Canadian Occupational Safety

14 Canadian Occupational Safety www.cos-mag.com direction of the employer. As the investigation ultimately dis- covered, the worker died as a result of a fentanyl overdose, something the WCB accepted took the worker outside of the course of employment. Another contentious area involves injuries during lunch breaks. Again, the general rule is that a worker who is injured while taking a personal lunch break would not be covered by workers' compensation. For example, the worker who slips and falls on the way to the café would not be cov- ered. However, just as with travel, the principle of employer control and direction provides the exception. The same worker who slips and falls on the way to the café might be covered if he was asked by the employer to pick up lunch for others. Similarly, injuries that occur during lunch in an employer-run cafeteria can attract coverage. I came across a stunning example of such a lunch break issue in a case that involved a worker with a severe food allergy. The employer was aware of this allergy and it was accommodated to the extent that this worker's work area was completely isolated from any lunch areas and the worker was excused from attending any meetings where food would be served. After the employer organized a lunch meeting, another employee took some food back to her work area that was in close proximity to the worker. The allergens in that food caused a severe allergic reaction for the worker who had to be hospitalized immedi- ately. Complicating this matter was the fact that the worker was pregnant at the time, which then raised issues about injuries affecting the unborn child. The fact that the lunch food that caused the reaction was employer provided would inform the WCB in this instance. This same principle of employer control and direction also governs cov- erage issues for things like company events. Injuries during the company softball game or Christmas party will usually attract coverage. Injuries during a private poker game between co-workers will not. Most workers' compensation sys- tems in Canada are also prepared to extend coverage to areas outside the four corners of the actual employer premises. For example, injuries that occur in common areas such as hall- ways or lobbies in front of, or en route to, a workers' place of employment will usually be covered. Coverage is also extended to parking lots, usually where the employer owns, leases or otherwise maintains the lot or provides parking privileges for workers there. Workers' compensation boards will look for the nexus to the workplace and, in particular, to the employer to assess whether an injury that does not neatly present as "work related" might still attract coverage. Employ- ers need to be aware that much of this decision-making is informed by the remedial nature of the workers' compensation system. As such, we would expect to see an expansion of the categories of times and areas that might attract workers' compensa- tion coverage. For example, one board has extended coverage to a worker for a fall on an icy city sidewalk some distance away from the entry to the workplace on the basis that the issue was well- known to the employer. The question concerning the time and place of a workplace injury poses many ques- tions and challenges. Employers that face workers' compensation claims should always analyze whether a particular claim actually meets the threshold requirement of "arising out of and occurring in the course of employment." However, employ- ers must be careful not to be unduly dismissive of claims that occur out- side of working hours and outside of the four walls of the actual place of employment. Workers' compensa- tion can extend to such claims and as the workplace continues to extend its fi ngers further and further into our lives; I would expect the categories of covered claims to only be broad- ened in the future. After all, the more direction and control an employer purports to exert over its workers, the wider the category of "work related- ness" will become. Maurice Dransfeld is a lawyer in the Edmonton offi ce of McLennan Ross who provides advice to employers on a variety of labour and employment issues. He can be reached at mdransfeld@mross.com or (780) 482-9223. The BCRSP is currently completing a validation survey of its members to obtain their feedback on a compre- hensive set of competencies and a certifi cation scheme for OHS techni- cians in Canada. BCRSP was the fi rst safety certifi - cation body in Canada, established on Feb. 10, 1976, and the CRSP is likely the best known and, perhaps, represents the highest standard for a generalist occupational health and safety professional. The problem is the dilution effect of the sheer number of other certifi ca- tions and designations. This is further complicated by the specialist certifi - cations and designations offered by industry sectors. The CRSP has been the standard-bearer for occupational health and safety professional certi- fi cations for 40 years and it is now getting lost in the noise of the 20-plus other certifi cations and designations. How does the consumer sort through this all? Is "buyer beware" really the best strategy? In addition, there is the bigger issue of safety being formally recognized as a true profession in Canada. This free- for-all landscape of certifi cations and designations is a major impediment to safety ever becoming a self-regulating, true profession. A key argument for regulating professions is that they have to have, maintain and deliver a unique set of knowledge and skills to ensure the public interest is served. Self-regu- lation is intended to ensure the people most knowledgeable of best practices provide the standards for measuring competence and professional conduct. The cost of the regulatory process is then borne by the profession — not the taxpayer. Instead of safety professionals in Canada working to create even more certifi cations and designations, per- haps what is needed is some effort and leadership around agreeing on a body of knowledge and working to harmonize a certifi cation scheme that includes a ladder that is descriptive and inclusive of all levels, from safety technician to true safety professional, without overlap or duplication. The safety profession needs to seek this privilege of ensuring the public safety on behalf of the members of our profession. If we are to ever be successful in achieving true profes- sional status, we will have to work through this maze of certifi cations and designations. Glyn Jones is a partner at EHS Partnerships in Calgary and the regional vice-president of Alberta, Northwest Territories, and Nunavut for the Canadian Society of Safety Engineering. He is a consulting occupational health and safety professional with 30 years of experience. He also provides program design and instructional support to the University of New Brunswick's OHS certifi cate and diploma programs. He can be reached at gjones@ehsp.ca << from Training on page 10 << from Workers' on page 12 Employers must be careful not to be unduly dismissive of claims that occur outside of working hours and outside of the four walls of the actual place of employment. ' COMPLETE CATALOG 1-800-295-5510 uline.ca OVER 1,900 SAFETY PRODUCTS IN STOCK π SHIPPING SUPPLY SPECIALISTS ORDER BY 6 PM FOR SAME DAY SHIPPING

• Cover