How ironic that the very organization that should be held accountable for failing to protect the mill workers is also the organization responsible for preventing anyone being held accountable. Worksafe BC….are they really there to protect the workers?

Change out “worksafe BC” with “the union” and your statement is just as true.

No one knew, eh? LOL

Dust explosions have a history that extends back to the 18th century with the first documented dust explosion on December 14, 1785 in Turin, Italy.

1858 – roller mill in Poland
1860 – flour mill, Milwaukee
1864 – flower mill, Illinois
1869 – pea flour mill, Germany
1887 – grain silo, Germany

There is a good dust literature review by COFI, that list most of the codes which are recognized in Canada which all predate the two explosions.

Any Mechanical Engineer who designs mills would have full knowledge of the codes and the requirements.

To say no one knew admits incompetence. Very simple!! Anyone who could have prevented should be indicted under the criminal code. There is provision for that now.

In my opinion I think the cause was known to someone in the early stages of the the investigation. Too many people playing silly bugger.

So true gopg2015 also alum dust will not only explode but is used in rock fuel .. I worked in a factory in UK 1969 the factory inspector shut down my area until all dust extractors where up to Parr. Not something new…

What a shock.. an union hater beaks off…

P Val, please explain why the Union should not share responsibility!

You will note that I said “share responsibility”!

The “left wing” seems more than happy and eager to lay blame at the foot of the company, the Government and WorkSafe. Why should the Union be excused from their responsibility to their members?

Why P Val, why?

The union doesnt run the business.. its the employers mandate to make sure the work place is safe.

that is why hart guy..that is why….

If all you armchair critics really believe this was a no brainer and has been a fact for over 100 years, where were all the critics prior to the 2012 explosions to bring this information to everyone’s attention!

I worked in the lumber manufacturing industry for over 30 years and have not once heard the concern that dust could blow up the plant. clean up efforts were focused on fire prevention. Mister were added to major break down centers in the past few years to minimize the respiratory effect of dust on the workers in the plant.

To sit there, point the finger and just lay blame to the companies and WSBC shows your ignorance to the issue. Where were the Unions, they should have forced plant shut downs due to hazardous work conditions. This leads me to believe that they too, did not see the potential impact of the fine dust as a cause for an explosion.

It is unfortunate that these incidents occurred and lives were lost. but everyone involved missed the boat on this. All parties involved need to work cooperatively together to ensure this does not happen again

“All parties involved need to work cooperatively together to ensure this does not happen again”

Corporate memories are some of the shortest memories around. By corporate I mean all the people working in a workplace.

WorkSafeBC inspectors, never mind the corporation, should have known, and likely did from the sounds of it, but just did not believe it so they did not enforce it.

Company owners were close to the engineers who designed the plants and were given documents of how to run the plant as well as instructions. Dust and its explosive nature s well as health hazard, etc. should all have been covered and likely were.

Joint safety committees. Variously chaired by union and then management should know what safety concerns at a plant should be about. They are more than about toe boards on a suspended walkway.

There is ample opportunity to get educated.

The system broke down. The analogy some use is that all the holes in the slices of Swiss cheese lined up to allow stuff to fall right through. It was not one thing, it was all of them combined …. the perfect storm.

As far as where I was, as a for instance. I was not involved with either plant so had no voice. That was easy, wasn’t it? Any other questions?

If the company and worksafe would have addressed the fine dust particals in the air for other health reasons then there would not have been an explosion. I am quite sure that there would have been complaints from the employees of having to breath in those conditions. If the union workers walked out under those conditions I am quite sure the employer may also give them their walking ticket.

That’s the problem oldman1, everyone speculates that if I say something, I could lose my Job!

That’s is why unions were formed. To give support to the workers in these type of situations. I find it hard to believe in this day and age that people still believe this. To me, it is just a way for workers to be out of sight, out of mind. Don’t look at me, I didn’t complain.

Every worker knows or should know their right to refuse unsafe work. I educated myself years ago to know this, and I will fight any company that seems to think otherwise and I do have this right under the legislation.

To use this as an excuse to not report hazards is outrageous.

gopg2015, that is the perfect analogy. Pretty much describes what happened.

The workers are the Union and the Union are the Workers, just more predictable victim blaming here. Yup, it was the worker’s fault these two explosions happened, what… Lakeland mill sunk mega bucks into increasing it’s production lines but not it’s waste disposal system, naw that did not contribute one iota to those explosions.

What WorkSafeBC inspectors noted a build up of sawdust in the mill, but did not “enforce” clean-up measures… naw that did not contribute one iota to those sawmill explosions.

Yup it’s all the worker’s / Union’s fault, a nice deflection for who should be responsible. I imagine all those workers that died at the Westray Coal Mine were responsible for their own deaths or was it the Union’s fault as well?

Sorry Sophic Sage, You must of jumped on the wrong ship or was napping and woke up half way through the conversation.

Please take a few minutes and reflect on the comments before jumping in and coming to a conclusion that does not even reflect where this was going. No need to explain any further as you have the “lay the blame” attitude on the ones you feel are responsible instead of examining all the facts and realize that there are many parties responsible.

Sorry ohreally, you should know that I always back up my comments with sources:

I stated in my comment that “Lakeland Mills invested in production lines and not waste disposal systems”

www. theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/investigation-finds-sawmill-owners-invested-in-production-not-safety/article18034972/

I stated in my comment that “WorkSafeBC inspectors noted a build-up of sawdust in the mill, but did not “enforce” clean-up measures.”

“Questioned by coroner’s counsel John Orr, Beattie agreed it was the dirtiest he had seen the mill in the 10 years he had inspected the facility, but Lakeland was “quite a clean mill in comparison to its industry counterparts.”

www. princegeorgecitizen.com/news/local-news/anonymous-tip-called-lakeland-the-next-babine-1.1796996

Standards of cleanliness should have been different in sawmills where more than 50% of their raw log inventory consisted of “dry” dead mountain pine beetle kill. WorkPlaceBC knew fine dry sawdust was explosive. “Two years before a pair of B.C. sawmill explosions that this year killed four workers, WorkSafeBC warned “a layer of dust as thin as a dime” in a sawmill could cause an explosion hazard.”

www. theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/two-years-before-deadly-explosions-warnings-went-out-about-sawdust-danger/article4103423/

Oh and by the way ohreally, my last point refutes your comment stating: “If all you armchair critics really believe this was a no brainer and has been a fact for over 100 years, where were all the critics prior to the 2012 explosions to bring this information to everyone’s attention!”

I have clearly demonstrated and proved that; “this information” was brought to the indusatry’s attention by WorkSafeBC 2 YEARS before those sawmill explosions!!! Yet WorkSafeBC never “enforced” that dime thick sawdust clean-up standard… why???

Good facts, however, if this was public knowledge, why did the Union not step in and warn workers of the hazard of which they were working. If WSBC new of this and did nothing, so did the Unions. I can tell you that if I was aware that I could be killed or injured due to a dust explosion and was aware that the possibility was there, I would have acted on that. All parties fell a sleep at the wheel and did nothing. that is the point being made!

The point you are trying to make is a useless one. The primary issue is that if WorkSafeBC had been “enforcing” the dime thick cleanup standard there would be no need for the Union to step up or step in, now would there?

Further more you have the audacity to say to me; “You must of jumped on the wrong ship or was napping and woke up half way through the conversation… Please take a few minutes and reflect on the comments before jumping in and coming to a conclusion that does not even reflect where this was going.”

I took a few minutes to do some research and posted a comment that contains nothing but facts and truths, next time you want to call me out, or insult me, take some time to do some research on the subject at hand.

Not trying to insult you at all!

I am not saying that WSBC or the Companies are free and clear in their responsibilities in these incidents. I am saying that the Unions also have a responsibility to their membership and they failed to act on it.

I can not understand that a union could sit idol, knowing that WSBC may or may not have acted on the infractions that occurred in these mill and claim they have no responsibility.

WSBC compliance reports are distributed to the company, JOHS committee’s and Union. You can not tell me that the union was totally oblivious of the issue. Yet, they did not take action with there members to promote their legal right of working in a unsafe environment.

I comment that the Union shares the blame and my comment is invalid because I’m a “union hater”? So I guess the worksafe comments are all invalid because you are clearly “worksafe bc haters”.

It really comes down to “which side of the fence you are sitting”

If you don’t like the way things are going, sit a bit, then place judgment. You will come out smelling like a rose.

ohreally, are you serious? By stating; “I can not understand that a union could sit idol, knowing that WSBC may or may not have acted on the infractions that occurred in these mill and claim they have no responsibility.”

It is the mandate of WSBC to act on those infractions, they have the authority to shut a workplace down, if those infractions are not dealt with by the OWNERS on the Union. It is NOT THE JOB OF THE UNION to babysit WSBC and make sure they are doing their job.

AGAIN, if the WSBC had done it’s job and “enforced” the dime thick rule for dust collection, those explosions would likely not have happened. AGAIN, it is not he union’s job to enforce workplace regulations, leave the union out of this as they have no roll in the matter.

Too bad WSBC screwed up their investiagtions so badly that none of the evidence collected could be used in court, because in my opinion, WorkSafeBC and the Christy Clark Government would be the ones defending themselves against criminal charges in a court of law.

I think this whole mess should be the subject of an Independent Public Inquiry where culpability can be established, maybe when a more responsible government is elected perhaps?

… by the OWNERS “not” the Union. I wish this site would allow editing.

Workers have the authority and duty to refuse unsafe work.

WorkSafeBC requires joint safety committee for a reason ….

Workers are there every day …. WSBC inspectors are not. Neither are owners. Owners have to rely on their staff.

The slogan is “safety is everyone’s business”.

Everyone has been given the tools to maintain a workplace safe both included and excluded workers. They just have to learn how to use them.

gopg2015 states; “The slogan is “safety is everyone’s business”. Well under a pro-business Lieberal government one of the first things cut back in 2003 was safe workplace regulations, making workplaces in BC more dangerous. Hmmm… doesn’t seem like the Provincial government cares all that much about workplace safety to me.

“The provincial Liberals have instructed BCs Workers Compensation Board to begin dismantling BCs Occupational Health and Safety Regulation, an essential tool in building and maintaining safe and healthy workplaces. Many members are familiar with the four blue booklets containing the OH&S Regulation and related information. The Regulation was developed through several years of consultation and negotiation among employers, workers and the WCB. The OH&S Regulation, together with the Workers Compensation Act, sets out what employers are “legally” required to do in order to minimize occupational hazards.”

www. hsabc.org/news/bc-liberals-attack-workers-health-and-safety-ohs-regulation-under-siege

Ms. Bond- “She added that workers do have the right to refuse work if they believe conditions are unsafe. Mr. Hunt wants those rights broadened to make it easier for workers who are under intense pressure not to stall production. Workers from both of the mills that exploded later spoke of the significant buildup of combustible sawdust. But with mills in the interior racing to process the pine beetle-killed timber before it loses value, cleanup crews were sometimes diverted to processing just to keep the operations running.”

www. theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/sawmills-dropping-the-ball-on-safety-inspection-blitz-finds/article17310178/

Hmmm… sounds like what I heard from the workers themselves; “Production trumped safety” at both sawmills.

“Safety is everyone business”, such a nice mean nothing slogan, when in the leader of the opposition’s words; “there is no accountability from the cabinet, from the Crown, from the employer, or from WorkSafeBC.” AGAIN. It is not the responsibility of the Union to enforce workplace safety regulations, in the words of Steve Hunt director of the United Steelworkers; “If you don’t enforce, people die,”. And that is what happened here, WorkSafeBC issued a warning about “dime thick” sawdust being potentially explosive, but did not “enforce” that housekeeping standard in those mills.

Sophic Sage, your proof that the government is cutting back on work place safety legislation is what! The globe and Mail!

Your saying this is going on, yet, unions are just sitting on the side line while their membership is being forced to work in unsafe conditions. What are the workers paying dues for.

You seem to thinks that workers have no responsibility for their own safety. Companies need to provide an invincible bubbles for workers so that they can go to work and not have to think for themselves because it is the companies responsibility to provide them with a safe work place.

This kind of thinking is why we have work place injuries today. ” No one told me I could lose a finger if I put my hand into the moving saw. Must be the fault of the company”

ohreally states; “Sophic Sage, your proof that the government is cutting back on work place safety legislation is what! The globe and Mail!”

Ummm… no, that source would be from a Health Sciences Association of BC report dated APRIL / MAY 2003 VOL.24 NUM.2.

Here, did you want the linked source again, just so you don’t get “confused”?

www. hsabc.org/news/bc-liberals-attack-workers-health-and-safety-ohs-regulation-under-siege

You might want stop posting now, or stumble on to your next embarrassing comment, its your call of course.

The problem as I see it Sophic is that in North America, and especially in Prince George, the Union and the Management have positioned themselves in and adversarial position rather than in a cooperative position. What you see is what you get when that is taken to the extreme.

That is different in most Western European countries where corporate Boards are made up of equal representation of both sides. Chairs of Boards take the positions alternately from both sides. While strikes, for instance, do take place, they are very much rarer there than in Canada and the USA.

I am sure that many of us know that the social safety net is much stronger on that side of the Atlantic than here. The same worker united movement has gone further there than on this side of the Atlantic. I happen to think that it is because they learned how to work together better than we have.

I see you as an individual that has old traits and will never be part of the system which will move our system closer to that of the European model. One cannot even begin to have a serious conversation with you without you bringing in your dogmatic views.

LOL! No more need to comment. you have your opinion and I have mine. continuing will not change that.

You have a point about european model and the use of union reps and management being on the same boards of business, however you did not mention BC as being a very “polarized” province politically. In BC we have a party that represents the left (unions) and a party that represents the right (business).

Until a party is successfully introduced that represents the middle, we will alsway have this situation of unions against business, and business against unions. Good luck with getting that middle of the road political Party started gopg2015.

sabc.org/news/supervisory-due-diligence

One of the question posed on your referenced HSABC site is:
Does “due diligence” under the revised Workers’ Compensation Act increase supervisory responsibility or liability?

The answer is lengthy and you can read it for yourself, sophic. However the key points (still lengthy) as to what was the supervisor’s responsibilities under the Act and the revised Act are as follows (keep in mind that supervisors are typically included, not excluded staff)

1. Many of the new sections contained in the revised Workers Compensation Act reflect long-standing obligations of employers and supervisors.

2. Nonetheless, the inclusion of “due diligence” language, along with new legislative reference to supervisory responsibility, has somehow created the impression that supervisory liability has been significantly increased under the new legislation. This supposition is inaccurate.

3. Rather, because the new legislation gives a clear description of specific employer obligations, it is probably the case that there is a growing awareness of long-standing health and safety obligations that have been in place for years.

4. Prior to the proclamation of Bill 14 (An Act to Amend the Workers Compensation Act of BC), supervisory liability was described under the previous section 77 of the Workers Compensation Act. This section stated that where a “corporation” failed to comply with an order or a regulation, a director, officer, manager or supervisor could be held liable.

5. Under the Regulation, supervisors were responsible for ensuring that necessary corrective action was taken immediately when a report of a hazard was received. They were responsible for ensuring equipment and materials were maintained and operated safely. Finally, every supervisor was responsible for the proper instruction of workers under the supervisors direction, and for ensuring their work was performed without undue risk and in compliance with the regulation.

6. The new language contained in Bill 14 essentially sets out the same obligations, although it is organized differently in the new Act and Regulations. Section 117 of the Act specifically sets out supervisory duties, and includes:
• the obligation to be knowledgeable about the Act and Regulations,
• ensuring that workers are aware of the hazards in their work area, co-operate with the worksite committee and the WCB, and
• to ensuring worker compliance with the Act and the Regulations.

7. One very important supervisory responsibility is found in the “right to refuse” section. Section 3.12 of the Regulations states that “A person may not . . . cause to be carried out any [action] if to do so would create an undue hazard to the health and safety of any person.” This obligation to prohibit employees from doing unsafe work is long-standing and is an integral component of supervisory due diligence when it comes to health and safety.

Rachel Notley, the author, is HSAs Occupational Health and Safety Officer.

The thinking that the Act and Regulation revisions are a major change as far as worker and supervisor responsibilities go is one likely promulgated by those who do not understand the legal part of the business of safety in the workplace and are just cherry picking quotations from those very people.

Those parts of the Act were actually changed as a result of the strengthening of the Criminal Code of Canada coming from the Westray Mine inquiries.

The criminal code was changed in 2004. It was known beforehand that it was to be enacted. It was proper to change any provincial legislation which dealt with such matters. The BCLiberals happened to be in power. No matter who formed the government the same thing would have had to happen.

Bill C-45 is federal legislation that amended the Canadian Criminal Code and became law on March 31, 2004. The Bill established new legal duties for workplace health and safety, and imposed serious penalties for violations that result in injuries or death. The Bill provided new rules for attributing criminal liability to organizations, including corporations, their representatives AND THOSE WHO DIRECT THE WORK OF OTHERS.

That last part comes right down to supervisors, whether union members or not, and it comes down to such bodies as joint health and safety committees.

Forget about politics, this is about how reasonable people on the full spectrum of left to right conduct business amid social well being in today’s world.

Sorry that link should be hsabc.org/news/supervisory-due-diligence

BTW, in spite of all the waffling spouted about investigation process failures, I still maintain that criminal charges should be laid under Section 217.1 of the Criminal Code.

gopg2015 states; “The thinking that the Act and Regulation revisions are a major change as far as worker and supervisor responsibilities go is one likely promulgated by those who do not understand the legal part of the business of safety in the workplace…”

Ummm… “the “legal part” of the business of safety in the workplace”. Most people are more concerned about the “worker safety” part of the business of safety here, lets get our priorities straight here this is about preventing people from dying and suffering greivous injury, not the legal side of business safety. This Christy Clark dog and pony show has been downgraded into a legally toothless “Inquest” anyway as opposed to a legally binding “public inquiry”.

Gopg2015 states; “Those parts of the Act were actually changed as a result of the strengthening of the Criminal Code of Canada coming from the Westray Mine inquiries.”

Parliament unanimously passed the Westray Bill in 2004. An amendment to the Criminal Code of Canada, Bill C-45 states; “Everyone who undertakes, or has the authority, to direct how another person does work, or performs a task, is under a legal duty to take reasonable steps to prevent bodily harm to that person, or any other person, arising from that work or task.”

“In 2010, the United Steelworkers’ Union pushed for charges under Bill C-45 to be filed against forestry company Weyerhaeuser in connection with a 2004 death of a sawmill worker who fell into a wood chip machine while trying to clean it. The union saw the need for charges after a WorkSafe BC investigation found Weyerhaeuser was aware of the hazards the worker faced and didn’t address them adequately. The company was fined $297,000 — the highest fine WorkSafe BC had ever issued up to that time.

Police recommended charges under Bill C-45, but Crown prosecutors declined to lay any. This prompted the union to pursue a private criminal prosecution, which led to a process hearing where a provincial court heard additional evidence and testimony last year. However, the Crown decided to stay the charges, stating it didn’t feel it would be able to secure a conviction.

This is just the latest in a series of cases where charges were either considered or laid under C-45 but failed to result in a conviction. In the seven years since the amendments came into force, there have been only two convictions, both in Quebec — though a construction company and three individuals are currently facing charges in Ontario over the deaths of four construction workers. *note: 10 convictions nationally to 2012.

It’s not like workers aren’t dying — an average of 889 a year from 1993 to 2009, including 939 in 2009 and 1,036 in 2008, according to the Association of Workers’ Compensation Boards of Canada (www.awcbc.ca). And most of the time, accidents causing injury or death result in fines, as was the case before C-45 came into force.”

www. hrreporter.com/blog/Employment-Law/archive/2011/08/30/bill-c-45-a-hollow-threat

Interesting that the death and injury of workers in BOTH sawmill explosions resulted in WSBC fines to the company owners and not criminal charges being laid, as allowed under the Westray C-45 Bill. By the way, it is my understanding that both sawmill companies are appealing their fines on the grounds that they were not aware of the hazards of sawdust induced explosions, despite 2 years earlier being notified by WSBC that sawdust as thick as a dime could be explosive.

Yes, it’s been 11 years since the Westray Law has come into force, since then there have been over 1,000 workplace deaths in BC. Will the first criminal conviction ever come? Not likely, IMO, to protect corporate and business interests, the Westray C-45 Bill has been rendered toothless and ineffectual in BC by a corporate and business backed Christy Clark government. I believe an independent public inquiry into both sawmill accidents needs to be initiated once a more “responsible” and “accountable” government is elected. I also think that investigation should also determine, the extent of political involvement / interference (if any) the Christy Clark government might have brought to bear in these matters.