Changing the Reality on the Ground
- Interview, François Patry,
President, National Brotherhood
of Carpenters, FTQ-Construction Local 9 -
Demonstration at Quebec National Assembly to
demand pro-worker reform to the Act respecting
occupational health and safety,
November 27, 2019.
Workers' Forum: The Quebec
government announced a reform of the Act
respecting occupational health and safety
to be introduced in the winter of 2020.[1] How does the
issue of the reforming of the Act pose itself in
relation to the health and safety conditions in
the
workplaces which also affect the health and
safety of the public?
François Patry: We will be very
vigilant on this when they introduce the bill.
The question we will ask
is if we can make use of the Act to improve the
health and safety
conditions on construction sites. Prevention is
the key factor in
dealing with accidents and fatalities on
construction sites. We need
prevention, which means
that organizations on the ground take charge of
prevention. The
question is, as an organization, do I have a
role to play that is
important, or is it just a matter of being a
member of some committee?
Prevention means identifying the dangers in
order to
eliminate them. It means planning the equipment
and the methods of
work, and workers and employers sitting together
to look at how we are
going to do the job in order to eliminate the
danger. Prevention must
be integrated into the organization of the work
on the sites.
 The
construction sector is very dangerous. We have a
lot of accidents. We
represent five per cent of the Quebec workforce
and we have 25 per cent
of all fatal accidents year after year. This is
unacceptable. We are
facing this situation not because it is
unavoidable, that this is the
way things are and will always be in
construction. There are
reasons why these accidents occur.
In order to eliminate the causes of these
accidents we
need to have support mechanisms for the workers.
One of the important
mechanisms is the prevention representative. We
have prevention
programs on construction sites. We have a Safety
Code for construction
work that outlines solutions to the problems we
have identified, ways
to make
sure that employers use safe work methods and
equipment so as to have
control over the dangers that exist on
construction sites.
The problem is that employers always do the
minimum when
it comes to prevention. They cling to minimums,
even if we know that it
will not solve the problem, in order to create
the illusion that
problems are being solved. So then when there is
an accident, it is the
worker who is blamed.
To change this, it is necessary to have a
prevention
representative on construction sites, a worker
representative appointed
by the workers who enforces existing programs
and is trained by the
trade unions, protected by law so that he does
not lose his job, and
paid by the employers. Prevention programs often
look good, but that is
just on paper.
The problem is that the programs that exist are
not being implemented
on job sites. Even the employers' supervisors,
superintendents and
project managers often do not know about the
prevention programs.
A kind of pattern has emerged where employers
are doing
the minimum, using methods that have been
established because the work
is done faster. These methods are considered to
be cost-effective but
they create a lot of problems. Employers are
counting on the fact that
they will not be caught by the inspectors from
the Labour Standards, Pay
Equity and Workplace Health and Safety Board
(CNESST). However, CNESST
is reducing the number of inspectors more and
more. It requires that
the inspectors do more and more paperwork, which
means inspectors spend
more time in the office and less time on
construction sites.
We need prevention representatives on construction sites
who are accountable to the workers. If she or he does not do their job,
they will be replaced by the union. The employer does not have a say in
it. The accident prevention representative is independent of the
employer. The only thing the employer would do is pay her or his wages.
That is why, even if we were to be given new
programs in
the Act, new committees, although they have
their place, without the
prevention representatives to bring them to
life, the situation will
not change.
In addition, not all employers are covered by
the
mechanism calling for joint health and safety
committees because such
committees are only required when an employer
has at least 10 workers
on the job site. But 90 per cent of construction
employers do not have
10 workers. So in the end these are bogus
committees. It's like a
beautiful
showcase created to say that 'we have worksite
committees,' 'we have
prevention programs,' so the fact that there are
still accidents means
that accidents are unavoidable and must be
accepted.
It is true that we must have access to all the
mechanisms that are currently in the Act, those
that exist but are not
being implemented. It is necessary to claim all
the mechanisms of
prevention but, unlike the present situation,
there must be
enforcement. The prevention representative is
essential for enforcing
them.
In addition, prevention representatives must be
appointed on a yearly basis because construction
sites are often very
small and workers go from contract to contract.
We should actually have
flying squads of prevention representatives who
do not change according
to the contracts and who go from site to site in
a given region.
Prevention representatives would enforce the law and
regulations. They would go around the sites and talk to the workers.
They would participate in accident investigations. At the moment, we
are not entitled to do investigations; we are not even informed when
there is an accident. We sometimes learn about it a few days later,
especially on very large sites. If we have a prevention representative,
she or he will participate in the investigations and at the conclusion
of an investigation if she or he disagrees with the conclusions of the
report, she or he can register their dissent. That opinion will stay on
the record and can be used to prevent further accidents.
WF: How do you organize to defend
workers on construction sites?
FP: We have union representatives
in each
region. At Local 9 we have 23 representatives
who go to construction
sites, do labour relations and prevention. But
there are so many sites
to cover. If they denounce an employer for
failing health and safety,
it is easy for the employer to say that he will
solve the problem in
the next
few days, but by then the representative is
already somewhere else.
Prevention representatives on the sites would be
able to do the
follow-up. We must change the way of thinking,
so that employers cannot
plead innocence, cannot think that they can act
without being
accountable. We must make a change in the way
all sites operate.
In addition, with things like Bill 152 passed
in 2018 by
the Quebec government, it is increasingly
difficult for union
representatives to intervene on construction
sites.[2]
Today, as soon as we intervene to change things,
even on matters of
health and safety, when we denounce something,
the employers
say that we are threatening them. They threaten
to bring in the Quebec
Construction Commission that will declare that
there has been a
slowdown in the work and that this is a
violation of that legislation.
Yes, we may have carried out a slowdown but such
an action is allowed by
the Act respecting occupational health and
safety.
Our work is more
difficult as far as dealing with the employers
are concerned. It is also more
difficult at the level of the CNESST and it is
actually very difficult
to make them come to the sites when workers
exercise their right of
refusal. The CNESST has adopted the philosophy
that these matters are
not important, they do not have to come to
construction sites, they
will just
make a call to the employer. That's not what the
law says. The law says
that if we were not able to reach an agreement
with the employer and
have phoned the CNEEST to ask for it to
intervene, they must come to
the site, take the names of each worker, ask
them why they stopped
working. They also have to assess the danger
that is at the source
of the refusal to work, and talk to the employer
and the union and
determine whether they accept the corrective
action taken by the
employer, so that the work can actually resume.
We continue our work, we fight, we support each
other, but it's more difficult to intervene now.
Notes
1. Adopted in 1979, the Act
respecting occupational health and safety
provides for four prevention mechanisms. It is
estimated that these
mechanisms are applied to only about 12 per cent
of workers. These
mechanisms are the prevention program, the
health program, the
employer-worker
joint health/safety committee and the prevention
representative.
2. Bill 152, An Act
to Amend
Various Labour-related Legislative Provisions
Mainly to Give Effect to
Certain Charbonneau Commission Recommendations
was passed in May
2018 by the Quebec government. It criminalizes
construction workers who
defend their rights, especially on construction
sites, accusing
them of intimidation or threats "that are
reasonably likely to cause an
obstruction to or a slowdown or stoppage of
activities on a job site."
This article was published in
Number 29 - December 4, 2019
Article Link:
Changing the Reality on the Ground >
Website: www.cpcml.ca
Email: editor@cpcml.ca
|
