The good news about health and safety committees is that they can engage all of the stakeholders in your workplace in the effort to identify and eliminate hazards. The bad news: Committees sometimes make recommendations that are unrealistic. What should you do if your committee writes a check that your company can't cash?

Why You Can't Just Ignore the Recommendation

Most safety committees lack the authority to make binding recommendations. In other words, you're free to reject a safety committee's recommendations. But there's a big difference between rejecting a recommendation and ignoring it altogether. The former may be perfectly acceptable; the latter is not. First of all, you might have an obligation under law, a collective bargaining agreement or the safety committee's charter to cooperate with the committee. Failure to at least consider a committee recommendation may violate that duty.

More importantly, if you ignore a safety committee recommendation, you set yourself up not only for liability but willful citations. Explanation: Not all OSHA violations are the same. The worst kind of citation is a willful one. Willful citations carry the highest penalties. To prove a willful violation, OSHA must show that the danger was foreseeable - that is, that the company knew, or with the exercise of diligence, could have known of the violation.

The existence of a safety committee recommendation is evidence that a hazard was foreseeable and that you were on notice of its existence. So ignoring a safety committee recommendation makes it easier for OSHA to cite you for willful violations.

Canadian Perspective: Canadian OHS laws don't differentiate between willful and other kinds of violations. But willful or deliberate behavior is a factor that judges consider in sentencing. In addition, while you don't have to adopt the recommendation, the failure to at least consider it would make it difficult for a company to argue that it took all reasonable steps to prevent the violation. Result: The company may be unable to make out a due diligence defence.

How to Respond to an Unrealistic Recommendation

Just going through the motions of considering a safety committee recommendation isn't enough. You need to craft a response to the recommendation, preferably in writing.

Even though committee recommendations aren't binding, if a committee recommends that you do something the law requires, you must comply. "You must take action to correct the problem not because the committee ordered you to but because the workplace safety law requires it," explains a Seattle lawyer.

Responding to safety committee recommendations in writing serves two important purposes:

Preserves Worker Relations. Some employers fear that sending a rejection notice will provoke a confrontation with the committee. In fact, however, just the opposite is true. Safety directors say that notifying a committee that you've decided to reject its recommendations and explaining why helps foster positive relations and open communications and avoid misunderstandings. "Although they may not like the message, most committee members appreciate employers who are frank and open," according to a Columbus, OH, safety director.

Forestalls Government Intervention: Avoiding confrontation with safety committee members isn't just a matter of morale. Members of the safety committee might call OSHA (or the equivalent state or provincial agency) if it's dissatisfied with how you handle a recommendation. So keeping committee members informed may enable you to keep government officials from stepping in.

Conclusion

To repeat, you're not obligated to adopt a measure just because the committee recommends it. What you are expected to do is take the recommendation seriously and make a deliberate decision. You must also be prepared to prove that you considered the recommendation and explain why you rejected it in case an accident takes place and you're second-guessed for not adopting the recommendation. Trying to pull this documentation together after the fact is tough. That's why it's smart to create a written notice when and if you reject the recommendation. I'll show you how to do that next week in the conclusion of this series.

CORRECTION

Are Committees Mandatory in Canada?

By Glenn Demby

The Mistake: In Part 1 of this series, I stated that all Canadian jurisdictions require employers to establish a joint health and safety committee (or an equivalent advisor) if they have the requisite number of workers. As some of you wrote in, this statement isn't quite accurate.

The Correction: Establishment of a JHSC is mandatory in most Canadian jurisdictions. Here's a rundown of the rules:

ALBERTA: JHSC not mandatory unless the government orders one.

BRITISH COLUMBIA: Mandatory if there are 20 or more employees or government orders one.

FEDERAL: Mandatory if there are 20 or more employees.

MANITOBA: Mandatory if there are 20 or more employees or government orders one.

NEW BRUNSWICK: Mandatory if there are 20 or more employees.

NEWFOUNDLAND/LABRADOR: Mandatory if there are 10 or more employees.

NORTHWEST TERRITORIES/NUNAVUT: Not mandatory unless government orders one.

NOVA SCOTIA: Mandatory if there are 20 or more employees.

ONTARIO: Mandatory if there are 20 or more employees, the government orders one or certain designated substances are in use.

PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND: Not mandatory unless employers and employees agree to one.

QUEBEC: Mandatory if there are 20 or more employees or where regulation provides.

SASKATCHEWAN: Mandatory if there are 10 or more employees.

YUKON: Mandatory if there are 20 or more employees.

THIS DATE IN HISTORY

February 25, 1799

By Glenn Demby

One of history's oldest public health measures is the quarantine. The practice of separating the diseased from the healthy dates back to Biblical times when people with leprosy were isolated in colonies to prevent the spread of the disease. The first formal and government-sanctioned quarantine is thought to have occurred in 14th century Venice during the plague of the Black Death.

In the Americas, colonies implemented quarantine measures as early as the 17th century. After independence and the adoption of the U.S. Constitution, states adopted quarantines to combat spread of yellow fever. It wasn't until 1796 that the federal government got into the act. In May of that year, the Congress passed a law requiring the federal government to cooperate with the states in enforcing their quarantines.

Three years later, on February 25, 1799, Congress repealed the 1796 act and replaced it with one establishing the first federal inspection system for maritime quarantines. In the 19th century, federal quarantine authority expanded. Today, the government can quarantine people "reasonably expected to be infected with or exposed to" any of nine diseases:

Fortunately, the development of anti-biotics and routine vaccinations has made quarantine largely unnecessary except as a last resort in extreme cases.

Note: For a fascinating firsthand account of the Yellow Fever epidemic that spurred the federal quarantine laws in 1799, check out the piece by Dr. Benjamin Rush, the Philadelphia physician who signed the Declaration of Independence, in the Tools section of SafetyXChange.

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