______________________________________________________________________

Year in review:
Trends and highlights from 2009

Health and safety continuing to break new ground

To know what’s going on in Occupational Health and Safety today, its helpful to have a perspective on recent significant developments. The current WEHSR ‘year in review’ looks back over 12 months and highlights some significant trends that will effect the practice of health and safety management now and in years to come. To review the entire year for particular events or regions, readers are invited to use the search feature on the WEHSR 2009 electronic archive of back issues which is sent to all new/ renewing subscribers.

Federal government continues expansion of safety management systems

In 2009, the federal government continued to implement safety management systems (SMS) in areas under its jurisdiction. At the same time, WEHSR continued to report incidents involving rail derailments, shortcomings of the federal food safety inspection regime, and the potential dangers of extending SMS to the air-taxi sector.

Despite this, the government’s commitment to ever-expanding implementation of SMS appears unwavering. For example, a spokesman for Transport Canada recently noted that, with regard to the expansion of the SMS into Canada’s aviation industry: “Safety management systems will become an international requirement in 2010. “Canada,” the department claims, “leads the world in having these systems already in place.”

Ironically, the department credits the success of this process “to Transport Canada inspectors, who have worked hard to promote the importance of safety management systems.”

In fact, the unions that represent Canada's inspectors claim that the introduction of SMS is being used as an excuse to reduce their numbers and for the government to remain at arm's length from liability after accidents. Kerry Williams, national vice-president with the Union of Canadian Transportation Employees, noted recently that the number of inspectors over the last few years has dropped by 15 per cent while the aviation industry has grown by 50 per cent.

TDGA continuing to be amended to respond to expanding list of security and terrorist threats

Another trend in the federal jurisdiction in 2009 was the continuing amendment of regulations under the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992, to provide for additional security measures to help protect dangerous goods shipments from a possible terrorist threat.

Effective June 16, 2009, for example, the TDGA was amended to establish a prevention and response security program built around reinforcing the existing Emergency Response Assistance Program (ERAP) to equally address responses to security incidents and accidents during the transportation of dangerous goods. The amendments would require the development of a program of transportation security clearances for dangerous goods, and a modifed concept of an “importer” in order to clarify the person in Canada who is responsible for the dangerous goods.

Continuing this trend, on July, 2009 an “Interim Order Respecting Dangerous Goods that are Lost or Stolen or Otherwise Unlawfully Interfered With” was passed. The order requires companies who discover that dangerous goods have been lost, stolen or tampered with must immediately report that discovery to: the local police; CANUTEC, (613) 996-6666; and - in the case of goods included in Class 7 (Radioactive Materials) - to the duty officer of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC), (613) 995-0479.

Newfoundland and Labrador updates and overhauls its venerable OH&S regulation

On September 1, 2009, the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador introduced new safety regulations, replacing those that have been in place for the last 30 years. Highlights of the new regulations include:

• requirements to comply with the most recent version of a named code or standard, rather than a specific version which may be outdated;
• requirements for procedures to enter enclosed or partially enclosed spaces with restricted access and egress;
• additional general requirements for fall protection, as well as requirements for identification of fall protection systems and construction of guardrails;
• requirements for de-energizing and locking out procedures prior to performing work on equipment;
• requirements to establish and maintain hearing conservation programs where workers are exposed to noise above permissible levels; clarification of blaster responsibilities and industry-accepted safe blasting practices for blasting operations;
• requirements to identify and assess risks to workers who may be exposed to musculoskeletal injuries, and to provide training and education to those workers; requirements to develop written procedures for checking the wellbeing of workers who work alone;
• requirements for the certification of crane operators, to ensure that they have the appropriate trade qualification as determined by the Department of Education; and
• new requirements to have employers conduct a risk assessment focussed on the prevention of violence in the workplace, and to establish controls and training programs for workers.

These changes are in addition to the changes made to that province’s Occupational Health and Safety Act earlier last year, which included adding the definition of and duties for supervisors.

Alberta introduces new Safety Code; ramps up fines and enforcement

On July 1, 2009, Alberta’s revised Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Code 2009 took effect. The majority of the changes reflect increased worksite safety rules. As it stands now, the OHS Code has a total of 41 parts. Parts 1-29 are applicable to all employers in all industries. Parts 30-41 are only applicable to employers in specific industries (i.e. Oil and Gas Wells, Mining, Demolition). Some of the highlights of the 2009 revisions are:

• Part 5 Confined Spaces now distinguishes between a “confined space” and a “restricted space”; Part 14 Lifting and Handling Loads has several new requirements regarding patient/client/resident handling with respect to health care facilities, aimed at preventing musculoskeletal injuries; and Part 18 Personal Protective Equipment provides new requirements for respiratory protection against airborne bio-hazardous material.

Among the most significant changes are those to Part 9 Fall Protection, which introduces more ‘new requirements’ than any other revised part of the OHS Code. In particular, Part 9 now prescribes a list of topics that must be addressed during fall protection training. “This will hopefully be the end of the 4-hour fall protection training class,” said Jason Laurie of Vertigo Solutions for Work at Height, a leading fall protection expert and the primary architect of the changes to Part 9 of the Code.

According to a recent article by Lindsay A. Mullen, partner, Fraser Milner Casgrain LLP and OHS consultant, Adam A. Neave: “As AEI (Alberta Employment and Immigration) expands its efforts to enforce Alberta’s OHS laws ... it is more important than ever to ensure that your organization and its subcontractors are in compliance with the ... requirements. “Given that the average fine under the OHSA is in the range of approximately $240,000, and the average cost of a work-related fatality falls within the approximate range of $1,000,000, it is clear that making a pro-active investment in workplace health and safety will have a tremendous benefit.

“Responsible employers focus some of their attention and resources on the development, implementation and maintenance of an effective OHS management system that is capable of demonstrating due diligence. Not only will this commitment assist in preventing the human, economic and legal costs associated with work-related injuries and fatalities, it will help put OHS issues back on the front burner where they deserve to be.”

Quebec amendments to OHSA will come into force July 1, 2010

On June 10th, 2009, Quebec amended its occupational health and safety regime by amending its Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA) and its Act respecting Industrial Accidents and Occupational Diseases (IAODA).

The main amendment to the OHSA is a progressive increase in the fines to which an employer may be liable if it fails to meet its obligations under that Act (section 236 OHSA) or if it compromises the health, safety or physical well-being of an employee (section 237 OHSA). For example, under section 237 fines now range from at least $15,000 up to $60,000 for a first offence; from at least $30,000 up to $150,000 for a second offence; and from at least $60,000 up to $300,000 for additional repeat offences. The maximum fine was formerly $50,000. The amendments to sections 236 and 237 OHSA will come into force on July 1, 2010.

In addition, incidents which require employers to report to the CSST have been amended as of June 18, 2009. From now on, the obligation to report will apply to all incidents that cause the death of a worker, the loss of a limb or part of a limb, the total or partial loss of the use of a limb, or a significant physical trauma. Serious injuries are defined as those that prevent workers from performing their work for one working day, or bear material damage of $150,000 or more. Since June 18, 2009, the OHSA has also extended employer obligations for the protection of the worker’s health, safety and physical well-being to apply also to businesses that operate an establishment using the services of workers from an employment agency.

In addition to the OHSA amendments, the main changes to the IAODA concern increases to the minimum lump sum death benefit payable to the spouse, father, mother and child(ren) of a deceased employee.These amendments apply to deaths occurring from and after June 18, 2009.

The Act also provides that the employer must, as a general rule, pay its assessment to the Minister of Revenue in periodic instalments, based on the same terms and conditions as for payroll deductions and the other assessments employers must remit to the Minister. The payments will be calculated based on the salaries paid, no longer on the estimated salaries. This new method for the payment of assessments will come into force on January 1, 2011. The exchange of information for the purposes of assessing employer contributions between the CSST and the Ministry of Revenue is permitted as of June 10, 2009.

A determination to tackle workplace violence and harassment: Ontario workplaces have until June 15 to prepare policies, practices and programs

For a number of years Quebec employers have been required to deal with the broad prohibition against “psychological harassment” in the workplace contained in the Act Respecting Labour Standards. That law defines harassment as “any vexatious behaviour in the form of repeated and hostile or unwanted conduct, verbal comments, actions or gestures, that affects an employee’s dignity or psychological or physical integrity and that results in a harmful work environment for the employee.”

Similarly, since 2008, the federal Occupational Health and Safety Regulation - Violence Prevention, under the Canada Labour Code Part II obliges federally-regulated employers to adopt anti-violence policies. Violence for that purpose includes includes the concepts of bullying, teasing, abusive or other aggressive behaviour. Federal employers must assess the potential for workplace violence. They must then implement systematic controls to eliminate or minimize such risks.

On December 15, 2009 Bill 168, the Ontario government’s detailed proposal to amend the Ontario Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA) to require worker protection from violence and harassment, and establish new specific worker rights relating to violence, received Royal Assent. As such, Ontario workplaces will have until June 15, 2010 to ready their workplaces, policies, programs and practices to ensure compliance with these provisions. Bill 168 received robust debate, and was amended slightly before passage. These changes are discussed in a separate article (appearing below).

Technology posing new challenges for the health and safety profession

New technologies continue to impact employers’ health and safety responsibilities in 2009. For example, this year, WEHSR featured its first Legislative Summary devoted to legislation on ‘Telecommuting’.Meanwhile, articles written later in the year were devoted to the introduction of legislation to restrict the use of cellphones and other devices while driving.

It is estimated that, today, approximately 1.5 million Canadians telecommute at least one day per week. Employers should be aware that the provisions of the various OH&S and workers’ compensation acts apply to employees working from home. For example, in determining whether a telecommuting worker’s injuries are related to employment, WorkSafe BC has recently stated that it will consider the following factors:

Did the injury occur:

• in the process of doing something for the benefit of the employer?
• in the course of action taken in response to instructions from the employer?
• in the course of using equipment or materials supplied by the employer?
• in the course of receiving payment or other consideration from the employer?
• during a time period for which the employee was being paid?
• from some activity of the employer or of a fellow employee?
• while the worker was performing activities that were part of the regular job duties?

BC-based law firm Bull, Housser & Tupper LLP (BHT) cautioned in a recent issue of its Labour & Employment Newsletter (October 30, 2009) that: “employers should be aware that if an employee trips over the cat at home and is injured, that would be a compensable workplace injury for the telecommuting employee – and telecommuting employees should know that their normal right to sue, or claim on their own insurance, for compensation for injuries would be removed for a “workplace” injury suffered at home.

“While many health and safety requirements can be easily transferred to the situation of the telecommuter (e.g. reporting of workplace injuries, requirements for education and training, and the worker’s duty to follow safe work procedures) others that are more rooted in the traditional workplace, such as the use of a person check system if the employee is working alone, may have to be implemented as well.” As examples, WorkSafe BC cites “the role of the worker’s supervisor, ergonomic assessment and implementation of control measures, and how the employer will follow-up on reported incidents.”

Worksafe BC’s Working from Home guideline recommends that employers develop a comprehensive written policy outlining roles, duties, and responsibilities of parties covered by the applicable legislation. Key issues such as home office safety, eligibility for telecommuting, the right to recall employees back to the conventional workplace, and information security protections should be expressly addressed in the policy. The establishment of terms and conditions for telecommuting before it starts will help avoid problems in the future.

Ontario ban on cellphone use while driving followed by similar legislation in other provinces

Measures included in Ontario’s Bill 118, the Countering Distracted Driving and Promoting Green Transportation Act — took effect on Oct. 26, 2009. The new law makes it illegal for drivers to talk, text, type, dial, or e-mail using cellphones and prohibits the use of devices with display screens and hand-held communication and entertainment devices except when these devices are used in a manner prescribed by the legislation.

An initial three-month education period ended this month (Feb. 1, 2010) when police will begin issuing tickets to offenders.

Ontario now joins 50 countries and several other Canadian provinces (see below) who enforce rules against driving while on the phone. For example, British Columbia’s new ban on the use of hand-held cellphones while driving came into effect January 1, 2010. Changes to the province’s Motor Vehicle Act, which were introduced in Fall 2009, allow only the use of hands-free cellphones and devices that require only one touch to activate. Beginning February 1, 2010, drivers talking on a hand-held phone or electronic device will be subject to a fine. BC drivers caught texting or emailing will be subject to three penalty points. For new drivers in the Graduated Licensing Program (GLP), there will be a full ban on all cellphone and electronic devices, including hands-free.

Similarly, Prince Edward Island’s Bill 6 Highway Traffic (Cell Phone) Amendment Act, received royal assent December 9, 2009. The bill adds a new section 291.1 to the act to prohibit driving a motor vehicle on a highway while holding or using a hand-held wireless communication device or other prescribed device that is capable of receiving or transmitting telephone communications, electronic data, email, or text messages. Certain persons (i.e. ambulance drivers, fire department drivers) are exempted.

Ontario’s safety associations continue rocky road to merger

2010 delivered the first new organization in the re-organization of Ontario’s health and safety associations. Called the Infrastructure Health and Safety Association (IHSA), the new organization was officially created on January 1, 2010, from the merger of three associations: the Construction Safety Association of Ontario (CSAO); the Electrical & Utilities Safety Association of Ontario (E&USA); and the Transportation Health and Safety Association of Ontario (THSAO).

The launch of the new IHSA is part of the larger realignment of Ontario’s 12 former safe workplace associations which was first reported in WEHSR in December of 2008. The primary objective of the realignment is to increase front-line services through the re-allocation of existing resources.

The realignment will result in four newly-created health and safety groupings. In addition to the IHSA, the other three comprise:

• Workplace Safety North;
• Health and Safety Association for Government Services, and
• Safe Workplace Promotion Services Ontario (“SWPSO”),

SWPSO will merge the Industrial Accident Prevention Association (“IAPA”), with the Ontario Service Safety Alliance (“OSSA”), and Farm Safety Association (“FSA”).

TSSA reorganized following political fallout after Sunrise Propane explosion

The effectiveness of industry self-regulation was again questioned after an investigation into the Aug.10, 2008 Sunrise Propane explosion in Toronto, found that Ontario’s Technical Standards and Safety Authority (TSSA) had failed to adequately inspect and enforce requirements regarding propane storage and handling at the facility. The explosion at the plant resulted in the deaths of two people - a Sunrise Propane employee and a firefighter rescue worker. A mass evacuation involved thousands of residents of the north Toronto neighbourhood of Downsview.

Following a review of the incident, Ontario acted to tighten government control of the TSSA. To this end, Bill 187, Technical Standards and Safety Statute Law Amendment Act, 2009, received royal assent December 15, 2009. Under this legislation, the TSSA is given the status of a ‘corporation.’ As such, it will continue to be responsible for administering the TSSA 2000 Act and its regulations. However, a new section of the act will authorize the minister to issue policy directions to the organization. In addition, Section 3.11 will require the corporation to appoint a chief safety and risk officer whose job it will be to independently review TSSA’s activities related to public safety and to report, as requested, to the board or the minister.

Effective Jan 1, 2010, new propane storage regulations in Ontario require all facilities to have a functioning risk and safety management plan.

The first court appearance of Sunrise Propane Energy Group Inc. took place at the Ontario Court of Justice in Toronto, on September 3, 2009. The Ontario Ministry of Labour charged the company with:

• failing to provide information and/or instruction and/or supervision to a worker, on safe work practices and recognition of hazards associated with propane storage, dispensing and handling, and on appropriate emergency response to propane leaks: and

• failing to take the reasonable precaution of ensuring that a propane facility was installed and operated in accordance with regulatory requirements and safe industry practice.

The maximum fine for a corporation convicted of an offence under the act is $500,000 per count.

Court rules MOL seizure of privileged internal accident investigation report prejudicial to fair trial

A July 2009 decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in R. v. Bruce Power Inc., affirms that where an employer has taken the step of protecting an internal accident investigation report with solicitor-client privilege, that report should not be subject to seizure by ministry of labour inspectors. The court held that the Crown's seizure of a solicitor-client privileged accident investigation report was prejudicial to Bruce Power's right to a fair trial. As a result, all charges against the company and two of its supervisors were stayed. Key quote: " Ensuring that probing and detailed internal accident investigations remain confidential and are not used by OHS enforcers and Crown Prosecutors to advance their case, is a key element in an employer's accident response plan." - Cheryl A. Edwards, Heenan Blaikie LLP For more information: on protecting documents and reports with privilege, see page 2 of

Duties of Contractors: Just who is in charge around here?

New Ontario occupational exposure limits take effect July 1, 2010

Ontario’s Ministry of Labour announced in December 2009 that the province’s updated occupational exposure limits (OELS) for 36 hazardous chemical substances, take effect July 1, 2010. Changes to the OELs will:

• add limits for two new substances: butenes and polyvinyl chloride (PVC);
• revise limits or information listings for 23 substances; and
• withdraw exposure limits for 11 substances.

Existing limits for beryllium and sulphur dioxide will be maintained pending further consultation and review.

Ontario Regulation 491/09 Amending O. Reg. 833 Control of Exposure to Biological or Chemical Agents, pursuant to the Occupational Health and Safety Act, was published in the January 2, 2010 edition of The Ontario Gazette. Access 2008 and 2009 OEL consultation documents: http://www.labour.gov.on.ca/english/about/consultations/oels/... Access O. Reg. 491/09: http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/source/regs/english/2009/ela... Access O. Reg. 833: http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/regs/english/elaws_regs_9008...

Ontario business have until June 15 to comply with new workplace violence and harassment provisions

On December 15, 2009 Bill 168, the Ontario government’s detailed proposal to amend the Ontario Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA) to require worker protection from violence and harassment, and establish new specific worker rights relating to violence, received Royal Assent. As such, Ontario workplaces will have until June 15, 2010 to ready their workplaces, policies, programs and practices to ensure compliance with these provisions. Bill 168 received robust debate, and was amended slightly before passage. This article provides highlights of new employer obligations and worker rights as they were amended and passed into law. The amendments contain seven key areas -- mandatory new employer policies, required programs, required training, required risk assessments, worker rights, obligations to respond to domestic violence in the workplace, and employer reporting requirements -- each of which is detailed in turn below

1. Employer obligation to prepare written violence and harassment policies

Where more than five workers are regularly employed at a workplace, Ontario employers will now be required to prepare and post a workplace violence policy. The specific definition of“workplace violence” enacted after debate has been slightly amended. “Workplace violence” under the OHSA for purposes of employer obligations and exercise of worker rights means:

1. the exercise of physical force by a person against a worker, in a workplace, that causes orcould cause physical injury to the worker;
2. an attempt to exercise physical force against a worker, in a workplace, that could cause physical injury to a worker;
3. a statement or behaviour that is reasonable for a worker to interpret as a threat to exercise physical force against the worker, in a workplace, that could cause physical injury to the worker. The third prong of the definition, defining violence as statements or behaviours threatening violence, was added after committee hearings regarding Bill 168.

With the passage of Bill 168 the OHSA will also require employers to prepare and post a written policy respecting workplace harassment at every workplace where more than five workers are regularly employed. “Workplace harassment” is defined to mean “engaging in acourse of vexatious comment or conduct against a worker in a workplace that is known or ought reasonably to be known to be unwelcome.” This very broad and encompassing definition of “workplace harassment” remains unchanged from the date that Bill 168 was first introduced in April, 2009.

2. Workplace violence and workplace harassment programs

Employers are to develop and maintain programs to implement both the workplace violence policy and the workplace harassment policy. Employers need to be aware that the specific and detailed requirements to prepare violence prevention programs and workplace harassment programs differ significantly under Bill 168. Workplace violence programs require the following:

• measures and procedures to control risks identified in a violence risk assessment (discussed below);
• measures and procedures for summoning immediate assistance when workplace violence occurs or is likely to occur;
• measures and procedures for workers to report incidents of workplace violence to the employer or supervisor; and
• the means by which the employer will investigate and deal with incidents or complaints of workplace violence.

The program required to protect workers from workplace harassment may be more limited. Minimum mandatory requirements for workplace harassment programs are that the program:

• include measures and procedures for workers to report incidents of workplace harassment to the employer or supervisor; and
• set out the means by which the employer will investigate and deal with incidents and complaints of workplace harassment.

3. Risk assessments for potential workplace violence

Bill 168 requires that employers assess risks of workplace violence that may arise from the nature of the workplace, the type of work, or the conditions of work. No assessment is specifically required under the OHSA for risks of workplace harassment. The employer’s risk assessment is required to take into account:

• circumstances that would be common to similar workplaces; and
• circumstances specific to the workplace.

Once complete, the employer must advise the joint health and safety committee, health andsafety representative, or workers directly (if there is no committee or representative) of the results of the assessment and provide a copy of the assessment if in writing. Workplaces must be reassessed for risks of workplace violence as often as necessary to ensure that the policy and program continue to protect workers from workplace violence.

4. Required worker training respecting violence and harassment

The amendments require that employers train workers in the contents of workplace violence and workplace harassment policies.

The employer’s obligation to provide information and training under section 25 of the OHSA and a supervisor’s duty to advise workers of any potential hazard under section 27 OHSA will also include a new and rather controversial obligation. The amendments will require the employer and supervisor to provide information, including personal information, related to risks of workplace violence from a person with a history of violent behaviour (for example a patient, customer or another worker) if the worker can be expected to encounter that person during the course of their work, and there is a risk of violence likely to expose the worker to physical injury. Disclosure of personal information must be limited to that information reasonably necessary to protect the worker from physical injury.

5. New worker rights to refuse work for workplace violence

The amendments contained in Bill 168 clarify the right to refuse work for conditions in the workplace that constitute “workplace violence.” Historically, it has not been entirely clear that a worker may refuse work for workplace violence. The OHSA is now amended to permit a worker to refuse work if “workplace violence is likely to endanger himself or herself,” in addition to other grounds upon which a worker may refuse work. There is no amendment to the OHSA to permit a worker to refuse work where they believe that workplace harassment is likely to endanger the worker. Notably, Bill 168 changes the obligation of a worker to remain near his or her workstation until an investigation is completed. Once the amendments contained in Bill 168 take effect(six months after receiving Royal Assent), the work refusal provisions in the OHSA will require that the refusing worker remain in a safe place “that is as near as reasonably possible to his or her workstation and available to the employer or supervisor for the purposes of the investigation.” As such, this change will apply to all work refusals, not just those exercised on the new ground of workplace violence. This change was not amended from the Apri l2009, introduction of Bill 168. Bill 168 does not alter the limited right to refuse work for those employed in certain occupations such as police officers, firefighters, health care workers and workers incorrectional institutions.

6. Employer obligations to respond to domestic violence

The most novel and controversial provisions of the proposed Bill 168 amendments to theOntario OHSA are those related to domestic violence. The original proposals in the Bill 168 from April, 2009, have passed without amendment. The OHSA will now require an employer to take every precaution reasonable in the circumstances for the protection of a worker if the employer becomes aware, or ought reasonably to be aware, that domestic violence that would likely expose a worker to physical injury may occur in the workplace. Ontario will be the only jurisdiction in Canada to have OH&S provisions specifically requiring that the employer react to domestic violence. No specific reasonable precautions have been outlined. Ordinarily the obligation to take every precaution reasonable in the circumstances requires that the employer have regard to available standards, guidance from public organizations, and engage in creative solutions to protect workers from novel or complex workplace risks.

7. Reporting workplace violence to Ontario Ministry of Labour

The amendments now require that employers prepare a notice under section 52 of theOHSA in the event that a worker is disabled from their regular duties, or requires medical attention, as a result of workplace violence. These provisions are added to section 52 of the OHSA.

Source/courtesy: Labour & Employment in the News published by Heenan Blaikie LLP’s Ontario Labour & Employment Group. For more information, contact: Cheryl A. Edwards, (416)360 2897, Heenan Blaikie LLP, 333 Bay Street, Suite 2900, PO Box 2900,Toronto, ON M5H2T4; email: cedwards@heenan.ca or Jeremy Warning: 416 643.6946, jwarning@heenan.ca

Security concerns expanding the role of corporate health and safety, risk and emergency response managers

It’s been more than eight years since two hijacked planes slammed into the World Trade Center’s twin towers, but governments’ concern with security matters - triggered by 9-11, and now further prompted by the failed Christmas Day sabotage in the skies above Windsor and Detroit - shows no sign of abating. We have all got caught up in the furore and its terrifying vocabulary. But what’s less often remarked-on is the fact that nearly all of those who died in the twin towers - whether officer workers or the members of the emergency response services - were employees who either died, or were injured, on the job, in their workplace.

And, while most of us have no practical connection with the deliberations of the Integrated Threat Assessment Centre, the issuance of Security Certificates, or the compilation of the official ‘no-fly’ lists, our day-to-day business operations and the lives of our fellow workers continue to be affected by everything from changing patterns of business travel, restrictions on the use of laptops in flight to Ottawa’s complex security and protocols governing the protection of high-security industrial targets - be they chemical plants, transportation infrastructure, or nuclear installations.

To some extent, questions as to whether the legal boundaries of an employer’s duty to “take every precaution reasonable in the circumstances to ensure the health and safety of workers” extend to security concerns, continue to be a matter of legal niceties. It’s more important to get on with the job. And, in this context, it’s clear that oh&s and risk management professionals are becoming increasingly involved in assessing potential corporate security risks, both material and human.

In addition, regulations are being subtly altered to incorporate new security provisions.

For example … if your organization ships sufficient quantities of certain dangerous goods that could pose a threat, were they to fall into the hands of terrorists, you will have to undertake security training. Then you’ll have to draft and implement a security plan that shows how you plan to prevent your shipment from being stolen or otherwise unlawfully interfered with. Transport Canada’s old Emergency Response Assistance Plans are now doing double-duty in assessing security risks and planning your corporate response.

Or … if your organization manufactures, designs or handles any item on a very long list of “controlled goods” (primarily restricted military or strategic technical data or material), you’ll have to complete an up-to-date security plan and register with the Controlled Goods Directorate (CGD) of Public Works and Government Services Canada. Failure to do so could result in up to $2 million in fines and/or ten years in jail!

Or … if your organizaton does business with the federal government or one of its agencies and has contact, in even the most peripheral manner, with any of its myriad of protected / classified assets or information, you may need to undertake a facility and personnel security screening.

You’ll also likely have to complete the Treasury Board of Canada’s Security Requirements Checklist (Form # TBS/SCT 350-103). If you run into trouble, the Canadian Industrial Security Directorate can give you a hand.

While these concerns generally fall outside of the normal job description of the oh&s manager, many of the same organizational, investigative and risk assessment skills apply to both safety planning and security screening.

When the security spooks come knocking, don’t be surprised if you are assigned the job of identifying your company’s toxic security risks and crafting an effective response that minimizes the threats posed by “terrorist” sabotage or threat. Fortunately, there's a wealth of supporting material and guidance available for those who have to wrestle with their firm’s potential security problems.

Each of the agencies listed in the Legislative Summary published in WEHSR January 2010 edition operates a help line and has published compliance documents that are readily available though its website. Perhaps the most interesting is the Guide to Business Continuity Planning prepared by Public Safety Canada. http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/prg/em/gds/bcp-eng.aspx

In the event of a disaster, either natural or man-made, a company has a duty to its shareholders, customers and the general public to maintain its operations to the greatest extent possible. A business continuity plan enables critical services or products to be continually delivered to clients. That distinguishes it from a traditional disaster recovery plan, which is all about how to get a business back on line and recover any lost data after a disruption.

The Guide to Business Continuity Planning helps users set up a governance structure that will survive a disruption, undertake a business impact analysis to identify crucial assets, and implement the measures, arrangements and resources needed support business continuity. These include personnel, information and communications, equipment, financial allocations, legal counsel, infrastructure protection and accommodations. For a business continuity plan to be successful, Public Safety Canada says that:

• all types of threats must be considered
• plans must be updated and tested frequently
• dependencies and interdependencies should be carefully analyzed
• telecommunications are essential
• employee support and counseling is important

Access The Guide to Business Continuity at: http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/prg/em/gds/bcp-eng.aspx For more information, and for a table outlining federal safety and security acts and regulations, see Workplace Health & Safety Reporter January 2010 edition.

Attachments:

WEHSR 2006 archive	[View a year's worth of searchable back issues containing over 1200 links to valuable verbatim sources and occupational health & safety management resources]	1768 Kb
Workplace Environment Health and Safety Reporter - Sept 2009 - sample	[ ]	213 Kb