Faller safety program
needs to be mandatory

In this article Local 1-71 Safety Director Bob Patterson examines the issue of
mandatory certified training for fallers in B.C. and the concerns of our union,
the Workers’ Compensation Board and the industry.

Rial OW many more British Co-
{ LI ‘lumbia Fallers have to be
{ | killed on the job before the
| parties of interest come to
their collective sense and en-
“act the necessary manda-
tory certified training with enforce-
able regulations. That is mandatory
certified Faller training to be pro-
vided as a condition of employment,
and provisions for all employers to
demand copies of the Faller’s certifi-
cate and training log also as a condi-
tion of employment.

Representatives from IWA - CANA-
DA, Industry, and the Workers’ Com-
pensation Board (WCB) have worked
together to develop a training pro-
gram that the Board states will be a
province-wide training model or
guideline. However, to date that is as
far as the Board is prepared to go.
Several issues, such as certification,
condition of employment, regulation,
and grandfathering (special consider-
ation for the existing work force),
remain unresolved and appear to be
major stumbling blocks.

In my opinion, each of the parties of
interest have their own concerns that
they have to come to terms with
before we can move on to what can be

considered as an effective and useful
training program.

The Industry, represented by the
Council Of Forest Industries (COFT),
expressed major concerns about the
cost of training, and whether the pro-
gram would force those member
employers who currently don’t pro-
vide training into the market of hav-
ing to train.

Their concerns are generated by
their own statistics which indicate
that their member companies were
not the companies suffering from the
problem of Faller injuries and fatali-
ties.

The workers, represented by the
IWA (it must be noted that many
argue that the IWA can only speak for
the organized sector of workers), have
the concern of what to do to ensure
the existing work force have their
experience recognized in a reasonable
fashion that won’t get the member-
ship upset at their elected or hired
representatives.

Finally, the Workers’ Compensa-
tion Board (the provincial authority)

© Loggers’ local safety director Bob
Patterson.

who many argue can and should rep-
resent the collective interests of all of
the parties (ie. industry, workers, both
organized and unorganized, the com-
munity, and government) are con-
cerned with not wanting to create
another level of bureaucracy. In recent
years it has only provided unenforce-
able models and/or guidelines.

The only common denominator
between the interests is the recogni-
tion that something has to be done
sooner or later, given the nature of the
problem. So we have worked in accord
to develop a very thorough training
package.

However, from my perspective,
unless several of the above issues are
effectively resolved, the whole pro-
cess will have done nothing more than
to create another toothless-paper tiger
that may or may not be used in train-
ing Fallers.

No matter how thorough the guide-
lines are, no one will be required to use
them anyway. At best, under the pres-
ent scheme of things even if the pro-
posed training program is used by
some employers, there is no provision
for a follow up or requirement for
continued review. Subsequently, the
initial problem continues unabated
and even more Fallers will die.

Although each party has concerns,
the Union's concern is the most dis-
turbing at this time. There are Fallers
who will be upset with any require-
ment that forces them to pass compe-
tency requirements. However, it must
be noted that the initiative to force
the issue of pursuing mandatory cer-
tification came from the membership
and is not a pet project of a few elected
or hired officials within the IWA.

Secondly, and of more critical
importance, is the fact that according
to the retrospective study of Faller
fatalities between 1981 and 1987
recently conducted by the University
of British Columbia, the second high-
est level of fatal accidents occurred to

Fallers between forty-five and fifty
years of age with between twenty and
twenty-five years experience as a
Faller.

The only age group that had higher
numbers were those recorded for Fall-
ers between the ages of twenty-five
and thirty years with between zero to
five years experience. The third high-
est level recorded was for those
between thirty and thirty-five years
of age with between five to ten years
experience.

Clearly, the age and experience fac-
tors of the study indicate that the
existing work force must be required
to obtain the necessary certification
along with new workers.

However, as is the case in other
areas when a new certification or
apprenticeship program is initiated,
the existing work force often is not
required to take the initial course of
instruction. Rather, if workers suc-
cessfully challenge and complete the
final requirements they are awarded
certification. On the other hand, if
their challenge is unsuccessful they
are then required to take the course of
instruction.

As to the Industry’s concern about
costs and the “bottom line,” it must
be noted that the employer has the
responsibility (as mandated by WCB
policy) to develop, implement, and

maintain programs which prevent
injury. This includes: ensuring all dan-
gers to the safety and health of work-
ers are identified; ensuring the dan-
gers are eliminated, and to control the
dangers or protect the worker from
the dangers; ensuring work processes,
projects, work and maintenance pro-
cedures are adequately planned and
implemented; ensuring workers are
instructed, trained, and supervised to
safely performed assigned duties.

No matter how
thorough current
guidelines are, no

one will be
required to use
them anyway

Some employers seem to expect
workers to learn by doing the job, or
by watching fellow workers. This can
obviously lead to the continuity of
poor work practices. There is a need
for effective training programs.

The majority of occupational safety
and health practitioners recognize
that a major factor in the prevention
of injuries is the adequate instruction
of workers in the safe performance of
their duties coupled with adequate
supervision of workers to ensure that
safety procedures are being followed.

In all likelihood the employer will
have a cost attached to providing
effective training, but the public
should expect nothing less. And the
public should not be expected to pay.
On the other hand, the Industry
already pays premium prices for inju-
ries and fatalities occurring within
this sector.

In my opinion, the issue swings to
the moral/ethical issue of which way
would you prefer to spend your
money? From my perspective, I would
think it much wiser to spend the
money on effective training, in the
hope that the training would signifi-
cantly reduce the cost of injuries and
fatalities by reducing their frequency.

e At MacMillan Bloedel’s Menzies Bay Division on Vancouver Island, faller Randy
Elviss starts an undercut in a hemlock. (See article opposite page.)

As to the Industry's concern of
whether or not employers who don’t
currently train will be forced into the
training program, I think that COFI,
with its statistics, was simply
attempting to use smoke and mirrors
to cause everyone to look for solutions
elsewhere.

COFI indicates that it is not their
member companies experiencing the
large numbers of injuries and fatali-
ties. The reason is not because their
member companies are providing
effective training (although admit-
tedly some do). It is more a comment
on their members’ ability to screen
their employees and only hire the
cream of the crop. The overwhelming
majority of COFI companies are the
larger companies who can afford the
resource of an Industrial Relations
Department whose job it is to pre-
screen and hire workers.

The IWA proposal, which demands
that Fallers be issued a certificate and
a training log in combination with our
proposal that these documents be pro-
duced as a condition of employment,
would certainly relieve this Industry
concern. If, as a condition of employ-
ment, a Faller has to produce his
documents, then the employer can
continue to pre-screen workers by
checking with those who made the
entries into the training log.

With that information the prospec-
tive employer then is completely
aware of the calibre of the worker, and
can make the decision to hire the most
experienced or hire the individual with
a little less experience and provide
whatever training the worker needs to
allow him to obtain certification.

Finally, the WCB’s concern. Firstly,
the issue of creating another level of
bureaucracy. This seems from my per-
spective a shallow concern, given that
the Board is the governmental agency
designed to formulate such programs,
much the same as the motor vehicle
branch which is the government
agency responsible for the design,
development, and review of minimum
competency requirements to enable
the population to obtain driver's
certification.

Continued on next page

Ne a
12/LUMBERWORKER/SEPTEMBER, 1990