Why are travel-related safety risks so often overlooked?

In C’est la vie? A Step-by-Step Guide to Building a Travel Risk Management Program, consulting firm Advito suggests that while the general practice of risk management has gained strategic importance in the executive boardroom, “coordinated management of risks relating specifically to travel receives little attention.” There are many possible explanations for the general inattention to travel risk management within organizations.

In some cases, business leaders fail to recognize that employee travel falls within the physical scope of workplace activities. In other cases, decision-makers believe that only those travelling to international high-risk destinations require any type of security protection. In most organizations, there is also a gap in knowledge when it comes to travel security, contributing to a lack of risk awareness and fragmented ownership of the function within the organization.

Consider these common business travel myths.

Myth #1: When travelling on business, employees are not in a workplace

A long line of case law decisions and various statutes and regulations come together to provide a relatively clear physical definition of the workplace. In British Columbia, the Workers Compensation Act defines “workplace” as, “any place where a worker is or is likely to be engaged in any work and includes any vessel, vehicle or mobile equipment used by a worker in work.” Under Ontario’s Occupational Health and Safety Act, workplace is defined as, “any land, premises, location or thing at, upon, in or near which a worker works.”

In R v Port Colborne (City) [1992], the Ontario Court of Justice ruled on the legal definition of workplace under the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA) in a case involving firefighters who were injured while conducting a rescue. The Court stated:

With some difficulty I have reached the conclusion that a place where a rescue by a firefighter takes place, whether it be at a fire or at a water rescue or in quicksand attempting to rescue a horse, is a workplace within the meaning of the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

In the more recent case of Blue Mountain Resorts Limited v. Ontario (Labour) [2009], the Ontario Labour Relations Board adjudicated on the requirement to submit accident reports under the OHSA. A key question in the hearing was whether a single location can have dual definitions. The example cited was a recreational facility, which would not be a workplace in the absence of workers, but would become a workplace when workers were present (e.g., performing security or maintenance duties).

In referring approvingly to R v Port Colborne, supra, adjudicator Diane L Gee stated:

The Port Colborne decision involved firefighters who, while having a fixed workplace at the fire station, also worked in many other locations as their duties required. The Port Colborne decision determined that the firefighters’ workplace essentially travelled with them. Wherever they were working was their “workplace.”

The idea that employees’ workplace effectively travels with them is a highly relevant concept in relation to both work-related travel and workplace safety. In the context of workplace violence, the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety has provided a useful overview of the physical scope of the workplace under Canadian law:

Workplace violence is not limited to incidents that occur within a traditional workplace. Work-related violence can also occur at off-site business-related functions, such as conferences, trade shows, or social events related to work; and in clients’ homes. It can also include violence that occurs away from work, but resulting from work. For example, a social worker who receives a threatening telephone call from a client at his or her home is a victim of workplace violence.

In light of the preceding legal definitions and case law interpretations, it is clear that the legal definition of workplace encompasses activities that extend well beyond the traditional physical workplace to incorporate local and international travel, attendance at work-related events, and a wide range of other activities that take place within the scope of the employment relationship.

Myth #2: Only employees travelling to global hot spots require security assistance

Contrary to popular opinion, travel-related risks do not exist solely in the domain of international business travel. As soon as employees move outside of a regular fixed workplace, they expose themselves to a heightened degree of unpredictability and risk, regardless of the destination. A higher level of specialized care needs to be exercised in certain international destinations to address geopolitical or other risks, but organizations should be taking active steps to protect the security and safety of all work-related travellers.

The inherent risks associated with local and regional business travel within Canada are recognized and addressed by the CCOHS in the most recent edition of its Violence in the Workplace Prevention Guide. An entire 13-page section of this national guideline for employers focuses on domestic travel safety, including situational awareness, driving safety, parking lot safety, travel safety and hotel safety.

Ontario’s Ministry of Labour, in a document titled, Workplace Violence and Harassment: Understanding the Law, has also identified the need to address travel safety risks in complying with the recent workplace violence and workplace harassment amendments (Bill 168) under the OHSA:

The workplace violence program must have measures and procedures in place to control the risks faced by mobile workers. An assessment may not be able to take into account the specific risks related to the nature of every workplace that a mobile worker may visit. However, the assessment should take into account risks associated with … the type of work and work conditions.

In the context of international travel, some have argued that the OHSA and equivalent health and safety statutes and regulations across Canada do not apply to out-of-country travel. However, in the first place, organizations have a moral and social obligation to protect their employees wherever they travel on the employer’s business.

Further, from a regulatory compliance standpoint, there is substantial reason to believe that Canadian OHS laws do in fact apply to foreign business travel. A key point of consideration is the fact that the definition of workplace under most health and safety statutes and regulations across Canada is not confined to geographical (i.e., provincial or federal) boundaries.

While it is certainly the case that a serious injury or the death of an employee overseas would be investigated in the foreign jurisdiction of occurrence, such an incident could also attract serious charges under the relevant health and safety regulation or statute in Canada.

Consider this: if a Canadian employee travelling on business in a foreign country was injured or killed and it was discovered that the employer had failed to perform a risk assessment, implement a policy, enact risk control measures or perform safety training, that employer would be accountable for any such acts of non-compliance under the respective OHS statute or regulation in the relevant Canadian jurisdiction. In other words, it would be the act of failing to assess the risks, implement a workplace safety policy or program and train the employee, for example, that would trigger a charge under the respective OHS Act or Regulation.

It is important to remember that the common law duty of care is not diluted when employees suffer harm overseas. Organizations not identifying, assessing and managing travel-related risks to employees in these cases are subject to tort liability actions. The Huffington Post reported on a recent example involving a former aid worker who is suing her employer after being abducted and held captive for 105 days in Darfur in 2010.

Myth 3: Business travel involves people, so responsibility for travel risk management belongs in the HR domain

Research suggests that the most effective travel safety and security programs are the product of multidisciplinary efforts. Typically, representation is required from human resources, legal, security, health and safety, insurance and travel departments (if a dedicated travel department exists). As noted in the Advito report, there are four types of stakeholder involvement in any travel risk management program:

1. The stakeholder(s) who initiate(s) the idea
2. The stakeholder(s) who provide(s) senior sponsorship to make it happen
3. The stakeholder(s) who is/are accountable for the program
4. The stakeholder(s) who manage(s) introduction and continuing management of the program

The size, structure and culture of the organization will ultimately shape the leadership of the travel risk management program. The first real test of any multidisciplinary planning group is to identify the range of travel-related risks faced by the organization. As noted in the National Business Travel Association report, Traveler Tracking and Risk Management Solutions:

Before determining what solution options are necessary or currently used, a risk assessment should be completed. This is not an independent exercise to be completed by the travel manager in isolation; the engagement of key stakeholders is vital. Cross-functional input is necessary to ensure all potential risks are identified, categorized, and mitigation plans documented.

In a September 15, 2011, article in TravelMarket Report, human resources and employee travel expert Dr. Lisbeth Claus identifies some key travel risk management (TRM) tasks involved in meeting an appropriate standard of care. These include:

• Assessing travel risks
• Tracking travellers
• Informing travellers of changing conditions
• Assuring quality of hotels
• Assessing transportation risks
• Facilitating on-the-ground support

In an article on workplace violence prevention best practice, I make the point that due to the multi-faceted nature of violence in the workplace, a similar multidisciplinary approach is required to build an effective program. For organizations looking to optimize both their workplace violence and travel risk management programs, there is substantial benefit to be gained in bringing together the two functions under an overarching governance or steering committee.

Conclusion

Too many organizations pay too little attention to the safety and security of travelling employees. In order to meet their duty of care obligations and compliance requirements under OHS statutes and regulations, employers should assess the risks faced by local, national and international business travellers, and take active steps to mitigate those risks through well-documented policies, procedures, operational risk controls, employee education and training.

As Peter Brady, an executive with Carlson Wagonlit Travel, observed in his 2007 report, Effective Risk Management: Safe, Not Sorry:

Business travel is essential to the growth and development of organizations around the world. More than ever, proactive, thoughtful measures are required to protect business travelers, optimize their productivity on the road, reduce an organization’s liability and ultimately boost the bottom line. Being safe is certainly better for business than being sorry.

David Hyde
David Hyde & Associates

© 2012 First Reference Inc. All Rights Reserved. | Permalink | Make a comment |

Overall, this challenging and evolving risk landscape places a greater onus on employers to take all reasonable steps to safeguard business travellers. Failure to adequately protect travelling workers can have serious consequences for employers, including harm to staff, legal liability, operational disruption and damage to business reputation.

Against this dynamic backdrop, it is hardly surprising that when it comes to forming a travel safety and security strategy and developing associated plans, many organizations are unsure of where to begin.

Nature of the problem

Globally, we are facing what some industry observers have termed a “new normal” when it comes to travel-related risks. Hardly a day goes by without troubling accounts in the media about:

• Disruptive events, such as medical outbreaks, civil unrest, severe weather or earthquakes
• Political instability, often in countries that were previously thought to be safe
• Increases in organized crime in some parts of the world
• Violence against unsuspecting travellers who end up being in the wrong place at the wrong time

In its whitepaper, C’est la vie? A Step-by-Step Guide to Building a Travel Risk Management Program, international travel management consulting firm Advito aptly sums up the current state of affairs:

Travel is inherently risky because it places employees in unfamiliar and/or disadvantageous environments. If travelers come to harm, their employers face potentially severe consequences both legally and financially, as well as to their reputation. What is more, risks will continue to grow as companies increasingly globalize their operations. In spite of this increased exposure, organizations typically fail to start actively managing travel-related risk until a serious incident affects one of their travelers.

Challenging the status quo

Conventional wisdom within many organizations suggests that employee group benefits plans adequately address travel safety and security, and only travel to unsafe places is deserving of any special consideration. For at least three reasons, these widely held views have become problematic:

1. Travel and extended health care insurance coverage provided within most group benefits plans does not adequately address the full range of travel-related risks.
2. It is becoming increasingly difficult to delineate between safe and unsafe destinations at any given time.
3. Duty of care and OHS legal compliance requirements have progressed to the stage where a proactive, integrated approach is essential to effectively manage the risk.

The limitations of group benefits and insurance plans

Most organizations provide travelling employees with a level of protection through group benefits plans, which incorporate some form of travel and extended health care insurance. While these plans serve a valid purpose and provide an essential baseline of support, they often fall short of addressing the full range of travel safety and security requirements.

Basic insurance products are reactive (by design); they normally do little to support risk identification, risk assessment and operational risk management. When it comes to international travel, group benefits and insurance plans often provide insufficient or incomplete coverage. In all cases, insurance products should form only one part of a larger, integrated travel risk management (TRM) program.

The authors of the Advito whitepaper offer the following perspective:

Travel insurance is often purchased without the attention it merits. It is dangerous to buy on price alone. Whoever is responsible for buying insurance needs to be aware of the TRM program. In particular, they should learn from the travel manager which destinations the organization’s travelers are likely to visit. It is strongly advised to avoid policies that exclude acts of terrorism, exclude specified destinations [or] limit cover.

An increasing number of organizations are enhancing employee travel safety by topping up traditional insurance plans with enhanced security and medical assistance services available through a travel assistance provider. Security and medical assistance plans offer a high degree of reassurance to employees and ensure that they have advanced protection. These plans also provide significant risk management benefits to employers in the form of addressing OHS legal and duty of care compliance requirements.

Locations once deemed to be safe are increasingly becoming unsafe

The boundary between safe and unsafe places is becoming increasingly blurred. As one travel security expert noted in a September 8, 2011, article in TravelMarket Report:

Even if you only have travellers going to so-called safe places—New Zealand, Japan, Oslo—things can happen to them. You’re not off the hook just because your travelers don’t go to war zones or other places that are obviously risky.

In support of this worldview are findings from the 5th Annual Global Peace Index. Each year the Economist Intelligence Unit and Institute for Economics and Peace rank 153 of the world’s countries according to ongoing domestic and international conflict, population safety and security in society. The groups use 23 qualitative and quantitative indicators to gauge the level of peace and stability within each country. An excerpt showing the rankings of a small number of countries is shown below.

Not surprisingly, Canada ranks as one of the safest and most peaceful countries in the Index. Perhaps the most thought-provoking finding is the 82nd place ranking of the United States, by far, the most common international destination for Canadian business travellers. To put this in context, consider that Brazil, a county with widespread organized crime problems, is ranked 74th, and ethnically divided and transitionally ruled Bosnia-Herzegovina ranks at 60th.

As a responsible employer, would you send an employee to Bosnia without any travel safety guidance? How about sending someone to Sierra Leone on company business and expecting them to fend for themselves? Yet Canadian employers routinely send business travellers into the US (and other foreign destinations) with no security guidance, no safety training and no plan if they get into trouble.

Expanding legal compliance requirements

There are two primary categories of legal risk associated with business travel:

1. Tort liability (failing to meet a common law standard of care), and
2. Statutory and/or regulatory non-compliance (failure to comply with regulatory or statutory provisions).

In the context of tort liability, duty of care is defined as a legal obligation imposed on an organization requiring that it exercise due diligence in taking all reasonable steps to protect travelling employees from foreseeable harm. Dr. Lisbeth Claus, in her whitepaper, Duty of Care of Employers for Protecting International Assignees, their Dependents, and International Business Travelers, identifies the nexus between business travel and employer duty of care:

Business travel is increasing in range and frequency, with the need to seek new markets and lower production costs in ever more remote places. This exposes both employees and employers to greater risks. Away from familiar surroundings, employees may encounter precarious environments, presenting increased and unfamiliar threats to their health, safety, and security. This heightens the corporate liability of employers, who have a legal, fiduciary, and moral Duty of Care for their employees.

In a number of organizations, travel risk management seems to be a strategic blind spot. In a 2010 research study of 163 large (mainly Fortune 500) organizations spearheaded by the Association of Corporate Travel Executives, respondents held a common belief that insurance coverage alone was adequate to address travel-related risks. The key research findings were succinctly characterized in a BusinessTravelNews article, Report: Many Organizations Lax on Travel Safety and Security:

Many large organizations fret more over travel costs than traveler security, neglect safety considerations when holding events, don’t train employees traveling to high-risk locales and generally don’t fulfill duty of care obligations.

Surprisingly, while many employers prioritize employee health and safety at primary fixed workplaces, it is all too often the case that travelling workers who are exposed to unfamiliar risks outside of the primary work location are not afforded a similar level of protection. Sadly, it often takes a serious safety or security incident to bring the required attention and resources to manage travel-related risks.

The authors of the Advito whitepaper report that an “organizations’ duty of care towards employees is expected to become increasingly enshrined in punitive legislation.”  This forecast has proven to be particularly accurate in the Canadian context. Five jurisdictions have enacted or expanded workplace violence laws across the country since 2007 (see table below).

It would be fair to say that managing the risk of violence against business travellers has become a legal and moral imperative in Canada. The findings of the Global Peace Index, increasing international travel risks, and expanding OHS legal compliance requirements should be recognized as harbingers of a new era in which organizations view employee travel safety as a key component of corporate social responsibility and enterprise risk management.

Keep an eye out in the new year for more on the topic of international employee travel and the associated risks, including several legal myths employers should understand, and tips for preparing a travel risk management program.

David Hyde
David Hyde & Associates

© 2011 First Reference Inc. All Rights Reserved. | Permalink | Make a comment |

Danger Lurking

Nova Scotia is a wondrous place full of amazing–and dangerous–places. I visited “Canada’s Ocean Playgound” this summer and came home with a renewed appreciation for labour history and the reality that occupational health and safety missteps often cost workers their lives.

While visiting the world famous Peggy’s Cove I was struck by the profound respect local fishers have for the power of the sea depicted by the sign pictured above. I have always been caught up in romantic notions of the sea and never really stopped to think that, for many, the sea is a workplace; I never really thought of occupational health and safety regulations on the ocean!

I had the opportunity to visit a coal mine in Cape Breton and be escorted underground by a real-life “man of the deeps.” Seventy-two year old Abbie Michalik was our guide and fascinated us with his myriad tales of working underground for many decades–since he was a young boy.

One of Abbie’s amazing stories was about a general strike when the miners and their families suffered great hardship mostly because everyone in Glace Bay depended on the mining company for everything, including food. He told us that the sole gain at the end of this ordeal was a shortened work week and the prohibition against employing minors.

Abbie gave me the impression he thought this was precious little gain for the hardship the striking workers endured. I had exactly the opposite thought; worker’s rights and health and safety standards are achieved slowly and are the result of hardship and dogged determination on the part of those fighting for what they believe to be fair.

What I took from this experience and what I am asking you to consider is that we often take our rights and obligations for granted. We often forget that health and safety standards–the legal requirement that an employer exercise due diligence–have been created after serious, and often fatal, accidents have occurred; these standards have been created in a response to the real harm suffered by a worker.

Take advantage of the wisdom borne of hindsight and out of respect for those who have gone before us–” . . .savour the sea from a distance.”

Andrew Lawson
Learn don’t Litigate

© 2011 First Reference Inc. All Rights Reserved. | Permalink | Make a comment |

Various health studies and other forms of research indicate that heat stress is a set of conditions where the body is under stress from overheating. Conditions include heat exhaustion, heat cramps, heat stroke and heat rash and symptoms include profuse sweating to dizziness, to cessation of sweating and collapse. High temperatures, heavy workloads, and the type of clothing worn can induce heat stress. Other heat stress factors are also significant. In addition to temperature, increased relative humidity, decreased air movement or lack of shading from direct heat (radiant temperature) can all increase the potential of heat stress.

Employees who experience heat stress may at first be confused or unable to concentrate, followed by more severe symptoms such as fainting and/or collapse. Employers must ensure supervisors/managers and employees are aware and know how to deal with heat stress when it occurs in the workplace. Heat stress may be a health and safety hazard found in the workplace, and employers must insure they have identified it as a possible health and safety issue and implemented measures to control this specific hazard.

If an employee does show heat stress symptoms, move them to a cool, shaded area, give him or her water and immediately contact the supervisor and first aid attendant (if one is available) while following procedures in the health and safety policy in respect to heat stress and first aid.

Several Workers’ Compensation Board or Occupational Health and Safety divisions of the Ministry of Labour have developed health and safety guidelines to assist employers in preventing and dealing with heat stress. The guides will provide steps to identify and control heat stress, including each type of heat stress, their cause, symptoms, treatment and prevention. Links to these guidelines can be found below. Other steps supervisors can take to prevent heat stress are as follows:

• Have a policy in place dealing with working in hot weather and/or hot environments
• Establish a schedule for work and rest periods during hot days and for work in hot environments
• Allow time for employees to adjust to hot weather and/or job environment when possible; it often takes up to one week for an employee to become acclimated to a hot environment
• Adjust the work schedule, if and when possible
• Assign heavier work on cooler days or during the cooler part of the day
• Reduce the workload, if and when possible
• Increase the use of equipment on hot days to reduce physical labour
• Train supervisors/managers and employees to recognize signs and symptoms of heat stress disorders and be prepared to give first aid, if necessary
• Select appropriate employees to work on hot days and/or in hot environments. Some employees are more likely to have heat disorders than others depending on their health and/or physical makeup. Avoid placing “high risk” employees in hot work environments for extended time period (“high risk” individuals are those that suffer from cancer, lung or kidney disease, diabetics, those experiencing high blood pressure or under certain medication)
• Understand that individual employees vary in their tolerance to heat stress conditions
• Have employees pace work, taking adequate rest periods (in shade or cooler environment)
• Use adequate fans or ventilation and cooling especially when wearing personal protective equipment (PPE)
• Have employees wear appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE)
• Have employees wear light coloured, loose (unless working around equipment with moving parts) clothing
• Keep employees, work area, and equipment shaded from direct heat where possible (i.e., wear a hat in direct sunshine)
• Have employees drink plenty of water; provide water to your employees; in hot environments the body requires more water than it takes to satisfy thirst
• Ensure procedures for first aid are in place and accessible to all employees and
  include steps to deal with heat stress

Links to health and safety guidelines available on the Internet by Jurisdictions (when available):

Best Practice — Working Safely in the Heat and Cold, Alberta (in PDF)

Worksafe BC — Heat Stress Guide (in PDF)

Summer Heat or Thermal Conditions: Hot and Cold Conditions at Work — Saskatchewan Labour Department

Risk Alert, Working outdoors, do you have everything under the sun — New Brunswick (in PDF)

The Hazard of Heat — Newfoundland and Labrador (in PDF)

Heat Stress Hazard Alerts– Nova Scotia Labour and Workforce Development

Heat Stress (Health and Safety Guidelines) | Ontario Ministry of Labour, and

Québec CSST — Prévention des coups de chaleur

Sun Safety Prevention (in PDF) and Guide to Prevention of Heat Stress at Work (in PDF) — WCB Prince Edward Island

Worker Discomfort in Increased Temperatures – Bulletin 133 (in PDF) — Manitoba Safe at Work

Yosie Saint-Cyr
First Reference Inc. Human Resources and Compliance Managing Editor

© 2011 First Reference Inc. All Rights Reserved. | Permalink | Make a comment |

This is a troubling attitude I hear expressed by many of my clients.

Here are just a few concerns raised by participants attending my workshops on workplace harassment and violence prevention:

• “I don’t want to rock the boat.”
• “I know I should report it to my supervisor, but it would be career-limiting.”
• “I manage over 50 people, I can’t respond every time someone feels harassed.”
• “Oh sure, I speak up but when the time comes nobody else supports me.”

Image: marketpreview.blogspot.com

I empathize with my participants. In the real world, there certainly is a risk involved when coming forward with concerns or allegations of abuse, harassment or violent acts happening in the workplace.

There is a naive perception among many workers, including managers, that the easier route is to “sweep it under the carpet”—to pretend the abusive behaviour is not there and hope it will go away. But both occupational health and safety and human rights legislation prohibit reprisals, threats and intimidation against a person for exercising their rights. Employers can face stiff financial penalties for permitting this unacceptable behaviour. For example, in Curling v. Victoria Tea Company, the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal awarded a young woman $17,600 after her employer threatened her for filing a human rights complaint.

Just in case you honestly believe it is easier to just “sweep it under the carpet” follow the links below for some eye-opening information on failing to effectively deal with workplace harassment and violence.

Pierre Lebrun

Chronology of attempts to reform the Ontario Occupational Health and Safety Act

Lori Dupont

Learn don’t litigate

• Reporting and addressing workplace harassment and violence is now a legal obligation, not a choice
• Employers must have harassment and violence policies in place
• Your policies must outline how an employee files a complaint
• Employees must be trained on the above policies and procedures
• All employees must be aware that threats, intimidation and reprisal against a worker for exercising their legal rights will not be tolerated

Andrew Lawson
Learn don’t litigate

© 2011 First Reference Inc. All Rights Reserved. | Permalink | One comment |

John Proctor is one of the leading experts in human risk and travel risk management in Canada and is recognized internationally in this capacity. He has been responsible for the development of all of the federal captivity survival programs currently in use in Canada today and has helped several other countries with their own systems. He regularly provides advice internationally in this field to both government and corporate organizations. He initiated and designed the only captivity survival instructor’s course in Canada and has also actively supported and advised a number of federal government departments on recent Canadian captivity incidents.

John has 22 years experience in the British and Canadian forces. He is a qualified intelligence officer, HUMINT operator and hostage/crisis negotiator, he served as aircrew flying helicopters in the Royal Navy and he spent six years working with Canadian Special Forces in a variety of roles including head of human intelligence. He is a trained negotiator, qualified legal mediator and a behavioural consultant. John is currently vice president of Integrated Human Risk Solutions (iHRS), based in Ottawa. iHRS recently produced training for the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety, the national health and safety organization, on dealing with robbery, dealing with hostile customers and dealing with accidental hostage events.

Nicole Legault is an instructional designer and e-learning developer with experience creating corporate training on a wide variety of subjects, ranging from safe business travel to software implementation training.

Nicole’s diverse background includes a BA in Law as well as certification in web design and instructional design.

Nicole also works at iHRS.

They will take turns blogging every third Tuesday of each month, starting on May 17, 2011. They will be blogging on several topics, including how to protect the health and safety of employees in dangerous situations and working overseas, how to assess hostile situations and workplace environments and how to provide integrated and holistic solutions to the issues of human risk.

Yosie Saint-Cyr
First Reference Human Resources and Compliance Managing Editor

© 2011 First Reference Inc. All Rights Reserved. | Permalink | Make a comment |

Twice in the last month the issue of food allergies in the workplace has been brought to my attention by workshop participants.

“Sorry, I have to leave right away. The person sitting behind me is eating nuts and I’m terribly allergic.” Before I had the opportunity to respond, or to rectify, this situation, this participant rushed from the training room. I didn’t even have her name for the purposes of discussing the situation with my client (the participant’s employer).

At another training event, lunch was just being served when I overheard a participant saying to a food server, “Do you think I could get a gluten-free meal?” Forty minutes later the participant received her meal— after the session had resumed for the afternoon!

I am a workplace human rights, health and safety expert and, frankly, am embarrassed and frustrated that both these events occurred on my watch. In order to prevent similar incidents from happening in your workplace, here is some basic advice:

• Food allergies and environmental sensitivities MAY indicate the existence of a disability. Where this is the case, every employer has a legal obligation to ensure that affected employees are protected.
• The employer is responsible for the safe working environment of the worker even when that environment is off your premises.
• Don’t waste time splitting hairs trying to decide if these and other conditions are in fact disabilities that you must accommodate. It is just good business sense to take steps to prevent medical emergencies and other unpleasantness from occurring in your workplace.

Advice to employees:

• YOU must tell your employer what your needs are as a result of your disability
• Provide the necessary information to your employer including medical and other expert reports
• Involve yourself in the accommodation process at work—make suggestions on how your disability can best be accommodated at your workplace

Advice to employers:

• Take accommodation requests seriously
• Gather “need to know” information only; you don’t need to know a person’s diagnosis, only what assistance they may require at work
• Get involved in the accommodation process and be creative
• Get to work on accommodation solutions immediately even though it may take some time to complete the arrangements
• Be willing to pay for accommodations including the cost of required medical reports and examinations
• Be aware of conditions when your employees are offsite or travelling

Information on an employers’ duty to accommodate can be found in any HR publication published by First Reference Inc., and on the Fact Sheets posted on the
Ontario Human Rights Commission website.

Andrew Lawson
Learn Don’t Litigate

© 2011 First Reference Inc. All Rights Reserved. | Permalink | Make a comment |

However, even with all of our efforts to work safely, medical emergencies, accidents and injuries do occur.

When a medical emergency or injury does take place, whether it is to ourselves or a fellow employee, knowing what to do and being able to react quickly can limit the severity of the health scare or injury… or even prevent a death. First aid provides the initial and immediate attention to a person suffering an injury or illness. In extreme cases, a quick first aid response could mean the difference between life and death.

In general, the challenge of receiving first aid training is to have the confidence and skills that can help deal with emergencies, prevent further injury and save lives. It doesn’t matter whether the injury or illness is caused by the work the employee does or not, it is important to give them immediate attention and call an ambulance in serious cases.

Workplace safety regulations and standards for first aid vary by province or territory and depend on several factors such as the size of company and the industry sector, among others. As stated above, at a minimum, a first aid kit and trained first-aid attendant are required under Occupational Health and Safety/Workers’ Compensation legislation and/or regulations in every jurisdiction in Canada so that your employees can receive immediate help if they are injured or taken ill at work.

Details of the legal requirements in Ontario, Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland and Labrador are provided in the following charts: Ontario, Western provinces, and Atlantic provinces.

The minimum first-aid provision on any worksite is:

• A suitably stocked first-aid box
• A first-aid attendant to take charge of first aid
• Information for employees about first-aid rules and arrangements

There is a mandatory list of items to put in a first-aid box; however, it is recommended that you don’t keep tablets and medicines in the first-aid box. It is important to remember that accidents and illness can happen at any time. First aid needs to be available at all times people are at work.

Make sure your first-aid provision accounts for the type of injuries and illness that might occur in your workplace. Monitor accidents and ill health and review your first-aid provision as appropriate.

Don’t forget to consider common medical conditions that could occur in any workplace, such as asthma, epilepsy, heart attack or hypoglycaemia (in a person with diabetes). If you have any employees with disabilities or special needs, then their requirements for first aid will need to be taken into account.

First aid must be easily accessible by employees and preferably available within minutes. In a very large workplace, or one spanning multiple floors, first aid may need to be available in more than one area.

A first-aid attendant is someone who has undertaken training and has the qualification (first-aid certificate) to give first aid. First-aid training is provided by several national organizations including the Red Cross and St. John Ambulance. They can also be issued by other organizations approved by the Workers’ Compensation Board of a specific province or territory. To help keep their basic skills up to date, first aid attendants are required to undertake annual refresher training.

It is the job of the trained first-aider to provide initial treatment to injured or ill employees consistent with first-aider’s level of training and competence. Where an individual requires treatment beyond a first-aider’s level of competence, the first-aider should recommend that the injured or ill person seek medical assistance or should seek medical assistance on behalf of the injured person. For example, a local medical clinic may be the preferred medical provider for a workplace.

You have to inform your employees of the first-aid rules and regulations and workplace arrangements. Putting up notices telling staff who and where the first aid attendants are and where the first-aid box is will usually be enough. However, certain jurisdictions require that a prescribed poster and first-aid attendant certificate be posted in a conspicuous place in the workplace. You will need to make special arrangements to give first-aid information to employees with reading or language difficulties.

Do you have employees who travel a lot, work remotely or work alone? You should consider issuing personal first-aid kits and issuing personal communicators/mobile phones to such employees.

Do any of your employees work shifts or outside of regular hours? You should ensure there is adequate first-aid provision at all times people are at work.

If first aid is required and given, the first aid attendant must report and record what was done. First-aid report form should be filled out by the trained first-aider. These generally include information on:

• Date, name, time
• Description of symptoms
• The treatment provided
• Any referral arrangements (e.g., ambulance, hospital, medical service)

Forms should be located at, or close to, first-aid stations. The original copy of the first-aid record should be retained in a secure location within the workplace. If a person is transferred to a hospital or medical service, a copy of the first-aid record should accompany them. Employees should be given a copy of their first-aid record, and must have access to it on request.

Personal information about the health of an employee is confidential. Employers must keep this in mind when developing a recording and reporting system for first aid.

In summary, the first aid plan should state:

• The number of first-aid attendants needed to cover all areas and shifts, including names and contact details
• Specific training requirements for first-aid attendants
• Specific requirements and management for first-aid box and first-aid room (if required)
• Emergency and other response procedures
• First-aid recording and reporting system
• Important contact numbers (e.g., 911, local police, Poisons Information Centre, local hospitals/clinics, Ministry of Labour, WCB, etc.)

Managers and supervisors must be familiar with first-aid arrangements and must understand their accountabilities under the first-aid plan. They will also play an important part in making sure first-aid information is provided to all employees.

In addition, build in a periodic review of all of your first-aid arrangements, involving the people who have accountabilities under your first-aid plan. Organize a mock first-aid emergency to check that your first-aid plan works. Check that kits and first-aid rooms are accessible. If an incident requiring first aid does occur, evaluate the effectiveness of the first aid provided, and make changes to your first-aid plan if necessary.

Without going into details, we at First Reference Inc. recently found out how important first-aid training as well as CPR training is to a workplace. And we are grateful that we had complied with the law.

Yosie Saint-Cyr
First Reference Inc. Human Resources and Compliance Managing Editor

© 2011 First Reference Inc. All Rights Reserved. | Permalink | 3 comments |

We blogged about this case last September, and Gerald Shepell, owner of Interlake Paving, admitted in November to breaching both the Workplace Health and Safety Act and Employment Standards Code in connection with the July 2008 tragedy just north of Winnipeg.

Shepell pleaded guilty to charges under the Manitoba Employment Standards Code for employing two workers under the age of 16 and for failing to keep proper records relating to the young workers; and under the Workplace Safety and Health Act for failing to keep the 15-year-old safe by allowing him to be near the hot asphalt.

When handing down the fine, provincial court judge Kelly Moar said the tragedy was entirely preventable: “(Shepell) ignored the potential risks and, unfortunately, that cost Mr. James his life.”

The Crown was seeking significant fines against Shepell, who has owned the business since 2005 after taking it over from a family member. The maximum penalty could have been $180,000. However, Shepell’s lawyer asked for a penalty not exceeding $30,000, saying anything more would likely put Shepell and his employees out of business.

Thus, the fine of $33,500 is payable in monthly instalments of $500 until the fine is totally paid off.

What does this mean for employers?

Employers need to pay special attention to the orientation and training of young and new workers as they are at greater risk of injury than their older, more experienced counterparts.

Also, employers should educate themselves on the minimum age of employment in their jurisdiction and their industry sector. The minimum age is an age below which no young person is allowed to be employed.

Some elements to consider:

• Before employing a young or new worker in a workplace, an employer must conduct a hazard assessment to ensure that any hazards to which the young or new worker might be exposed have been mitigated to the degree possible, through such means as elimination, substitution, administrative controls, engineering controls and/or selection and provisioning of appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE).
• An employer must ensure that before a young or new worker begins work in a workplace, he or she is given health and safety orientation and training specific to that worker’s workplace and job tasks.
• Employers must ensure that supervisors of workers (this includes young and new workers) are competent to train these workers and to supervise their work.
• An employer must keep records of all orientation and training provided

The information and resources found in The Human Resources Advisor and on HRinfodesk will help employers better understand how to fulfil their legal obligations.

Yosie Saint-Cyr
First Reference Human Resources and Compliance Managing Editor

© 2010 First Reference Inc. All Rights Reserved. | Permalink | Make a comment |

I love to hear from a reader or a client that the information I have given them is wrong! This means they have listened to me, done their homework and found a different answer. Always question information you read or are given, double-check it, triple-check it and then make up your own mind about how you are going to proceed. However, it does not make the information in itself wrong.

For example, in the months leading up to the passage of Bill 168, many authors, experts and training companies were telling readers that the new law did not apply to your business if you employed five or fewer workers!

This advice was partially true: The law states that an employer is required to (a) prepare a policy with respect to workplace violence; (b) prepare a policy with respect to workplace harassment; and (c) review the policies as often as is necessary, but at least annually.

The law adds that these policies shall be in written form and shall be posted at a conspicuous place in the workplace.

However, the law provides an exception to the last rule, workplaces with five or fewer workers are exempt from having these policies in writing and posted in the workplace unless an inspector orders it. This exemption does not mean employers with five or less employees are exempt from having to protect their employees from the risk of workplace violence and harassment or having policies.

But how do you prepare and implement a policy without actually writing it? Why take the time to prepare a policy and then not put it in writing for your employees to read? Not to mention for the Ministry of Labour inspector to read. Incidentally, inspectors are empowered to order you to provide your policies in writing, at their discretion, even if you have five or fewer workers.

Best, I think, to be proactive and put them in writing before the inspector arrives! Imagine explaining to a busy inspector that your policies have been prepared, according to law, and they are in your head because the law says you don’t have to put them in writing!

In another example, I, along with hundreds of other information providers, have written for months now that Bill 168 requires all Ontario employers to have in place two policies:

• One “with respect to workplace harassment”
• One “with respect to workplace violence”

Does this mean you need to sit down and write two brand new policies in addition to the policies you already have?

That is for you, as an employer, to decide. The legislation refers to two distinct policies and refers to these documents in the plural, i.e., “policies”. Perhaps it is sufficient to have one policy that covers both topics. The law does not go into that much detail.

The Ministry of Labour website reveals:

Employers may choose to prepare a separate workplace violence policy or they may choose to combine it with another policy required by the Occupational Health and Safety Act such as the workplace harassment policy [Section 32.0.1(1)(b)] or occupational health and safety policy [Section 25(2)(j)].

When you are acquiring knowledge and deciding what to do, consider this:

• Information posted on government websites is not legal advice and is posted for general information purposes to help organizations and individuals understand the law
• Information available on the Internet, in online publications or in a reference manual or software program, and elsewhere, even if credible, is not legal advice, and should always be double-checked—this information is provided for general informational purposes only to help employers understand and comply, not to resolve specific cases
• Do your homework; obtain information from several sources; then decide
• If you are unsure, retain the services of a lawyer and obtain legal advice
• Prepare a workplace violence and harassment program that is customized to meet the needs of your workplace and that complies with the law

LEARN—DON’T LITIGATE

• Check with colleagues to learn what other employers are doing
• Keep informed: watch for news on how the courts are interpreting the new law
• Be prepared to make changes pursuant to the orders of a labour inspector

Andrew Lawson
LEARN—DON’T LITIGATE

© 2010 First Reference Inc. All Rights Reserved. | Permalink | Make a comment |