This article was posted 12/17/2007 and is most likely outdated.

Montreal-based company pleads guilty, fined $130,000
 

 

Topic - Safety
Subject - Montreal-based company pleads guilty, fined $130,000 for health and safety violation causing death

December 17, 2007
This newsletter was sent to 27728 newsletter subscribers

Ask a Question |  Weekly Code GraphicQuizzes |  Free Stuff InstructorsOnline Training Products | Seminars | SubscribeUnsubscribe
[ image1 Post Comments | View Comments | Notify Me When Comments Are Added ] Web Page Version [Printer-Friendly]    

Montreal-based company pleads guilty, fined $130,000
for health and safety violation causing death

 

By: Canada NewsWire

Sep 20, 2007

NAPANEE, ON (CNW) -- Riviera Inc., a St. Laurent, Quebec-based manufacturer of men's clothing, has been fined $130,000 in the Ontario Court of Justice for failing to ensure safe work procedures at its Napanee manufacturing plant.

Riviera pleaded guilty on September 19, 2007, in relation to an incident on October 17, 2005, in which a self-employed electrician was fatally injured. The electrician had been hired by Riviera to repair three defective relay switches in three locations at the plant and was found dead from electrocution at the site of the third and final repair.

Court heard the electrical circuit being repaired had not been de-energized and there was no lock-out in place to ensure the circuit remained de-energized while work was performed. Riviera, as an employer, is responsible for the health and safety of all workers,
including independent contractors.

The Ministry of Labour investigation concluded that the fatality could have been prevented had the employer taken necessary steps to ensure that the circuit had been locked out and de-energized as required by the Industrial Regulations and the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

Riviera pleaded guilty to failing, as an employer, to take every precaution reasonable in the circumstances for the protection of a worker at a workplace located at 444 Advance Ave., Napanee, contrary to section 25(2)(h) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The fine was imposed by Justice of the Peace Donna Doelman of the Ontario Court of Justice in Napanee. In addition, the court imposed a 25-per-cent victim fine surcharge, as required by the Provincial Offences Act. The surcharge is credited to a special provincial government fund to assist victims of crime.

 

 

 

Click here to post a comment
[ View More Newsletters ] [ Send to a Friend ] [ Post Comments | View Comments | Notify Me When Comments Are Added ]

Copyright © Mike Holt Enterprises, Inc. All rights reserved.
This article is protected by United States copyright and other intellectual property laws and may not be
displayed or published on the internet without the prior written permission of Mike Holt Enterprises, Inc.

http://www.MikeHolt.com     1-888-NEC-CODE (1-888-632-2633)

Experiencing a Problem? Click Here

 
Comments
  • I find it interesting and honestly a bit disconcerting that the electrician, presumably qualified under the tenets of the Electrical Code definitions thereof, apparently did not prosecute to HIS fullest extent the LOTO procedures we all know and love from our own CFR29 1910147 and CFR29 1926.417 in the execution of his work tasking. The electrical trade professionals, no matter what country or jurisdiction in which they ply their trade, should take note that they own a not insignificant portion of the responsibility and liability for such working environmental safety requirements themselves. It is frightening to see that the employer seems to be shouldering the lion's share of the burden when the electrician was clearly not following accepted procedures and protocols when working on live parts in the first place. Please pardon me for being so cold about this, but, as a "qualified" electrician of some 35+ years of carrying the tools in the trade, I would NEVER trust somebody else's word that the circuit on which I was to work is OFF or de-energized unless I did the first, last and in-between testings to make sure the circuit was truly de-energized and I could therefore work on it. Carry one of the myriad pocket voltage detectors and WEAR OUT ITS BATTERY. The annoyance of replacing batteries is far better that this alternative. If it has to be done HOT, there are specific rules of engagement for such work which again appear NOT to have been followed by the unfortunate electrician.

    Let it be said, however, that I am HUGELY sorry for the fatality and the unfortunate family members left behind. The paltry sum awarded the family IN NO WAY REPLACES the loved one. This fatality should never have happened, but it did, which is the lesson for ALL electricians AND maintenance mechanics going forward --- FOLLOW THE PROCEDURES AND PROTOCOLS YOU HAVE BEEN TRAINED TO FOLLOW -- ALWAYS.

    Dan Lawrence PE

Reply to this comment
* Your Name:
   Your name will appear under your comments.

* Your Email:
   Your email address is not displayed.
* Comments:

This newsletter is closed to new comments.

Email Notification Options:
Notify me when a reply is posted to this comment
Notify me whenever a comment is posted to this newsletter