Canadian HR Reporter

www.hrreporter.com 11 The contrast in the injury numbers around company size also points to different conditions based on their scale, says Bronk. "The probability of getting hurt on a small site, where the foundation might only be one-storey deep, versus a major office tower where the foundation could be 50 metres down, the risks are higher. There's fewer risks on those job sites than there is on a major [one]: There's tower cranes, there's a lot more possibili- ties for injuries." The combination of unions and large workforces provides more opportunity for an injured worker to be put on modi- fied work duties, which means less lost time and could be part of the reason for the numbers, says Tiano. "They're managing it, but the risk is still there. We need to have a bigger discussion when it comes to the true accident burden in Ontario, but we have a long way to go." The level of worker experience also plays a role in promoting safety, espe- cially among union shops, according to Robson. "On average, workers have a longer tenure within unionized companies compared to non-unionized… which means they have more experience. We [and] to managers and expecting some change and improvement. That should drive safer working conditions." Size does matter Another big factor beyond unionization is the size of the company, finds the study, with the overall effect being 25 per cent lower for lost-time allowed (LTA) injury claims at larger companies. The largest unionized employers have a 44-per-cent lower risk of lost-time injury, whereas, with smaller employers, there's no difference, says Robson. That finding makes sense when it comes to the regulatory environment, says DeWaard. "The larger the company, the more robust are the Occupational Health and Safety Act requirements. A project with more than five employees requires that there's an appointed health and safety worker represented. And at large or long-term projects, where the employer has more than 20 employees, [a] joint health and safety committee must be in effect and two of its members certified in health and safety training," he says. "The more employee engagement that a firm experiences in the internal responsibility system, the greater impact on safety culture." have other research at the institute that shows when you're new to a job, you're a lot more likely to be injured and non-unionized companies tend to have more lower-tenured workers so that could be one of the reasons driving the difference." Benefits to safety The benefits to companies that are safer are clear, says Bronk. "Your costs are lower with WSIB [Workplace Safety and Insurance Board]; your productivity is higher. If you're losing a couple of key employees, and you're replacing them with people who are newer, there's a learning curve so the productivity is higher." And the benefits don't always show up on the bottom line, he says. "There's studies that show that it does affect the morale and productivity. If your close friend is working by your side and some accident happens, and he gets really hurt and he's got a family, it does have an impact on your morale and productivity." In construction, in particular, "a good safety record is now a requirement for bidding on some projects," says Robson. But for more answers, phase two of the study will look at why there are these differences, says Bronk. "This is strictly a study on looking at the lost time due to injuries, and we are going to do a phase two [and] we're going to have to find out why is there a difference: What are the best prac- tices and how can we share that to the industry? Because, at the end of the day, we want the whole industry to be safer, union and non-union." CHRR "We would expect unionized workers to be more comfortable refusing unsafe work, more comfortable reporting minor injuries." Lynda Robson, IWH

• Cover