The Government of Ontario and its workplace partners are committed to eliminating all workplace injuries. The Ontario Ministry of Labour is responsible for enforcing the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA). Under the Safe At Work Ontario program, the ministry is focusing its enforcement resources in areas where needed to enforce requirements under the OHSA through inspections. Many of these inspections are “proactive,” that is, they are conducted before workplace injuries occur.

Since June 2008, the Ministry of Labour has been conducting a series of inspection “blitzes” with a view to protecting workers in specific types of workplaces. Blitzes are well publicized to stakeholders in advance of visits to workplaces by health and safety inspectors.

Blitz subject

Safety of young and new workers in manufacturing and service sectors

Blitz period

June 2008

Background

Why focus on the safety of young and new workers in the manufacturing and service sectors?

Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) data show that from January 1, 2002 to December 31, 2006, 61 per cent of lost-time injuries to young workers occurred in service and manufacturing sectors: 45.7 per cent in service, 15.3 per cent in manufacturing. In this context, “young” workers are those under 25 years of age.

For the purposes of this report, “manufacturing” includes automotive; chemical, rubber and plastics; electrical and electronics; food, beverage and tobacco; logging and sawmills; primary metals; pulp and paper; textiles and printing; and wood and metal fabrication. “Service” includes offices and related services: restaurants, retail, tourism, hospitality and recreational services, vehicle sales and service, and wholesalers.

According to the Institute for Work & Health, new workers, regardless of age, are as much as four times more likely to be injured during their first month on the job than at any other time performing that job. This observation applies whenever a worker (regardless of age or work experience) is “new” to the work that he or she is performing – even if this work is with the same employer.

How the “blitz” was conducted

This “blitz,” performed throughout Ontario in the service and manufacturing sectors during June 2008, focussed on:

• young, new workers aged 15 to 24 years, inclusive, and
• new workers aged 25 and older who had been on the job less than six months or who had been reassigned to a new job.
  

During the blitz, 175 Ministry of Labour health and safety inspectors made 1047 visits to 833

workplaces.Inspectors issued 3371 safety-related orders; 75 of these were stop-work orders.

Blitz results and findings

The rate of orders issued per field visit during the young and new worker blitz in the service and manufacturing sectors was double the rate for the entire industrial program during the 12 months ending March 31, 2008. This indicates that during the blitz, inspectors were finding contraventions of the legislation more frequently than in workplaces outside the service and manufacturing sectors.

The ratio of stop work orders to all orders remained constant, indicating that inspectors were finding serious violations of the legislation.

Analysis of inspectors’ orders

The percentage of orders issued for older new workers in the industrial sector was generally consistent with the percentage of orders issued for young and new workers. The following analysis is based on the total orders issued during the blitz:

• The highest order count pertained to orders issued to employers under Sections 25 and 26 (duties of employers) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA). These orders represented 32 per cent of orders issued during the blitz. About a third of these orders were issued to employers under Section 25 (2)(h), the general duty clause of the OHSA, which requires employers to take every precaution reasonable in the circumstances to protect workers.
  
  
• The next highest order count for both categories was for Section 8 (Health and Safety Representative) and Section 9 (Joint Health and Safety Committee) orders under the OHSA. These orders represented 18 per cent of orders. This indicates the lack of a functioning Internal Responsibility System (IRS ) in the targeted firms.
  
  
• Orders pertaining to lifting devices under Section 51 of the Regulations for Industrial Establishments represented approximately six per cent of orders.
  
  
• Machine guarding orders under the Regulations for Industrial Establishments represented approximately five per cent of the total number of orders.
  
  
• The premises sections of the Regulations for Industrial Establishments (regarding floors to be kept clear of hazards, provision of clearances between moving parts and materials, guardrails, covers on openings in floors, requirements for fixed walkways/service stairs, and barriers/warning signs/safeguards to protect workers exposed to pedestrian traffic hazards) also represented about five per cent of orders.
  
  
• Material handling orders issued under Sections 45 and 49 of the Regulations for Industrial Establishments represented approximately three per cent of orders.
  
  
• Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System (WHMIS) orders also represented approximately three per cent of orders.
  
  
• Musculoskeletal disorder (MSD)/ergonomics orders under Section 54 of the OHSA represented just two per cent of orders. This low number may not suggest a high level of compliance. It may, in fact, reflect the drive within workplaces to develop new procedures, some of which may not yet have been fully assessed for their ergonomic impact on workers.
  
  
• Orders issued with respect to the personal protective equipment (PPE) sections of the Regulations for Industrial Establishments represented slightly less than two per cent of orders. This indicates that Inspectors found that PPE was being worn as required.
  
  
• During the blitz, there was only one order issued under Section 4, the minimum age requirement under the Regulation for Industrial Establishments. Inspectors found that employers in industrial establishments are employing age-appropriate workers as prescribed by the legislation.
  

Conclusion

The percentage of orders issued to employers of older new workers was very similar to that of orders that were issued to employers of young and new workers.

Half of all orders issued during the blitz were issued to employers under Sections 25/26 and Sections 8/9 of the OHSA; this indicates that the Internal Responsibility System generally requires strengthening in workplaces that employ young and new workers.

Orders were issued during the blitz at double the rate of orders issued by the Industrial Program as a whole (3.23 per field visit versus 1.62) based on program activity beginning April 1, 2008.

Employers appear to be complying with the minimum age requirements within industrial establishments (only one order issued during the blitz, 0.03 per cent of total).