1 response so far ↓

• 1 Ken Emmons, CRSP // Apr 16, 2015 at 11:51 am

  As the representative of 32 school districts in the province I must submit grave concerns over the wording being used in the proposed amendments (Bill 9) in Sections 175 & 176. There appears to be a requirement now for 2 investigations. A preliminary one and a further full investigation one.

  One of the criteria being used to determine when both investigations will be conducted is if a worker goes for medical treatment. This could be for dirt in the eye or a fracture to a limb. I wish to clarify the minor of the two. On these type of minor injuries (but they did go see a physician) I can’t see the value in the requirement for 2 investigations. I’m not sure how much different one would look from the other? Yet the onus on the employer both in time and resources is huge. Let me be clear that I am not disputing a more serious incident needing both however; a sliver, dust in the eye, sore wrist would not look to much different in the full investigation than the information which would be available during the preliminary investigation.

  My other concerns regarding the above is the requirement to send the report in to WorkSafeBC. Will the employer receive an indication that the report has been received by the Board or would the employer need to further clarify? Will the document be reviewed by the Board Officer currently serving our place of business?

  I would like to recommend that the Board use the criteria, listed in the current OFA Level 1, 2, & 3 Training Manual, determined to be minor injuries as requiring a preliminary investigation only. Those listed in the above manual under RTC criteria would require both. Thank you for your time.

Leave a Comment