Hang Time

When Human Resources Development Canada amended the Canada Labour Code’s occupational safety rules on fall protection last November, it was supposed to settle the debate over whether federally regulated truck operators would have to comply. The previous standard required employers to provide harnesses, platforms, and the like to workers who have to climb an “unguarded structure” higher than eight feet (2.4 metres) above the nearest safe place to stand.

But in 1996, an Ontario court ruled that trucks and trailers don’t meet the legal definition of a structure, so motor carriers were not required to follow the regulations.

The amendment fixes that by adding the term “vehicle” to the regulation, but it offers little guidance on what kind of fall protection systems truckers should use. Furthermore, it excuses a carrier from installing fall-protection equipment on a vehicle if it’s not “reasonably practicable,” either because of engineering problems or high cost.

“Reasonably practicable” is an expression which, at least for now, is open to interpretation.

Carriers may end up spending a lot of money on systems the department will reject, or they may have systems that already comply. Many tankers are already equipped with some form of fall-protection safety system. Automatic or sliding tarp systems can reduce the need for drivers to work high above ground.

HRDC and the Canadian Trucking Alliance, the Ottawa lobby group, are talking about how to clear up the inconsistencies.

“I’m not sure you’re ever going to get HRDC to agree that, for example, product A and B, made by a certain manufacturer, attached to a certain vehicle, is acceptable or unacceptable,” says CTA vice-president Graham Cooper. “What we’re trying to do is develop some guidelines. We need to establish some sort of precedent for those fall-protection systems that are acceptable, those that are not, and for those situations where carriers have deemed that installing these systems is not reasonably practicable.”

In order to justify such a claim, the employer must submit a written report to regional health and safety officials and the company’s workplace committee or health and safety representative. Among the issues it has to cover:

— The technical aspect of complying. Would a fall- protection system introduce other hazards? For example, it may be impractical and even dangerous to introduce a fall-protection system on a certain type of trailer with certain loads.

— The impact on safety. Would compliance have a noticeable effect on safety?

— The economic impact. Would the cost be justified? “If you have a trailer where the book value is five grand, it’s 15 years old, and you have to spend more than what it’s worth to convert it, or retrofit it, then HRDC says, at least in their guideline, that they will recognize that,” Cooper says.

Other factors HRDC will take into account are the degree to which an employer has trained its staff on fall protection, the degree to which it has tried to comply, the risk of not installing a system, and any precedents in similar situations. It underscores how, in the end, a health and safety inspector will determine what’s reasonably practicable.

In the meantime, Cooper wants carriers who have researched and installed fall protection systems to call him and discuss their findings. The same goes for employers who believe that implementation is not reasonably practicable for their business.

“The way I see it, it’s almost like building case law,” says Cooper. “It’s not quite that legalistic, obviously, but it’s easier for the carriers to use (these guidelines) than for us to sit back down for I don’t know how many months or years and try to hammer out exactly what types of equipment are acceptable and all the ones that aren’t.”

For more information read the text at: http://canadagazette.gc.ca/partII/2002/20021106/html/sor379-e.html. Or call Louise Graham is with HRDC’s occupational health and safety policy unit, 819/997-3815. Graham Cooper is vice-president of the Canadian Trucking Alliance, 613/236-9426.