In the world of operations, maintenance, service and construction, employees must be "qualified" if they're going to be exposed to electrical hazards capable of injuring, disabling or killing them. This series will summarize what the qualification regulations require. Today, I'll discuss the source of qualification requirements in the U.S. and Canada.

Qualification Regulations

Qualification regulations differ slightly by industry. But the general thrust and intent is the same: to ensure that employees, contractors and service personnel are competent to work on or near electrical hazards.

In the U.S., the primary source of regulation is federal. There are at least three parts of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) that set standards of qualification for electrical work:

• Title 29 Part 1910 for General Industry including Electric Utilities (under OSHA);
• Title 29 Part 1926 for the Construction Industry (under OSHA); and
• Title 30 Part 75 and 77 for Coal Mines (under the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA)).

In Canada, qualification requirements are included in the various provincial OHS regulations, e.g., Part 19 of the BC OHS Regulation and in Electrical Codes.

Qualification Standards

In addition to regulations, there are electrical safety standards promulgated by non-governmental standards organizations addressing qualifications for persons who work on or near electrical hazards. The standards that affect most companies in the U.S. are:

• National Fire Protection Association NFPA 70 - National Electrical Code(r) (NEC(r));
• NFPA 70E - Standard for Electrical Safety in the Workplace, and the Institute of Electrical; and
• Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) National Electrical Safety Code (NESC) - Safety Standard for Overhead and Underground Electric Utility and Communications Utility Installations.

The principal Canadian standard is CSA C22.1-06 of the Canadian Standards Association.

Enforcement

There are three primary entities that enforce the above regulations and standards:

• OSHA;
• MSHA; and
• What are known as other Authorities Having Jurisdiction (AHJ), including state, county, and local government jurisdictions, as well as insurance companies.

In Canada, regulatory enforcement is effected by the provincial agency that oversees the health and safety laws. For example, in Ontario, that's the Ministry of Labour; in BC it's the Workers' Compensation authority.

Conclusion

Next week, in Part 2 of this series, I'll analyze the scope of qualification requirements as far as which individuals must be qualified to work on or near electrical hazards.

Is your boss spending too much time on the phone?

DO's & DON'T's

Be Careful of Disciplining Workers Who Complain About Safety

By Robin L. Barton, Esq.

Be extremely careful about disciplining workers after they've complained about a safety matter or exercised any other right under the OSHA/OHS laws. Even though the worker might do something that warrants discipline, the fact that he previously exercised a safety right protected by the laws might cloud the issue and make it look to a judge or arbitrator like the discipline is retaliatory-especially if you discipline the worker soon after he engaged in the protected safety-related activity.

Separating Discipline from Retaliation

A steel mill in Ontario learned this lesson the hard way. A lead hand was asked to train another worker on a remote crane. A foreman told the trainee to "put charges in the furnace"-that is, put an actual load on the crane-but the trainee refused out of concerns for his safety. The lead hand agreed to let the worker practice without a load for the sake of safety. Later that day, the superintendent yelled at the lead hand. "I'm tired of your insubordination," he hollered. The next day, the lead hand was refused his meal ticket. And four days later, he was temporarily moved to another office. The lead hand filed a complaint with the Ontario Labour Relations Board, claiming that the mill had retaliated against him for exercising safety rights protected by the OHS laws [United Steelworkers of America, Local 8794 v. Ivaco Rolling Mills Inc., [2002] CanLII 30291, Feb. 26, 2002].

The mill claimed the lead hand was punished for insubordination, not for asserting safety rights. But the Board said that refusing to give a worker a meal ticket and temporarily moving him to another office could be interpreted as reprisals. And because of the close timing of the lead hand's exercise of his rights and the mill's actions, there was arguably "a causal connection" between the two. So the Board concluded that the lead hand had grounds for a retaliation claim and refused to dismiss the complaint.

Conclusion

I'm not suggesting that you refrain from disciplining workers just because they've complained about safety. What I am suggesting is that you need to be aware of the previous complaint and be extra careful to document that the disciplinary action is in response to an infraction rather than the complaint. Otherwise, an act of discipline might be mistaken for an act of retaliation.

Story Tools:  Email This Post  Print This Post Top