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 here in British Columbia. Before we begin, a quick reminder. This show is for educational and informational purposes only. It is not a substitute for legal or professional advice.

Always consult with a qualified professional for your specific situation. Today, we've reached the conclusion of our special three part series examining a collection of WCAT decisions, all involving a single BC sawmill company. In parts one and two, we analyzed four distinct cases touching on combustible dust, table saw guarding, lockout procedures, and confined space entry. Our final case is WCAT decision A2001896, which was decided on 12/10/2021. The incident itself occurred over three years earlier, on September 2438.

On that day, a worker suffered serious injuries to her hand while clearing a jam from a large piece of planer equipment. As you can imagine, WorkSafeBC's investigation was thorough. It resulted in a substantial administrative penalty being levied against the employer, $129,460. The penalty was for alleged violations of lockout procedures and safe work practices under the OHS regulation. So what exactly happened?

The circumstances of this case revolved around a critical and unusual equipment issue. The planer had been set to something called bypass mode on the Friday before the incident. Crucially, it was not returned to its normal production mode when work resumed on Monday morning. This bypass mode setting had a significant and dangerous effect on the braking system for the planer heads. It caused them to freewheel for an extended period after the electrical power was shut off and locked out.

We're not talking a few seconds here. We're talking potentially ten to thirty minutes of silent residual motion. The injured worker, it should be noted, appeared to have followed the standard procedures she was trained on. She applied the brakes, she de energized the electrical power, and she locked out the equipment before entering the planar enclosure to clear the jam. She did what she was supposed to do.

But because of that bypass mode setting, at least one of the heavy planer heads was still in motion when she reached in to clear the jammed material. Her hand made contact with the moving cutterhead resulting in the serious injuries I mentioned. WorkSafeBC's investigation ultimately identified two main violations: first, a failure to effectively lock out the planer, which is contrary to section 10.31 of the OHSS regulation. This section requires that machinery be effectively locked out and the energy source isolated. Second, they found a failure to ensure the planner was operated according to safe work practices, which is contrary to section 4.31 b e of the regulation.

The board officer concluded that these violations were serious enough to warrant that substantial administrative penalty. Now when this case went to WCAT, the employer presented a significant amount of evidence to demonstrate the extensive safety measures they had in place. This is where the story gets more complex. The injured worker wasn't new or untrained. Far from it.

She had received comprehensive training on planar operations and detailed lockout procedures. This wasn't a one time thing. She had annual refreshers and was under regular supervision. In fact, the employer had documentation showing she had been observed successfully completing lockout procedures on at least 42 separate occasions. She had completed a refresher training session just two months before the incident.

She was experienced. Even more compelling, this worker had actually participated in writing the safe work procedures for this very piece of equipment. She was well aware of the potential for the planer heads to remain in motion even after the standard lockup procedures had been followed. She knew the risk. WCAT vice chair Warren Hoole examined both of the alleged violations very carefully.

Let's start with the lockout violation. The vice chair found that a complete total elimination of the kinetic energy risk was, for this type of equipment, technologically impossible. Even in normal production mode, the brakes could not 100% guarantee that all planar heads would come to a complete and immediate stop. This could be due to various factors like the location of the wood jam the characteristics of the wood itself. There was always a residual risk.

Because of this, the employer had implemented what are known as administrative controls. These are procedures and rules that supplement engineering controls. In this case, they required workers to visually verify that all heads had stopped moving and critically to maintain a safe distance from the equipment at all times while inside the enclosure. The rule was look, don't touch, and keep your distance. Now, here's the key point that turned the case: the original WorkSafeBC officer had actually accepted these administrative controls as sufficient.

When he complied the violation order, he didn't demand a new engineering solution. He only required additional administrative controls around the bypass mode. Things like supervisor controlled keys, new written protocols, and warning lights. The vice chair reasoned that if administrative controls were an acceptable way to achieve compliance after the incident, then the administrative controls that were already in place before the incident must have also been an effective, if not perfect, system. Therefore, he canceled the lockout violation entirely.

However, WCAT did confirm the second violation, the one for safe work practices. The vice chair found that the employer had failed in its duty to ensure the worker followed the established procedure. The evidence showed the worker had not visually verified all heads had stopped, and she had clearly not maintained a safe distance when she reached in to clear the jam. The procedure was correct, but it wasn't followed in that moment. So with one violation canceled and one confirmed, the critical question became whether the $129,000 administrative penalty was still appropriate.

First, WCAT found the violation did meet the threshold for penalty. The risk was high. This was dangerous equipment capable of causing severe life altering harm, a fact the employer's own procedures acknowledged. There was no argument there. But then WCAT turned to the final and most important question.

Had the employer exercised due diligence? The vice chair noted that due diligence isn't about whether the violation occurred. It's about whether the employer took all reasonable steps to prevent it from occurring. The evidence here was overwhelming. There was extensive training, constant supervision, and regular safety contacts.

The worker was experienced, knowledgeable, and had a documented history of consistently following the proper procedures in dozens of previous observations. According to her own statement to the investigators, she simply knew better than to breach the safety procedure. Wei Kat concluded that this appeared to be an inexplicable one time mistake that the employer could not reasonably have anticipated or prevented. Despite the heavy burden on employers to train and supervise workers on critical safety issues like lockout, the vice chair found that this employer had met that burden. They had exercised due diligence.

And with that finding, the penalty was canceled entirely. This case provides several incredibly important insights into how WCAT approaches these serious injury cases. First, and this is crucial, the occurrence of an injury does not automatically establish that a safety violation occurred or that a penalty is appropriate. WCAT looks deeper at the adequacy of the safety systems and whether an employer took all reasonable steps. Second, the decision highlights the complexity of lockout procedures for equipment where complete energy isolation just isn't technologically feasible.

In these situations, administrative controls become absolutely critical, but they must be comprehensive, well documented, and consistently implemented and enforced. Third, the case is a powerful demonstration that even with a tragic injury, a defensive due diligence can be established. It requires solid evidence of systematic training, ongoing supervision, and a robust safety management program. The focus is on whether the employer's actions were reasonable given the circumstances and what they knew. Now, looking back across all five cases in this series, a few patterns emerge about what it takes to demonstrate due diligence in British Columbia.

Comprehensive documentation is king. Your safety programs, your training records, your hazard assessments, your compliance efforts, they provide the crucial evidence when things go wrong. Proactive engagement with regulators and the prompt implementation of improvements also influences WCAT's assessment of an employer's commitment to safety. And systematic approaches to hazard management will always carry more weight than isolated one off safety activities. For the safety professionals listening, these decisions really emphasize that due diligence requires ongoing systematic attention to training, supervision, and hazard management.

It is not about achieving perfect injury free outcomes as much as we strive for that. It's about demonstrating reasonable care through comprehensive and living safety management systems. Of course, these cases represent just one employer's experience with the WCAT appeals process. Every case is assessed individually on its own specific circumstances and outcomes will always vary depending on the evidence presented, but the principles remain. The primary goal of any safety program should always be the prevention of injuries through effective hazard identification, risk assessment, and control implementation.

That is our fundamental purpose. This concludes our three part series examining WECOT decisions and the assessment of due diligence. I hope these cases have provided valuable insights into regulatory compliance and penalty assessment, but more importantly, that they demonstrate the kind of systematic approaches to workplace safety that can help prevent injuries in all British Columbia workplaces.