Proving training is not something you can do at the last moment after an OHS inspector shows up. "Trying to pull together the training records is very difficult after the fact," warns one lawyer. You need a proactive strategy to document key information about each training session. A training log should be a big part of that strategy. Let's talk about how to create one. There's also a model form that you can adapt in the Tools section of SafetyXChange.

The Advantages of Keeping a Training Log

In addition to documenting compliance with training requirements, keeping a training log can help you:

Cut Injuries. Having a written record showing the kind of training each worker has received and when can actually promote safety. It enables you to:

• Check if workers are qualified to do the jobs you assign them. This is important because it's easy to lose track of what jobs an individual worker has been trained to perform;
• Determine how long it's been since a worker got training and whether retraining is due. Good safety practice might demand periodic retraining. So you need to keep track of when training was last provided; and
• Diagnose hazards or patterns of injury more effectively. For example, if a series of accidents occurs, you may discover by analyzing the training logs that all of the victims were trained by the same supervisor and that you need to talk to him and perhaps re-educate him about a particular machine, tool or process.

How to Create a Training Log

Your training log doesn't have to be elaborate. But it does have to capture all of the key information needed to prove the delivery of training. Like the Model Log in Tools, your form should ask for the following:

The name, department and signature of each worker who attended the training session. Workers may deny receiving training, either deliberately or because they forget. So it's important to get each worker to sign the log verifying that they attended training sessions.

The date and time the training took place. Many companies just list dates and not times. That's a mistake because OHS inspectors often check what time of day sessions were held to make sure training was offered at hours convenient for workers. Also list when the session started and ended so you can demonstrate how much time you dedicated to the topic.

The subject matter of the training session. The Model Log in Tools lists specific topics that you can check off. But you can also leave blank space for a description. If you take the latter approach, be sure to avoid general and vague descriptions. Although you don't have to list every detail the session covered, you do need to be specific enough to describe what the session was about. For example:

Wrong: Topic of Training Session: "PPE".
Right: Topic of Training Session: "Selection, use and care of respiratory equipment."

The presenter's name, title and department. If the presenter's not an employee, list his company, address and phone.

The frequency of training required. You might also want to list the next training date.

How to Use Form

Have the person who provides the training fill out the form. Although you need only one form per session, you need to make sure that each worker who attends signs it. Keep signed forms in a central location like a binder in the HR office or electronically in a database. Also keep a copy of each worker's signed form in the worker's personnel file.

Conclusion

Many companies make workers sign an acknowledgement saying they understood what the session was about. It is important to be able to prove that workers understood the training. But lawyers say that a signed acknowledgement doesn't prove anything. We'll explain how you can prove that workers understood the training in Parts 3 and 4 of this series.

TEST YOUR OHS I.Q.

'Due Diligence' & C-45

By Glenn Demby

SITUATION

The safety coordinator of a coal mine tests the air and discovers alarmingly high levels of combustible methane gas and coal dust. He warns the company that concentration levels are above legally acceptable limits and pose an explosion hazard. Company officials don't deny it but tell the safety coordinator that the risk is "acceptable." The cost of ventilating the mines is about as much as what they assume a maximum fine would be if an accident were to occur. And since the mines are being phased out anyway, the officials figure it's a "good risk" to let the work continue and hope for the best. The safety coordinator is outraged and notifies the authorities. But before OHS officials can act, the all but inevitable explosion occurs and 20 miners are killed. Assume that the safety coordinator showed due diligence.

QUESTION 1

Who Could Be Guilty of an OHS Offence?
A. Just the Company Officials
B. Just the Safety Coordinator
C. Both
D. Neither

ANSWER
A. The company officials would be guilty of an OHS violation but the safety coordinator would not be.

EXPLANATION

This situation is based loosely on the Westray mining disaster of 1992 in which 24 Nova Scotia coal miners perished in an explosion caused by the build up of combustible materials. As in this hypothetical, the officials at Westray were warned of the danger but allowed the work to proceed. (The part about the safety coordinator and the justification of the risk on economic grounds is fictional. We added it to illustrate some points about the law.)

In our example, an OHS offence occurred: air in the mines contained illegally high levels of combustible materials. But an individual or company that violates an OHS law can defend against liability by proving due diligence, that is, the making of all reasonable efforts to prevent violations. The safety coordinator did show due diligence. So he wouldn't be guilty of an OHS offence. The company officials didn't. They knew of the danger but didn't do anything about it. So they would be guilty of an OHS offence.

QUESTION 2

Who Could Be Guilty of a Crime Under C-45?
A. Just the Company Officials
B. Just the Safety Coordinator
C. Both
D. Neither

ANSWER
C. Surprisingly, the company officials and the safety coordinator could both face liability under C-45.

EXPLANATION

Under C-45, a person that controls work who fails to take reasonable steps to protect another person doing or affected by the work against bodily harm or death can be guilty of criminal negligence if the failure to protect is the result of wanton or reckless disregard for life and safety. Theoretically, a person can be guilty of a crime under C-45 even if he showed due diligence. That's because due diligence is an OHS defence; but C-45 is a criminal law, not an OHS law. So, technically, the safety coordinator in this case could still be on the hook under C-45.

But don't be alarmed. As a practical matter, due diligence does have a major impact on C-45 liability risks. Due diligence is strong evidence that makes it all but impossible for prosecutors to prove (and unlikely to charge) that a person acted with wanton or reckless disregard for safety. Stated differently, the real target of C-45 are those who take what one court has characterized as a "devil-may-care" attitude toward safety - like the mining officials in this case. And, although the law is written broadly enough to cover them too, persons like the safety coordinator who show due diligence to prevent risks have little to fear.

LAWSCAPE
Indoor Smoking Laws in Canada

By Glenn Demby

Five years ago, a BC arbitrator ruled that smokers have a "disability" and that banning smoking in the workplace was a form of disability-based discrimination prohibited by human rights laws. The case chilled the efforts of employers to curb workplace smoking. But now the rules have been turned completely on their head. Today, what's become illegal is not banning workplace smoking but tolerating it. Every province and territory (except Yukon) now bans indoor smoking in public places, including workplaces.

But indoor smoking bans aren't the same. Some bans are absolute; others allow for smoking in designated smoking areas or rooms. This map is a graphic display of the current state of indoor smoking rules in Canada.

Story Tools:  E-mail this to a friend  Print This Post Top