Three employers must pay thousands for exposing workers to hazards
Three construction companies in British Columbia must pay fines for fall protection violations in the workplace.
Aikam Framing Ltd. has been tasked with paying $5,000 for the violations it committed at its North Vancouver worksite, where the company was framing a three-level house.
WorkSafeBC inspected the site and observed one worker – who was also a supervisor – standing on an exterior top plate to attach a section of fascia. No form of fall protection was in place, exposing the worker to a fall risk of about 4.3 m (14 ft.).
Also, the worker's access to the work area was via a narrow truss that did not meet minimum width requirements. WorkSafeBC issued a stop-work order.
“The firm failed to ensure fall protection was used, a high-risk violation, and failed to provide its workers with the information, instruction, training, and supervision necessary to ensure their health and safety,” it said. “These were both repeated violations. The firm also failed to have a written fall protection plan, and failed to ensure that work platforms met regulatory standards.”
Main Frame Construction Inc., meanwhile, must pay $2,500.
WorkSafeBC observed one of this firm's workers on the 5:12 sloped roof of a two-storey house under construction in Nanaimo.
The worker was wearing a fall protection harness but was not connected to a lifeline. No other form of fall protection was in place, exposing the worker to a fall risk of about 7.6 m (25 ft.).
WorkSafeBC found that the firm failed to ensure fall protection was used, a repeated and high-risk violation, and that it failed to provide its workers with the “information, instruction, training and supervision necessary to ensure their health and safety”.
Lastly, Tiger Roofing Ltd. / ISI Roofing was fined $2,500 after WorkSafeBC inspected its worksite and observed one worker walking across the 5:12 sloped roof of a building in Osoyoos.
The worker was wearing a fall protection harness but was not connected to a lifeline. No other form of fall protection was in place, exposing the worker to a fall risk greater than 4.9 m (16 ft.).
The firm failed to ensure fall protection was used, a repeated and high-risk violation.
