.”
Robert Waterhouse, program manager for Industry
Development at Enform and a certified industrial
hygienist (CIH), is a key proponent of the silica
exposure control plan. He thinks today’s young
September / October 2015 | WorkSafe Magazine 25

“They need to understand — at the earliest stage possible — the
hazards of silica in an industry that already has many potential risks.”
—Joy Piehl, WorkSafeBC manager of Industry and Labour Services
workers are drivers for this cultural change. “They’re
more conscious of wellness, and this likely translates
into solid health and safety practices as well.”
Industry exploring healthier
alternatives
Evidence of engineered controls has begun to emerge
on industry worksites. “When I first started to point
this issue out, no such controls existed,” Waterhouse
says. “Since then, many worksites are successfully
using a variety of engineering control strategies. The
challenge now is to get better at the use of these
controls and to steward the industry along this path so
their use becomes normal practice.”
Waterhouse also recommends the use of dust
suppressants that have been shown to significantly
reduce airborne silica levels; these can be applied to
the sand at the mine and can reduce exposure risks at
transfer points along the entire supply chain.
When it comes to moving forward with these new
work practices, timing is critical. Phillips says death by
occupational disease has become an escalating trend
in Canada over the past few years, and in B.C.,
occupational disease fatalities now eclipse traumatic
deaths in the workplace. For at-risk workers and their
employers, the health and safety decisions made today
around prolific materials like silica dust, he says, could
have major implications in the decades to come.
View resources
Enform’s silica exposure control plan and a series of
templates and guidelines are available on their website
at www.enform.ca. The association will also be
profiling the issue of silica exposures in their next issue
of Frontline Magazine on www.enform.ca. W
26
September / October 2015 | WorkSafe Magazine

Safety Talks
City of Surrey parks arborist
Victor Andre prunes a small tree
in Surrey’s Bear Creek Park with
the assistance of parks labourer
Justin Mulholland (right).
Stay grounded while
using your ladder
By Lynn Welburn
Whether you’re trimming trees or painting
street signs — and your work involves lots
of ups and downs — treat ladders with the
same respect you’d give any potentially
dangerous tool.
It’s a message the City of Surrey aims to reinforce with
employees who rely on ladders to do their work.
Since 2009, city parks crews have been following a
mandatory set of safe ladder use practices. And,
depending on the work being done, they receive a
minimum yearly refresher on ladder safety during crew
safety talks.
Ryan Brayfield, a Surrey park technician, says the new
practices offer formalized, consistent training for new
hires. “They provide easier, cleaner teaching tools,”
he says.
What’s more, Neal Aven, the city’s urban forestry and
environmental programs manager, says the extra
vigilance seems to be helping. “We’ve been keeping
our injury levels very low,” he says. “Regular reminders
keep it top of mind.”
WorkSafeBC occupational safety officer Brian Wiens
says ladders are often overlooked as a source of
danger on worksites — and that’s not just in
construction, but in outdoor jobs such as landscaping
or park maintenance. “People don’t always use them
appropriately,” he says. “We see tons of incidents from
falls; we see a lot of head injuries.
“We see it over and over: workers not using ladders
properly. The next thing you know, the worker is lying
on the ground.”
According to WorkSafeBC statistics, between 2005
and 2014, workers experienced 3,157 serious injuries
September / October 2015 | WorkSafe Magazine 27

“We see it over and over: workers not using ladders properly.
The next thing you know, the worker is lying on the ground.”
—Brian Wiens, WorkSafeBC occupational safety officer
from ladder falls; 17 workers died. While most serious
injuries occurred in the construction industry, more
than 27 of public service sector claims are also serious
injuries related to ladder use. Of these ladder-related
serious injuries in the public sector, more than
20 percent are associated with labourers in parks
maintenance, landscaping, and public works.
Here are five ways to stay safe on your ladder at work:
1 Make sure a ladder is the right tool
If much of your work involves being up high or using
machinery requiring both hands, such as a chainsaw
for limb trimming, it might be best to do the job from a
basket or ascend the tree.
2 Use the right kind of ladder for
the job
When you need more height and your main goal
is access and egress, rather than working at height,
an extension ladder works well. When you need
two hands for the job, a stepladder may be
more appropriate.
3 Inspect your ladder
Check the rails. A bent or dented rail could buckle or
collapse. Check that no rungs or steps are missing,
worn, or damaged, and that they are free of oil. Inspect
the feet to ensure rubber pads are in place to prevent
slipping. If you find damage or defects, don’t use that
ladder. Report it to your supervisor. Take a moment to
read the manufacturer’s instructions for use.
4 Set up the ladder correctly
Place extension ladders on a firm, level surface and
use leg levellers on uneven surfaces. Make sure it’s at
a four-to-one angle — for every four feet (1.2 m) up,
place the base of the ladder one foot (0.3 m) from the
support it rests against. If you’re leaning it against a
tree, make sure the rails — not the rungs — are
supported. Place stepladders on a firm, level surface,
make sure all feet are on the ground, and open and
lock the spreader bars.
5 Climb safely
Always face the ladder. Use three-point contact at all
times. If you need both hands to work, use a harness
and wrap the lanyard around the ladder and the tree.
Do not climb higher than the manufacturer’s
suggested maximum.
Next time — before you climb — check out the
WorkSafeBC ladder safety portal at
www2.worksafebc.com/Topics/EquipmentSafety/
LadderSafety.asp (or go to “Safety at Work” on
worksafebc.com and look under “Ladder safety”). W
Did you know?
Falls are a leading
cause of workplace
injury.
Asbestos ranks as a
leading cause of worker
disease and death in BC.
HIDDEN
“Enviro-Vac is the go-to
asbestos-removal company
Canada-wide.”
KILLER
Find out more at www.envirovac.com
604-513-1324 Toll-free 1-888-296-2499
28
September / October 2015 | WorkSafe Magazine

Penalties
Construction
0910815 B.C. Ltd. / Myriad Pacific Development Group | $29,827.56 | Abbotsford | April 27, 2015
WorkSafeBC inspected a construction site where this firm was the prime contractor and found multiple violations of safety
requirements. For example, incidents in which workers had had to seek medical treatment had not been reported to WorkSafeBC.
Workers faced fall hazards of 7.5 to 9 m (25 to 30 ft.) due to improperly attached anchor points and a lack of guardrails. A stairway on
the site lacked the required handrail. Workers were exposed to silica dust (a carcinogen) due to a lack of suitable, properly fitted
respirators. The two workers who were supposed to act as the qualified coordinators for the worksite and deal with health and safety
issues lacked sufficient training. Crucial safety measures such as a site drawing and a set of procedures to protect workers’ health and
safety were missing. Regular safety inspections of the site were not performed as required. The firm did not plan, construct, use, and
maintain its workplace so as to protect from danger any person working there. As well, the firm repeatedly failed to do everything
reasonably practicable to establish and maintain a system for ensuring compliance with the Workers Compensation Act and the
Occupational Health and Safety Regulation. Some of these were high-risk violations.
0910815 B.C. Ltd. / Myriad Pacific Development Group | $29,827.56 | Abbotsford | April 27, 2015
WorkSafeBC inspected a site where this firm was the prime contractor for the construction of a multi-unit residential development and
found violations of safety requirements. For example, openings in the floor were unguarded and unmarked, and incidents in which
workers had had to seek medical treatment had not been reported to WorkSafeBC. As the prime contractor at a multiple-employer
workplace, the firm failed to do everything reasonably practicable to establish and maintain a system for ensuring compliance with the
Workers Compensation Act and the Occupational Health and Safety Regulation. The violations were repeated and the failure to guard
floor openings was also a high-risk violation.
1002024 B.C. Ltd. / Dual Kloot Construction | $3,431.08 | Chilliwack | April 17, 2015
In a light rain, this firm’s worker was installing screws on the metal roof of a newly built agricultural outbuilding. The worker lost his
footing and fell about 5 m (16 ft.) to the ground, sustaining serious injuries. WorkSafeBC’s investigation found that he had not been
using personal fall protection gear, nor had any other fall protection system been in place. The firm failed to ensure that a fall protection
system was used, a repeated and high-risk violation.
651432 B.C. Ltd. / Universal Contracting | $13,137.54 | Chilliwack | April 30, 2015
This firm was subcontracted to excavate the site of a multi-residential development and install drainage pipes for the units. The firm
caused its new and young worker to enter an excavation on site that was not properly sloped, shored, benched, or otherwise supported
as required. Excavation depth ranged from about 1.5 to 2 m (5 to 6 ft.). The excavation was very narrow and adjacent to a tall wooden
fence on one side, factors that increased the likelihood of it collapsing. The worker was exposed to the risk of being seriously injured or
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 are grouped by industry, in alphabetical order, starting with “Construction.” They 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 up-to-date penalty information, you can search our penalties database on our website at
worksafebc.com. Look under Safety at Work, then go to Accident Investigations. Under the Popular Picks
section, select “Penalties.”
September / October 2015 | WorkSafe Magazine 29

Penalties
(continued)
killed had that happened. This failure to meet the sloping and shoring requirements of section 20.81(1) of the Occupational Health and
Safety Regulation was a repeated and high-risk violation.
A-I Siding Ltd. | $40,306.25 | White Rock | May 11, 2015
WorkSafeBC observed this firm’s worker applying siding to a newly built two-storey house. The worker was standing on a narrow
section of the steep roof of the house and was not using personal fall protection gear. He was exposed to a risk of falling 6 m (20 ft.).
The firm failed to ensure that fall protection was used where a fall of 3 m (10 ft.) or more could occur, a repeated and high-risk violation.
This is the third time in just over a year that the firm has been penalized for this violation.
Allstar Waterproofing and Restoration Systems Ltd. | $31,760.30 | Vancouver | June 2, 2015
WorkSafeBC observed one of this firm’s workers on top of a three-storey building. The worker was standing outside a permanent
guardrail, at the very edge of the roof, and was not using personal fall protection gear. No other type of fall protection was in place. The
worker was exposed to a risk of falling about 9 m (30 ft.) to a concrete stairway with metal railings. The firm’s failure to ensure that fall
protection was used was a designated high-risk violation.
Arnold & Sons Roofing Ltd. | $13,561.30 | Langley | May 5, 2015
Three of this firm’s workers were re-shingling the steep roof of a two-storey house. Two of them were wearing fall protection harnesses
but were not connected to lifelines. The third was connected to a lifeline, but the line had too much slack in it. No other form of fall
protection was in place. A supervisor was on site. The workers were exposed to a risk of falling as much as 7.3 m (24 ft.) to a
truck-mounted bin, a concrete driveway and sidewalk, and grass and shrubs. The firm failed to ensure that fall protection was used, a
repeated and high-risk violation.
BCS Contractors Ltd. | $60,000 | Burnaby | April 7, 2015
Five of this firm’s workers were preparing a pre-1990 house for demolition by stripping the interior. WorkSafeBC prevention officers
inspected the worksite and found that the firm allowed its workers to improperly bag asbestos-containing drywall and then dump that
drywall in a bin in front of the house. This was a failure on the firm’s part to ensure that no work that would disturb asbestos-containing
materials took place unless the necessary precautions had been taken to protect workers. This was a repeated violation committed
knowingly or with reckless disregard.
Best Friend’s Roofing Ltd. | $5,000 | Delta | April 24, 2015
WorkSafeBC observed this firm’s worker (a supervisor) on the roof of a three-level house under construction. He was working near the
roof’s edge and was not using personal fall protection. No other form of fall protection was in place. The worker was exposed to a risk
of falling 10.6 m (35 ft.) onto a wooden fence with exposed posts, a ladder, construction debris, and compact soil. The firm’s failure to
ensure that fall protection was used was a repeated and high-risk violation, committed knowingly or with reckless disregard.
Big Bear Construction Service Ltd. | $2,500 | North Vancouver | May 29, 2015
This firm was in charge of removing hazardous materials from the site of a pre-1990 house before demolition. The firm violated several
of the requirements that protect workers from exposure to harmful airborne asbestos fibres. It allowed work to proceed without the
required air monitoring in place. The firm also issued a clearance letter stating it was safe to demolish the house — yet it had not had a
qualified person ensure, and confirm in writing, that hazardous materials had actually been safely removed. These failings may have
exposed the firm’s five-person demolition crew (and other workers) to asbestos, a known carcinogen. These were designated high-risk
violations, at least one of which was repeated.
C-Best Environmental Ltd. | $3,000 | Burnaby | April 9, 2015
This firm prepared a hazardous materials survey for a pre-1990 house due to be demolished. The survey failed to identify window putty
as asbestos-containing material (ACM). WorkSafeBC ordered that preparations for demolition be stopped until all ACMs had been
removed. The firm had been cited on four prior occasions for failing to sample this particular material in accordance with the
assessment method and was aware of the requirement to do so. The firm failed to conduct workplace exposure monitoring and
assessment using acceptable occupational hygiene methods — a repeated violation.
Chris Small Enterprises Inc. | $5,000 | Port Coquitlam | April 30, 2015
WorkSafeBC observed three of this firm’s workers (including a representative of the firm) re-shingling the roof of a bungalow. The
workers were not using personal fall protection gear and no other form of fall protection was in place. They were exposed to a risk of
falling as much as 4.5 m (14.5 ft.). A concrete sidewalk and steps, a wrought iron railing, and a pickup truck below increased the risk of
serious injury or death in the event of a fall. The firm failed to ensure that fall protection was used as required. This was a repeated and
high-risk violation.
30
September / October 2015 | WorkSafe Magazine

Continental Pipeline & Facility Ltd. | $75,000 | Buckinghorse | May 1, 2015
Four of this firm’s workers were securing a load of pipeline pipes on the flat deck of a trailer. A loose pipe fell off the top of the load,
striking one of the workers, who sustained serious lower-leg injuries. WorkSafeBC’s investigation found that the firm had failed to
analyze the risks of the work activity and to put in place safe work procedures to address the hazards identified. This failure in turn
shows that the firm did not provide its workers with the instruction, training, and supervision needed to ensure their safety while
securing the pipes. These were both repeated and high-risk violations.
Daniel Hirokazu Hirai | $6,825.80 | Surrey | May 1, 2015
WorkSafeBC observed three of this firm’s workers, including a supervisor, sheathing the roof of a new townhouse. No fall protection
system was in place. The workers were exposed to a risk of falling 3.5 to 4 m (12 to 14 ft.). Carrying 4x8 sheets of OSB (oriented strand
board) around on the roof surface increased their likelihood of tripping and falling. This is the second time in just over a year that the
firm has been penalized for the high-risk violation of failing to ensure that fall protection was used in places where a fall of 3 m (10 ft.) or
more could occur.
Dawson Construction Limited | $69,696.79 | Fort St. John | April 30, 2015
This firm was performing sewer work on a residential street. WorkSafeBC observed two of the firm’s workers in a 2 m (6 ft.) deep
excavation with near-vertical walls that were not sloped, shored, benched, or otherwise supported as required. Water from a hose was
running into the excavation, causing soil stability to deteriorate. The workers were exposed to a high risk of serious injury or death. The
firm’s failure to meet the requirements of section 20.81(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Regulation was a repeated and
high-risk violation.
Friendly Construction Ltd. | $10,861.38 | Surrey | May 13, 2015
This firm was framing a three-storey townhouse development. WorkSafeBC observed two of the firm’s workers standing in between
joists on top of exterior wall plates on the second level of a townhouse. They were not using personal fall protection gear, nor was any
other form of fall protection in place. One of the two was the firm’s foreman. They were exposed to a risk of falling more than 5 m
(16 ft.). The firm failed to ensure that fall protection was used, a repeated and high-risk violation.
Genica Development Corp. | $5,899.45 | Chilliwack | April 17, 2015
WorkSafeBC inspected a jobsite where this firm had excavated part of an empty lot for sewer work. The excavation was 2.5 m (8 ft.)
deep but was not properly sloped, shored, benched, or otherwise supported as required. The firm’s worker was in the excavation inside
a hole he was digging in the bottom of it. The hole was about 0.6 m (2 ft.) deep. The worker was exposed to the risk of being seriously
injured or killed if the excavation’s walls had collapsed. The firm failed to meet the sloping and shoring requirements of section 20.81(1)
of the Occupational Health and Safety Regulation, a repeated and high-risk violation.
Gerard Frank Abraham / Gerard Abraham Contracting | $7,500 | Langley | April 28, 2015
WorkSafeBC observed a representative of this firm and two of its workers stripping cedar shakes from the roof of a two-storey house.
They were not using personal fall protection gear and no other form of fall protection was in place, exposing them to a risk of falling 5.5
to 7.3 m (18 to 24 ft.). A concrete walkway and driveway below increased the likelihood of serious injury or death in the event of a fall.
The firm’s failure to ensure that fall protection was used where a fall of 3 m (10 ft.) or more could occur was a repeated and high-risk
violation, committed knowingly or with reckless disregard.
Gordon Albert Gaudet | $3,092.79 | Burnaby | April 15, 2015
Three of this firm’s workers were re-roofing the flat roof of a warehouse. All three were working near the edge of the roof. The firm
permitted the use of a control zone for fall protection where it could practicably have installed temporary guardrails or had its workers
use personal fall protection systems. This violation of section 11.2 of the Occupational Health and Safety Regulation exposed all three
workers to a risk of falling about 9 m (30 ft.) to an asphalt parking lot and a metal fence with barbed wire. The firm’s failure to ensure that
its workers used suitable fall protection was a repeated and high-risk violation. The firm also failed to provide its workers with the
Did you know?
Our prevention team is available to consult with organizations to help them
maintain safe and healthy workplaces.
September / October 2015 | WorkSafe Magazine 31

Penalties
(continued)
information, instruction, training, and supervision needed to ensure their health and safety in carrying out their work, a
repeated violation.
G S Framing Ltd. | $8,257.60 | Vancouver | April 9, 2015
This firm was framing a newly built two-storey house. WorkSafeBC observed three of the firm’s workers among the trusses near the
edge of the steep partially sheathed roof. No fall protection system was in use, so the workers were exposed to a risk of falling 8 to
9.5 m (26 to 31 ft.). The firm’s failure to ensure that fall protection was used was a repeated and high-risk violation.
HA Brar Siding & Woodwork Ltd. | $5,092.73 | Mission | February 20, 2015
At a site where a two-storey house was under construction, WorkSafeBC observed two of this firm’s workers on a plank supported by a
ladder-jack system at a height of 4.5 m (15 ft.). The plank had no guardrails and the workers were not using personal fall protection gear.
The firm failed to ensure that fall protection was used where a fall of 3 m (10 ft.) or more could occur, a repeated and high-risk violation.
As well, the firm failed to ensure that guardrails were used, a high-risk violation.
HA Brar Siding & Woodwork Ltd. | $5,000 | Mission | June 1, 2015
This firm was applying siding to a two-storey house under construction. WorkSafeBC observed the firm’s worker on a plank supported
by a ladder-jack system at a height of about 3.4 m (11 ft.). The plank had no guardrails and the worker was not using personal fall
protection gear. The firm knowingly or with reckless disregard failed to ensure that fall protection was used where a fall of 3 m (10 ft.) or
more could occur, a repeated and high-risk violation. This is the second time in less than four months that the firm has been penalized
for this type of violation.
Haab Holdings Ltd. | $34,995.62 | Fort St. John | April 7, 2015
WorkSafeBC observed two of this firm’s workers in a 2 m (6.5 ft.) deep excavation that was not sloped, shored, benched, or otherwise
supported as required. The workers were exposed to a high risk of serious injury or death if the excavation walls had collapsed. The
firm’s failure to meet the sloping and shoring requirements of section 20.81(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Regulation was a
repeated and high-risk violation.
Hayer Demolition Ltd. | $1,661.16 | Richmond | April 7, 2015
Three of this firm’s workers were stripping the interior of a pre-1990 house slated for demolition. A WorkSafeBC prevention officer
inspected the worksite and found that asbestos-containing materials such as duct tape had not been safely removed prior to demolition
work. The workers were not wearing the required safety gear for such work and were not using safe asbestos-removal procedures. They
were therefore exposed to asbestos fibres, increasing their risk of serious illness and death. The firm failed to ensure that demolition
work was stopped when hazardous materials were discovered at the site. This was a repeated violation.
Hayer Demolition Ltd. | $4,152.90 | Richmond | April 7, 2015
An inspection of this firm’s work at a pre-1990 house slated for demolition found violations of safety requirements related to hazardous
materials. On June 2, 2014, WorkSafeBC ordered this firm to submit a Notice of Compliance with sections of the Workers
Compensation Act and the Occupational Health and Safety Regulation. The firm had until June 18 to do so. In September 2014 the firm
submitted an inadequate response to the orders. By March 18, 2015, no further communication from the firm had been received. The
firm is being penalized for its failure to comply with an order of WorkSafeBC, a violation of section 115(1)(b) of the Act committed
knowingly or with reckless disregard.
Integrity Roofing Corporation | $5,982.75 | Salmon Arm | May 7, 2015
Two of this firm’s workers, including a supervisor, were roofing a newly built hay shed. Neither was using personal fall protection gear,
nor was any other form of fall protection in place. They were exposed to a risk of falling 4.5 m (15 ft.). Tripping hazards on the roof
included air lines and piles of roofing material. The firm failed to provide its workers with the information, instruction, training, and
supervision needed to ensure their health and safety, a repeated violation.
K2 Roofing Ltd. / K2 Roofing | $7,059.03 | Halfmoon Bay | April 16, 2015
This firm was re-roofing a flat-roofed house. The firm’s worker was climbing a ladder to access the roof, carrying a 20 kg (45 lb.) roll of
roofing paper, when he lost his balance and fell 4 m (13 ft.) to the concrete driveway below. He sustained serious injuries. Use of a
ladder hoist and guardrails where the ladder met the roof surface would have lessened the risk of such an incident. The firm failed to
ensure that a fall protection system was used, a repeated violation. It also contravened the requirement not to allow workers to carry
heavy or bulky items up a ladder. Overall, the firm failed to provide its worker with the training and supervision needed to ensure his
health and safety at the jobsite.
32
September / October 2015 | WorkSafe Magazine

KDM Construction Ltd. | $2,500 | Mission | April 23, 2015
WorkSafeBC observed this firm’s worker on the skirt roof of a two-storey house under construction. The worker was in view of the
firm’s supervisor but was not using personal fall protection gear. No other form of fall protection was in place. He was exposed to a risk
of falling at least 3.4 m (11 ft.). The firm failed to ensure that fall protection was used where a fall of 3 m (10 ft.) or more could occur, a
repeated and high-risk violation. As well, it failed to provide its workers with the information, instruction, training, and supervision
needed to ensure their health and safety. This was a repeated violation.
Khela Excavating Ltd. | $7,503.48 | Coquitlam | April 28, 2015
A WorkSafeBC officer observed this firm’s worker in an excavator demolishing a house built before 1990. The officer asked to see a
pre-demolition hazardous materials survey for the site, but was given only a two-sample laboratory report. The firm later submitted the
survey to WorkSafeBC, but it was found to be deficient. The firm’s failure to ensure that a qualified person had inspected the site to test
for asbestos-containing materials before it began demolition was a repeated violation. So was its failure to ensure that the required
hazmat survey was available on site during demolition.
M K Construction Ltd. | $2,500 | Delta | April 24, 2015
This firm was framing a new two-storey house. WorkSafeBC observed two of its workers, including a representative of the firm, on the
open second level carrying a 4x8 sheet of plywood. They were within 1 m (3 ft.) of unguarded openings in the floor, exposed to a risk of
falling 4 to 5.5 m (13 to 18 ft.) to the basement floor below. Further, to move between the main floor and the second floor, workers had
to use a ladder instead of the required stairway. The firm’s failure to install guardrails around openings in the floor was a repeated and
high-risk violation. The failure to provide a stairway to the second level before beginning construction on that level was a repeated
violation. The firm committed these infractions knowingly or with reckless disregard.
Marcia A. Huchzermyer / Sensible Flat Roofs | $2,500 | Burns Lake | May 7, 2015
Six of this firm’s workers (including four new and young workers) were on the flat roof of a two-storey commercial building. Guardrails
had not been installed; none of the workers were using personal fall protection gear. A control zone on the roof, consisting of cones,
was inadequate because there was no raised warning line between the cones and no evidence of a designated safety monitor.
WorkSafeBC observed the workers walking past the cones to the very edge of the roof. They were exposed to a risk of falling 5.5 m
(18.5 ft.). The firm failed to ensure that fall protection was used, a repeated and high-risk violation. In addition, the two ladders that
provided access to the roof had not been secured as required to ensure stability during use, a repeated violation.
Did you
know?
All workers in
B.C. have the
right to refuse
unsafe work.
CONNECTED
one_third_ad.indd 1
11/02/15 1:19 PM
September / October 2015 | WorkSafe Magazine 33

Penalties
(continued)
Matcon Civil Constructors Inc. | $49,152.70 | Burnaby | May 26, 2015
At a site where this firm was performing municipal sewer work, the firm allowed its worker to enter a 3 m (9 ft.) deep trench cut through
one lane of a busy road. The banks of the trench were not properly sloped, shored, benched, or otherwise supported as required for
trenches more than 1.2 m (4 ft.) deep. A shoring cage was on site but would not fit into the trench. The firm failed to meet the sloping
and shoring requirements of section 20.81(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Regulation, a repeated and high-risk violation.
Moga Framing Ltd. | $2,500 | Richmond | April 28, 2015
This firm was subcontracted to frame a new two-storey house. One side of the house was only 2 m (7 ft.) away from a 25 kV overhead
power line. Partway through construction, an inspection of the worksite by BC Hydro and WorkSafeBC found that this firm’s workers
had breached the limits of approach (in this case, 3 m (10 ft.)) while performing framing tasks. Handling construction materials and
metal tools so close to the line exposed them to the risk of arc flashes and electrocution. By allowing its workers to work so near the
power line, the firm committed a high-risk violation of the requirement to maintain the minimum applicable distance between workers
and live high-voltage equipment and conductors.
M.V.R. Construction Ltd. | $3,753.95 | Mission | April 20, 2015
WorkSafeBC observed two of this firm’s workers on the porch roof of a two-storey house under construction. They were not using
personal fall protection gear, nor was any other form of fall protection in place. The workers were exposed to a risk of falling about
3.4 to 4 m (11 to 13 ft.). The electrical cords of their nail guns posed a tripping hazard. Wet snow was falling, making the roof surface
slippery. The workers were in view of the firm’s supervisor. The firm failed to ensure that a fall protection system was used, a repeated
and high-risk violation. It also failed to provide its workers with the information, instruction, training, and supervision needed to ensure
their health and safety. This was a repeated violation.
Newbility Contracting Ltd. | $2,500 | Surrey | May 19, 2015
This firm was responsible for asbestos abatement at a pre-1990 house scheduled for demolition. WorkSafeBC’s inspection found that
the abatement had not been carried out in accordance with regulatory requirements. Vermiculite-containing insulation from the attic
was piled up inside and outside the house, likely contaminating the house with asbestos fibres. Despite the presence of this
asbestos-containing material, the site had no containment or decontamination facility as required for high-risk work activity. The firm’s
failure to provide such facilities was a repeated and high-risk violation.
Pamia Construction Ltd. | $2,500 | Delta | May 26, 2015
WorkSafeBC observed two of this firm’s workers sheathing the roof of a newly built three-storey house. The workers were standing on
wall plates at the unguarded edge of the house and were not using personal fall protection gear. They were exposed to a risk of falling
4 to 6 m (14 to 20 ft.) to compact soil, construction debris, and concrete window wells. The firm failed to ensure that fall protection was
used where a fall of 3 m (10 ft.) or more could occur, a repeated and high-risk violation.
Paragon Remediation Group Ltd. / Enviro Vac | $8,415 | Williams Lake | May 7, 2015
WorkSafeBC inspected a worksite where five of this firm’s workers were removing concrete block walls that had been identified as
containing asbestos. Workers were wearing inappropriate personal protective clothing. The shower in the decontamination unit was
disconnected from its water supply outside the designated work area, with no one to reconnect it for the workers inside — meaning that
one of the workers would have to leave the designated area before showering to hook it up. The firm’s failure to use acceptable
procedures for controlling asbestos was a repeated and high-risk violation.
Parallel Advantage Framing Inc. | $2,500 | Chilliwack | April 13, 2015
Two workers for this firm (one of them a supervisor) were on the roof of a one-storey house under construction, walking on the
exposed trusses. Neither was using personal fall protection gear and no other form of fall protection was in place. The workers were
exposed to a risk of falling 3.4 m (11.5 ft.). The firm failed to ensure that fall protection was used, a repeated and high-risk violation.
Rick Dey / Rick Dey Roofing | $1,750 | Saanich | April 28, 2015
WorkSafeBC observed this firm’s worker on the roof of a one-storey house. The worker was not using personal fall protection gear and
no other form of fall protection was in place. He was exposed to a risk of falling 3.4 to 4.5 m (11 to 15 ft.). A representative of the firm
was on the roof with the worker and fall protection gear for the worker was available on site. Nonetheless, the firm failed to ensure that
its worker used the fall protection, a repeated and high-risk violation. It also failed to provide its worker with the supervision needed to
ensure his health and safety, a repeated violation.
Riemann Painting (2003) Inc. | $17,446.04 | Fernie | May 27, 2015
This firm’s worker was using a boom lift to paint a four-storey condominium building. While in the work platform, the worker swung the
boom to the right. No outriggers had been deployed on this side of the lift. The machine tipped over to the right and the worker
34
September / October 2015 | WorkSafe Magazine

sustained serious injuries. WorkSafeBC’s investigation found that the firm had not ensured that the boom lift was inspected before
operation, as required by section 13.3 of the Occupational Health and Safety Regulation. Safety features on the lift related to
positioning were not functioning or had been disabled. These were high-risk violations. Finally, other work platforms at the site were
also found to be in non-compliance. In general, the firm failed to ensure the health and safety of its workers — a violation of
section 115(1)(a) of the Workers Compensation Act.
Safeline Roofing Ltd. | $2,500 | Richmond | April 28, 2015
This firm was subcontracted to perform roofing work on a new two-storey house. One side of the house was only 2 m (7 ft.) away from
a 25 kV overhead power line. Partway through construction, an inspection of the worksite by BC Hydro and WorkSafeBC found that
this firm’s workers had breached the limits of approach (in this case, 3 m (10 ft.)) while sheathing the roof. Handling roofing materials
and metal tools so close to the line exposed them to the risk of arc flashes and electrocution. By allowing its workers to work so near
the power line, the firm committed a high-risk violation of the requirement to maintain the minimum applicable distance between
workers and live high-voltage equipment and conductors.
Sandhu & Brar Construction Ltd. | $2,500 | Delta | May 26, 2015
This firm was building a three-storey house. WorkSafeBC inspected the site when the first floor of the house was being framed. The
foundation formwork was in an excavation that ranged in depth from about 0.6 to 2.75 m (2 to 9 ft.) but that was not properly sloped,
shored, benched, or otherwise supported as required. On one side the excavation was only 1.5 m (5 ft.) away from a neighbouring
house, and on this side its bank had collapsed. The firm had allowed its workers to enter this excavation, exposing them to the risk of
being seriously injured or killed if it collapsed on them. The failure to meet the sloping and shoring requirements of section 20.81(1) of
the Occupational Health and Safety Regulation was a repeated and high-risk violation.
SPS Roofing Ltd. | $30,000 | Burnaby | April 14, 2015
WorkSafeBC observed two of this firm’s workers installing shingles on a two-storey house under construction. No fall protection
system was in use, although the workers were wearing harnesses. One worker (the supervisor) was on the highest part of the roof,
exposed to a risk of falling about 7 m (23 ft.). The other was on a lower roof section, at risk of falling about 4 m (13 ft.). Tripping hazards
on the roof included air lines and loose roofing material and debris. The firm failed to ensure that fall protection was used, a repeated
and high-risk violation.
Targa Contracting (2013) Ltd. | $94,290.25 | Surrey | May 20, 2015
This firm’s workers were installing sanitary services for a subdivision. WorkSafeBC inspected the site and observed two workers in an
excavation 1.2 to 1.5 m (4 to 5 ft.) deep, in sight of two supervisors. The excavation was not sloped, shored, benched, or otherwise
supported as required. The workers were exposed to the risk of being seriously injured or killed if the excavation had collapsed. This is
the second time in less than a year and a half that the firm has been penalized for this high-risk violation.
Top Notch Roofing Inc. | $16,903.65 | Harrison Mills | May 15, 2015
This firm’s six-person crew (including a representative of the firm) was installing shingles on the steep roof of a newly built
one-and-a-half-storey house. WorkSafeBC observed two workers on the roof wearing fall protection harnesses but not connected to
lifelines. No other form of fall protection was in place. The workers were exposed to a risk of falling 6 to 9 m (20 to 30 ft.). Two other
workers were on unstable work platforms on metal brackets suspended from the top plates of the walls. These two also lacked fall
protection, exposing them to a risk of falling about 3.4 m (11 ft.). The ground below all the workers was strewn with rocks. The firm’s
failure to ensure that fall protection was used as required was a high-risk violation. This is the third penalty this firm has received for this
violation since early 2013.
Manufacturing
Archgard Industries Ltd. | $18,599.75 | Mission | April 24, 2015
This firm’s worker sustained serious hand injuries while operating a hydraulic press brake (a machine that bends metal). WorkSafeBC
found that the machine lacked safeguards to prevent workers from accessing the hazardous point of operation. The firm’s failure to
provide its workers with the training and supervision needed to ensure their health and safety was a high-risk violation.
Clean Energy Compression Corp. / I.M.W Industries | $82,500 | Chillliwack | April 24, 2015
This firm’s worker was seriously injured when an explosion took place in a hose that was being pressure-tested with air by a co-worker
nearby. The hose broke free of its clamps and whipped around, its coupling striking him on the chest and back. WorkSafeBC’s
investigation found that a number of factors converged to cause the incident, including a lack of effective safe work procedures; the
September / October 2015 | WorkSafe Magazine 35

Penalties
(continued)
improper use of air as test medium; ineffective hose restraint methods; ineffective supervision; and failure to perform a comprehensive
risk assessment for the task. Overall, the firm failed to ensure the health and safety of its workers, a high-risk violation of
section 115(1)(a) of the Workers Compensation Act.
DM Cabinet Doors Ltd. | $8,684.35 | Surrey | April 27, 2015
This firm, which operates a cabinet-making shop, repeatedly failed to comply with WorkSafeBC orders related to its installation and
use of a dust-collection system. It also repeatedly defied stop-use orders for the system. The firm acted knowingly or with reckless
disregard in failing to comply with WorkSafeBC orders, a high-risk violation.
East Fraser Fiber Co. Ltd. | $65,235.12 | Mackenzie | May 29, 2015
This firm operates a finger joint manufacturing plant. A supervisor at the plant received a serious hand injury when he reached into a
lumber-stacking machine to reposition a board and the machine cycled unexpectedly. WorkSafeBC investigated and found numerous
violations of sections of the Occupational Health and Safety Regulation dealing with de-energization and lockout and with access to
and safeguarding of machinery. As well, during the investigation a prevention officer saw a worker driving a forklift without his seat belt
on and with the cab doors open. These were high-risk violations, and all except the failure to wear a seat belt were repeated. The firm
failed in general to provide its workers with the information, instruction, training, and supervision needed to ensure their health
and safety.
East Fraser Fiber Co. Ltd. | $65,235.12 | Mackenzie | May 29, 2015
This firm’s worker reached into a machine to clear a wood chip from a moving conveyor belt. He became entangled in the tail spool of
the belt and sustained serious injuries to his arm. WorkSafeBC’s investigation found that the tail spool was missing its guarding. The
firm failed to ensure that the conveyor belt was adequately safeguarded, a repeated and high-risk violation.
Kone Inc. | $15,000 | Kelowna | March 30, 2015
This firm installs, maintains, and repairs elevators and escalators, work activity that exposes its workers to potentially harmful levels of
asbestos. In November 2012, WorkSafeBC inspected the firm’s workplace and found that the firm lacked an exposure control plan
(ECP) for preventing exposure to asbestos. Kone was ordered to submit a Notice of Compliance with section 6.3(1) of the Occupational
Health and Safety Regulation, which requires a firm to develop and implement an ECP. Over the next year-and-a-half, WorkSafeBC
officers repeatedly discussed ECP requirements with the firm. As of April 8, 2014, the firm had still not submitted an acceptable ECP.
Murphy Oil Company Ltd. | $11,032.14 | Dawson Creek | May 12, 2015
This firm was using a mobile crane to perform a lift at a gas well when the crane tipped over, landing on the wellhead. WorkSafeBC
inspected the incident scene and ordered the firm to acquire a documented, certified assurance from a professional engineer that the
wellhead would not present a risk to workers during the crane recovery process. The firm was to obtain the assurance prior to
recovering the crane. WorkSafeBC later learned that the firm had carried out the crane recovery without the required assurance, and
that the wellhead had indeed leaked pressurized gas. The firm is being penalized for its failure to comply with a WorkSafeBC order, a
violation of section 115(1)(b) of the Workers Compensation Act.
T. S. Manufacturing Ltd. | $1,728.35 | Surrey | May 15, 2015
This firm operates a woodworking shop. In September 2014 and January 2015 WorkSafeBC ordered the firm to submit Notices of
Compliance with various sections of the Occupational Health and Safety Regulation. By early May 2015 the firm had not complied.
The firm is being penalized for its failure to comply with WorkSafeBC orders, a violation of section 115(1)(b) of the Workers
Compensation Act.
Urban Metals Ltd. | $7,500 | Port Coquitlam | May 6, 2015
This firm manufactures metal fences and railings. Since late 2013, WorkSafeBC had repeatedly ordered the firm to take measures to
address health and safety violations at its workplace. Examples include fit-testing workers who are required to wear respirators,
providing a local exhaust ventilation system, equipping hand-held grinders with protective hoods, and obtaining material safety data
sheets for controlled products. By March 2015 the firm still had not complied. The firm is being penalized for its failure to comply with
WorkSafeBC orders, a violation of section 115(1)(b) of the Workers Compensation Act.
Primary Resources
J. Sarver Trucking Ltd. | $8,274.73 | Dawson Creek | May 21, 2015
This firm’s new and young worker was helping another worker perform routine maintenance on a processing head (a machine used to
cut down and de-limb trees). The head’s cutting arm operated unexpectedly, seriously injuring the young worker’s hand. WorkSafeBC’s
investigation found that the firm’s lockout procedure for the processing head was inadequate and that the young worker had not been
36
September / October 2015 | WorkSafe Magazine

given specific training for the work activity. The firm failed to ensure the use and verification of lockout procedures as required by the
Occupational Health and Safety Regulation. This was a repeated and high-risk violation.
Pass Creek Holdings Ltd. | $3,396.73 | Fruitvale | April 23, 2015
At a logging site, this firm instructed its young worker to attract the attention of a feller-buncher operator. The operator did not have a
radio. The young worker entered the active falling area of the feller-buncher and was struck by a tree the feller-buncher was moving. He
sustained serious injuries, including internal injuries. The firm failed to ensure that workers remained at least two tree lengths away from
a tree being felled by a mechanical harvester. This was a high-risk violation committed knowingly or with reckless disregard.
Service Sector
Bobby (Bob) Darryl Perra / Treeworks Tree Care | $2,500 | West Vancouver | April 7, 2015
This firm’s workers were removing and chipping trees from a slope bordering a road. Two workers felled the trees downhill, allowing
them to hang up in the lower standing trees. A third worker operating a bucket truck from inside the bucket would swing over to the cut
trees, and attach a rope to one and to the fall protection anchor point in the bucket. He pulled until the cut tree came free. Each tree was
then swung out over the ground behind the chipper, lowered, and disconnected. The worker in the basket was not using personal fall
protection; none was available on site. He was exposed to a risk of falling 9 m (30 ft.). The firm failed to provide fall protection
equipment, a repeated violation. Likewise, it failed to ensure that such equipment was used. These were both high-risk violations.
Neither the fallers nor the bucket truck operator had received instruction or training for the work they were doing. Further, a
representative of the firm had seen the boom lift being used for this work and had not intervened, even though the manufacturer’s
instructions prohibited it. The firm failed to provide its workers with the instruction, training, and supervision needed to ensure their
health and safety. Finally, no first aid attendant was on site as required for this type of work. These latter two failings were both
repeated violations.
Lewkowich Engineering Associates Ltd. | $5,117.39 | Nanaimo | May 13, 2015
This firm was contracted to prepare a hazardous materials survey for a site where pre-1990 buildings were scheduled to be demolished.
The survey that the firm produced had various deficiencies, including failure to correctly identify the firm and the individual who
collected the samples and to list the individual’s credentials to demonstrate he or she was qualified for such work. As a result,
WorkSafeBC issued a stop-work order for the demolition site. The firm failed to conduct workplace exposure monitoring and
assessment using acceptable occupational hygiene methods. This was a repeated violation.
Mirae Investment Ltd. / Caledonia Mobile Home Park | $5,000 | Prince George | April 30, 2015
This firm owns a mobile home park where a water line to one of the trailers broke. WorkSafeBC observed the firm’s worker in an 2.5 m
(8 ft.) deep excavation at one end of the trailer that had not been sloped, shored, benched, or otherwise supported as required. Water
from the broken supply pipe was flowing into the excavation, causing the soil on the sides to slough in. The sloughing was undermining
the supports of the trailer and the roots of a large tree. The worker was exposed to the risk of being seriously injured or killed if the
excavation’s walls had collapsed or the tree or trailer had fallen or slid into it. The firm failed to meet the sloping and shoring
requirements of section 20.81(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Regulation, a repeated and high-risk violation.
Sorrento Centre Anglican Church of Canada | $14,384.15 | Sorrento | May 29, 2015
WorkSafeBC investigated this firm’s workplace (the basement of an administration building) and found violations of asbestos-related
health and safety regulations. The firm had allowed workers to access and perform work in an area where there was damaged and
exposed asbestos without using adequate personal protective equipment or safe work procedures. The firm should first have ensured
that all friable asbestos-containing materials were removed or enclosed so as to prevent the release of asbestos fibres. These
designated high-risk violations may have exposed workers to asbestos, a known carcinogen.
Til-Van Holdings Ltd. | $3,725.54 | Revelstoke | May 27, 2015
WorkSafeBC inspected this firm’s restaurant and found machinery that was not fitted with adequate safeguards, exposing workers to
the risk of serious injury if they inadvertently contacted moving parts. The firm also did not have lockout procedures for cleaning and
maintenance of machinery, exposing workers to a risk of receiving an electric shock or being caught in equipment if it activated.
WorkSafeBC first ordered the firm to remedy these failings in January 2013. WorkSafeBC performed numerous follow-up inspections
and issued the firm a warning letter, but as of February 2015 the firm had not complied. The firm failed to comply with the two
outstanding orders within a reasonable time.
Timmermans Landscaping Ltd. | $31,443.22 | Abbotsford | April 21, 2015
WorkSafeBC observed two of this firm’s workers, including a representative of the firm, operating tractors to landscape the grounds of
a new condominium development. From time to time each worker would stop his tractor and climb down to unload plants from its
September / October 2015 | WorkSafe Magazine 37

CANADIAN SOCIETY OF
Penalties
(continued)
bucket as the other tractor continued working nearby. The sloped terrain they were driving on was muddy, wet, and uneven, increasing
the risk of rollover. The workers were not using the tractors’ seat belts, nor were they wearing high-visibility clothing as required when
working around mobile equipment. These were high-risk violations committed knowingly or with reckless disregard, and the lack of
high-vis clothing was a repeated violation.
Tripple Creek Investments Ltd. / The Burner Bar and Grille/Burner’s Beer Wine & Spirits | $1,000 | Malakwa |
April 8, 2015
This firm, which operates a restaurant and lounge, was penalized for continued non-compliance with a number of orders. Violations
included failing to maintain a record of occupational health and safety meetings, failing to provide a basic first aid kit, and failing to
maintain an acceptable form for documenting workplace injuries. The firm also violated the Workers Compensation Act by failing to
ensure the health and safety of its own and other workers at its premises, and by failing to provide workers with adequate information,
instruction, training, and supervision.
Join us for the 10th annual
Bridging the gap
Construction Safety Conference
November 13–14, 2015
Sheraton Vancouver Airport Hotel, Richmond, B.C.
(Pre-conference courses November 12)
Whether you work in construction or promote health and
safety in the industry, join us for a jam-packed two-day
conference to network with others and increase your
knowledge about a wide range of health and safety issues
in construction.
Visit bridgingthegapsafely.ca to register or learn more
about the conference.
SAFETY
ENGINEERING
Marketplace
directory
Emergency
Response
Technologies
OXYGEN, FIRST AID &
EARTHQUAKE SUPPLIES
UNIT 10 – 11720 VOYAGEUR WAY
RICHMOND, BC V6X 3G9
Tel: 604-277-5855
Fax: 604-277-5859
Email: info@sostech.ca
www.sostech.ca
38
September / October 2015 | WorkSafe Magazine

Marketplace directory
(continued)
September / October 2015 | WorkSafe Magazine 39

Reduce the impact with the trusted leader in First Aid and Safety Training.
Accidents in the workplace cost your company. You can reduce the impact by making your
workplace safer, and ensuring that there are qualified first aid attendants on your worksite.
St. John Ambulance can help with first aid training and product solutions that work for you.
Register today at www.sja.ca or call 1.866.321.2651
Shop online: www.shopsafetyproducts.ca
* WorkSafeBC Statistic, 2013