|
Reader Panel - Education on C-45 not on most company’s |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wednesday, 19 April 2006 |
By Andrew Wareing
Bill C-45, which amended the Criminal Code of Canada, came into effect two years ago and it still has employers, labour leaders and workers scratching their heads about what it all means.
In a nutshell, the legislation amends the Criminal Code to make
employers criminally liable in the event of an accident, if they fail
in some way to protect the safety of the worker. As outlined in the
July/August 2005 edition of Canadian Occupational Safety (COS) by legal
columnist Cheryl Edwards, the first test of the legislation came and
went after the prosecution of Vista Construction which was charged with
one count of criminal negligence causing death when a worker was
crushed as the wall of a trench he was working in gave way. Charges
were also filed against the company’s owner Domenico Fantini under the
Ontario Occupational Health and Safety Act.
In the end, the Criminal Code charges were dismissed and Fantini
pleaded guilty as an employer to three OHSA charges in connection with
the incident. He was fined personally a total of $50,000.
Our latest Reader Panel survey asked how C-45 is affecting COS readers.
So far, more than 78 per cent of our readers have not encountered a
situation in which C-45 would come into play. However, more than 20 per
cent report they’ve had absolutely no education on the ramifications
and impacts of C-45. More than 35 per cent have attended seminars
outside of the community or province they work, put on by national
organizations. Of the others, 26 per cent report company/division-wide
seminars by outside consultants and almost 14 per cent report managers’
meetings with their company’s legal counsel only.
One reader said he/she had been given notes from a briefing while
another complained of absolutely no information being provided. Another
has obtained training on his/her own time.
“The major problem with this bill, just like every other bill, is that
‘due diligence’ only goes one way,” says one reader. “Responsibility
has to be a major issue throughout an organization and every person
within the organization has to be made accountable for their actions
and/or inactions with regard to safety.
So far, the majority, at over 76 per cent, report the legislation has
had absolutely no measurable impact on the safe operation of their
organization.
“Not a measurable change (yet) but has certainly made supervisors,
managers give a little more thought to some of their decisions and
actions,” observes one reader.
“I think it keeps them on their toes,” says one reader while others are
a little more cynical. As one pointed out, “We have always been working
toward a zero incident work place. Due diligence is something everyone
here understands. If they say that they don’t I would have to hit the
BS buzzer.”
It was a split vote of 30 per cent who were in favour of either more
clarification of where people’s liabilities are and what the
consequences are for infractions against the law and to make
enforcement of the law more of a priority with greater emphasis on
clear punishment for offenders. More than 20 per cent voted for more
emphasis on education while less than 10 per cent called for repealing
C-45.
Still, it has its problems.
“It is not enforceable, it will not hold up in court,” says a reader.
“There are too many government fingers in the pie, every enforcement
branch must do their investigation and see if charges can be laid. This
legislation was only brought in to be politically correct since the
mining accident.”
“I expect that this level of management will be prosecuted for a
mistake when in reality, the major issue should be whether or not there
is a culture of safety-first in the workplace. Senior company officials
must be made to realize that they are responsible to create a corporate
climate for safety,” another reader says. “Their words, actions, and
priorities must emphasize safety. They have the power to approve
budgets that are appropriate. They approve training. If this does not
occur, mid-level to junior personnel will still be left in the very
uncomfortable and unworkable position of the tail trying to wag the
dog.”
|
Choose Product Category
