rabble blogs are the personal pages of some of Canada's most insightful progressive activists and commentators. All opinions belong to the writer; however, writers are expected to adhere to our guidelines. We welcome new bloggers -- contact us for details.

These workers claimed their workplace was unsafe. Then their employer fired them.

Please chip in to support rabble's election 2019 coverage. Support rabble.ca today for as little as $1 per month!

Image: Flickr/tfinn123442

Like this article? rabble is reader-supported journalism. Chip in to keep stories like these coming.

In 2014, there were over 50,000 serious injuries in British Columbia. Yet very few workers refuse unsafe work. The experiences of Julio Serrano and David Britton help us understand why workers are reluctant to exercise their safety rights.

Serrano was a crane operator working on the tunnel portion of Evergreen Line tunnel in Port Moody, B.C. The limit switch on his crane -- a safety device that activated the crane's brakes in certain circumstances -- had been acting up for months. Instead of fixing it, the employer removed the safety device, thereby endangering the operator and workers on the ground.

On December 2, 2014, Serrano flagged the missing limit switch as a serious hazard and violation of B.C. health and safety laws. The employer directed Serrano to operate the crane. Serrano refused and called WorkSafeBC. Serrano had previously survived a potentially fatal injury on the same job site caused by poor maintenance of equipment.

The resulting inspection saw the crane put out of operation until the limit switch was replaced. Shortly after the crane was fixed, an additional operator was hired and Serrano was laid off. Serrano asserts the layoff was in retaliation for making numerous health and safety complaints. The employer (SNC-Lavalin) asserts the layoff was due to lack of work. 

Britton was laid off in November of 2014 from the same job site. He also alleges his termination was in retaliation for raising safety issues. His complaint to WorkSafeBC details more than 20 instances of unsafe work on the site, including work being carried out on machinery while it was operating and workers entered confined spaces without proper safety procedures and without proper protective gear. 

Britton also noted that the tunnel's refuge chamber, that he alone had been trained to maintain and certify, had been placed in service despite not meeting the manufacturer's specifications. The employer disputes these claims and asserts the layoff was due to lack of work. Shortly after Britton's termination, two temporary foreign workers were trained to maintain and certify the refuge chamber.

Both workers have complained to WorkSafeBC that their terminations constitute illegal retaliation for refusing unsafe work. The employer is vigorously defending its actions. We will likely have to wait until WorkSafeBC adjudicates these claims to know the truth of the matter. 

What we do know now is that WorkSafeBC's 16 inspections of the tunnel resulted in 42 safety orders. As detailed in the Vancouver Sun, they included inadequate ventilation in the tunnel, a lack of trained underground rescue crews, a damaged crane being used, no air quality testing in the tunnel, improper confined spaces procedures, and an unreliable system for tracking who was working in the tunnel.

These findings suggest there were serious safety problems on this worksite. Interestingly, none of the safety issues flagged by WorkSafeBC resulted in any penalties being issued to the employer.

Serrano and Britton's claims draw our attention to Canada's long history of lack luster enforcement of workplace health and safety. B.C.'s 50,000 lost-time claim injuries in 2014 -- which reflect only a fraction of all injuries -- clearly demonstrate that BC's injury prevention system is not working.

A part of the problem is that the system -- formally known as the internal responsibility system -- is supposed to be a partnership between workers and employers. Workers use their knowledge of work and the worksite to identify safety issues, which employers must promptly resolve. If the employer fails to remedy the problem and the work remains unsafe, WorkSafeBC requires employees to refuse the unsafe work.

Workers, however, are reluctant to raise safety issues. Employers often ignore such reports. For example, the dust build up that resulted in the catastrophic 2012 mill explosion in Prince George was brought to the attention of managers. They took no action. The WorkSafeBC investigation report notes that workers "stated that they were tired of complaining about it as nothing was ever done."

In theory, WorkSafeBC should have stepped in. Yet, as was recently revealed, WorkSafeBC took no effective enforcement action. Despite a mill in Burns Lake exploding earlier in that year, WorkSafeBC was reluctant to push other mills into addressing dust build-up. An internal WorkSafeBC memo noted:

Industry sensitivity to the issue given the recent event and limited clarity around what constitutes an explosion could lead to push back if an enforcement strategy is pursued at this time.

The experiences of Serrano and Britton suggest little has changed for B.C. workers since the 2012 mill explosions. Employers organize work unsafely. Worker safety concerns go largely unaddressed. Employers who repeatedly operate in an unsafe manner are not penalized by the government.

And workers who believe they have been sacked in retaliation for exercising their most basic safety rights can expect to wait a year or more for a ruling. Briton expects he will wait 30 months.

Government action is required to fix such a system. Sadly, there seems little political will to do so. 

Dr. Bob Barnetson is a professor of labour relations at Athabasca University in Alberta. He is the author of The Political Economy of Workplace Injury in Canada (2010) and the co-author (with Jason Foster) of Health and Safety in Canadian Workplaces (2016).

Like this article? rabble is reader-supported journalism. Chip in to keep stories like these coming.

Image: Flickr/tfinn123442

Thank you for reading this story…

More people are reading rabble.ca than ever and unlike many news organizations, we have never put up a paywall – at rabble we’ve always believed in making our reporting and analysis free to all, while striving to make it sustainable as well. Media isn’t free to produce. rabble’s total budget is likely less than what big corporate media spend on photocopying (we kid you not!) and we do not have any major foundation, sponsor or angel investor. Our main supporters are people and organizations -- like you. This is why we need your help. You are what keep us sustainable.

rabble.ca has staked its existence on you. We live or die on community support -- your support! We get hundreds of thousands of visitors and we believe in them. We believe in you. We believe people will put in what they can for the greater good. We call that sustainable.

So what is the easy answer for us? Depend on a community of visitors who care passionately about media that amplifies the voices of people struggling for change and justice. It really is that simple. When the people who visit rabble care enough to contribute a bit then it works for everyone.

And so we’re asking you if you could make a donation, right now, to help us carry forward on our mission. Make a donation today.

Comments

We welcome your comments! rabble.ca embraces a pro-human rights, pro-feminist, anti-racist, queer-positive, anti-imperialist and pro-labour stance, and encourages discussions which develop progressive thought. Our full comment policy can be found here. Learn more about Disqus on rabble.ca and your privacy here. Please keep in mind:

Do

  • Tell the truth and avoid rumours.
  • Add context and background.
  • Report typos and logical fallacies.
  • Be respectful.
  • Respect copyright - link to articles.
  • Stay focused. Bring in-depth commentary to our discussion forum, babble.

Don't

  • Use oppressive/offensive language.
  • Libel or defame.
  • Bully or troll.
  • Post spam.
  • Engage trolls. Flag suspect activity instead.