In a grotesque sequel to a horrifying accident in the summer of 2000, a multinational mining company is arguing the Manitoba Workplace Health and Safety Division has no right to lay charges against it. The coming legal battle underlines how, in the world of health and safety, corporations often appear to be above the law.

On August 8, 2000, an explosion ripped through the Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting Company (HBM&S) smelter in Flin Flon, Manitoba, killing one man and severely injuring thirteen others. A government investigation into the disaster painted a horrifying portrait of the day’s events. Men were tethered to their machines, exit doors sealed and first-aid equipment was so tightly packaged that men struggled with knives to open the wrappings.

Many believe the explosion was the result of the company’s decision to have workers hose down a furnace in an effort to speed up a maintenance shutdown. According to union representatives, past practise has been to shut down the furnace and wait up to forty-eight hours before lightly misting the furnace to cool it.

In this case, the workers were instructed to hose the furnace down hours after it had been shut down.The government investigation led to the laying of four charges against HBM&S under the province’s workplace health and safety laws.

The Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting Company went to court in September, arguing that the Manitoba government’s workplace health and safety division has no jurisdiction over the company. The company’s argument rests on a technicality. Because HMB&S’s operations straddle the Manitoba-Saskatchewan border, three governments — Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Canada — all have some responsibility for the company’s operations.

To avoid complications, a special law, the Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting Act, was put in place to determine which government was responsible for issues such as health and safety. Under the act, Manitoba has responsibility for health and safety at HBM&S. As a result, that province’s workplace health and safety division initiated the case against the company. According to the company, this violates a provision of the act requiring that prosecutions be commenced by the Manitoba attorney general or his agents.

In short, this multinational corporation is trying to beat the rap on a technicality. It is not the first time it has tried this. In the 1990s, a miner fell to his death in an HBM&S mine. A government order was issued calling for a change in company procedure. The order was not carried out at all the company’s mines. A short while later, another miner at another HBM&S mine fell to his death.

According to an inspector, the second death would not have taken place had the company complied with the first workplace safety and health order. But charges were dismissed on what many miners believed to be a technicality — namely that the accidents took place at two different HBM&S mines.

The Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting Company has a long history as a corporate bully: from its first days in operation, it fired workers who unionized and had a horrid health and safety record. Most recently it threatened to close the mines and walk away from the community unless the union agreed to a lengthy no-strike contract.

Manitoba is currently in the process of reviewing its health and safety laws. The behaviour of HBM&S is a perfect example of why the laws need to be changed to allow for improved inspection, increased sanctions against violations — preferably through workers compensation penalty assessments that can be levied by inspectors without going through the courts — and increased training and support for Crown prosecutors in enforcing the act.

It also serves as important reminder that, when it comes to health and safety, employers and workers do not always have identical interests. The rights of workers to protect themselves on the job must also be increased.

The Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting might well be correct in arguing that a mistake was made in the laying of these charges. The company should not have been charged under the Workplace Health and Safety Act. Instead, consideration should be given to prosecuting the member of the HBM&S board of directors as members of criminal gang.