Canadian Safety Reporter

4 Canadian HR Reporter, a Thomson Reuters business 2015 CSR | June 2016 | News throw resources at things." But then during a bust, layoffs enter the picture. "So where you might have two guys working at a certain pace, then you've decided that you can only afford one. But then the chal- lenge is, how does that one person working alone do it as safely as they can?" he said. "Sometimes, setting the standard at the boom time is probably not the best way, because often we have an embar- rassment of resources." When oil was at $150 a barrel, organizations were able to have a lot of resources, he said. "So to compare what we have to do at $40 a barrel probably isn't fair. I think we need to say, what is it that we need to accomplish?" During a round of layoffs, em- ployers really need to focus on what is essential in order to ensure safe production, said Quilley. "There's no doubt it's chal- lenging, but good companies don't have much problem with that. When you've established a culture where you're going to take the time to do it safely — even when you're challenged — that doesn't go away. Not for the really mature companies that have a good understanding of how safety occurs." One of the interesting things about a reduced workforce is ac- tually your safety performance can get better on a per-employee basis, said MacGillivray. "And the reason for that is, when we have tough times, com- panies tend to keep their best, most experienced people. And those people also bring a higher level of safety performance." One of the things top employ- ers are doing is upgrading the skills and training of the workers still on board, he said. "So when there is an upswing — no one is exactly sure when growth will return, but we know it will — and when that happens, you have a lot of green workers or inexperienced workers com- ing into the workforce, and that can cause the other effect to happen, which is an increase in safety incidents," added MacGil- livray. "One of the ways to help re- duce that effect is to train, in the slower times, the people you have retained to improve and upgrade their skills. And we cer- tainly see that going on. "Although there's a signifi- cant reduction in the number of people being trained because the workforce is smaller, we are see- ing companies take this time to upgrade the skills of the workers they have retained." Top talent leads the way In addition to ramped-up training and focus on safety, during a peri- od of layoffs, many companies are often whittled down to only their most experienced, most talented workers, said Quilley. "There are two opportuni- ties: One for the most talented workers to be quite in demand, so that doesn't necessarily mean you're going to hang on to the best — they may be attracted to go somewhere else. But it's true that (employers try to keep their best talent)," he said. "There's a good chance that you have the most experienced workers." There's no magic bullet, but top employers are simply con- tinuing to make safety the first priority, said Quilley. "Most of the folks I know in the oil and gas business are do- ing what they always do, just at a scaled-down version," he said. "For example, if they honestly believe that (a job requires) a three-man crew, then it's still a three-man crew, and they're just going to take on fewer projects." And that safety culture has to start at the very top, said Mac- Gillivray. "For (oil and gas) executives, the challenge is not their values and beliefs, because every ex- ecutive worth their salt in the oil and gas industry has a firm belief in safety, because we work in en- vironments that are riskier than an office environment — out- doors, in all conditions, around heavy equipment," he said. "So the challenge for some leaders is not their beliefs in safety or their values in safety, but how they translate that into action." Sweeping < pg. 1 Establish what is essential to ensure safety requirement to ensure all per- manent and temporary build- ings and structures that it neither owns nor has a right to alter meet safety standards. The court referred to the prin- ciple stated in Elmer Driedger's Construction of Statutes, which stated that the text of a legislative act should be read in its context and normal sense, with consid- eration of the object of the act and the intention of Parliament when it passed the act. It found the appeals officer took this ap- proach when determining the code drew a distinction between workplaces controlled by the em- ployer and those that are not, and not all obligations applied when the employer didn't control the workplace. The court found this was a reasonable interpretation based on "a harmonious reading of the words in their context." Employer can't inspect areas outside its control or access The court found the appeal offi- cer's finding that "the employer can only satisfy certain obliga- tion imposed by the subsection when in control of the work- place" was based on the fact the purpose of the requirement could only be achieved when the employer was able to iden- tify and fix hazards — which it couldn't if it had no control or access to areas where letter car- riers went on their routes. The court also found it was reasonable for the appeals offi- cer to conclude that an employer didn't control the workplace where many points of call were private property or public plac- es, and therefore couldn't carry out inspections and accomplish the objectives of the inspection requirement. In addition, the court agreed with the appeal officer's distinc- tion between workplace control and work activity control in de- termining whether the inspec- tion obligations applied. Be- cause it was found that Canada Post didn't have control over the workplace, it wasn't necessary to address control over the work activity because the corporation was limited in what it could do to the physical workplace anyway, said the court. The court found the appeals officer's decision that Canada Post didn't have any control over hazards and conditions on the routes of letter carriers and there- fore didn't have an obligation to inspect them was reasonable. It dismissed the union's appeal. "The appeals officer recog- nized that Parliament intended to give the broadest possible protection to employees includ- ing to those performing work in a place which the employer may not control," said the court. "In my view the appeals officer's in- terpretation of (the inspection requirements in the act) dem- onstrates sensitivity to preserv- ing the broad nature of the em- ployer's obligations to ensure the health and safety of its employ- ees without placing obligations upon the employer that the latter would be unable to fulfill." For more information see: • CUPW v. Canada Post Corp., 2016 CarswellNat 620 (F.C.). e safety performance of a reduced workforce can get better on a per-employee basis. Employer can't fix hazards without control Workplace < pg. 2

• Cover