DECEMBER, 1969 THE WESTERN CANADIAN LUMBER WORKER POOR SAFETY PROGRAMME: UNION BELIEVES COMPANY RESPONSIBLE FOR WORKER'S By JOHN R. HAC First Vice-President, Local 1-357 On November 6th on the graveyard shift, Bro. Roland Kepfer was fatally injured while attempting to clean the chips at the blower fan. We- must ask ourselves how such an accident could occur, and in order to arrive at a conclu- sion we must take a look at industry practices relative to production workers doing maintenance work whether they are directed to do so or do it of their own volition. Resisted Practice It has been common knowl- edge that production workers frequently do maintenance work, and the Union has re- ‘sisted this practice. We have pointed out to management the dangers inherent because production workers are not qualified to do this type of work and therefore are not trained to do the work safely, as maintenance workers have been. However, industry has met our protestations with a closed mind. One prime example where fatalities are inevitable in this industry is machine operators continually opening electrical panels to re-set their machines. The Union has taken the posi- tion over the years that only qualified electricians should do this, but the practice is still going on. It can be said that the worker who does this is equally as responsible as man- agement. The writer rejects this proposition because man- agement has the responsibility to see that this practice does not continue. Many examples of unsafe work -practices to save time because of lack of maintenance people could be given. Two Things Basically, Bro. Roland Kep- fer’s death could be attributed to two things — negligence on the company’s part and his own conscientiousness as a wor That morning when Bro. Kepfer came into work he found that the blower system was plugged. It is not clear precisely what transpired but we do know that he removed the sleeve from the blower Pipe adjacent to the blower. It is clear that he pushed the stop button for the. blower which had no lock-out on it, and proceeded to clean the chips out. While he was clean- ing the chips from the blower, a workman was instructed by the millwrights who were on the roof unplugging the blow- er system, to activate the 75- cycle testing procedure which started the three fans in the blower system, and when this happened Mr. Kepfer’s arm was in the fan area. Simple Answer Why did Bro. Kepfer place himself in that position? The answer is very simple. No one in that department knew that the company had installed a system whereby they could activate the blowers from an- other area. It could be asked, y did Bro. Kepfer not pull the main switch on the panel? e answer is obvious. He was not a maintenance man and he had not been trained to do so. At the coroner’s inquest held on Friday, November 28, the department foreman giv- ing evidence under oath stat- ed that he had never been made aware of the changes which had been made. Wheth- er the company rationalizes their position by saying “lack of communication,” the final answer to this is negligence. The mechanical superinten- dent stated under oath that the company policy was that production workers do no maintenance work and if he saw anyone doing this work, he would pull them off. ON THE LIGHTER SIDE Kamloops Katie, now re- ported working in Vancouver, states a bigamist is a man who has loved widely and not two well. iE Gaal Conceited young bachelor: “Yes, I have the greatest ad- miration for women. But I wouldn’t marry one of them— not me.” Sweet young thing: “I see. You not only admire women Lut you have a sincere regard for their welfare.” w ek *® Chokerman Charlie says a wife is a gal who is constantly things — like fives, fens an twenties. A tax collector could be de- scribed as a guy who is look- ing for untold wealth. KK. OK Pouce Coupe Pete says an optomist is a fellow who thinks his wife has quit smok- ing cigarettes when he finds cigar butts around the house. * 2 4 Mink: the skin the gals love to touch. Kk. & The Interior mill operator was having a great time liv- ing the life of Riley — until Riley came home! DEATH Workers’ Evidence However, the evidence by a workman that he had on several occasions done the® same thing makes one wonder if the policy which the me- chanical superintendent of that plant enunciated is being carried out by supervisory personnel. The verdict of the coroner’s ury: 1. Death was unnatural and accidental; 2. Company was cited for negligence in that the com- pany did not notify employees of changes in operational de- vices; : 3. Negligence on the part of the deceased who did not comply with proper work procedure, The last part of the verdict relative to the deceased is sub- ject to question. What proper work procedure? The recommendations from the jury: 1. Notification be given to all employees of any changes or additions to operational de- vices or machinery within the operation. Management should not have to wait for a fatality and a recommendation from a coroner’s jury to carry thi out. The result of this not be- ing carried out has resulted in a fatality. 2. That a complete review of the company safety policy be undertaken and that proper enforcement of the company safety program be undertaken. Place to Look We who were at the inquest took this recommendation to mean that because the com- pany enunciated the policy of maintenance workers doing maintenance work, this should be enforced and we suggest the first place they look to is their supervisory personnel. It is difficult to go into every detail of what transpired in this fatality and it can be said that it is difficult to indicate the degree of responsibility for the fatality between man- agement and Bro. Kepfer. A Few Questions However, a few questions have to be asked so that we can arrive at a conclusion. If the company had made the crew aware of the new sys- tem, would Bro. Kepfer be dead? On the other hand, if a millwright had undertaken to clean out the blower, would Bro. Kepfer be dead? And if the company had posted in- structions (as they now have) in that area that only author- ized personnel could do this work, would Bro. Kepfer be dead? Whose responsibility was it? The conclusion rests with the reader. GENERAL VIEW of chipper blower which claimed life of Local 1-357 |WA member Roland Kepfer. CLOSE-UP PIX of blower pipe showing sleeve Kepfer removed to clear sawdust from blower. es bus x BLOWER was shut off by victim from this electrical panel. UNKN OWN to victim the blower had a two-switch system operated from the roof of the mill near the cyclone shown in picture. ENFORCEMENT LACKING The IUD’s Committee on Occupational Safety and Health, reported that indus- trial accidents each year kill 14,500 workers, disable 2.2 million others and injure an- other 7 million. The committee, while admit- ting the federal government has established better safe- guards for workers, states that it failed in its purpose by re- fusing to provide sufficient money to see that the safe- guards are enforced.