WorkSafe

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