University of Manitoba Safety for Supervisors Companion Guide · Safety for Supervisors Companion...

University of Manitoba

Safety for Supervisors

Companion Guide


Companion Guide

Introduction

This companion guide to the Safety for Supervisors program provides the scripts used to record the

online learning modules for this program.

The companion guide also provides useful references for each module and in Appendix A provides links

to commonly quoted sources like University Policy and Procedure.

The Safety for Supervisors program is offered in several formats:

Classroom sessions

Sessions for intact work groups

Online learning

The companion guide.

Supervisors are welcome to use any one of these resources, or any combination of them, to cover the

subject matter before completing a mandatory test.

The scripts for the online learning modules are presented individually in the following pages.

If you have any questions about contents or the test please call EHSO at 474-6633.


What does it mean to be a supervisor (Module 1)

Program Intent

Welcome to the University of Manitoba’s Safety for Supervisors program. My name is John Van Delden.

I am the Director of the Environmental Health and Safety Office at the University.

The intention of this program is to make supervisors aware of their legal duties under Manitoba safety

and health legislation. These duties may not be well understood and can seem overwhelming initially.

This program will help supervisors see how they can meet these requirements in a realistic and

reasonable fashion. The program also provides an outline of how health and safety issues are dealt with

at the University.

There is a second purpose to this program. The University of Manitoba, as an employer, is required

under Manitoba’s Workplace Safety and Health Act and regulations to ensure that supervisors

understand their duties under the Act.

Given that this session is intended to demonstrate compliance to a regulatory requirement you will be

required to complete a test on its contents. You must pass the test to be credited for completion of the

course. You are free to challenge the test at any time.

Before starting into the content of the various modules I would like to say just a few words about the

approach that is being taken in these modules. This presentation will provide a broad overview of

supervisory duties in terms of safety and health. We will not be reviewing the contents of the Workplace

Safety and Health Act or the 44 parts of the Workplace Safety and Health Regulation. We will also not be

reviewing in detail University policies or procedures associated with health and safety. The intent of this

program is to provide a broad overview of mandated responsibilities and how to deal with them rather

than providing an overwhelming amount of detail.

EHSO can respond to any questions that this presentation does not answer and is available to assist you

in making informed decisions about health and safety issues. Please feel free to contact us at 474-6633

with any questions that you may have.

There is a companion document to this program posted on the EHSO website. That document provides

links to the various documents that have been referenced in this presentation. That document also

contains the script used to record this session. You may choose to simply read the information provided

in the companion document and challenge the test rather than proceeding through these online

modules.

This presentation is broken down into six separate online modules. Each module should take between

15 and 20 minutes to complete. These modules will cover the following topics:

What does it mean to be a supervisor

Other groups involved in health and safety and their roles

Legislation and penalties – some perspective

Critical processes for supervisors

Reasonable approaches to safety for supervisors

Resources for supervisors

As a final note, the term “safety” should be taken to mean “safety and health” throughout the

presentation. The “Workplace Safety and Health Act” may also be referred to as the “Act”.

Outline

Now we will start module one of Safety for Supervisors trying to answer the question what does it mean

to be a supervisor in terms of safety issues? The topics that will be covered include:

Manitoba Safety and Health legislation

Who are supervisors

What are the requirements of the legislation for supervisors

What are the requirements for the University of Manitoba

We will also discuss what standard is used to judge compliance with Manitoba safety legislation.

Finally, we will briefly discuss University policy and procedure on health and safety and how it links to

Manitoba legislation.

MB Safety and Health legislation

The first step is to discuss what safety and health legislation exists in Manitoba. In this province we are

governed by the Workplace Safety and Health Act and regulations1. They are the legal standards for

safety compliance in Manitoba and apply to all employers including the University.

Failure to comply with the requirements of the Act and regulations puts staff students and visitors at

risk, creates liability for both the organization and potentially even individuals, and can damage the

University’s reputation.

This presentation focuses on the Act and regulations because it defines the term “supervisor” and

creates legal duties for supervisors. We should not forget that there are other pieces of legislation that

also impact health and safety in workplaces.

Legislation applies to University

Most of us do not think about the University as a “workplace”. We see workplaces as factories,

construction sites, forestry operations, and mining operations. These were the environments that the

regulators were focused on when the Act and regulations were drafted. The University is a bit of a round

peg trying to fit into a square hole as a result. Unfortunately the Province does hold us accountable to

comply with the Act and regulations regardless. This often requires us to be innovative in our responses

to Provincial requirements.

The Workplace Safety and Health Act and regulations do include requirements for office, teaching and

research environments as well. For example they impact:

sites at the University that work with hazardous materials

areas where staff or students might work alone

how the University deals with workplace violence and harassment

The Act and regulations also have general requirements for all Manitoba workplaces which include

formation of safety committees, first-aid requirements, the development of safety programs, and

documented safe work procedures to mention a few.

Accountability for safety

One of the issues that the University currently faces is some lack of clarity on who is accountable for

safety and health. This is actually defined in the Workplace Safety and Health Act. Previously the Act

placed accountability for safety and health on the employer alone. In our case the employer is the

University of Manitoba. This approach created issues for regulators in actually improving health and

safety in workplaces because frontline staff were not involved in compliance efforts. In 2002 the Act was

revised to include duties for individuals called supervisors.

Who are supervisors

The question then is who are “supervisors”? Supervisors are defined in the Workplace Safety and

Health Act as “a person who has charge of a workplace or authority over a worker”2. This is a much

broader definition than most of us would normally associate with the word supervisor. Under this

definition anyone from the President of the University to a lead hand to a lab supervisor has duties

under the Act. This session is intended to help supervisors at the University understand their

responsibilities and to see realistic approaches that they can take to meet these responsibilities.

Supervisors legal duties

Let’s talk a little bit more about what the legal requirements are for supervisors in Manitoba3.

What does the Act specifically say supervisors have a responsibility for? They need to take reasonable

steps to :

Protect the safety of workers under their supervision.

Ensure that workers comply with the requirements of the Act and regulations

Ensure that workers are trained on the hazards associated with their workplace and the

precautions taken to minimize those hazards

Comply with the Act and regulations themselves

Cooperate with anyone else trying to comply with their duties under the Act and regulations, for

example, workers raising safety concerns or safety committees inspecting a workplace.

University legal duties

The University as the employer also has legal requirements under the Act4. With respect to supervisors,

the University must take reasonable steps to ensure that supervisors are competent. Competence is

based on experience training and knowledge so the expectation is that someone in a supervisory role

understands the work that they are supervising

The University also has to ensure that its supervisors are aware of their responsibilities under the Act

and regulations and that is what this session is intended to do.

Standard for compliance

Many supervisors become concerned at this point that any accident or injury in the workplace makes

them liable to regulatory actions. It is important to understand that the standard by which compliance is

judged is not perfection, or the absence of any injury or accident. The standard for judgement is

whether “reasonable steps” have been taken to minimize or eliminate workplace hazards. This is the

standard approach taken in both Federal and Provincial legislation.

Across Canada the regulatory language in safety and health legislation uses some variation of this term

“reasonable steps”. In Manitoba the phrase used is “reasonably practicable”.

From our perspective as an organization, or as individuals, we are probably more familiar with the

phrase “ due diligence”. Demonstrated due diligence is the primary defense against prosecutions for

health and safety infractions. Due diligence and reasonable steps are both based on the same concept –

just from different viewpoints. For this presentation which focuses on regulatory requirements I’ll use

these terms interchangeably.

What steps are “reasonable” seems to be very subjective and open to a wide variety of interpretations.

In Canada the Courts are determining what is reasonable. Reasonable steps include the following:

It is reasonable to obey existing laws such as the MB Workplace Safety and Health Act and

regulations. Conversely not complying with established laws is not reasonable.

It is reasonable to obey internal rules. In our case internal rules would include things like

adopted University, faculty or unit policies, procedures and any other documented practices.

The Courts frequently look for compliance to internal rules as a sign that an effective safety

program is in place.

It is reasonable to enforce rules, internal or external. It is not enough to establish internal rules if

they are not enforced. Failure to enforce internal rules is the same as having no rules at all.

It is reasonable to respond to issues that you are aware of, or should be aware of by the nature

of your training and experience. It is important to note that there is not an expectation that you

can, or will, recognize or be aware of all issues within your workplace. However where an issue

has come to your attention, either by your own recognition of it, or by someone else bringing it

to your attention, it is critical that you respond to it.

It is reasonable to have some system to manage safety, it is not enough to simply deal with

safety issues as they arise. There needs to be some approach to recognize issues, establish

priorities, and begin to make changes to minimize workplace hazards. That system has to

include a mechanism for follow-up to ensure that changes were actually effective. It is not

enough to make a change and assume that it is effective.

In many cases because our regulations are not prescriptive they provide limited direction on

how hazard needs to be dealt with. This does not mean that the hazard can be ignored. Instead

the expectation is that you would consider what others are doing to deal with similar issues, for

example looking at best practices at other universities undertaking similar work.

Finally it is reasonable that you consult others when trying to deal with an issue. There is no

expectation is that you need to become a safety and health expert on all topics that you might

face. Later in the presentation will discuss some of the resources available to you.

The important thing to remember is that the standard by which compliance is judged is not

perfection. You will never be punished for making reasonable efforts to deal with an issue even if

your efforts are not successful.

University policy and procedure

Module one ends with a brief discussion about University policy and procedure in terms of health

and safety. The University adopted a revised Health and Safety Policy5 in 2011.

A key statement in that policy is “the responsibility and accountability for health and safety shall be

an integral part of the duties of supervisory staff at all levels, including the senior executive.”

There were also a number of procedures that were revised and adopted in 2011 and 2012. These

procedures include:

Biological safety

Fire safety

Safety management

Safety committees

And several more.

The important thing about these new University policies and procedures is that they are consistent

with the requirements of Manitoba health and safety legislation. That is they also clearly assign

accountability for health and safety to the employer and supervisors. The provincial definition of

supervisors has been incorporated into University policy and procedure.

A complete list of adopted University of Manitoba health and safety policies and procedures is

provided in the companion document. The list includes links to each document. See Appendix 1 for

this list. Please use this list to refer to policy and procedures mentioned in the presentation.

This concludes module one of Safety for Supervisors. The following modules will provide some more

detail on legislated duties, put penalties into perspective and offer tools that will help supervisors

deal with their legal responsibilities.

References

Note that useful links to documents and websites regularly referenced in the companion guide, eg.

the Act and regulations, are also summarized in Appendix A.

1. Manitoba Workplace Safety and Health Act and regulations,

http://safemanitoba.com/workplace_safety_health_act_and_regulations.aspx

2. Workplace Safety and Health Act – Definitions,

http://web2.gov.mb.ca/laws/statutes/ccsm/w210e.php

3. Ibid, section 4.1 “Duties of supervisors”

4. Ibid, section 4(2)h “Further duties of employers”

5. University of Manitoba Health and Safety Policy,

http://umanitoba.ca/admin/governance/governing_documents/staff/551.html

http://safemanitoba.com/workplace_safety_health_act_and_regulations.aspx




Others involved in health and safety (Module 2)

Outline

Welcome to module two of the University of Manitoba Safety for Supervisors program. As you recall in

module one we outlined the requirements of Manitoba’s Workplace Safety and Health Act and

regulations regarding the duties of supervisors.

We also clarified the standard of compliance that supervisors could be held to, ie. not perfection but

taking reasonable steps. Taking reasonable steps is also how we demonstrate due diligence – the

primary defense against health and safety prosecutions.

Module two focuses on other groups that are involved in health and safety at the University. The

module discusses these groups and their roles in safety and health. It also dispels some misconceptions

about these groups.

The groups that we are going to talk about in this module include:

The University

the University’s Environmental Health and Safety Office or EHS0.

local area safety and health committees (LASHC), which I will refer to as safety committees

workers

students

visitors

The University

First we’ll discuss the University. The University is in fact the employer under Manitoba workplace safety

and health legislation. There has been some belief that as the employer, “the University” represented by

senior administration, is solely responsible for safety. Prior to 2002 this was how the Act read although

even at that time employers could designate responsibilities through the management chain.

The problem with the concept that the employer alone is responsible for health and safety is that it is

unrealistic to expect senior administration to deal with all aspects of safety and health in every

workplace at the University on a day-to-day basis without direct involvement of front line and

supervisory staff. In 2002 the Workplace Safety and Health Act was revised to clearly mandate the

involvement of all levels of supervisory staff and create accountability for them.

As the employer, senior administration has a responsibility to ensure that there is a system to manage

safety, that is to take reasonable steps to ensure that the health and safety of staff, students and visitors

is protected. That system would include:

Providing direction and priorities

Providing resources

Ensuring that adequate training is in place

Assessing effectiveness of programs

The framework for the University’s safety system is captured in the Safety Management Procedure

which was adopted in 2011.

EHSO misconceptions

The second group that we said we would discuss is the Environmental Health and Safety Office normally

called EHSO. There have been several misconceptions about the role of EHSO in health and safety at the

University.

The first is the assumption that EHSO is actually accountable for safety and health. These

accountabilities are assigned to the employer and supervisors under Provincial legislation and cannot be

delegated to another party. The Act and regulations establish no accountability for health and safety

units in workplaces and in fact make no mention of internal safety resources.

The second misconception is that EHSO acts as a regulator for health and safety at the University. EHSO

has no authority to direct faculties and units at the University to take actions. EHSO is not staffed to

allow ongoing safety supervision of all University workplaces and does not have funding available to

correct identified safety and health issues.

EHSO role

As noted earlier the role of EHSO is not defined in legislation. EHSO has been assigned two roles at the

University that are captured in the adopted University procedure “Health and Safety: Role of EHSO”.

The link to this University procedure is provided in the companion document.

The first role of EHSO is to provide technical support or technical expertise to University staff to assist

them in making good decisions about the health and safety issues that they need to deal with.

The second role is a reporting role to senior administration. In that role EHSO is required to bring

forward unresolved issues that require the attention and decisions by senior administration. The second

part of the reporting role is to provide senior administration with metrics that allow them to determine

whether programs are effective and that their objectives are being met.

Safety committees misconceptions

The next group that we should discuss is safety and health committees. Here at the University they are

referred to as local area safety and health committees or LASHC. For this presentation we’ll simply refer

to them as “safety committees”.

There have been some misconceptions at the University about the role of safety committees.

The first is that safety committees are accountable for safety. Again accountability for health and safety

clearly falls to the employer and supervisors. This is a legislated accountability and cannot be delegated.

Another misconception about safety committees is that they are a voluntary group, usually composed of

technical experts from each department within a faculty or unit. I’ll refer to these groups as technical

committees to distinguish them from safety committees. Safety committees are legal requirement of

Manitoba Safety and Health legislation for all Manitoba workplaces.

The Province of Manitoba does not accept technical committees as safety committees. This does not

mean that faculties and units should disband any technical committees that may look at safety issues.

They fill a void created by the Province’s prescriptive requirements on the composition of safety

committees by specifically involving individuals with technical expertise to help address safety issues,

eg., laser safety.

Safety committees background

Now a bit of background on safety committees. In Manitoba legislation concerning safety committees1

is very prescriptive in terms of:

The composition of the committee (1/2 must be workers),

The size of the committee (4 -12 members),

How committee members will be selected (worker members must be appointed by their

bargaining units),

What activities a committee will undertake and

How the committee will do its reporting.

In 2010 the University began revising its safety committee system to become more consistent with

provincial expectations. A Safety Committee Procedure was adopted in December of 2010. Due to the

complexity of the University we were not able to comply with the regulations as written – we would

have had over 100 safety committees. We established an equivalent system that based requirements for

establishing safety committees on the level and type of risk associated with workplaces rather than their

physical location. The responsibility for determining where safety committees were required a fell to

senior administration. Currently the University has 20 safety committees either meeting in being

implemented.

Safety committees mandated role

The Province of Manitoba had three goals in mind when they established the requirement for safety

committees.

The first role is to provide workers with a voice in instances where a worker feels that their supervisor

has not dealt with a safety concern that has been brought forward. In this instance the worker can

approach any safety committee member and ask that their unresolved concern be raised at the safety

committee. The Province requires that the safety committee include representation from all bargaining

units in that particular workplace so that any worker will be able to approach a committee member who

was also a member of their own bargaining unit.

The second role of safety committees is to help the employer be aware of safety issues that may exist in

a workplace. The safety committee has the right to offer recommendations to the employer on whether

an issue requires action and what actions might be taken. The committee has no authority to direct

workplace activities.

The final role of safety committees is to participate in inspection of the workplace, investigation of

serious incidents, and situations where there has been a right to refuse dangerous work. We will be

discussing serious incidents and right to refuse in more detail in module four.

Workers

Manitoba’s workplace safety and health legislation also places duties on workers in terms of health and

safety. One of those worker duties is to take reasonable care to protect their own safety and the safety

of others who may be affected by their actions.

Workers are expected to cooperate with their supervisor and the employer to comply with the

requirements of the Workplace Safety and Health Act. For example if the supervisor has established a

safe work procedure it is the employee’s duty to follow that procedure. Similarly where the employer

prescribes the use of some sort of protective equipment it is the workers responsibility to use that

equipment. A worker who chooses not to comply with workplace safety and health requirements can be

held accountable by the Province.

The University’s adopted procedure on worker responsibilities also creates an expectation that workers

will report all accidents and injuries as well as reporting any suspected unsafe conditions that they are

aware of to their direct supervisors.

As a note virtually every supervisor reports to someone and is in fact also a worker under the Act. Can

you choose which duties – worker or supervisor - that you will comply with? The Act says that persons

with multiple functions, eg. supervisor and worker, must satisfy their duties for each function.

Students are they workers?

Many of you have students in your workplaces, or encounter them in the course of your work. So far we

have discussed workers and workplaces and we need to clarify where students fit. In general Manitoba

legislation does not consider students to be workers – the exception is students participating in trades

apprenticeships.

At the University students may also have multiple functions, eg. a student hired to act as a Teaching

Assistant is a worker while performing those duties but is considered a student when attending classes.

Manitoba legislation does place a responsibility on the employer to take reasonable steps to protect the

health and safety of persons who are in their workplace for reasons other than employment, eg.

students, visitors and contractors. Basically this means that we have to consider students when we are

looking at safety and health issues like working alone.

Student duties

Since the provincial regulations do not address students directly the University has adopted a procedure

that discusses student responsibilities with respect to health and safety. Much like workers, students are

also expected to:

take reasonable care for their own safety and the safety of others around them

comply with directions, so for example laboratory procedures will be followed.

report any hazards that they become aware of, and report injuries.

Where students have safety concerns they need to talk with either their instructor or their supervisor.

Visitors

Another group that we need to consider are people who visit our campus. These may be vendor

representatives, friends and family of students, individuals attending events, and contractor employees.

As with students, the University has an obligation to ensure that the conditions in our workplace do not

place these individuals at risk.

Some of these visitors are workers, eg. contractor employees. Their direct employer remains responsible

for their health and safety. The University’s role is to ensure that they are not put at risk by the nature of

our activities. For example, it is our responsibility to ensure that a laboratory is safe for a electrical

contractor’s employee to enter. It is not our responsibility to ensure that the contractor’s worker

follows safe work procedures as he/she rewires an electrical panel.

Visitors can also be other University staff entering a workplace that they are not familiar with, eg

maintenance staff entering a laboratory. Again the responsibility of the supervisor of that laboratory is

to ensure that the activities, or materials present, in the laboratory do not put the visitor at risk. This is

the basis for the University’s Laboratory Hazard Clearance process.

As much as possible the University wants visitors to take reasonable care, comply with University

directions and report hazards.

Summary

That concludes module two of the University’s Safety for Supervisors program. The module summarized

the roles of other groups in health and safety and tried to dispel some misconceptions about those

groups.

The next module tries to provide some perspective on penalties associated with contravention of the

Workplace Safety and Health Act and regulations as well as Canada’s Criminal Code.

References

Note that useful links to documents and websites regularly referenced in the companion guide, eg. the

Act and regulations, are also summarized in Appendix A.

1. Safety committee requirements appear in two places:

a. The Workplace Safety and Health Act, sections 40, 41 and 44,


b. The Workplace Safety and Health Regulation, Part 3, “Workplace safety and health

committees and representatives”,

http://safemanitoba.com/wsh-regulations#overlay-context=wsh-act

2. Workplace Safety and Health Act, section 5, “Duties of workers”,


3. University of Manitoba “Health and Safety Procedure: Employees”,


4. Workplace Safety and Health Act, sections 7.6 – 7.7, “Persons with multiple functions”,


5. Ibid, section 4(2)d, “Further duties of employer”

6. University of Manitoba “Health and Safety Procedure: Students”,


7. University of Manitoba “Health and Safety Procedure: Visitors”,










Legislation and penalties – some perspective (Module 3)

Outline

Welcome to module three of the University of Manitoba’s Safety for Supervisor program.

The first two modules of the program discussed regulatory requirements for supervisors and also tried

to clarify the roles of other groups that are involved in safety and health at the University.

Module 3 provides some perspective on the legislated duties of supervisors. Many supervisors are

concerned that these duties create liability for them as individuals. These concerns have been fueled by

the 2004 revisions to Canada’s Criminal Code making it a criminal offence to injure or kill someone as a

result of a workplace activity due to negligence. They have also been fueled to some extent by various

groups overstating the application of the Criminal Code amendments and provincial penalties.

As was discussed in module one it is important to remember that the standard for compliance to either

federal or provincial legislation is not perfection, ie. the absence of any injury or workplace death. The

standard for compliance is the ability to demonstrate that reasonable steps were taken to minimize the

risk associated with a health and safety issue. There is no expectation that all hazards can be recognized

and eliminated. There is an expectation that recognized hazards are dealt with.

This module will cover the following topics:

The Criminal Code of Canada

The distinction between the Criminal Code and Manitoba health and safety legislation

The remainder of the module will focus on enforcement aspects of Manitoba legislation

including:

Manitoba safety and health officers

Provincial orders

Provincial penalties

The real goal of this module is to take away some of the fear that an overemphasis on regulatory

penalties has created for supervisors. Ironically fear of prosecution has lead some employers and

supervisors to take steps that actually create more risk of prosecution, eg. attempting to isolate

themselves from involvement in health and safety issues.

Criminal Code 217.1

The first thing that we will talk about is the Criminal Code of Canada. In 1992, 26 workers died in the

Westray mine disaster when the employer made deliberate choices to ignore safety issues because

dealing with them would affect profits. Manslaughter charges were laid but were not successfully

prosecuted. Public outrage lead to amendments to the Criminal Code which came into effect in 2004.

These amendments can be applied to individuals as well as organizations. For this presentation I’ll focus

on the amendments as they apply to individuals, eg. supervisors.

The Criminal Code of Canada created the following duty for persons directing work1 (s. 217.1)

“everyone who undertakes, or has the authority, to direct how another person does work or

performs a task is under a legal duty to take reasonable steps to prevent bodily harm to that

person, or any other person arising from that work or task.”

Note that the wording does not restrict the duty to only workers. It includes others in your workplace or

even passers-by.

Failure to meet this duty in a way that demonstrates “wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety

of others” is called “criminal negligence”2. Criminal negligence causing death can result in imprisonment

for life3. Criminal negligence resulting in injury can result in a sentence up to 10 years4.

This has created concerns for many supervisors.

Criminal Code conviction

You’ll notice that the words “reasonable steps” are incorporated into the Criminal Code. The fact that an

injury or death occurs does not automatically create a liability in terms of criminal charges. For

conviction the Criminal Code requires that there must have been a demonstrated “wanton or reckless

disregard for human life”. In a workplace that would mean that you would have to be aware of the risk

that some activity created, understand the consequences to the worker, ie. injury or death, and still

choose to proceed without taking any steps to minimize the hazard. We’ll refer to this as negligence for

this presentation.

While provisions have existed for fines and imprisonment since 2004 for organizations and individuals,

the reality is that only one individual and two organizations in Canada have been convicted, or plead

guilty, under the Criminal Code amendments.

The single individual who was convicted under the Criminal Code received a 2 year sentence to be

served in the community. The conviction was based on his failure, over a period of years, to maintain, in

any way, the brakes on a piece of heavy equipment that he operated regularly at jobsites, and on public

roads, as a part of his landscaping business. Eventually the brakes failed to stop the piece of equipment

and a worker was crushed between the equipment and a wall. The worker died as a result of his injuries.

Supervisors need to be aware that Canada’s Criminal Code can apply to a injury or death as a result of a

workplace activity. Demonstrating due diligence is the best defense against any possible charges under

the Criminal Code amendments.

Distinction Criminal Code and MB Act & regulations

We need to compare the Criminal Code which is federal legislation with Manitoba’s Workplace Safety

and Health Act or provincial legislation. These two sets of legislation work in very different ways and

with very different intention.

The goal of the Criminal Code is deterrence and punishment. For there to be a penalty there needs to be

both injury or death, in a workplace and demonstrated negligence.

The primary goal of the MB Act and regulations is not deterrence or punishment. The primary goal of

Provincial legislation is to minimize injury in Manitoba workplaces. Provincial legislation allows an

employer or supervisor the opportunity to correct non-compliant issues rather than laying charges. For

there to be penalties under Manitoba legislation either:

an employer or supervisor needs to continue to be non-compliant even after being notified of a

Provincial concern or,

A Provincial inspection or the investigation of an accident, or injury, reveals a seriously flawed or

absent safety program. Provincial legislation does not require negligence to be proven for

successful prosecution but the cases chosen for prosecution often involve some element of

negligence.

Unfortunately the Province has a small regulatory group compared to the number of workplaces in the

Province. This means that compliance assessments often only occur on a priority basis, or after a

workplace accident or injury. It is important to understand that a lack of regulatory presence, or the

absence of orders, is not an indication of a compliant safety program.

Performance based

Our Provincial safety and health legislation is performance-based, in general, although some parts have

become very prescriptive. Performance-based legislation sets a goal and some minimum requirements

for compliance but does not provide specific details on how to comply. For example, the sections of the

Workplace Safety and Health Regulations dealing with musculoskeletal injuries, working alone, and

harassment are each only 1 ½ pages long5.

Most safety and health prosecutions in Manitoba are actually based on a general duty clause which

requires employers and supervisors to take reasonable steps to protect the health and safety of

workers.

Here is the actual wording of the general duty clause as it applies to supervisors6:

“Every supervisor shall so far as is reasonably practicable take all precautions necessary to

protect the safety and health of a worker under his or her supervision"

There is similar wording used to establish the more general duties of employers7. You’ll notice that this

wording is not very different wording that the Criminal Code uses.

This performance-based approach gives employers, and supervisors, the opportunity to explore ways to

meet these goals that can work in their workplaces. Even where legislation is very prescriptive we can

sometimes use alternate methods, provided we can make a convincing argument that the alternate

provides the equivalent level, or better, of protection to workers.

Enforcement

We now have an understanding about the intention of the Workplace Safety and Health Act and

regulations. The next point to consider is how the Province enforces this legislation. The Province has

established a Workplace Safety and Health Division to act as the regulatory body for compliance. Within

the Division the legislation creates a position titled Safety and Health Officer.

Safety and Health Officers are regulatory positions and distinct from safety and health resources within

an organization. As mentioned in module two the University’s safety resource, EHSO, does not duplicate

the role of Provincial Officers.

Provincial Safety and Health Officers have very wide-ranging powers8 in terms of entry into workplaces,

access to any records that they deem necessary, the ability to inspect a workplace or investigate a

workplace concern or incident, and the ability to interview anyone that they feel they need to interview

as part of an investigation or inspection. In extreme cases Provincial Officers can even deny an employer

access to their own workplace.

Note that Provincial Officers investigate accidents or injuries to determine if there has been a

contravention of the Act and regulations. The Police may also investigate to determine if there is any

basis for criminal charges. Provincial Officers has no authority to lay criminal charges.

Where a Provincial Safety and Health Officer has attended a workplace there are several steps that

he/she can take. The first is to generate a report that summarizes why the officer attended the site and

any observations. The report does not obligate the employer, or the supervisor, to take any particular

steps but may offer suggestions that need to be considered carefully.

Where a Provincial Officer believes that there is a contravention of the Act and regulations, they can

issue orders. Orders should be considered as a warning of a suspected contravention. There are no

summary fines associated with the issuance of an order. Where orders are issued the employer, or

supervisor, is given a timeframe to indicate what corrective actions will be taken. If an employer

believes that an order is not justified there is a mechanism to appeal the order. Please note that actions

to deal with a cited item must occur even if the order is being appealed.

Provincial orders

Provincial orders will generally be issued to the supervisor directly responsible for the workplace where

the suspected contravention took place.

Provincial Safety and Health Officers can issue two types of orders:

The first is called an improvement order9. The improvement order identifies the suspected

contravention, or contraventions, and includes a timeline for either correction, or response to

the order. Improvement orders can addresses multiple items within a single order.

The second type of order is more serious and is called a stop work order10. Stop work orders are

only issued where a Provincial Safety and Health Officer believes that there is imminent risk for

serious injury or death as a result of some task or activity. Like the improvement order the stop

work order must identify what part of the Act or regulations has been contravened and identify

a timeline for response.

As the name suggests work must stop in the area affected by the stop work order. The Provincial

Safety and Health Officer can require the area of concern to be vacated until the situation is

resolved. The stop work order will only be lifted when the Provincial Safety and Health Officer is

satisfied the situation has been corrected, or the stop work order has been successfully

appealed.

Provincial penalties

Manitoba’s Workplace Safety and Health Act and regulations do have provisions for penalties for

contraventions. There are two types:

Administrative penalties.

Penalties for offences

Administrative penalties are leveled when a compliance deadline has passed with no actions taken or

there has been no response to Provincial orders11. Where the Workplace Safety and Health Division

believes that there is continued noncompliance to an order they will notify the employer of their

concern and provide a short period for a response. Failing any response they can levy a fine of $5000 per

item that has not been addressed. There should be no good reason for any employer to receive

administrative penalties.

The second reason that penalties can be levied under Manitoba legislation results from “offenses”12.

Offenses are generally serious contraventions of the Workplace Safety and Health Act and usually

involve badly flawed or absent safety programs. In these cases there is a provision for fines up to one

quarter of a million dollars per count to an organization or an individual. Repeat offences allow fines to

be doubled.

There are also additional penalties13 for individuals who contravene legislated requirements, these can

include supervisors, workers and others with legislated duties. These provisions allow individuals to be:

imprisoned for up to six months with no criminal record

removed from a supervisory role for up to 6 months.

I am not aware of any recent instance where either of these provisions has been applied in Manitoba.

Perspective on Provincial penalties

To put Provincial penalties into perspective it’s important to remember that the Province’s desire is not

to punish, their desire is to improve health and safety in Manitoba workplaces.

The Province posts successful prosecution of offences on its website14. Between 2007 and 2011,

according to that website, Manitoba averaged 16,000 injuries per year that were serious enough that

time from work was lost, and averaged 22 fatalities per year15. Those incidents resulted in an average of

eight successful prosecutions per year. Fatalities averaged 1 prosecution per year. All were focused on

organizations rather than individuals. There have been prosecutions of individuals, both workers and

supervisors, but these occurred prior to 2007.

This information is not presented to suggest that there is no need to be concerned about workplace

safety and health requirements. Workplace accidents, injuries and fatalities have serious impacts other

than regulatory compliance on individuals, family members and the individual who may be, or feel,

responsible. These incidents can also affect the University’s reputation and create other liabilities.

The information is presented to give some perspective on the risk of prosecution that a supervisor faces

as a result of regulatory requirements. Taking reasonable steps, or demonstrating due diligence, ensures

that prosecution either federally or provincially will not occur. Choosing not to address health and safety

duties begins to create risk of prosecution.

There are virtually no workplaces where reasonable steps have been taken to deal with all aspects of

health and safety. It is entirely acceptable to be working toward compliance. Generally regulators are

looking to see that a plan is in place to move towards this goal and that there is demonstrated progress.

Module 5 discusses a way to establish goals and plan that can be defended as reasonable to regulators.

Summary

This concludes module 3 of the University’s Safety for Supervisors program. The module summarized

regulatory penalties that could be associated with workplace accidents. It also tried to provide some

perspective on how these penalties have been applied. Making efforts to demonstrate due diligence

minimize the chances that any supervisor would face penalties and provide a sound defense should a

supervisor be charged.

The next module will summarize critical regulatory requirements that all supervisors need to be aware

of.

References



1. Criminal Code of Canada, section 217.1, “Duty of persons directing work”,

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/PDF/C-46.pdf

2. Ibid, section 219, “Criminal negligence”

3. Ibid, section 220, “Causing death due to negligence”

4. Ibid, section 221, “Causing bodily harm by criminal negligence”

5. Workplace Safety and Health Regulation, Part 8 “Musculoskeletal injuries”; Part 9 “Working alone or

in isolation”; Part 10 “Harassment”,


6. Workplace Safety and Health Act, section 4.1(a)(i), “Duties of supervisors”,


7. Ibid, section 4(1), “General duties of employers”

8. Ibid, section 24(1), “Powers of safety and health officers”

9. Ibid, section 26, “Improvement orders”

10. Ibid, section 36, “Stop work order”

11. Ibid, section 53, “Administrative penalties”

12. Ibid, section 54, “Offences”

13. Ibid, section 55(3) – 55(4), “Penalties”

14. Workplace Safety and Health Division, Manitoba Family Services and Labour, “Enforcement”,

http://safemanitoba.com/enforcement ,

15. “SAFE Manitoba Injury Statistics: 2000-2011”, http://safemanitoba.com/stats-2011 ,

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/PDF/C-46.pdf



http://safemanitoba.com/enforcement

http://safemanitoba.com/stats-2011


Critical processes for supervisors (Module 4)

Outline

Welcome to module four of the University of Manitoba Safety for Supervisors program.

In the first three modules we covered:

Legislated roles and responsibilities of supervisors

Due diligence or “reasonable steps”

The roles and responsibilities of others who might be involved in safety and health issues

Perspectives on penalties associated with workplace accidents, injuries and fatalities.

Module four focuses on critical processes in the regulations that supervisors need to be aware of. The

topics covered are going to be split into two parts. The first part is primarily aimed at those individuals in

frontline supervisory positions, although all supervisors need to be aware of these processes.

In the first part we will be discussing:

Worker rights

Responding to worker’s concerns

The requirements for inspection of workplaces

Requirements to ensure training is provided

What to do in the event of an accident and injury

What steps you need to take should there be a right to refuse.

The module will end with an outline of two critical requirements that will affect all supervisors. These

are:

Response to safety committee recommendations

Requirements for a safety management program

A recurring requirement throughout this module is the need to document actions that you have taken.

Undocumented activities do not demonstrate due diligence. So for example if training is offered to a

new employee on a safe work procedure but is not documented and an accident occurs, a Provincial

Safety and Health Officer, or the courts, would treat it as if the training had not taken place.

Worker rights

The first item for discussion is worker rights provided under Manitoba health and safety legislation.

Manitoba workers are given four rights1:

Workers have a right to know about the hazards associated with their workplace and also the

precautions taken to minimize those hazards

Workers have a right to participate in health and safety activities. That means workers are

assured that they can raise health and safety concerns or participate on health and safety

committees in their workplace.

Workers have also been given the right to refuse dangerous work. We’ll be discussing this in

more detail a little later in the presentation.

Finally workers have a right to not be discriminated against as a result of being active on health

and safety issues, eg. exercising the right to refuse, or raising health and safety concerns.

Responding to worker concerns

It is important that supervisors respond to health and safety concerns raised by workers or others in the

workplace. It is the expectation of both the Province, and the University2, that workers first bring

concerns to their direct supervisor rather than taking them to a safety committee, EHSO, or other

groups like the Workplace Safety and Health Division.

The supervisor who is informed of a safety and health concern must respond to that concern in a timely

fashion. Timely of course will be determined by the seriousness of the situation.

There is a misconception that supervisors are left completely to their own resources to try to resolve

health and safety concerns. Supervisors always have the opportunity to access a variety of resources

before responding to an issue. Those resources might include other workers, peers and supervisors,

safety committees, technical committees or technical resources, like EHSO, or in some cases external

resources. By consulting with others the supervisor demonstrates due diligence and can make an

informed decision regarding the issue that can be supported if questioned.

Once the supervisor has determined a course of action it is important that the worker be notified of the

supervisor’s response. It is very desirable that the response be documented.

Workplace Inspection

Manitoba’s workplace safety and health legislation also has requirements for the regular inspection of

workplaces3. At the University there are several groups that inspect workplaces for a variety of reasons

including safety committees as mentioned in module 2.

Adopted University procedure also places a duty on supervisors to regularly inspect their workplaces.

These inspections need not be formalized, or extremely technical in nature, but can be a part of the

normal activities that take you into a workplace. For example you might look at housekeeping, or the

use of personal protective equipment, or whether safe work procedures are being followed, as you

travel through the workplace that you are responsible for. You could also choose a particular item for an

inspection, eg. are first aid kits complete. EHSO can assist supervisors in selecting appropriate items for

workplace inspection.

It is critical though that as a supervisor you act on items that you notice during your inspection. It is

particularly valuable to document the fact that you did inspect the workplace whether it resulted in any

corrections or not. That documentation could be as simple as a note in your journal or a note in your

calendar. These types of notes demonstrate that you did inspect the workplace on a regular basis.

Training

Supervisors also have a role in ensuring that workers under their supervision have received appropriate

training in terms of the health and safety hazards that they may face4,5. That training can deal with

specific issues, or procedures, related to the workplace, eg., safe work procedures. This type of training

does not necessarily have to occur in formal training environment. For example, some portion of a staff

meeting could be devoted to a safety issue. In some workplaces there is a regular presentation on a

short safety topic. These are often only 10 to 15 minutes in length. Topics focus on specific items like a

safe work procedure, or could discuss new pieces of equipment and safety measures associated with

their use.

Workers may also require training that is beyond the supervisors ability to provide, eg. general safety

orientation, or first aid training. It is the supervisor’s responsibility to ensure that workers attend this

type of training when required.

Accidents and injuries

Provincial legislation requires that the University have a system to investigate accidents and injuries that

occur in workplaces under their control6. Adopted University procedure places this duty on the

supervisor7 directly responsible for the workplace where the incident occurred. Details of accident and

injury investigation and templates for investigation appear on the EHSO website. The link to that page is

in the companion document to this presentation. EHSO staff are also available to assist you with

investigations.

The investigation should result in a report on the accident. That report needs to identify causes for the

accident and identify what measures, if any, are being taken to prevent similar occurrences. These

reports do not need to be extensive documents, in some cases they can be quite brief. What is

important is that the investigation was completed and that the results are documented.

Accidents and injuries also require follow-up to ensure that any corrective actions identified have been

taken or that alternate actions have been identified.

Serious incidents defined

In terms of workplace accidents and injuries Manitoba legislation creates a special category of accident

called a “serious incident”. Serious incidents are workplace accidents that involve7:

Worker fatalities,

Injuries to workers requiring emergency medical treatment, eg. broken bones, amputations,

cuts requiring stitches, and burns.

The failure of a structure

Explosions

Fire or flood involving worker injury and

Uncontrolled spills of hazardous materials.

Required steps in the event of a serious incident

In the event of a serious incident Manitoba legislation is very prescriptive about the actions must be

taken. Three actions are required in the Workplace safety and Health Regulation in the event of a

serious incident8:

1. Notify Manitoba’s Workplace Safety and Health Division of the serious incident by the fastest

means possible. During normal work hours EHSO can assist with notifications. After hours please

call the Division directly at 204-945-0581.

The Workplace Safety and Health Regulation is quite specific about the injuries that need to be

reported as a serious incident. In some cases you will not know whether an injury meets the

reporting requirements at the time of the incident, eg. is a bone actually broken or are the burns

third degree. Waiting to confirm the seriousness of an injury before reporting it puts the

University at risk for failure to report and failure to preserve the scene.

In general it makes sense that any injury that requires emergency medical treatment, other than

first-aid alone, be treated as a serious incident. This will result in some over-reporting to the

Province but puts the onus on the Province to determine whether they consider it to be a

serious incident or not.

2. Preserve the scene of the serious incident. This is counter-intuitive for most of us involved in a

serious incident. Experience shows that once the injured person has been removed we all have a

tendency to try and clean the site up and put it back to normal. The Province requires that the

scene must be left as it was at the time of the accident with exceptions for rescue and

stabilization. The scene must be preserved until released by a Provincial Safety and Health

Officer. Provincial Safety and Health Officers will determine whether they want to investigate

the serious incident or whether it will be left to the employer. If left to the employer the

Provincial Officer will often require that an investigation report prepared and signed by the

safety committee co-chairs be submitted to the Officer.

3. Notify the safety committee co-chairs so that they can conduct an investigation. Investigation by

safety committee co-chairs is a requirement of Manitoba safety and health legislation.

After a serious incident occurs supervisors should try to keep witnesses nearby. Several groups will want

to interview witnesses including safety committee co-chairs, Provincial Officers and possibly local Police

in the event of a fatality.

Although the safety committee co-chairs are required to investigate a serious incident the supervisor

should also investigate the incident. There is nothing that stops the supervisor and the safety committee

co-chairs from conducting a joint investigation.

Right to refuse

On occasion supervisors will be faced with a worker exercising the right to refuse dangerous work9. As

mentioned earlier Manitoba legislation gives workers this right. Dangerous work generally involves some

task or activity that the worker has reasonable grounds to believe creates immediate risk of serious

injury or death to the worker or others in the workplace.

Right to refuse – required steps

In the event that a worker chooses to exercise their right to refuse dangerous work, the legislation is

very prescriptive about the steps that must be taken. Those steps are as follows:

The worker must first notify the employer. The wording in Workplace Safety and Health Act

identifies “the employer” rather than the supervisor. In most cases the worker would likely

notify their direct supervisor.

Once notified the supervisor has several options:

The first option is to immediately correct the situation. So for example, if a worker believes an

extension ladder is unsafe the supervisor may inspect the ladder, agree with the worker and

replace the ladder with one that is appropriate. As always, supervisors faced with a right to

refuse are allowed to use any resource that they need to assess the issue and come to a

decision.

If the supervisor is not convinced that the situation poses imminent risk the legislation requires

that the supervisor inspect the item, or activity, with the worker and the worker co-chair of the

safety committee. This inspection may result in the supervisor, or the employer, agreeing to

take steps to minimize the hazard.

If the situation is still unresolved ie., there is no agreement between the supervisor, the worker

and the worker co-chair of the safety committee, a Provincial Safety and Health Officer must be

notified. The Provincial Safety and Health Officer will attend the site, assess the situation and

make a determination on whether the right to refuse will be supported not.

Legislation does allow the task believed to be dangerous by one worker to be assigned to another

worker. This can only happen if the second worker has been informed by the worker refusing, or the

Provincial Safety and Health Officer, of the refusal and the reasons for it.

Details on the right to refuse are captured in the University’s adopted procedure on raising safety

concerns. A link to this procedure is attached in the companion document.

Processes for all supervisors – safety committees

There are some additional processes that affect both frontline supervisors and upper-level managers.

The two that we’ll focus on are:

Responses to safety committee recommendations

Requirements for safety programs

As we discussed earlier, the University is obliged to establish safety committees by Provincial legislation.

Those committees can make recommendations related to identified, or potential, workplace safety and

health issues. The safety committee does not have the authority to direct the actions of the employer

but can only make recommendations. The Province requires that the employer must respond to safety

committee recommendations within 30 days.

At the University safety committee recommendations would generally not be sent to senior

administration for a decision and response. Once a recommendation has been made an individual

tasked with procedural oversight of the particular safety committee would direct the recommendation

to the supervisor within a unit or faculty with the ability to make a decision and respond. For example a

committee recommendation with budget and planning implications would not be directed to a frontline

supervisor.

Legislation gives supervisors, or the employer, 30 days to respond to recommendations from a safety

committee10. There are basically three options for the response:

1. The first and most obvious is to adopt the safety committee’s recommendations and implement

them.

2. In some cases those recommendations may require more than 30 days to implement, eg. where

funding has to be acquired, contracts need to be established, or some sort of renovation work

has to occur. In those cases the response to the committee will present the plan to deal with the

issue and the anticipated timeline for completion. That plan might also detail interim steps that

will be taken while the longer-term solution is implemented.

3. The final option for the employer, or supervisor, is to reject the committee recommendation.

There is no requirement that an employer must accept and implement safety committee

recommendations. Legislation does require however that when you do not accept the

recommendations of the safety committee you must provide a written response indicating the

reasons for not adopting the recommendation. The response can dispute that the identified

hazard exists, detail existing procedures that already deal with the hazard or can discuss

alternate means of achieving the same end.

All supervisors - Safety Programs

The final section in this module discusses the Provincial requirement to establish written safety

programs for workplaces with over 20 workers11. At the University this would mean that hundreds of

written safety programs would be required. As with safety committees, a more realistic approach would

be to establish written safety programs by faculty or unit. This is similar to the approach taken with

safety committees which proved acceptable to the Province.

The Workplace Safety and Health Act lists 11 elements as required content of a safety program. Many of

these elements are covered by existing University policy and procedures. These include the

requirements for:

1. An employer’s safety policy. The University’s Health and Safety Policy satisfies this requirement

2. A system to respond to emergencies. The University has an adopted Emergency Response Plan.

3. Statements of responsibility of the employer, supervisors and workers. These statements appear

in the University’s Safety Management Procedure and the Procedures for Employees.

4. Regular inspection of the workplace. This requirement is captured in several procedures

including the Safety Management Procedure and the Safety Committee Procedure.

5. Contractor selection and monitoring. This requirement applies to a very limited number of units

at the University and is currently being reviewed.

6. Procedures for investigating accidents, injuries and work refusals. The University uses the

Provincial template for accident investigation and adopts the requirements of the Act regarding

right to refuse in the Response to Health and Safety Concerns Procedure.

7. A procedure for worker participation in safety activities. The University’s Safety Committee

Procedure meets this requirement.

Other required elements of safety programs are to some extent workplace specific and may not apply to

all workplaces. They refer both to a system to ensure that the identified items are dealt with as well as a

requirement to respond to individual hazards in specific workplaces. They include:

1. Identification of physical hazards and measures to minimize them.

2. Plans for control of biological and chemical substances

3. Plans for training workers

4. Procedures for reviewing safety programs every 3 years

These requirements may seem overwhelming. It is important to understand that the regulatory

expectation is that there is a system to deal with these requirements and that progress is being made.

The next module discusses a risk-based approach that will assist individual workplaces in establishing

priorities and responding to them. Using the approach will demonstrate due diligence.

The University has also adopted procedures to support safety programs12 that call on all supervisors to:

Ensure that resources are allocated to allow a safety program to succeed, eg. allowing staff time

for training or development of safe work procedures.

Monitor performance of a safety program. This does not need to be a difficult process and can

target priority items, eg. have all new staff received orientation in a given year. A positive

response demonstrates that you are actively managing safety and acts as documentation of the

fact. A negative response allows you to establish a justifiable safety priority.

Hold staff accountable for safety performance whether it is a worker or a supervisor. Ignoring

poor performance should not be an option for any supervisor who wants to demonstrate due

diligence.

Supervisors are expected to cooperate in reporting identified safety metrics to senior

administration to allow them to assess program effectiveness and manage safety.

Summary

That completes Module 4 which summarized legislated safety and health requirements that all

supervisors need to be aware of.

The next module will outline reasonable approaches that supervisors can use to deal with the duties

imposed by Manitoba’s Workplace Safety and Health Act and regulations.

References



1. Manitoba Workplace Safety and Health Division “Rights and Responsibilities”,

http://safemanitoba.com/sites/default/files/resources/rights_work_rights_responsibilities.pdf

2. University of Manitoba Procedure “Response to Health and Safety Concerns”,

http://umanitoba.ca/admin/governance/governing_documents/operations/552.html

3. Workplace Safety and Health Act, section 7.4(5)(h) “Content of a program”,


4. Ibid, section 4(2)(b) “Further duties of employer”

5. University of Manitoba Safety Management Procedure, section 2.1.3 a)ii ”The Supervisor”,


6. Workplace Safety and Health Act, section 7.4(5)(e) “Content of a program”,


7. Workplace Safety and Health Regulation, Part 2.6 “Definition of a serious incident”,


8. Ibid, Part 2.7 – 2.9 covering response to serious incidents.

9. Workplace Safety and Health Act, section 43 ”Right to refuse dangerous work”,


10. Ibid, section 41.1 covering employer response to safety committee recommendations

http://safemanitoba.com/sites/default/files/resources/rights_work_rights_responsibilities.pdf

http://umanitoba.ca/admin/governance/governing_documents/operations/552.html






11. Ibid, section 7.4 “Workplace safety and health program”

12. University of Manitoba Safety Management Procedure, section 2.1.2 “Deans, Directors and

Department Heads”,



Safety for Supervisors Module 5

Reasonable approaches to dealing with safety

Outline

Welcome to the module five of the University of Manitoba Safety for Supervisors program.

Previous modules covered:

the Manitoba safety and health legislation that creates accountability for supervisors

that reasonable steps are the basis for determining compliance

other groups involved in safety

some perspective on the liabilities associated with the Criminal Code and Manitoba safety and health

legislation

critical legislated safety and health requirements that supervisors need to be aware of

This module focuses on offering supervisors reasonable approaches to begin, or to continue, dealing

with safety issues in areas under their control. The topics covered in this module include:

The scope of safety control for a supervisor

The value of consultation and delegation of tasks

Establishing priorities based on risk assessment

The importance of follow-up

Scope of accountability

The first consideration for supervisors looking at managing safety is to focus on the workplaces or

individuals under your direct supervision or control. For frontline supervisors that means focusing on

the specific issues related to your workplace. There is no expectation that frontline supervisors need to

take on responsibility for broader programs, eg. establishing safety committees – the University’s Safety

Committee Procedure places this responsibility on the VP’s.

Similarly supervisors in management positions are expected to provide leadership, oversight and

monitoring eg. have all new employees in your faculty or unit received a safety orientation. Where

programs are not effective, supervisors in management position need to follow-up to deal with potential

issues. If the issue is beyond the control of a particular management supervisor it is critical that the issue

be elevated to the supervisory level with the authority to respond.

Consultation

Often supervisors feel that they have been left to deal with issues by themselves. This is actually not

necessary and it is not desirable. Supervisors should always take advantage of their ability to consult

with other groups that can act as a resource to assist them in making choices that can be defended if

challenged by a regulator, eg. EHSO. The last module of this series discusses these groups.

Supervisors also need to understand that worker consultation is a required duty of both the employer

and supervisors in the Act and throughout the regulations. Those consultations usually occur through

the safety committee. Specific worker groups can also be asked for input on safety procedures or plans.

For example, the regulations require worker consultation in identifying potential working alone issues in

a workplace. It would make sense that the workers most knowledgeable about that workplace could

offer valuable insight to potential issues based on their experience.

Delegation of tasks

When discussing misconceptions about other groups who have involvement in health and safety at the

University the point was made that accountability for health and safety cannot be delegated. That is not

to say that the supervisor cannot delegate responsibility to evaluate and make recommendations or

report about an issue.

As an example, the VP Administration requested all faculties and units to report their status on working

alone plans. Adopted University procedure places the accountability for establishing these plans on

Deans, Directors and Department Heads. It would be entirely reasonable for a Director to request that

their direct reports reply to them on the status of working alone plans in areas under their control.

Where plans were not in place the responsibility to prepare them would be delegated to those

supervisors responsible for the affected areas.

The role of the Director in this example is to provide oversight, direction and follow-up. Their role is not

to attempt to prepare working alone plans. While responsibility to complete a task or look at an issue

can be delegated it is important to remember that accountability for the task cannot be delegated. The

Director in the example is still accountable to ensure that working alone plans are in place.

Establishing priorities/risk assessment

Many supervisors feel overwhelmed by the duties placed on them in Manitoba’s legislation. It is

important to understand the Provincial regulators do not expect that a workplace would be compliant

with all the requirements of the Act and regulations. What they do expect to see is that there is a plan in

place to deal with these requirements and that there has been progress.

As an example, the Province expressed strong concerns about the safety committee system in place at

the University prior to 2010. Over a three year period the University examined the issue, drafted and

adopted a new Safety Committee Procedure and began implementing the new structure. The Province

did not expect that all issues with safety committees at the University to be resolved instantly and

accepted that the University had a reasonable plan in place as was making progress in implementing

that plan. No orders were written and no penalties were assessed.

The size and complexity of University workplaces makes it difficult for a supervisor to know where to

start in developing a plan to deal with legislated safety requirements in their workplace. Enterprise Risk

Management (ERM) offers an excellent model for establishing a plan using a risk based model. It would

also demonstrate due diligence as opposed to simply reacting to accidents and injuries as they occurred.

This risk assessment based model lets you assess the risks of the various safety issues and make

reasonable decisions about what issues need to be dealt with first. This model is consistent with a risk

assessment model offered by the Province. One of the real benefits of using a risk assessment approach

is that it provides a very strong base to support you choices should questions about your safety

programs ever arise.

The ERM risk assessment matrix provides a simple way to establish a relative ranking of risks. It looks at

the likelihood of some negative outcome and also considers the consequence should that event occur.

Both likelihood and consequence are rated on a scale of 1 to 5. An event with a very high probability of

occurring would be rated at 5. An event with significant consequence, eg. fatalities, would also be rated

a 5.

The rating scales are somewhat subjective but we are trying to establish a relative ranking rather than

trying to quantify the actual level of risk for each item. The ratings may also vary between faculties and

units based on the tasks that each group undertakes. It is critical within an area that the ratings are used

consistently. EHSO staff will be available to help you consider what risks exist and help you to define

your probability and consequence ratings.

The Risk Rating for a hazard or event is simply the result of multiplying the likelihood rating of the event

times the consequence rating of that event. Items with the highest risk rating should be considered as

priority items for response. The risk rating should not be the sole basis for establishing priorities but

should be treated as a way to narrow down the items from the risk inventory to a more manageable

number in a way that can be defended. Where there are several items of similar ranking it is reasonable

to consider additional factors like the number of people potentially affected, and other consequences to

the University like damage to reputation or potential for civil suits.

Risk Inventory

The first step in developing a plan using the ERM model is to collect a list of safety and health risk items.

Again a supervisor should feel free to consult any groups he chooses to develop that list. Broader

consultation ensures that major items have not been missed. The initial inventory will be a mixture of

very specific issues, eg. housekeeping or safety issues associated with a specific task, and broader

program issues like training, availability of written safe work procedures or availability of first-aiders.

Once the inventory has been established the next step is to evaluate what controls/systems are in place

and also consider the effectiveness of those controls. So for example saying that a safe work procedure

is in place for a task needs to be followed up with some assessment of whether the procedure is actually

working. Simply assuming that the safe work procedure works or is being followed can create liability for

those accountable.

Once the risk inventory is established that list can be used to determine which issues should be treated

as priorities. Working towards a goal of compliance based on establishing priorities is a reasonable

approach given that unlimited resources are not available.

As a quick example, let’s consider a faculty that has a workshop with power tools available to students.

The faculty also provides a student lounge that is available 24 hours a day.

Working with power tools and working alone and have both been identified in the risk inventory.

Working with power tools creates the risk of a traumatic injury, eg. amputation of a digit. Working alone

creates the risk that someone requiring assistance will not receive it in any timely manner, eg. in the

event of an illness or assault.

The next step is to consider existing controls. The workshop has a dedicated technician on site and

students are not allowed to use power tools without the technician being present. Appropriate machine

guards are in place. There is no evidence that students are not following shop rules. There have been no

reported injuries in the workshop in the last 5 years.

The student lounge is a room that is left unlocked and accessible to students. The building entrances are

not locked and students can access the lounge at any time. There is no supervision of the lounge.

Students share that you may find someone there at any time day or night as the result of a demanding

course schedule. No incidents related to working alone have been reported in the last 5 years.

Both risks appear to have similar risk ratings. Both could result in serious injury and based on limited

experience both seem to have a low probability. There are controls in place for the workshop but the

student lounge has no real controls associated with its use. The lounge, as it exists, also creates the

possibility of a student assault which could have impacts to the student and the University beyond

regulatory compliance. In this example I would suggest that establishing a working alone plan for the

student lounge would be a priority that could be defended.

Develop and implement plans

After using a risk assessment model to establish priorities the next step is to develop and implement

plans to lower an identified risk. Again it’s reasonable to consult with available resources. In the

example above students, staff, EHSO or the safety committee might be asked to consider the risks with

working alone in the student lounge and might be asked to help identify possible steps to minimize the

risk. In the end it is decided that the lounge door will be locked after hours and keys will be provided to

students who should have access. This plan does not eliminate all the risks associated with the use of

the student lounge but it does take reasonable steps to minimize them.

Once a plan is established is important to create some sort of timeline for implementation that is shared

in the workplace. Sometimes that plan will have some interim steps to minimize risk while the larger

plan is implemented. In the example above students were asked not to use the lounge in off hours or to

only use the lounge when others were present.

Sometimes it is better to deal with safety issues in a series of steps rather than trying to reach a final

resolution in a single step. In general it is better to take some steps towards a solution rather than

waiting until the perfect solution is established.

When the plan is in place it’s important that staff and students be trained and as always it’s important

that the plans/ timelines /training be documented.

Follow-up

The final step in establishing plans or priorities is to follow-up on the effectiveness of any plan that has

been implemented. That follow-up needs to be documented and any noted issues addressed whether

that involves some activity to enforce the rule or a revision to the rule. In some cases issues with a plan

may be associated with factors beyond that supervisor’s control. In those instances the issue needs to

be elevated to a higher supervisory level for action.

Summary

That concludes module 5 of the Safety for Supervisors program which summarized reasonable

approaches that supervisors could use to deal with the duties imposed by Manitoba’s health and safety

legislation.

The final module of the series will briefly summarize resources available to supervisors so that they can

make reasonable and defendable decisions about health and safety issues that they encounter.


Resources available to supervisors

Module 6

Outline

Welcome to module six of the University of Manitoba Safety for Supervisors program.

In previous modules we covered:

Provincial requirements for supervisors,

Other groups that may be involved in health and safety,

potential penalties and put into perspective how they might apply to a supervisor,

Provincial safety and health requirements that all supervisors should be aware of and

Ways to start managing safety in a reasonable way

In module 6 we will summarize resources to help supervisors meet their Provincial requirements. The

topics that will be covered include:

The Workplace Safety and Health Division

U of M policy and procedure

Existing programs and information that are available

Safety committees

EHSO

Other groups or organizations

Workplace Safety and Health Division

The first resource available to all supervisors comes from the Province’s Workplace Safety and Health

Division. The Division has a website where they post all sorts of information useful to employers and

supervisors in their efforts to comply with the requirements of the Act and regulations. Those include

the posting of the most recent versions of the Act and regulations in a PDF format that is searchable.

The site also includes Provincial guidelines and bulletins on specific health and safety issues, eg.

preventing harassment, developing safe work procedures, and incident investigation. These documents

are very valuable because they give the employer, or supervisor, a very clear picture of what the

Province would consider to be a “reasonable” approach to an issue. For example, the Province has

posted an accident investigation template. It makes sense to use this template since the Province has

clearly indicated that they believe it to be appropriate. Note that Provincial bulletins and guidelines are

not enforceable under the Workplace Safety and Health Act. They simply provide guidance.

Finally the Workplace Safety and Health Division offers training programs for supervisors and workers.

These programs are posted on the website and include things like safety committee training, a longer

version of this program, as well as accident investigation, and the development of safe work procedures.

University Policy and Procedure

Another resource for supervisors is U of M policy and associated procedures. These of course outline

internal rules regarding health and safety. If we recall one of the steps that courts considered

reasonable was abiding by internal rules and regulations. At this point the University has three policies

associated with health and safety. The first is the overarching Health and Safety Policy. The others are

policies on biological safety and radiation safety.

At the University policy is generally supported by more detailed procedure. The University has 17

adopted procedures related to health and safety. These procedures cover a wide range of topics

including asbestos management, fire safety, working alone, and renovation of laboratories. These

documents can be very helpful to you because they will define the role of supervisory staff and the role

of other University groups in dealing with a particular issue. They may also establish processes or

directions on certain issues, eg. the University approach to fire safety.

The companion document provides links to all these policies and procedures.

Existing programs

Aside from policy and procedure the University has a wide range of safety and health programs already

available. These include programs like the free pick-up and disposal of hazardous waste, ergonomic

assessments of workstations, training programs on biosafety and radiation safety, placarding of spaces

using hazardous materials, and information on the use, handling and storage of hazardous materials in

the workplace. There is also information readily available on items like campus emergency information,

and reporting of accidents and injuries.

Safety committees

Safety and health committees are generally overlooked as a resource for employers and supervisors.

Manitoba legislation generally requires worker consultation when dealing with health and safety issues.

The safety committee allows for that consultation in a focused way. Safety committees also support the

due diligence efforts of supervisors since they assist the supervisor in recognizing workplace issues and

offer recommendations for correcting those issues. While supervisors are expected to inspect workplace

safety committees also have an obligation to inspect the workplace on a regular basis. This means that it

is not solely up to the supervisor to try and spot all safety and health issues in his/her workplace. The

safety committee can also provide feedback on the effectiveness of programs. Evaluating effectiveness

of programs is an important element of due diligence for all supervisors.

EHSO

Another resource available to supervisors is the Environmental Health and Safety Office or EHSO. As

discussed in module two the primary role of EHSO is to assist University staff in evaluating and resolving

health and safety issues. EHSO does this by providing technical resources, recommending priorities,

developing broader programs with application across University, identifying new issues and finally

recommending metrics for reporting.

EHSO can often help you focus quickly the relevant requirements for a health and safety issue that you

need to deal with. This can save you significant time and effort in researching a topic and trying to

develop a plan to deal with it.

Other resources

There are other groups who can also act as resources to assist supervisors in demonstrating due

diligence. Those groups could include:

Other faculties and units at the University of Manitoba who have similar issues

Technical committees. These can be in-house technical experts or University-wide groups like

those looking at radiation safety, biological safety, animal safety or laser safety.

Other universities with similar programs

Industry or technical associations like the Canadian Standards Association, who may develop

standards, codes of practice or guidelines that may be considered best practice when there are

no clear regulatory requirements

External consultants

Summary

This completes the University of Manitoba’s Safety for Supervisors program. You will now need to

complete a short test. The test allows the University to assess the effectiveness of this training and also

serves as documentation of your successful completion of the training. Senior administration will be

updated regularly on the number of supervisors who have successfully completed this training.

You will need to use your University employee ID to sign in to write the test. The link to the test and

instructions on where to locate your employee ID are available on the same EHSO webpage that you

used to access these modules.

The test should take 10 – 15 minutes to complete. Once you have answered all questions you will

receive immediate feedback on whether you passed and what your score was. You can take the test as

many times as you choose.

If you have any questions about the test or this program please contact EHSO at 474-6633

University of Manitoba Safety for Supervisors Companion Guide · Safety for Supervisors Companion...

Documents

Transcript of University of Manitoba Safety for Supervisors Companion Guide · Safety for Supervisors Companion...