We are writing in response to a March 24 article entitled “Experience rating system continues to disappoint” to express our concern about some major inaccuracies in the statements articulated in that article.

Back in June when I found out I would be interning here at COS I wasn’t quite sure what to expect, especially since I didn’t know a whole heck of a lot about occupational health and safety issues. After all, I couldn’t really remember when I had first learned about WHMIS or the right to refuse unsafe work. 

Al Quilley’s article “Failure in Alberta” (published in your June/July 2010 magazine) generated feelings of both concern and disappointment when I read it. I have known Al for many years and have held him in high regard for his work in health and safety in Alberta. However, his interpretation of the Alberta Auditor General’s report and the Certificate of Recognition program in Alberta is at best, misleading and disappointing.

For clarification, I am providing statements from the Auditor’s Report which will provide the reader with a factual landscape of what the report actually stated.

The report indicated that “Half of those employers that persistently fail to comply with the OHS Act also continue to hold a valid Certificate of Recognition (COR),4 and continue to have elevated injury rates among their workers. In short, although these employers do not comply with OHS orders, and their workers are much more likely to get injured on the job, these employers continue to receive Partners in Injury Reduction financial rebates and use their COR to bid on contracts with major companies in such industries as construction, and oil and gas.”

The preceding statement looks very damning. However, it needs to be taken in the proper context.

“Over 7,800 employers hold COR, representing $31.4-billion in insurable earnings and about 40% of the Alberta workforce.” As stated earlier, the Auditor’s Report indicates that some employers continually fail to comply with OHS orders. “We selected five months from 2007-2008 and reviewed the status of all 3,392 orders issued by the Department during this period. Most employers complied with OHS orders. However, 109 OHS orders (3.2% of all orders written) for 63 employers were still open.”

“We performed further analysis of data for 20 employers with open orders and 18 employers with suspended orders. Half of these employers held or still hold a valid Certificate of Recognition. In short, these employers do not comply with OHS orders and their workers are much more likely to get injured on the job, yet these employers continue to receive Partners in Injury Reduction financial rebates and use their COR to bid on contracts with major companies in such industries as construction, and oil and gas.”

The Auditor’s Report indicates that there were 63 problem employers with further analysis showing that half of the 63 problem employers have a COR. There are over 7,800 COR holders in Alberta.

At this point it must be made clear that the Partnerships in Injury Reduction program makes an effort to try and involve all 63 of these companies in the COR program. To make any sense out of this we would need to know how long they have had a COR and whether or not they have begun to improve their performance. The Alberta Construction Safety Association believes that getting all 63 companies into the COR program can only help these companies. If Partnerships are successful with their efforts we may have all 63 involved in COR and working to improve their programs and compliance with legislation. Involving these companies in COR and helping them improve would be a success not a failure.

The Auditor Report goes on to state, “It must be noted that, overall, the Department’s preliminary analysis of the COR program shows that employers who hold valid COR achieve greater reduction in injury rates, on average, than non-COR employers. Our examination of a sample of compliance files also shows that COR employers tend to comply with OHS orders faster and require fewer re-inspections than non-COR holders.”

We do not have the COR statistics for 2009 at this point but in the construction industry in Alberta in 2008 COR holders had a Lost-Time Claim Rate of 1.49 and non-COR had a Lost-Time Claim Rate of 2.78. When you do the math you will see the difference between COR and non-COR is 46% lower for COR holders. If that is Al Quilley’s definition of “Failure,” the Alberta Construction Safety Association needs a program of “continuous failure”.

Gary Wagar, B.A., CRSP
Executive Director, Alberta Construction Safety Association

I just wanted to express my disappointment with the article that discussed all the "alleged" bad things about COR. I'm assuming the article was submitted as an opinion article? As other viewpoints were not presented - no other viewpoint from other consultants, safety organizations, etc.

It is also interesting to note the auditor general's report was for the COR program in Alberta but the article seemed to target the entire COR program - COR is active in BC, Alberta,Saskatchewan and Manitoba (Ontario is trying to bring an accreditation program in but who knows when it will actually happen (or ever happen considering all the involvement of politics and unions).
 
The COR audit does require plenty of evidence that a safety program is functioning out on the worksite and in the office filing cabinet. Maybe there wasn't enough emphasis on worksites, etc. in Alberta but when I do COR audits in Manitoba I make sure a company isn't just talking safety - but nothing (COR program) and nobody (me or other COR auditors) is perfect so problems will exist.
 
If the COR audit and COR program administration is done in a professional and ethical fashion - there will still be problems - but the adminstrators and auditors should be able to sleep at night knowing they've done something good. Rather than have a well-meaning author (obtaining continuing education credits for the article) -  I don't see the author presenting an alternative - except maybe what's discussed on their website...
I wish you would consider implementing an editorial policy whereby, if the COS magazine publishes an "opinion article" that is clearly be identified as opinion article or, that it be balanced by the author, or that COS allows the targeted group an opportunity to counter the points of the original author.
 
Thanks - I enjoyed the rest of the magazine. Keep up the great work and have a great day.

Bryan Millar, MNRM, CHSC, CSO
Millar Safety & Environmental Services