Canadian Occupational Safety

says Swatton. In July, the Alberta OHS Policy and Program Development Branch approved the FAST-cowl for use in Alberta for workers with facial hair, including full beards. It approved the equipment for use as a self-contained breathing apparatus and also for emer- gency response personnel responding to an incident. The product is potentially a "game changer" for the industry, says Paul Verma, a member of the industrial hygiene committee for the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP) and a senior industrial hygien- ist at Shell in Calgary. "(The oil sands) have probably the most diverse workforce I have ever been around and (there are) skill short- ages in the oil patch, so anything where you are being inclusive and being able to widen the skill pool for any worker there, you don't want to be turning people away who are qualifi ed to work, so this is a tool, potentially, that allows us to hire anyone," says Verma. The FAST-cowl may be a better standard as it offers a higher level of protection, he says. The respirator is also able to accommodate people with dental appliances, lack of teeth, scars, deformities or other facial topography characteristics. BFORS VS. HUMAN RIGHTS The hard hat versus turban debate has been ongoing for quite some time. The seminal case on this is Canadian National Railway Co. v. Bhinder from 1985. Bhinder was a Sikh man who wore a turban and CNR fi red him for refusing to wear a hard hat. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled in favour of CNR, saying the hard hat was a bone fi de occupational requirement (BFOR). Since then, the Supreme Court of Canada has established a test for deter- mining if a workplace policy or rule is a bone fi de occupational requirement. This three-step test was set out in the Meiorin case in 1999. A safety-specifi c example would be the following: • Step 1: Was the rule about hard hats or respiratory protection adopted for a purpose that is rationally con- nected to the job (safety)? • Step 2: Was the rule adopted in an honest and good faith belief that the standard is necessary for the fulfi ll- ment of that legitimate purpose (safety)? • Step 3: Was the standard reasonably necessary to accomplish that legiti- mate purpose? Can the employer accommodate individual employees without imposing undue hardship upon the employer? "An employer usually can't just say 'It's justifi ed for safety reasons.' All aspects of the policy must be care- fully considered," says Janice Ashcroft, senior legal counsel at the Alberta Human Rights Commission in Calgary. If a worker suspects he has been discriminated against based on his religious beliefs, he can submit a com- plaint to his provincial human rights commission or the Canadian Human Rights Commission for federally regu- lated companies. "For example, the employer has a workplace policy that says no hard hats, no loose-fi tting clothing, such as headscarves, can be worn on the job. On its face, this is a seemingly neu- tral workplace rule, which applies to everybody and doesn't seem to indi- cate any intent to discriminate against employees because of religious beliefs; however, the workplace policy would likely adversely affect Sikhs who wear turbans or the Muslims or Mennonite women who wear hijab or heads- carves," says Ashcroft. If the policy is discriminatory based on religious beliefs, this would give rise to the employer's duty to accom- modate. The employer must then fi nd another way to do the job that would lessen the adverse impact, relo- cate the worker or fi nd other suitable accommodation. The employer's duty to accommo- date is to the point of undue hardship, such as intolerable fi nancial costs or serious disruption to business. Undue hardship can be demonstrated by the employer through scientifi c evidence, risk analysis, statistics and fi nancial costs, says Ashcroft. "But it should always be remembered that until a decision-maker has exam- ined and decided that it has met those three steps of the Meiorin test, there's always a risk that someone will fi le a complaint and it will be subject to a full examination at a tribunal or through the courts at appeal," says Ashcroft. "I know it can be diffi cult at times for employers to know where they stand on all their workplace policies, but I would always emphasize to do your due diligence on it and be able to give information and evidence as to why and how the policy was developed." BLANKET POLICIES VS. INDIVIDUAL CONTEXT The Alberta study group's report calls on employers to revisit blanket clean- shaven policies. In some industries, the policies may be more prescriptive than necessary to meet the legislative requirements. There should only be "exceptional circumstances" under which workers are required to be clean shaven due to a foreseeable hazard, the report says. In most cases, elimination of hazards, along with engineering and administrative controls, should remove the exposure without having to resort to personal protective equipment. In a media report in 2006, Wadhwa said the clean-shaven policies at other companies has kept him from some of the biggest job opportunities for elec- tricians in Alberta. And Singh was kept from a bus driver position because he was not willing to wear a hard hat. "Sometimes blanket restrictions — everyone needs to wear hard hats everywhere — it might not apply to the secretary or the particular job that person does. That's why it's always important to look at the very indi- vidual context that you're looking at," says Ashcroft. In the oil and gas industry, there are a lot of blanket rules, says Verma. "We tend to err on the side of safety," he says. But progress is being made as some operators have reviewed this and nar- rowed down where it is really required and where it is not. "For example, up at our mine, we have a process area where we have hydrocarbons where clean-shaven policies are in place, but the rest of the operation is not," says Verma. "That's based on the risk or hazard." In 2005, Sikh truck drivers fi led a human rights complaint against CP Rail for a rule that required them to wear hard hats instead of turbans. The requirement prevented them from driv- ing into two Toronto terminals without protective headwear. More than 500 drivers challenged the rule. After careful consideration and a full safety review, CP determined it was safe to remove the requirement for the drivers. From Singh's perspective, he has not yet had any luck fi nding engi- neering work that would exempt him from wearing a hard hat. Any kind of heavy-duty equipment operation, such as forklifts, crane and bulldoz- ers, require the use of hard hats, as do jobs he has looked at in government departments (such as Parks Canada) and municipalities. He is now running a startup soft- ware and web development company in Calgary and Winnipeg called Info- range IT. While the company is in its fi rst year of business and it is a "very engaging time," Singh still hopes to one day get back into the fi eld. He is hopeful for change going forward so himself and his fellow Sikhs can work in their desired professions. "Without an awareness about this Sikh tradition and its acceptance at the grassroots level within the industry, it is almost impossible to continue look- ing at engineering as a viable fi eld for me," he says. "I hope that one day our government will mandate exemptions for Sikhs regarding hard hats… Other- wise I can't be working in the Canadian industry with my engineering degree and a turban exclusivity resolve." 22 Canadian Occupational Safety www.cos-mag.com RAMADAN SAFETY Ramadan, the ninth month of the Muslim year, during which strict fasting is observed from dawn to sunset, can pose health and safety issues for workers. There are 940,000 Muslims in Canada, comprising 2.8 per cent of the country's population. This is expected to increase to 2.7 million (6.6 per cent of the population) by 2030, according to a report from the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. Workers participating in Ramadan must abstain from food and drink during the daylight hours for 30 days. This is done to commemorate the revelation of the Qur'an to Mohammed. Many workers will wake up before 4 a.m. to eat breakfast before the sun rises and prayers often go late in the evening. These long days contribute to a lack of sleep, which decreases alertness, concentration and response time. Safety professionals should remind workers and supervisors to look out for the warning signs of fatigue, which include sleepiness, heavy eyelids, irritability, depression, giddiness, loss of appetite, digestive problems, daydreaming, blurred vision and frequent yawning. Fasting can also cause low blood sugar, which includes symptoms of confusion, slurred speech and fainting. If workers are driving, encourage them to be specifi cally aware of their reaction time and to pull over if they are feeling drowsy or get alternative transportation. Where possible, employers may want to adjust work duties and break times to accommodate the workers. Muslims are supposed to pray more than usual during Ramadan, so employers should provide a quiet, private space for prayer. When the holy month occurs in the summer (as it did this year, running from June 18 to July 16), additional challenges exist with working in the heat. Workers in Ramadan cannot drink water during daylight hours so dehydration and heat stress are signifi cant concerns. Employers should encourage these workers to hydrate well during and after their meal times. For construction work, employers should make sure they are allowing for enough rest and breaks, as well as scheduling the most diffi cult work for cooler parts of the day. RAMADAN SAFETY RAMADAN SAFETY RAMADAN SAFETY

• Cover