Canadian Safety Reporter - sample

4 Canadian HR Reporter, a Thomson Reuters business 2019 May 2019 | News each consisted of a platform with railings, a spring-loaded gate, and a vertical track to run up and down along, to a maximum height of five metres. The lifts were installed at the plant in the early '90s and were used inspect processing equipment. Moore's lift was manufactured in 1971. As an assistant press opera- tor, Moore's job included oper- ating one of the lift platforms, which was referred as the as- sistant press operator's man lift. This particular lift had uneven legs welded to the underside of the basket, which had been done years previously to ac- commodate an employee with knee issues. The legs caused the platform to tilt slightly when it landed at the bottom, but it wasn't considered a safety con- cern by the joint occupational health and safety committee or the maintenance supervisor. In 2017, Moore noticed that his lift showed "a buckling ac- tion" when it began raising or lowering. He was concerned this movement was caused by a mis- alignment of the hydraulic cylin- der and the track it followed. He was also worried that the uneven legs under the platform contrib- uted to the buckling and pre- vented a proper cushioned land- ing at the bottom of the track. Moore submitted a hazard notification to Louisiana-Pacific on Oct. 8, 2017, stating that a section of the lift's track had be- come damaged. The company took the lift out of service and repaired the track. Two weeks later, on Oct. 21, Moore submit- ted another hazard notification indicating the uneven landing of the lift and that the limit switch — which kept the lift from over- extending the top position but wasn't used very often — wasn't functioning. The switch was re- paired three days later. On Nov. 7, Moore submitted a third hazard notification, this time about the lack of a cush- ioned landing and the uneven legs. Two weeks later, an outside service provider inspected the lift and repaired a leg and nylon bushing underneath. In addi- tion, Moore's concern about the way the lift descended was ad- dressed at the next joint health and safety committee meeting in December, which led to further work on the lift in February 2018 when the speed of its descent was adjusted. The committee was satisfied the deficiencies were corrected within a reason- able time frame and no other lift operators had any concerns at the time. The maintenance su- pervisor considered the "bang- ing action/clunk" as the lift landed as typical and had been happening since the company acquired the lift and all the in- spections determined the track had normal wear-and-tear, but no significant damage. The lift was inspected again by an outside service provider in May 2018 and broken welds on the guardrail were identified and repaired. A short time later, the limit switch was relocated to an area that was more accessible to the operator. Following this, an- other inspection was done and the lift was given a clean slate. In addition, the inspection dis- covered that a safety feature had been installed two years earlier that prevented the lift from de- scending too quickly. Worker still worried However, Moore submitted a health and safety complaint out- lining his concerns about what he felt was an old and deteriorat- ing lift, as well as the fact his lift wasn't certified in accordance with the Nova Scotia Elevators and Lifts Act and the company's joint occupational health and safety committee's lack of atten- tion to the problem — Louisi- ana-Pacific had inquired about certifying the lift but had been told by the provincial elevator and lifts division that the lift was excluded from the act. Moore's complaint led to a provincial occupational health and safety officer to inspect the lifts at the plant on June 27, 2018. The officer spoke to a manage- ment representative, a member of the joint occupational health and safety committee, and two employees on the plant floor. He also took pictures of the lift and went up and down on it several times, noticing that one leg un- der the platform touched and eventually became level with the other. Though there was a bit more of a jar than the other lift — that had no legs underneath — the officer considered the move- ment normal and not a concern. The officer completed a re- port of workplace inspection that took into account the regu- lar inspections by the outside service provider, the joint oc- cupational health and safety committee's address of Moore's concern about the lift's descent, and the repairs that had been done. The inspector concluded that "it is reasonable to believe that the assistant operators lift is adequately designed and main- tained to safely perform the task for which it is designed" and the joint occupational health and safety committee met regularly and was completely functional. As a result, there was no need to issue an order to Louisiana- Pacific to take any action. Moore disagreed with the in- spector's findings and failure to issue an order against Louisiana- Pacific and appealed to the Nova Scotia Labour Board. The board noted that both lifts at the plant were old and the as- sistant operator's lift was some- what different than the other one because of the legs that had been installed underneath it. The legs caused some uneven motion on the landing, but this effect had been examined by maintenance mechanics, the joint occupa- tional health and safety commit- tee, and the occupational health and safety officer — none of whom considered it a safety con- cern. In addition, no other oper- ators had raised any complaints about it, the board said. The board found that Moore's concerns about the lift's age and deterioration could be le- gitimate, but Louisiana-Pacific had taken measures to deal with these concerns. Employees were encouraged to report problems, the company had a regular in- spection and maintenance pro- gram, and the outside service provider inspections were be- yond legislative requirements, even if the Elevators and Lifts Act applied. There was no need for the company to follow the act anyway, as it had been advised that the act didn't apply. The board also found that Louisiana-Pacific dealt with each of Moore's hazard notifi- cations and resolved them in a timely way, satisfying its re- quirement for due diligence. In addition, the board agreed with the officer that the joint occu- pational health and safety com- mittee was doing an effective job by holding regular meetings, re- sponding to safety concerns, and keeping records of its minutes. Moore's appeal was dismissed. "The internal responsibility system in place under our work- place health and safety legisla- tion is and must be high prior- ity in every workplace," said the board. "(Moore) raised many issues about his lift, to the em- ployer. We are satisfied that they have been dealt with properly, and that his reporting has result- ed in improvements to the de- vice." See Moore and Louisiana – Pacific Canada Ltd., Re, 2019 CarswellNS 173 (N.S. Lab. Bd.). Lift was inspected and repaired after each hazard notice Old machinery < pg. 1 Credit: Shutterstock/Valerio Pardi

• Cover