Canadian Safety Reporter

©2016 Thomson Reuters Canada Ltd ISBN/ISSN: 978-0-7798-2810-4 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, photocopying, recording or otherwise without the written permission of the publisher (Carswell, a Thomson Reuters business). Canadian Safety Reporter is part of the Canadian HR Reporter group of publications: • Canadian HR Reporter — www.hrreporter.com • Canadian Occupational Safety magazine — www.cos-mag.com • Canadian Payroll Reporter — www.payroll-reporter.com • Canadian Employment Law Today — www.employmentlawtoday.com • Canadian Labour Reporter — www.labour-reporter.com See carswell.com for information Safety Reporter Canadian www.safetyreporter.com Published 12 times a year by Thomson Reuters Canada Ltd. Subscription rate: $129 per year Customer Service Tel: (416) 609-3800 (Toronto) (800) 387-5164 (outside Toronto) Fax: (416) 298-5106 E-mail: carswell.customerrelations @thomsonreuters.com Website: www.carswell.com One Corporate Plaza 2075 Kennedy Road Toronto, Ontario, Canada M1T 3V4 Director, Carswell Media Karen Lorimer Publisher John Hobel (on leave) Associate Publisher/Managing Editor Todd Humber Lead Editor Jeffrey R. Smith Assistant Editor Mallory Hendry (on leave) Assistant Editor Anastasiya Jogal Contributing Editors Liz Foster Sabrina Nanji Liz Bernier Marketing & Audience Development Manager Robert Symes mm.ali@thomsonreuters.com (416) 609-5866 Circulation Co-ordinator Keith Fulford keith.fulford@thomsonreuters.com (416) 649-9585 Workers didn't follow traffic control manual CSR | February 2016 | News 2009 for: failing to ensure safe work procedures are followed; failing to ensure the "safe inter- action of workers and their work environment to minimize the potential for injury;" and failing to ensure effective traffic control where moving traffic constituted a hazard to workers. The court noted that due dili- gence requires employers to take reasonable care and can only do what is reasonably practical to prevent what is foreseeable. The city and DTW argued that it was "an impossible burden" to expect them to foresee the actions of careless, inexperienced or drunk drivers and the occupational health and safety legislation pro- vided no specific requirements for this type of workplace. They claimed their employees were experienced and used their "best engineering judgment" along with common sense and there was nothing more the employers could do as part of their duty of reasonable care. Risk could have been decreased The court found that it was the driver's careless driving that was the most direct cause of the ac- cident, which means the em- ployers didn't have to foresee the specific incident and plan safety procedures in response to "extreme driving situations." However, their duty was to take reasonable steps to get the atten- tion of drivers and use safe work protocols that would not only protect against foreseeable risks, but also insulate workers from some unanticipated risks such as drunk or careless drivers. The court also found it was the nature of that particular work- place where traffic in general was a hazard, so while extreme driving may not have been foreseeable, moving vehicles were foreseeable threats to workers along the side of the road. Though the city had a traffic control manual, it wasn't strictly followed by the employ- ees and there was no discussion between them of whether they should follow it. In addition, there was no hazard assessment taken, even though the manual refer- enced the need for one. It was also evident to the court that the employees didn't follow procedures outlined in the New- found and Labrador Traffic Act, which stipulated "Where work is carried out on a highway or an ac- tivity is conducted that obstructs all or part of the travel lane of a highway, the person responsible for carrying out that work or causing that obstruction shall ensure that (a) warning signs or other markers; or (b) persons with a flag or sign; are used to control the movement of traffic around that work or obstruc- tion and to warn persons of the section of highway that is being worked upon or is obstructed." The confusion of the drivers with only some slowing down also pointed to a need for a better setup along the side of the road that provided better sightlines for drivers and a clear direction for them to slow down, said the court. The court determined that DTW and the City of St. John's failed to establish that their em- ployees had taken all reasonable care to ensure a safe workplace and decrease the risk of injury when they were stopped along the shoulder and median of the highway. Because the employees involved were senior employees and a supervisor, both organiza- tions were responsible for them when they were acting "within the scope of their duties in terms of workplace safety," said the court. "The employees of both orga- nizations showed a similar lack of appreciation of the hazard and the need to specifically ad- dress worker safety at the (high- way) site," said the court. "If these employees present as such, the employer must be held to have failed to prove the exercise of due diligence on a balance of prob- abilities." For more information see: • R. v. Newfoundland and Labra- dor (Department of Transporta- tion and Works), 2014 Carswell- Nfld 381 (N.L. Prov. Ct.). Government < pg. 5 e Newfoundland and Labrador Traffic Act stipulated that either warning signs or markers or persons with a flag or sign should be used to control the movement of traffic WEBINARS Interested in learning more about safety and HR issues directly from the experts? Check out the Carswell Professional Development Centre's live and on-demand webinars discussing topics such as building strong safety leadership, engaging managers and supervisors to ensure OHS compliance, and building a better joint health and safety committee. Visit www.cpdcentre.ca/cos for more information.

• Cover