Welcome to The BC Safety Briefing. I'm Michael Chen, and in this AI-generated podcast, we explore occupational health and safety in British Columbia. Remember, this show is for educational purposes only—not legal or professional advice.

Today, we're examining a critical WCAT decision from 2020 that shows exactly what happens when prime contractor coordination fails. This case, WCAT Decision A1607091, connects directly to concerns raised in the BC Legislature in 1998 when these laws were first debated.

Picture this: February 26, 2014, a produced water spill cleanup site in northern BC. Multiple contractors working in tight quarters. An excavator operator from T Ltd. swings his bucket around, doesn't see the worker from S Ltd. standing beside a metal tank, and crushes him against it. Serious injuries. WorkSafeBC investigates. And what they find is a textbook case of coordination failure.

Now here's where it gets interesting. The natural gas company that owned the site retained prime contractor status but hired W Ltd. to handle the actual safety coordination. They appointed two employees, SC1 and SC2, as safety coordinators. When WorkSafeBC interviewed SC2 after the accident, she admitted—and I'm quoting here—"Probably, probably not" when asked if she was qualified to coordinate safety on the site. She said this was her first time doing this type of activity.

Think about that for a moment. The person responsible for coordinating safety at a multi-employer worksite with excavators, heated tanks, and multiple crews working in close proximity had never done this before. She was qualified for environmental assessments, sure, but safety coordination? That's a different skill set entirely.

Let me take you back to May 25, 1998. The BC Legislature is debating what would become section 118 of the Workers Compensation Act. The Minister of Labour stands up and says that prime contractors should be given, and I quote, "a little bit of slack" because they're coordinating multiple employers who don't report directly to them. He emphasized that section 118 focuses on coordination of activities rather than compliance.

Twenty-two years later, WCAT looks at this legislative history and essentially says: that slack doesn't mean what you think it means. It doesn't reduce your responsibilities—it changes their nature. You're not directly supervising every worker, but you absolutely must ensure coordination happens.

Here's what the investigation revealed about how this coordination actually worked on site. Instead of holding group safety meetings where all contractors could discuss overlapping hazards, SC1 and SC2 would walk around individually, hand workers safety sheets, and get signatures. The excavator operator testified that no one ever sat down at the beginning of the job with everybody in one spot to discuss hazards. Workers from S Ltd. held their own informal safety meetings without the coordinator's involvement.

The employer's construction manager, JB, visited the site ten times. But here's the kicker—he thought W Ltd. was the prime contractor. He didn't even understand his own company's legal responsibilities. He'd show up, give some advice about melting snow more efficiently, sign some tickets, and leave. That's not monitoring. That's not oversight.

WCAT's analysis is fascinating. They found that section 118 subsection 2 creates strict obligations. The phrase "must ensure" that activities are coordinated means "make certain"—not hope, not assume, but make certain. And "do everything that is reasonably practicable" doesn't mean do what's convenient. It means do everything that's feasible given the circumstances.

The tribunal laid out what prime contractors actually need to do. First, screen your contractors not just for technical skills but for safety qualifications. Second, ensure workers from all companies get proper orientation about site-specific hazards. Third, conduct ongoing monitoring—real monitoring, not just dropping by occasionally. Fourth, actively coordinate. Don't just hand off responsibility and walk away.

The employer argued they'd done their due diligence by hiring W Ltd., a qualified environmental firm with a good reputation. WCAT said that's not enough. You can't satisfy your prime contractor obligations by simply hiring someone competent and hoping for the best. You need to verify they're qualified for safety coordination specifically, not just environmental work. You need to monitor their performance. You need to ensure the systems are actually working.

Now here's where this case takes an unexpected turn. Despite finding the violation occurred, WCAT cancelled the sixty-four thousand dollar penalty. Why? Three reasons that should concern every safety professional in this province.

First, timing. The Board took nineteen months from the incident to impose the penalty. No explanation for the delay. The investigation wasn't particularly complex. This wasn't a situation where they were waiting for crucial evidence. The delay undermined the motivational purpose of the penalty.

Second, the Board issued three penalties on the same day—September 15, 2015—for violations that occurred in February, July, and August of 2014. Think about that from a continuous improvement perspective. How can an employer learn from a penalty and improve their systems if they don't even know about the first violation before committing the second and third?

Third, and this really bothered WCAT, W Ltd. wasn't penalized at all. They were equally responsible for the coordination failure. Their employee admitted she wasn't qualified. They failed to hold proper safety meetings. Yet only the prime contractor got hit with a penalty. WCAT called this arbitrary, and I agree.

But don't mistake the cancellation of the penalty for vindication. WCAT was crystal clear: the violation occurred. The employer failed in its duties as prime contractor. They just got lucky on procedural grounds.

Let's talk about what this means for your workplace. If you're a prime contractor, you cannot delegate and disappear. When you assign safety coordination to someone, you need to verify their specific qualifications for that role. Environmental expertise doesn't equal safety coordination skills. Construction experience doesn't automatically translate to coordinating multiple employers.

You need systems that bring everyone together. Individual conversations with workers aren't coordination. Coordination means group meetings where the excavator operator hears what the labourers are doing, where the environmental consultant understands the equipment hazards, where everyone knows who's working where and when.

Document everything. Not just signatures on forms nobody reads, but real documentation of group discussions, hazard identification, and control measures. When that WorkSafeBC officer shows up after an incident, you need to prove coordination actually happened, not just that papers were signed.

Here's something else from the 1998 debates that resonates today. MLAs worried about the broad definition of "owner" and how multiple parties might be responsible. They questioned what "cooperation" really means in practice. They wondered if these provisions could be misused. Twenty-five years later, we're still sorting out these exact issues through WCAT decisions.

The evolution from legislative intent to enforcement reality shows us that workplace safety law isn't static. It develops through cases like this one, where real workers get hurt and tribunals have to decide what coordination really means, what "reasonably practicable" actually requires, and whether procedural fairness matters as much as substantive compliance.

For those of you managing prime contractor responsibilities, remember this: the standard isn't perfection, but it's not passive delegation either. You need active systems, qualified people, and ongoing oversight. The days of hiring a consultant and walking away are over. WorkSafeBC and WCAT expect you to ensure—not hope, ensure—that coordination happens.

Looking at the bigger picture, this case demonstrates why we need consistency in enforcement. Delayed penalties, arbitrary decisions about who gets penalized, and bundled enforcement actions undermine the entire system. How can we build a safety culture when the consequences for violations appear random or politically motivated?

As we wrap up today's episode, I want you to remember three key takeaways from WCAT Decision A1607091. First, prime contractor duties are different from but not less than employer duties. That "little bit of slack" the Minister mentioned in 1998 doesn't reduce your obligations—it recognizes that you're coordinating rather than directly supervising.

Second, delegation without verification and monitoring equals violation. You can't contract away your prime contractor responsibilities by hiring qualified firms. You need to ensure they're doing what they're supposed to do.

Third, coordination means bringing people together, not managing them separately. Those individual safety conversations SC2 had with workers? Not coordination. Real coordination requires group communication about overlapping hazards and shared workspaces.

The worker who was crushed against that tank suffered serious injuries that could have been prevented with proper coordination. A simple spotter system, a group discussion about blind spots, or even just high-visibility vests worn consistently might have made the difference. These aren't complex safety measures. They're basic coordination failures that section 118 was designed to prevent.

For more information on prime contractor responsibilities, visit WorkSafeBC's website and review the BC OHS Regulation. You can find WCAT decisions at wcat.bc.ca.

Until then, this is Michael Chen reminding you that coordination isn't just paperwork—it's about making sure everyone goes home safe at the end of the day. Stay safe, British Columbia.