Welcome to the BC Safety Briefing. I'm Michael Chen. And in this AI generated podcast, we explore the intricate world of occupational health and safety in British Columbia. A quick but important reminder, this show is for educational purposes only. It is not a substitute for legal or professional advice.

Always consult with a qualified professional for your specific circumstances. Today, we're embarking on part one of a fascinating three part series. We'll be dissecting several Workers' Compensation Appeal Tribunal or WCAT decisions involving the very same sawmill company between 2016 and 2021. Now why focus on one company? Because these cases offer an incredible window into how the concept of due diligence is evaluated at the highest appeal level.

They show us what factors WCAT truly weighs when it reviews and sometimes cancels significant administrative penalties. So let's dive into our first case, WCAT decision a one six zero five five nine zero with the final decision rendered on 03/27/2018. The story begins back on 10/07/2015. Two WorkSafe BC officers arrive at a BC sawmill to conduct an inspection. This wasn't a random visit.

It was part of the board's high priority combustible dust management initiative. For anyone unfamiliar, this initiative was a direct response to the tragic and fatal explosions at the Babine Forest Products Mill and the Lakeland Mill sawmill in 2012. Combustible wood dust became quite rightly one of the most scrutinized hazards in the industry. So the officers were there with a very specific mandate. During their inspection, they observed accumulations of wood dust in several areas.

Specifically, they found what's called secondary dust, fine dust that settles on surfaces like beams, rafters, and equipment, exceeding one eighth of an inch. To put that in perspective, that's about the thickness of two dimes stacked together. Now on the surface, this seems straightforward. A known hazard, a clear violation, a penalty. But this is where due diligence comes into play.

The employer appealed, and their evidence painted a very different picture. They showed they had developed an incredibly comprehensive combustible dust program starting right after WorkSafeBC's 2012 industry directive. They didn't just write a policy. They retained professional engineers to help design their systems. They implemented daily inspections by qualified personnel.

They maintained a dedicated 32 person cleanup crew whose sole job was dust management. And they had invested substantial capital, we're talking millions of dollars, in state of the art dust extraction systems. So what happened on October 7? The evidence revealed that on the day before the inspection, October 6, five members of that cleanup crew were unexpectedly absent. Two were on pre approved leave, but four called in sick.

That's a significant portion of a specialized crew. The employer scrambled calling in overtime workers, but they were still short approximately twenty four hours of their scheduled cleanup time. It was a perfect storm of unfortunate, uncontrollable circumstances. This is where WCAT Vice Chair Guy Reakin's analysis becomes so insightful. He agreed that, technically, a violation occurred.

The dust was there. However, he found that the employer had an effective overall safety program. He concluded they had not exercised due diligence to prevent this specific violation on this specific day, butand this is the crucial parthe determined the circumstances were highly unusual and not at all typical of the employer's generally robust and effective program. The penalty was canceled. The panel reasoned that penalizing an employer under these specific unforeseen circumstances would not serve the motivational purpose of administrative penalties.

It would be punitive, not corrective. Let's move to our second case, which presents a completely different scenario. This is WCAT decision A1800485, decided on August 1539. The incident here was not about dust, it was about a direct traumatic injury. A worker suffered serious life altering hand injuries when he contacted an unguarded table saw blade while trying to clear a jam.

WorkSafe BC's investigation led to orders under section 12.2 of the OHS regulation for inadequate guarding and section one fifteen two e for insufficient training and supervision. The subsequent administrative penalty was much larger this time, a $124,490. Once again, the employer appealed and their evidence of due diligence was extensive, bordering on overwhelming. They presented documentation showing the injured worker's training history. He had a three day orientation that specifically covered machine guarding and lockout procedures.

He received annual refresher training on job safety analysis sheets. Just two months before the accident, he had completed specific hand safety modules. This wasn't a green employee. He was a red seal carpenter with over ten years of experience. The employee supervision system was equally well documented.

They had formal quarterly stop evaluations where supervisors observe workers and provide immediate feedback. Supervisors made daily contact with their crews and performed check ins every two to three hours. Most powerfully, they produced records showing that this specific worker had been observed correctly following lockout procedures on 42 separate documented occasions. 42 times. The turning point in this case came from the worker's own statement during the board's investigation.

When asked why he didn't use the guard or lock out the machine, he said he didn't use the guard because he, and I quote, thought he could get away with it. WCAT vice chair Warren Hoole confirmed the guarding violation. The guard was not in place, so the hazard was present. But he canceled the violation for insufficient training and supervision. He found the employer had provided more than reasonable training and supervision.

The worker knew the rules, had been trained on the rules, and had demonstrated he knew how to follow the rules dozens of times. His action was a conscious choice to disregard his training. Based on this, the entire $124,490 penalty was canceled. The panel determined the violation resulted primarily from unforeseeable worker misconduct, not a failing on the part of the employer. The employer had done everything reasonably practicable to prevent such an incident.

So what can we take away from these two very different cases? From a due diligence perspective, several key themes emerge. First, and this is paramount, systematic documentation is your best friend. In both cases, the employer's ability to produce detailed records of training, inspections, investments, and supervision was the foundation of their defense. It's the classic safety mantra, if it wasn't written down, it didn't happen.

This company proved it happened. Second, context is everything. WCAT doesn't view violations in a vacuum. A violation that occurs during a string of unusual and uncontrollable circumstances, like the mass absenteeism in the dust case, is viewed very differently than one that points to a systemic ongoing problem. The Samuel demonstrated the dust issue was an anomaly, not the norm.

And third, these cases show that even the most comprehensive safety programs can't prevent all violations. The goal of due diligence isn't perfection. It's demonstrating that you have taken every precaution reasonable in the circumstances. The employer in the table saw case couldn't reasonably be expected to stand over an experienced, highly trained Red Seal carpenter for every minute of his shift. They had established a system of training and supervision that was deemed reasonable.

For safety professionals listening today, the message is clear. Go beyond just checking the boxes. Maintain meticulous records of all safety activities: training sign offs, safety talks, inspection reports, even positive observations. Implement robust training programs that include verification mechanisms, like the stop observations, to ensure the training is understood and being applied. Your goal is to build a safety management system that can demonstrate a continuous, deeply ingrained commitment to safety that goes far beyond mere regulatory compliance.

These two cases, a canceled $15,000 penalty and a canceled $124,000 penalty, set the stage for what's to come. Next week in part two, we'll examine how the same employer successfully defended against even larger penalties involving two of the highest risk activities in any industrial setting, lockout and confined space entry. The stakes get higher and the lessons become even more critical. Until then, this is Michael Chen reminding you that safety is everyone's responsibility.