Walmart, supervisor charged over death of young worker

Written by  Mari-len De Guzman 07 December 2011
WorkSafeNB has laid charges under New Brunswick's Occupational Health and Safety Act against Walmart and one of its supervisors over the electrocution and subsequent death of a 17-year-old employee at a store in Grand Falls, N.B., early this year.
On January 5, 2011 at approximately 8:30 p.m., 17-year-old Patrick Desjardins died from an electrical shock he received while using a floor buffer that had been plugged into a standard 110-volt power source. He was working on a wet floor at the Wal-Mart store in Grand Falls.

Following the incident, WorkSafeNB investigators undertook an extensive and lengthy investigation looking beyond the obvious causes of the incident to identify the underlying causes, according to a statement from WorkSafeNB. This is standard practice in all serious workplace accidents and fatalities.

As a result of the investigation, WorkSafeNB issued several orders against Wal-Mart. These include: an order to take all reasonable precautions to protect its employees; to ensure that electrical equipment is suitable for its intended use and that it is installed, maintained, modified and operated in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications; and, to ensure that a tool is of good quality, is inspected, maintained and repaired by a competent person and is stored in a proper area. The employer complied with all orders issued.

WorkSafeNB staff also determined that Wal-Mart and a member of its staff failed to comply with some key provisions of the Occupational Health and Safety Act and Regulations. As such, WorkSafeNB has laid charges against Wal-Mart. These charges are for various alleged breaches of the OHS Act and Regulations and specifically allege that Wal-Mart:
  • Failed to ensure the health and safety of employees by allowing the use of an inappropriate floor polisher and a faulty extension cord in the garage area;
  • Failed to ensure that employees complied with specific requirements when using a tool;
  • Failed to ensure that the garage was inspected by the employer at least once a month to identify any risks to the health and safety of the employees;
  • Failed to ensure that a tool (a floor polisher) was inspected before use and repaired or replaced if necessary and was maintained in proper working condition;
  • Failed to ensure that employees were instructed to use a tool (a floor polisher) only for the specific purpose for which it was designed;
  • Failed to ensure that an electric power-operated hand tool (a floor polisher) is tested for the effectiveness of the double insulation or bonding to ground before each use by a continuity tester or ground fault circuit interrupter; and,
  • Failed to ensure that electrical equipment is suitable for its use and that it is maintained and modified in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications by permitting the use of a faulty extension cord in the garage area of the store.
Additionally, WorkSafeNB laid charges against a supervisor who did not meet the standards required of a person in that position as set out in the OHS Act. These charges allege that the supervisor:
  • Failed to ensure the health and safety of employees by allowing the use of an inappropriate floor polisher and a faulty extension cord in the garage area, and
  • Failed to acquaint an employee with any hazards in connection with the use of a tool or machine, namely a floor polisher.
Reacting to the charges, Walmart said in a statement, "first and foremost, our deepest thoughts remain with Patrick Desjardins and his family."

The company said it has co-operated fully with the investigation and "is taking every opportunity to understand and investigate this incident so that similar incidents can be prevented in the future."

"The health and safety of our (employees) is — and always will be — a top priority for Walmart Canada. We direct significant time, energy and resources to the development of health and safety policies and training to support accident prevention," the retail giant said.

Because this matter is now before the courts, WorkSafeNB is unable to provide further information. All court proceedings are open to the public.

--- with files from The Canadian Press
Last modified on Wednesday, 07 December 2011 10:26
Mari-len De Guzman

Mari-len De Guzman

Mari-Len De Guzman is the editor of Canadian Occupational Safety magazine and www.cos-mag.com.


Website: www.cos-mag.com E-mail: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

Social Profiles

comments  

 
0 #6 Theresa Galaske 2012-03-12 02:51
@ Mat. I did not state that they need to hire an onsite Safety Officer. They have companies that contract services for them to come in and check the facilities - once a month. Cheaper to pay the contractor (safety officer) than it is in fines from WorkSafe BC. That was my experience from working in the Construction Industry. @ Myles - You hit the nail right on the head!
Quote
 
 
+1 #5 myles kennedy 2012-02-15 00:47
working as a safety Officer for years, I know that the managers are used as scape goats for accidents, However, in many of those cases the managers are not trained very ofter on safety issues, and in most cases don't have the knowledge to make an informed decision. The company has due diligence requirements to ensure that a safety plan is developed and implemented using employees, managers, store managers and cooperative managers. In some cases Privincial safety offices can be used a resource. the best solution would be to hire a safety officer and have a real plan developed, because in all cases those professionals know the requirements to put into place all aspects of the safety program to ensure all employees are covered and all aspects concerning the safety program is addressed.
This is also a requirement under Bill C-45.
Quote
 
 
+3 #4 Gold Seal 2012-01-13 14:25
I agree with Mat to a degree, we are a resource for the employer and we often carry an unpopular message when we go in to "see the boss" to address safety concerns. The employer is responsible to provide a safe and healthy workplace, adequate supervision, training, etc. I think the court will deliver the appropriate verdict and find that the employer did not provide adequate supervision or training, and the supervisor will likely face a penalty as well. Where safety professionals need to show passion and provide leadership is in the delivery of unpopular messages and put the picture of repercussions similar to this in the front of the employer's mind. Let's face it, nobody wants to see someone injured or killed but sometimes money is the main concern and safety usually takes a back seat to the reason people go into business. Greed? I don't think so. Complacency? likely...
Quote
 
 
+9 #3 Mat L. Matthews 2011-12-22 12:23
This is a response to Theresa's post. As a health and safety professional of almost 20 years, please do not comment on the fact that we are needed to "monitor the facilities more frequently" We are typically hired as a resource, providing direction and guidance. The responsibilitie s associated with monitoring a jobsite lie with the management and supervisors. It is easy to see why Walmart was charged with an offence, but a knee-jerk reaction to have a safety "officer" onsite to police the workers is not the answer. It appears to me that Walmart simply did not educate their management team and supervisors what was considered safe and what was not. As a result, we lost someone over something that simply should not have happened. Unfortunately our legislation is written by the blood of those less fortunate. Let this be a reminder that safety is not just the "safety professional's" responsibiilty, but must come from every single person hired to do a job, Walmart or otherwise.
Quote
 
 
+4 #2 Theresa Galaske 2011-12-09 13:53
In this day in age, you would think that one of the wealthiest Fortune 500 companies would have a universal mandate in place for safety procedures in the workplace. The Supervisor cannot be the only one to blame in this incident. Thorough ongoing training of Supervisors and staff can make accidents preventable. When you have a workplace with over 50 employees on site 365 days a year, you most definately need an Occupational Health and Safety officer to monitor the facilities more frequently. Maybe this incident will be an eye opener for the corporate bigwigs that value profit over lives.
Quote
 
 
-2 #1 Gib Patterson 2011-12-08 17:45
The Supervisor and Walmart needto be punished Walmart for hiring an incompetant person to supervisor to look after the workers and the supervisor for not doing his/her job and Worksafe NB should not be gentle...
Quote
 

Add comment


Security code
Refresh

 

Reader Poll
Should Canada impose a total ban on manufacturing and exporting of asbestos products?