Canadian Safety Reporter - sample

7 Canadian HR Reporter, a Thomson Reuters business 2016 ability to deal with fare evasion more effectively than the driver." The report notes, however, that for many operators budget and resource restraints present challenges to maintaining regu- lar security presence on buses. Cameras, panic buttons and partitions Some transit operators have put cameras on buses as a preventa- tive measure. "If everyone who gets on the bus sees a sign that says there are cameras here, that may deter a few people or may make them behave differently," says Hyde. "It can help deter, or help to investigate and prosecute when there's been an attack." The ATU is lobbying for panic buttons on every transit bus, for fast help in the case of emergen- cies. "This device would auto- matically link bus drivers with the police, and they would be able to send the authorities di- rectly to the location because it's all GPS-controlled," says Thorp. Physical barriers between drivers and passengers are an- other option. "The ATU sup- ports transparent partitions around bus operator seating, capable of withstanding gun- fire," says Thorp. It's a measure already in place in many regions, including Toronto, where every bus and streetcar has screens. "A physical barrier like this has worked very well in Europe, where the operator is totally seg- regated from the public," says Thorp. A barrier or screen can be retractable, allowing a driver to leave it tucked away during low- risk hours and routes, then pull it into place during higher-risk pe- riods — in line with route safety data and a driver's comfort level. Not everyone agrees on screens, however. "Screens are debated by the drivers," says Hyde. "Some feel screens impact sight lines and negatively impact their ability to drive, and some feel as though it segregates them and puts them in a little jail cell." "The operators enjoy speaking with the public and they love en- gaging and answering questions," says Thorp. "The problem we face is that if this barrier is going to save one of my operators, then that's the way we have to go." In addition to driver resis- tance, cost can be an obstacle to screen installation as well. "Ret- rofitting screens across a whole system can be expensive," says Hyde, but he points out it's the only surefire way to keep drivers safe. "You can have myriad dif- ferent programs but there's only one way to stop a fist from physi- cally hitting a driver's body and that is to have a screen." Effectively improving driver safety involves the experience and perspectives of many, says Hyde. "It really is a team effort, it's the bus system operator company getting together with the union, drivers and safety and security professionals, and all working to- gether to say, 'Okay what are we facing, what's the risk, what are the options, what's the best rep- ertoire on this bus system on this route, at this time of day?'" According to Hyde, assess- ments, data analysis, safety mea- sures and even public awareness campaigns can work in concert to set a tone. "It's the way the bus is presented, the way the driver is visibly protected, the demeanor and actions of the driver, the visible camera with a sign — all of these things help enforce the message that there is oversight and that there are behavioral ex- pectations on the bus," says Hyde. "Our operators are very pas- sionate about their jobs, they care about their passengers, and they want to make sure they experience the best service pos- sible," says Thorp. "We're asking for people to treat us with the same respect that we treat them. For anyone to have to go work in fear of being assaulted in any way is absolutely unacceptable." The WHSC denied Russell's claim, noting that Russell didn't complain of any ongoing pain or discomfort, nor did he report a specific workplace incident. Given he was able to perform his job with the new van until he went on vacation in November 2012, the WHSC determined he wasn't disabled and he was placed off work for non-occupa- tional reasons. Worker capable of work in some capacity: Tribunal Russell appealed to the WHSC appeals tribunal, which dis- missed his appeal in a split deci- sion, finding there was no objec- tive medical evidence showing Russell's functions had changed since the original injury. In addi- tion, Russell said that he was will- ing to return to work if Canada Post accommodated his restric- tions, leading the tribunal to de- termine he was capable of work and not entitled to workers' com- pensation benefits. Russell ap- pealed that decision to the New Brunswick Court of Appeal. The court found that Russell was put off work because his original injury was aggravated by delivering mail in the new vehi- cle. Though he worked with the new van for one month before going on vacation and subse- quently being put off work, Rus- sell informed Canada Post that using the new van caused him pain and difficulties. His doctor only put him off work when he explained the pain and difficul- ties to his physician, and this was only intended to be until he had his assessment, said the court. The court also found that Canada Post and the disability benefits provider both knew by the time of the assessment that Russell was not claiming to be off due to a non-occupational injury but rather due to his 1992 injury and the upcoming assess- ment. In addition, they could not point to the fact he waited six months to apply for workers' compensation benefits as sus- picious, since he was receiving short-term disability benefits and believed the assessment would assist his return to work. The court looked to the WHSC policy on recurrences, which defined them as return or reactivation of the original com- pensable injury, without a new incident. While it found there was no doubt Russell suffered pain related to his 1992 injury after the change in vehicles, the court agreed with the appeals tribunal that Russell's condition did not disable him and cause him to lose time at work. The court pointed out that Russell had indicated he was will- ing to return to work immediately if he could use a right-hand vehi- cle or have some other accommo- dation. This was evidence he was capable of work in some capac- ity and not disabled. In addition, Canada Post had positions that were often used to accommodate postal workers who had injuries preventing them from working in their regular jobs — if Russell came back to work they could examine the possibility of placing him in such a position. The court ruled Russell's ab- sence from work was not due to the recurrence of his original work injury and dismissed the appeal. For more information see: • Russell v. New Brunswick (Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission), 2016 CarswellNB 206 (N.B. C.A.). Worker's < pg. 6 Assault < pg. 4 Absence from work not due to injury: Court Different ways to protect drivers from assault News | August 2016 | CSR e worker suffered pain related to his old injury but it didn't disable him and cause him to lose time at work. ere were accommodation options.

• Cover