Buying training materials such as tapes, DVDs, videos or written programs from outside vendors offers a lot of advantages. But be warned: Virtually all mass marketed training programs can leave your company open to OSHA/OHS citations.

Meeting OSHA Training Requirements

Many OSHA standards require employees to receive training and instruction ensuring that work is performed in a safe and healthful manner. Some standards specifically require "training" or "instruction;" others require "adequate" or "effective" training or instruction; and still others require training "in a manner" or "in language" that is understandable to employees.

Regardless of the precise phrasing, OSHA interprets terms such as "train" and "instruct" as meaning to present information in a manner that employees are capable of understanding. In addition, OSHA's training provisions contain a variety of specific requirements related to employee comprehension. Examples:

• 1910.147(c)(7)(i) (Lockout/Tagout) requires the employer to verify that employees have "acquired" the knowledge and skills in which they have been trained;
• 1910.134(k)(5)(ii) (Respiratory Protection) requires retraining when "inadequacies in the employee's knowledge or use of the respirator indicate that the employee has not retained the requisite understanding or skill;" and
• 1910.1030(g)(2)(vii)(N) (Bloodborne Pathogens) requires "[a]n opportunity for interactive questions and answers with the person conducting the training session."

Courts and the Occupational Health and Safety Review Commission also require training that is clear and understandable to the trainee.

Compliance Strategies

In practical terms, to comply with OSHA training requirements, employers must instruct employees using both a language and vocabulary that their employees can understand based on their native language and level of education.

For example, if an employee comes from a Spanish speaking country and has trouble comprehending English, instruction must be provided in Spanish.

If the employee has a fourth grade education and limited vocabulary, training materials with sophisticated language and technical terms won't fit the bill.

If employees are illiterate, telling them to read training materials won't satisfy the employer's training obligation.

Conclusion

Next week, we'll look at whether pre-packaged training programs, including computer- and video-based products, satisfy OSHA training requirements.

THE CANADIAN PERSPECTIVE

By Glenn Demby

The principles that Bob outlines in his article apply equally in Canada.

Canadian OHS laws follow similar rules with regard to training. The laws require employers to provide adequate training and instruction to employees. OHS officials and courts interpret these rules as requiring not just training but training that is clearly communicated and comprehensible based on the language and education of the employee receiving it. In other words, what counts isn't simply the information but the manner in which it's presented.

BY THE NUMBERS

OSHA Enforcement in 2007

By Glenn Demby

OSHA recently released its annual enforcement statistics.

• 39,324 Total inspections for the year (4.3% above the stated goal of 37,700)
• 88,846 Total citations for the year (6% above FY 2006 totals)
• 67,176 Total serious citations for the year (9% above FY 2006 totals)
• 2,714 Total repeat violations for the year (Up from 2,551 in FY 2006)
• 4.4 per 100 workers Illness and injury rate for calendar year 2006
• 3.9 per 100,000 workers Workplace fatality rate for calendar year 2006.

YOU MAKE THE CALL

Does Safety Justify Firing Worker for Smoking Pot?

By Glenn Demby

FACTS
An Alberta construction worker is fired after testing positive for marijuana. He sues for disability discrimination. Drug addiction is a disability protected by human rights law. But the worker is a recreational drug user, not an addict.

WHO WON?
The employer.

EXPLANATION
The Alberta Court of Appeal rules that the employer had a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason to fire the worker: to protect safety. Even casual drug use can result in impairment and create a safety risk at the site, the court notes.

[Alberta Human Rights & Citizenship Commission v. Kellogg Root & Brown (Canada) Co., [2007] A.J. No. 1460, Dec. 28, 2007]

Story Tools:  Email This Post  Print This Post Top