THE WESTERN CANADIAN LUMBER WORKER

h the fatalities might

‘have been averted. But, in
he majority of cases, the indi-
jdual himself was largely the

author of his fate.

The year 1968 has only just
a Ee end if the death toll

continues at the same pace as

: first two months of this

1966 the toll was 67 fatal-
jties in the forest products in-

‘dry season reduced the num-
‘es of man hours worked in
1967.

The WCB is convinced that
enlightened management is
trying to eliminate accidents,
because, apart from the hu-
| manitarian considerations, en-
lightened management knows
that accidents seriously dis-
rupt productivity, are waste-
ful, and very costly. It’s no
| accident that many logging
‘and sawmill operations have
consistently fine~ safety rec-
-ords.

The shrinking number of

‘ciate the fact that safety and
uctivity go together must
_be convinced, and if neces-
‘sary must be pressured into
‘a safety-conscious role. If
they do not accept this role
accidents will make it difficult
' for them to stay in business.

‘more attention to job training,

‘employers who do not appre- .

‘Management should pay

t

ION CHARGES

Particularly for new employ-
ees and for those older em-
ployees who seem to take
safety for granted.
Management and union
representatives should make
better use of joint safety com-
mittees with both parties re-
solving to use this type of
forum for constructive, posi-
tive dialogue to correct unsafe
conditions and practices
rather than heaping abuse
and blame on each other.

_ The WCB’s policy is to con-
tinue increasing its inspec-
tions and to act on the find-
ings constructively, effective-
ly and without prejudice.

What is needed now is a

‘recommitment to—the princi-

ples of joint effort on the part
of labour, management and
the WCB. Let’s do away with
the suspicion, distrust and
name calling which have
crept into the safety move-
ment in the forest products
industry. Sincerity can only
be enhanced by a positive ap-
proach to the problem.

A break-up of the joint ac-
cident prevention effort would

be a backward step at a time ~

when unity of purpose and
action is vital. United action
is a move forward in accident
control. The WCB commits
itself, once again, to this di-
rection and feels confident
that the IWA and manage-
ment will be at its side.

The WCB appreciates the
opportunity afforded by the
IWA to set forth its views on
this vital matter.

Telative to safety. Mr. Scotty
ison, Safety Director of
the B.C. Lumber Manufac-
turers’ Assoc. was present.
Mr. Allison was asked, “Who
is responsible for the accident
Prevention program in any
Operation?” Mr. Allison re-
plied, “The responsibility lies
entirely with management.”
y

We in the IWA must in all
,fuman consciousness strive
| to have a more effective safe-

a

“AUSE OF ACCIDENTS"

ty program implemented in
the forest industry.

e Compensation Board
can. set the ground work for
such a project. They must
also direct and positively see
that management carry out
their responsibility to the let-
ter of the law.

Fraternally yours,
J. H. FOWLER,

1st Vice-President
Local 1-118, Victoria

\

X. SAFETY VIOLATIONS"

If Management were sin-
cere in a Safety Program in
_the interest of their employ-
'@es and our members, they
‘Should be insisting that a
“member of the Union Safety
| ittee accompany them
on all safety inspection tours.
_ Our members have been
advised continually to follow
the Accident Prevention Re-
'gulations at all times. Yet any
‘time the companies want to
avoid expenditures for safer
‘ ings, lumber piles, etc.,
W.C.B. Inspectors give
permission to circum-

the Regulations. When

any trouble arises with the
crew about unsafe working
conditions and violation of
the Regulations the answer

“cc

NY
Joint Safety
Committee been advised or
agreed to any agreement to
circumvent the Regulations.
It is my sincere hope that
out of the facts as stated in
the Lumber Worker, we may
once again accomplish a
Safety Program for the good
(0) A. G. Ingram,
Safety Director
Local ;

LOCAL 1-217

"W.C.B. HAS ONLY 36 INSPECTORS"

The Editor:

The criticism voiced by
your March 1968 editorial re
“Safety Program Wanting” is
justified when one takes some
of the following pertinent
facts into consideration. The
“labour force growth” in
British Columbia
from an average 575,000 in
1961 to 710,000 in 1966 (up
135,000 or 23.5%). This
means an annual labour
growth of 3.9% during this
period. Peak labour force in
British Columbia in July,
1967, reached a new high of
795,000 and the estimated an-
nual average for 1967 will be
761,000 up 7.2% from the pre-
vious year. There were 1,172,-
968 lost days in 1966 due to
injuries. 332,324 days lost in
forest products industr
which is 28.4% of the total
loss. Average cost to B.C. em-
ployer of each fatality is
$23,000.

The number of registered
employers showed a net gain
of 952 between the year 1965
(36,321 as compared to 37,-
273). The 50th Annual Re-
port of the Workmen’s Com-
pensation Board verifies a
continuing increase of wor
injury claims. In 1966 the
claims department processed
95,322 new claims in addition
to those re-opened or con-
tinuing from previous years.
Industrial disease cases
reached an all time high of
1,184 during 1966. One may
ask then .. . “What new and
realistic suggestions to this
whole problem of accident
prevention can one offer?”

Section 6 of the Accident
Prevention Regulations of the
Workmen’s Compensation
Board (effective March 1,
1966), under General Re-
quirements, 6-02, sub-section
1 (a) stipulates that an “Ac-
cident Prevention Committee
shall be established by man-
agement of each separate
place of employment having
a work force of 20 or more
workmen when the nature of
the work is classified by the
Board as hazardous,” and (b)
“a workforce of over 50 work-
men when the nature of the
work is classified with the
Board as a limited hazard.”
All sawmills, sash & door and
millwork, shingle mills and
logging camps are classified as
hazardous operations.°

Subsection 2, outlines the
minimum requirements for
hazardous small operations,
states: “The management
shall arrange monthly meet-
ings for discussions of mat-
ters of an accident prevention
nature.” “The meetings to be
attended by as many mem-
bers of the workforce as pos-
sible and shall be directed by
supervisors to matters con-
cerning correction of unsafe
conditions and practices and
the maintenance of a co-op-
erative interest of the safety
of the work force.” “Manage-
ment shall maintain a record
of the meeting and the matter
discussed.”

It should be noted that the
minimum legal provisions un-
der the Accident Prevention
Regulations do not compel
the employer to forward such
copies of records to the Work-

increased .

men’s Compensation Board
and, therefore, it becomes al-
most impossible for the Work-
men’s Compensation Board to
determine whether or not any
action is being taken in re-
spect to accident prevention
and safety in these type op-
erations. 1966 records indi-
cate that there are 37,273 reg-
istered number of employers
in this province. The recent
appointment of five new in-
spectors to the staff of the Ac-
cident Prevention Depart-
ment increased the strength
of the inspection force to 36
men (including industrial hy-
giene and first aid.) With
only 36 inspectors, it seems
virtually impossible for such
a small workforce to ade-
quately and thoroughly in-
spect all plants and opera-
tions on a regular basis. Van-
couver Local 1-217, IWA, for
example, has nearly 100 op-
erations under certification
and the number of inspectors
allocated in the Vancouver
area for these type operations
are totally inadequate to pro-
mote and maintain an effec-

tive accident prevention and
safety program, other Locals
of the IWA are even in a less
“favourable position.”

One can be very dubious ©

that the employers in this
Province can be relied upon
to promote and recommend
improvements to the Work-
men’s. Compensation Act
when they fully realize that
the additional costs for such
recommendations shall be
placed upon their shoulders.
The onus and responsibility
is one of a legislative nature.
The IWA in B.C. is proud
of its accident prevention pro-
gram, at the same time realiz-
ing that much more could be
and must be done in the fu-
ture. To achieve maximum
beneficial results will necessi-
tate a critical and realistic
review of developing pro-
grams, techniques and above
all legislation that will meet
with the growing challenges
in today’s highly industrial-
ized complex society.
GEORGE KOWBEL
Recording Secretary,
Local 1-217, Vancouver

HACHEY SCORES

PRESS "WHITEWASH" JOB

By JOHN HACHEY
Business Agent Lccal 1-357

During this session of the
Legislative Assembly in Vic-
toria, the government has
proposed “Bill 22”, legisla-
tion amending the Workmen’s
Compensation Act. As prev-
iously reported, this new leg-
islation is as a result of the
Commission of Inquiry con-
ducted by the Hon. Justice
Charles W. Tysoe into the
present Act, and most of the
commissioners’ recommenda-
tions which were the result
of this inquiry are embodied
in the new legislation. How-
ever, we are greatly disturb-
ed that this new legislation
will not. result in resolving
some of the iniquities which
exist in the present Act and
the administration - of the
Workmen’s Compensation
Act ‘by the present commis-
sioners.

The management and the
press have attempted to do
a whitewash job on this new
Act, and we refer you to an
editorial in the Journal of
Commerce dated Saturday,
March 16, 1968, which reads
in part: ‘By placing the onus
on the WCB to disprove a
claim, the working man is at
last getting a break. No longer
will he be forced to go cap
in hand to plead his cause.

“Perhaps now we will be
spared those public demon-
strations:- by widows and
mothers in front of the Parlia-
ment Buildings. The former
method of placing the onus
on the applicant to prove his
disability arose from condi-
tions of employment and was
often a degrading and humil-
iating exercise.”

While the editorial is laud-
able and the thinking behind
this article is humane, it is
our considered opinion that
the new Act does not do these

things. It is the writer’s opin-
ion that the onus of disprov-~
ing a claim is-not placed on
the WCB but has been left to
the claimant to prove his con-
is work-caused. Also

dition

JOHN
the new Act still leaves the
matter of policy solely with
the commissioners. We do
not quarrel with this type of
arrangement. However, we
feel that the appeal procedure
should be and is not contained
in the Act. We have asked
that an appeal panel inde-
pendent of the WCB be set
up where either the claimant,
or management, could appeal
a decision. We feel that only
then will the workmen of this
province have justice under
the Workmen’s Compensa-
tion Act.

The appeal procedure at
the present time has an inher-
ent weakness insofar as the
Board of Review and those
who comprise this review
body are employees of the
Board, hired and subject to

See “SCORES”—Page

—~