Ground Fault Protection - ECAO

CONTRACTORELECTRICALELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR

Volume 41 • Number 2

The Voice of Ontario’s ELECTRICAL CONTRACTING INDUSTRY“A supplement to Electrical Business April 2003 issue Canadian Publications Mail Sales products Agreement No. 40665085”

Safety Program TipsSafety Program Tips

The Ontario

ELECTRICALCONTRACTOR

ELECTRICALCONTRACTOR

Unsafe Workplace Practices– Criminal Offences?

Underground EconomyHurts Us All

SIEF and CAD-7 Don't Mix

Unsafe Workplace Practices– Criminal Offences?

Underground EconomyHurts Us All

SIEF and CAD-7 Don't Mix

Ground FaultProtection

Ground FaultProtection


Ontar io E lec t r ica l Cont ractor

3

CONTENTS Volume 41 Number 2 • April 2003

4 President’s Message

4 Editor’s Message

6 Ground Fault Protection

8 Corporate Criminal Liability for

Unsafe Workplace Practices

10 Upcoming Events

12 WSIB’s SIEF and CAD-7 –

A Question of Fairness

15 Moving Safety Forward

16 Underground Economy Continues to be a Problem

EDITOREarle Goodwin

ECAO EXECUTIVE COMMITTEEPresident: George Boals, Seymour & Boals Ltd., Cornwall

First Vice-President: Dave Mason, D. J. Mason Electric Co. Ltd., Hamilton

Second Vice-President: Brad Vollmer, Vollmer & Associates, Windsor

Treasurer: Jim Gruber, Wm. Roberts Electrical & Mechanical Inc., Kitchener

Past President: Case Opdam, Opdam Enterprises, St. Catherines

Director: Peter Bryant, Esten Electric Ltd., Sudbury

Executive Vice-President: Eryl Roberts

PRODUCTIONProduction and Layout:CLB MEDIA Inc., Burlington, Ontario

Production Manager: Angie BregaThe Ontario Electrical Contractor is the official publication of theElectrical Contractors Association of Ontario. Its purpose is to provideinformation and editorial comment on issues that are relevant to theelectrical contracting industry.

ISSN#0711-3501

170 Attwell Drive, Suite 460,Toronto, Ontario M9W 5Z5Tel: 416-675-3226 Fax: 416-675-7736

1-800 387-ECAO (3226)email: [email protected] Web: www.ecao.org

Volume 41 Number 2 • April 2003

Apprentices at Electrical & UtilitiesSafety Association learn safe practices.Photo courtesy of E&USA

In the past, I’ve dis-cussed the way theElectrical Contractors

Association of Ontarioworks – its reliance oncommittees to get thingsdone, the responsibility ofthe Board of Directors foroversight of these initia-tives,and their responsibil-

ities for reporting local issues to theAssociation as well as Association issuesback to the local areas.Supporting all of thisis the Association’s communication system.

Our committees work hard on behalf ofthe membership to create an Associationthat speaks out on your behalf on issuesthat are vital to your company’s success,and provide services that add value to yourmembership. As hard as they work,though, it can all be for naught if you don’tknow what’s being done.

On the other side of the coin, it’s essen-

tial that information flow back from you.For all our discussion about committeesand boards of directors, an association isreally about its members. The better weknow your needs and the more informa-tion we get from you, the better we canserve you.

ECAO strives to get you the informationyou need in a timely manner. In addition tothe Directors’ reports, the ECAO News andthis magazine are the two most obviousways that the Association keeps the mem-bership informed of its activities. ECAONews is published ten times a year andcontains information on the day-to-dayoperation of the Association,courses beingoffered, trade shows that we’re participat-ing in, etc.This magazine looks at broaderindustry issues and has the space to lookat these in more depth.

Living in the information age, we are alsoable to take advantage of the Internet. Ourwebsite (www.ecao.org) is more than a

place to look for information on the nextconference (although it is excellent forthat). It’s the ideal place to look for infor-mation on the activities of the committeesand upcoming courses. Back issues of ournews publications are posted on the site,and there are order forms for our publica-tions and manuals.The big advantage to awebsite is the ability to update it quicklyand cost-effectively. It is constantly beinganalyzed and the content continues toevolve.

Communications is a high priority atECAO. We hope you’ll take full advantageof the benefits it provides. Enjoy the maga-zine, read the newsletters, visit the web-site,and don’t hesitate to give us your feed-back. And, while you’re thinking about it,give the office your e-mail address. It willhelp us get you the information you needin a timely manner.

George Boals


4


President’s Message

The electrical industry has an envi-able safety record. Evidence of thisis seen in our lost time frequency

rate.According to WSIB data, compared toall construction firms across Ontario, RateGroup 704 (with just slightly more than 2)consistently had at least one less injuredworker per 100 full-time workers from1998 to 2001.

Health and safety issues figure largely inthe way we do our work.They also have abig impact on our profit and loss state-ments. And so, in this issue, we focus onhealth and safety.

May is Electrical Safety Awareness Monthand this year’s theme is "Where the PowerMeets the People", focussing on safetyaround high voltage transmission lines.TheElectrical and Utilities Safety Association,who train our power and utility workers,were kind enough to supply an article onsafety measures to take when you have towork near these.

Rick Mei spends his days helping con-tractors institute and administer safety pro-

grams. If you’re setting up a program foryour company,or if you already have one inplace, you know that there is a lot to thinkabout. Mr. Mei gives us the benefit of hisexpertise by providing a checklist of someof the key issues for your consideration.

Ted Olechna, the Electrical SafetyAuthority’s Provincial Code Engineer,examines code issues around ground faultprotectors, discussing the differencesbetween GFCIs and GFPs and the use ofGFPs as defined by the code.

It’s always a tragedy when safety systemsbreak down and someone loses their lifeon a jobsite. In this unfortunate circum-stance, should the officers of the companybe charged with a criminal offence? RobBoswell looks at proposed changes to thecriminal code that could,under certain cir-cumstances, have that result.

Gary Robertson is ECAO’s HR Specialistand has devoted a great deal of time andenergy working on Workplace Safety andInsurance Board issues. WSIB created theSecond Injury and Enhancement Fund

(SIEF) to provide employers with costrelief when a claim is the result of a pre-existing condition. In most cases this pro-vides a fair and equitable solution to theproblem.The question is whether it workswith CAD-7.

We also have an article from Bob Collinslooking at the underground economy.You may wonder what that has to do with health and safety. The OntarioConstruction Secretariat estimates thatWSIB alone loses $28 million per year inrevenues to people getting paid underthe table. It’s a huge problem and, as anhonest contractor, you’re carrying theload. Mr. Collins tells us just how big thatload is.

We hope you find this edition of theOntario Electrical Contractor useful andinformative. If you have any comments orsuggestions, feel free to drop me an e-mail([email protected]) or give me a call at416-675-3226 ext. 313.

Earle Goodwin

Editor’s Message

SeaChange

A Fairfax Company

sponsored by:

of

A

Canadian Electrical Contractors Association

2003 National ConferenceJune 18-22, 2003The Fairmont NewfoundlandSt. John’s, Newfoundland

Hosted by the Electrical Contractors Association of Ontariowith the electrical contractors of Newfoundland

For more information, please call 416-675-3226 or visit: www.ceca.org or www.ecao.org


6


Ground Fault ProtectionBy Ted Olechna, P.Eng

Did you ever wonder why groundfault protection is mandated in theOntario Electrical Safety Code?

Arcing ground faults in solidly groundedelectrical systems or components cancause severe damage to electrical equip-ment and premises. The overcurrentdevice will not sense the arcing ground

fault in many situations because the faultcurrent might be small enough to go unde-tected due to the resistance of the arc.Ground-fault protection is designed toprovide protection from line-to-groundfaults that occur on the load side of themain disconnecting means.

What is it?The Ontario Electrical Safety Code (OESC)defines a GFCI to mean "a device whosefunction is to interrupt, within a predeter-mined time, the electrical circuit to theload when a current to ground exceedssome predetermined value that is less thanthat required to operate the overcurrentprotective device of the supply circuit "

Ground Fault Protection (GFP) on theother hand is not defined, but do not con-fuse ground fault protection with the ever-popular GFCI of the class A type. "Ground-Fault Protection" is intended to provide pro-tection of equipment from damaging line-to-ground fault currents by operating tocause a disconnecting means to open allungrounded conductors of the faulted cir-cuit.This protection is provided at currentlevels less than those required to protectconductors from damage through the oper-

ation of a supply circuit overcurrent device.The fundamental difference between thetwo is that the GFCI is a single devicewhose function is protection against elec-tric shock, and the GFP is a system intend-ed to provide protection for equipment.

When are they required?Rule 14-102 requires ground fault protec-tion be provided to de-energize all normal-ly ungrounded conductors of a circuit thatfaults to ground, where one of the follow-ing circuit characteristics exists in solidlygrounded systems:a. 2000 Amp or more and rated 150 volts

or less to ground; and b. 1000 Amp or more and more than 150

volts-to-ground, but less than 750 voltsphase-to-phase.

Diagram 3 of the OESC (Figure 1) showsa variety of ultimate points of conductorde-energization in the event of a groundfault.

Figure 1. Points of Conductor De-energization

Rule 14-102(6) states that sensors shallbe permitted to be installed at any pointbetween the supply transformer and thedownstream side of the disconnectingmeans marked with an asterisk in Diagram3, but if located downstream from this dis-connecting means the sensors shall beplaced as close as practicable to its loadterminals.The "*"s (asterisks) indicate theultimate point beyond which the down-stream ungrounded circuit conductorsmust be de-energized in the event of aground fault in the circuit fed by suchconductors.

There are two basic ground fault protec-tion schemes available: Zero SequenceSensing, and Ground Strap Sensing. Indeciding which protection scheme to usein an installation, one has to consider anumber of design considerations.

Zero Sequence Sensing

Figure 2. Zero Sequence SensingIn a Zero Sequence Sensing scheme thefollowing has to be followed:

• There must be a single current trans-former encircling all of the phaseconductors of the circuit includingneutral.

• All grounding of the neutral must be onthe line side of the sensor. This is par-ticularly important where the neutral isgrounded both at the switchgear and atthe transformer.

• The zero-sequence current trans-former may be located on either theload or the line side of the circuitbreaker contacts.

• The current transformer encircles allphase conductors and neutral. Thesensor does not encircle the equip-ment-grounding bus.The grounding ofthe system and the neutral connectionto the enclosure at the service are tobe on the supply side (ahead) of thesensors

Rule 14-102(5)(a) states the vector sumof the currents flowing through the sen-sor equals zero under normal conditions.When a circuit conductor faults toground, the current returns via thegrounded metal enclosure, conduit orother path outside the sensor. Thisresults in a non-zero current sumthrough the sensor which, in turn, gener-ates an output signal to the relay, and thecircuit is opened within milliseconds ofthe fault.

A variation of the zero sequence sens-ing scheme is as identified in Figure 3.The residually connected ground fault

"There are two basic ground faultprotection schemes available: ZeroSequence Sensing, and GroundStrap Sensing. In deciding whichprotection scheme to use in aninstallation, one has to consider anumber of design considerations."

protection system is a form of zero-sequence sensing. The difference beingthis system utilizes a number of currenttransformers, instead of one. The vector-ial sum of the phase currents and theneutral current are monitored using sep-arate current transformers and a groundrelay. Again, note similarity to zerosequence.The grounding points must beon the supply side (ahead) of the sensors(current transformers).

Figure 3. Residually Connected Ground FaultProtection

Ground Strap Sensing

Figure 4. Ground Strap Sensing

In a Ground Strap sensing scheme thefollowing has to be considered:• A standard ratio type current trans-

former senses current flow on thebonding strap that connects the frameor grounding bus of the switchboard tothe neutral.

• The transformer neutral may be ground-ed at the transformer only if the groundstrap sensor is located at the transformeras well. In this case the neutral mustremain ungrounded at the switchboard.

• Ground strap sensing is applicablewhere the system neutral is grounded inthe switchgear and isolated fromground at the transformer

Rule 14-102(5)(b) requires sensors thatsense ground fault current flowing from thefault to the supply end of the systemthrough the ground return path. An excep-tion is permitted in Rule 14-102(7) wherethe neutral is grounded both at the supplytransformer and at the switching centre, thesensor at the transformer shall not berequired provided the maximum pickup set-ting of the ground fault relay does notexceed 1000 A.A ground fault on any branchcircuit,feeder or sub-feeder,anywhere in thesystem, will cause the current to flow backto the neutral through the bonding strapwhich, in turn,generates an output signal tothe relay and the circuit is opened.

When designing the ground-fault protec-tion scheme, the circuit impedance andavailable short-circuit currents should alsobe determined at the supply terminals, sothat equipment and overcurrent protec-tion of the proper interrupting rating areused, as required by Rule 14-012.

What other installations requireground fault protection?Rule 62-300(4) forelectric surface heatingand 62-400(5) for heat-ing cable sets installedin pipes and ducts,require that groundfault protection shallbe provided to de-ener-gize all normallyungrounded conduc-tors of electric heatingcable sets and heatingpanel sets, with aground fault setting suf-ficient to allow normaloperation of the heater.

Rule 18-120(2)requires ground faultprotection to be pro-vided to de-energize allnormally ungroundedconductors of an elec-tric heat tracing cableset with the groundfault trip setting adjust-ed to allow normaloperation of the heaterin a Class I,Zone 1 area.

The inherent designof heating cable sets

and panel sets may allow arcing to goundetected by not causing the overcurrentdevice to trip, resulting in a fire hazard.The requirement for a metal braid orsheath,bonded to ground and with groundfault protection, provides a safeguardagainst this potential hazard

In conclusion, this ground fault protec-tion should not be confused with a groundfault circuit interrupter of the Class A typewhich has mandatory limits of between 4and 6 milliamperes. The primary purposeof these protections are intended to pro-vide protection for equipment rather thanagainst electric shock, and therefore thetrip setting may be significantly higherthan the Class A GFCI.

Ted Olechna, P.Eng is the ProvincialCode Engineer with the Electrical SafetyAuthority. Further information aboutthe Electrical Safety Authority and howyou can acquire Bulletins and theOntario Electrical Safety Code, alsoavailable electronically, can be found atwww.esa-safe.com.


7


The FederalGovernment’s Proposed Changes tothe Criminal Code

In 1992, twenty-six miners were killedat the Westray mine in Nova Scotia. Theprovince appointed Justice Peter K.

Richard to conduct an inquiry. From theinquiry, Justice Richard concluded that fail-ures in safety in the corporation’s miningpractices led to these deaths.

Though Justice Richard did not make anyrecommendations to amend or change thecriminal law with respect to the criminalliability of corporations, their directors andofficers, frustration grew out of the appar-ent inability of the law to address whatwas perceived to be flagrant disregard forsafety in the workplace.

Bill C-284Following the inquiry, in February 2001Bill C-284, An Act to amend the CriminalCode (offences by corporations, direc-tors and officers), a Private Member’s Billwas introduced into the House ofCommons. The Bill was sent by theGovernment for review by the StandingCommittee on Justice and Human Rights.The Standing Committee has recom-mended changes to the criminal law andthe Government has responded byproposing to introduce legislation intothe House of Commons which will effectthis reform. This proposed legislation hasnot yet been introduced.

Bill C-284 proposes to extend criminalliability to a corporation in some circum-stances where a member of the corpora-tion’s staff commits a criminal offence.Criminal liability would flow to the cor-poration where management of the cor-poration authorized, tolerated, con-

doned, or encouraged an act or omissionwhich is an offence. Similarly, liabilitywould flow where management allowedthe development of a corporate culturethat encouraged employees to believethat the offence would be tolerated, con-doned or ignored by the corporation.Further, if the corporation failed to takesteps to put in place measures to com-municate to employees that such acts areunlawful and forbidden by the corpora-tion or failed to put in place practicesthat would ensure that such acts wouldcome to the attention of management,criminal liability for the offence wouldflow to the corporation.

Proposed corporate fines extend as highas $10 million for offences such as murderor manslaughter.

Criminal liability for directors and offi-cers is also proposed in the legislation,where any director or officer knew orought to have known that the offencewas being committed, would be or waslikely to be committed, and who alsofailed to take all reasonable steps to pre-vent the offence from being committed.The Bill proposes the same penalty fordirector or officer for the offence asthough that person committed theoffence himself or herself.

Criminal Liability for Unsafe Working ConditionsBill C-284 also specifically addressesoffences relating to "unsafe working con-ditions". It is important to note that theterm "unsafe working conditions" has notbeen defined in the Bill. As a result, theamendments proposed in this Bill leave awide scope for interpretation.

If a corporation permits "unsafe workingconditions" to exist or fails to take all rea-sonable steps to provide safe workingconditions for its employees, it would beguilty of an indictable offence with possi-ble liability on fine of up to $100,000.

Every director or officer of corporationfound guilty of the above noted offence, isalso guilty of an offence is he or she knewor ought to have known of the unsafeworking conditions. Fines proposed are$10,000 for each day that the director orofficer permitted the unsafe working con-ditions to persist without the director orofficer taking all reasonable steps to elim-inate the conditions. It also proposesprison terms of up to seven years for con-ditions that do not result in death, and upto life for conditions resulting in death.

Response of the Federal GovernmentIn its response to the Standing Committeereport, the Federal Government noted inNovember 2002 that the proposedchanges are not intended to replace orinterfere with the existing health and safe-ty legislation found in the Canada LabourCode (for federally regulated employers)and in provincial occupational health andsafety legislation, but rather as an impor-tant additional level of deterrence if effec-tively targeted at – and enforced against –companies and individuals that show areckless disregard for the safety of work-ers and the public.

Concerns raised during StandingCommittee meetings include the vague-ness of some of the proposed scope ofBill C-284. Included in this is concernover liability for a "corporate culture".The Government responded by notingthat it would be necessary to determinewhether the directors and officers of cor-poration tolerated "lax procedures".Having noted that, the Governmentacknowledged that "corporate culture"remained too vague a concept.

The Government has also indicated thatit accepts that the criminal law shouldnot place an unfairly high standard ofcare on directors and officers, but at thesame time should not allow them to turna blind eye to potentially criminal activity.


8


Corporate Criminal Liability for Unsafe Workplace Practices


As a result, it proposes that directors andofficers should be held liable for "the waythat they carry out their responsibilities"and not simply because they are directorsor officers.

Proposals of the Federal GovernmentAs a result of completing its StandingCommittee meetings, the FederalGovernment has made several proposalsfor reforming the Criminal Code.Amendments to Bill C-284 have not yetbeen made. The Government’s proposalsare as follows:1. The class of persons capable of engag-

ing the liability of the corporationshould be expanded to include individ-uals who exercise delegated, opera-tional authority.

2. Where crime is one of negligence, cor-porate criminal liability should bebased on the actions and moral fault ofthe corporation as a whole.

3. Where the crime is one where subjec-

tive intent is required, it should beproven that a "directing mind" or per-son exercising operational controlformed the intent of committing thecrime and, with at least some intent,that the commission of the crime wouldbenefit the corporation. In such a case,both the individual and the corporationshould be criminally responsible.

4. The same approach should apply wherea person with operational authority failsto take remedial action when aware thatan employee or employees are commit-ting a criminal offence on behalf of or forthe benefit of the corporation.

5. Everyone who employs others to per-form work or has a power to direct howwork should be done should be under aduty to take reasonable steps to ensuresafety of workers and the public.

This last proposal suggests that responsi-bility, including criminal responsibility,may lie with every supervisor, manager,director and officer, to ensure the safety of

workers and the public when they havesome authority for the way in which workis performed.

Whether or not legislation is introducedor passed into law, contractors should con-tinue to place workplace safety as theirhighest priority. Aside from the obviousimportance behind ensuring that workersand members of the public are safe, liabili-ty already exists for unsafe working condi-tions in Ontario, including significant liabil-ity under the Ontario Occupational Healthand Safety Act and under the OntarioWorkplace Safety and Insurance Act.

Rob Boswell is with the law firm HicksMorley Hamilton Stewart Storie LLP. Thefocus of his practice is workplace safetyand insurance and occupational healthand safety. He is also the co-author (withJason Mandlowitz) of the "Contractor’sGuide to Workplace Safety andInsurance", ECAO’s companion manualto its WSIB Seminars.


9

Build on a solid foundation.

Our Construction Law Group is regularly retained to act on a variety of construction

related matters. From drafting complex design build agreements to litigating multi-party disputes

including tendering, breach of contract, negligence and construction lien claims, Goodmans has

the clarity of vision and depth of experience that ensures results. To deal directly with Goodmans’

Construction Law Group, contact Howard Wise at 416.597.4281.

GOODMANS LLP / BARRISTERS & SOLICITORS / TORONTO / VANCOUVER / HONG KONG

Your Lighting

Applications are

Our Business

Your Lighting

Applications are

Our Business

Proud Distributor of

“See the World in a Different Light”

Visit us online @ www.idealsupply.com

Over 20 Locations throughout Southwestern Ontario

A Question of FairnessBy Gary Robertson

The bidding was tight, very tight,but you were successful in secur-ing the contract due, in part, to

your exemplary safety record. You assem-bled your project team and prepared tostart the job. The call went out to theunion hall for 10 electricians and the jobcommenced.

All went well, the job was completedafter 4 weeks, under budget, ahead ofschedule and with no incidents or acci-dents. The client was extremely pleasedand so impressed with your safety per-formance, that they said they would likeyou to quote more work to them directly.

All is right with the world. Or so youthought

Two months after completion of the job,you receive a letter from the WSIB advis-ing you that one of the electricians whoyou hired for the project, and subsequent-ly laid-off, is claiming a work-related acci-dent. You immediately contact your WSIB

account rep. to inquire about the claim,especially since there were no reportedincidents on the job (you are extremelyvigilant on the reporting of incident/acci-

dents). You areinformed that the work-er sought medical treat-ment for a problem withhis right wrist, 2 weeksafter completion of thejob, has been diagnosedwith Carpel TunnelSyndrome (CTS) andwill require surgery.

The WSIB then informsyou that medical reportsindicate the worker hasbeen suffering from thisproblem for severalyears and it is due tolong-term wear and tearon the wrist from 10years working as anelectrician. The workerwill incur a loss of earn-ings while he recoversfrom the surgery. Sinceyou were the lastemployer of record, yourcompany is responsiblefor the claim.

However, the WSIB theninforms you that, due tothe fact that the worker

suffered from a major pre-existing condi-tion and there was no significant initiat-ing factor while in your employ, you willbe receiving 90% cost relief. In other words,you will only have to take responsibilityfor 10% of all costs related to this claim;theremainder will be transferred to the WSIB’sSecond Injury Enhancement Fund (SIEF).

You breathe a sigh of relief. After all,that sounds fair.And you inform the WSIBrepresentative that you really didn’t rel-ish the thought of having to inform yourcustomer that you incurred a Lost-TimeInjury while at their work-site.Unfortunately, at this point the WSIB rep.informs you that your company WILLhave an LTI recorded against it, eventhough 90% SIEF is applied. This, yourealize, will negatively impact your fre-quency index resulting in a reduction ofExperience Rating rebate (penalty) ofapprox. $20K. You drop the phone andask yourself, "Is this fair?"

The scenario above is fictitious, but thecircumstances can, and do, occur.

What is The Second Injury &Enhancement Fund (SIEF)?WSIB Operational Policy #08-01-05 states:

"If a prior disability caused or con-tributed to the compensable accident,or if the period resulting from an acci-dent becomes prolonged or enhanceddue to a pre-existing condition, all orpart of the compensation and healthcare costs may be transferred from theaccident employer to the SIEF."

"The objectives of this policy are to pro-vide employers with financial reliefwhen a pre-existing condition enhancesor prolongs a work-related disability. Itthereby encourages employers to hireworkers with disabilities."

Essentially, SIEF is an internal WSIB mech-anism used to transfer all or part of thecosts of a claim away from one particularemployer, into the general account of therate group. The guiding principle behind


12


WSIB’s SIEF and CAD-7

"Essentially, SIEF is an internalWSIB mechanism used to trans-fer all or part of the costs of aclaim away from one particularemployer, into the generalaccount of the rate group."

A Fairfax Company

the SIEF is that the individual employerought not to be charged with the costs ofa claim when accident or injury is causedor prolonged by a medical condition unre-lated to the work.

The purpose of SIEF is to encourageemployers to employ disabled workerswho might otherwise have difficultysecuring employment by reducing theemployer’s financial risk. This limitationon costs is designed to remove the finan-cial disincentive to hiring workers whomay be perceived to be at higher risk ofhaving accidents or aggravating pre-exist-ing conditions. This injects an element of"fairness" into the allocation of claimscosts.

Employers take their workers as theycome. The Ontario Human Rights Codelimits or prohibits the employer’s ability toenquire into a worker’s medical history.They are not able to monitor or preventpossible recurrences to pre-existing condi-tions, since workers do not have to declareprior conditions. As a result, employers do

not feel that they should be subjected tothe full cost of such a claim. SIEF attemptsto remedy this type of situation.

Experience Rating (ER) rewards employ-ers who reduce their accident coststhrough rebates, and penalizes those withexcessive accident costs through sur-charges. The clear intent of the ER pro-gram is to focus assessment costs on thoseemployers who have the worst accidentexperience.

Employers, therefore, view SIEF as anequity measure because they only acceptthe consequences and costs of a compens-able accident if those consequences andcosts are directly attributable to the workbeing performed while the worker is intheir employ.

For employers whose ER programs arebased solely on costs, a 90% reduction inclaims costs is significant and meets theintended outcome of fair and equitableallocation of those costs. It does not undu-ly penalize them for hiring a worker witha pre-existing condition or disability.

Construction employ-ers however, areunique in that they arerated under CAD-7,which is the only ERprogram that givesequal weight to bothcosts and Lost-TimeInjury (LTI) frequency.Claims costs of morethan $1 outside ofhealth care trigger aLost-Time Injury fre-quency count. UnderSIEF, even though theyare relieved of a sub-stantial portion ofclaims costs, they still

incur an LTI, which can, and often does,result in a significant penalty.

The nature of construction work exposesworkers to conditions that could result inthe development of "repetitive strain" typeinjuries. Because this type of injury devel-ops over a span of time that is greater thanis usually spent with one employer, it isvital that construction employers receiveassurance that, if these pre-existing condi-tions lead to a claim, the SIEF Policy willallocate the costs fairly. Applying an LTI fre-quency to an individual employer’s recordon claims that receive significant cost reliefunder SIEF creates an environment thatcould seriously impede the free movementof labour in the construction industry.

This puts workers, who are entitled tobenefits as a result of working many yearsin the industry, at risk. For, while theemployer community generally acceptsthat workers should be entitled to benefitsfor injuries/diseases resulting from work,they feel that there must be a fair and equi-table allocation of the costs for these typeof claims to the industry as a whole. Whenan individual employer is penalized for hir-ing a worker with a pre-existing conditionor disability, the only way the employercan avoid that penalty is to argue that theworker is not entitled to benefits. Also,employers may become extremely wary ofhiring any employee who might have suchpre-existing conditions.

ECAO is currently seeking a course ofaction that restores the element of fairnessin the application of SIEF by the WSIB. Ifyou have experienced hardship or difficul-ty resulting from a similar situation, pleasecontact me.

Gary Robertson is the HR Specialist atECAO.


14


Proud associates of the ECAO,Specializing in the design and

development of employee group benefit and pension programs from

1 employee to 2000, We concentrate on service.

Write to: Earle Goodwin, Managing EditorELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION OF ONTARIO170 Attwell Drive, Suite 460,Toronto, Ontario M9W 5Z5

Tel: 416-675-3226 Fax: 416-675-7736 1-800 387-ECAO (3226)email: [email protected] Web: www.ecao.org

We want your comments

By Rick Mei

In developing and maintaining an activesafety program, the ability to coverevery contingency remains a constant

challenge.The Workers Health and Safety Act is very

clear that you are to "take every precau-tion reasonable in the circumstances forthe protection of a worker".

Many feel that this is a statement of impos-sibility. It would entail being able to con-ceive of every possible cause of an accidentand put measures in place to prevent them.And merely complying with the letter of thelaw will not be a valid defence if an accidentoccurs. Does this give you license to ignorethe problems and hope for the best? No.

As owners, directors or managers, thereare prudent steps you can take to movesafety forward.

As a starting point, spend some timereviewing your company’s safety program.The following can be used as a guide asyou begin your review process. You maywish to begin by asking:How is our record, to date withrespect to:• deaths, lost time, medical aid, first aid,

near misses?• WSIB ratings and costs?• Rebate position (negative/positive)?• Ministry orders?Is our program:• current (to legislative requirements)?• communicated and understood?• adequately and consistently providing

documentation?

Even if you are satisfied with the resultsof the above short review, remember,where health and safety is concerned,improved efforts pay.Add to the list above,take action and move safety forward.

Here are some other areas that you maywish to address or consider.

The Occupational Health and Safety Actrequires that you review your Health andSafety Policy Statement and Program annu-ally and that your Statement is currentlydated,signed and posted in the workplace.

Have you laid out a safety plan, includingyour objectives, a time frame to meet theobjectives, and assigned responsibility toan individual(s) by name, not title? Is therea process in place to measure yourprogress? If you have a Safety Committeeor Worker Representative(s), have theybeen involved? Remember that one ofyour key objectives should be to identifyhazards, remove hazards, to eliminate theircauses and to communicate every step ofthis process within your company.

You should provide a full companyindoctrination to all new employees. Thisprocess should cover all office/shopemployees, as well. If you have long termemployees, it may be a good idea to pro-vide a full indoctrination for them on a reg-ular basis. How valid is an indoctrinationdone five or ten years ago? If you hire sub-contractors, they should also be indoctri-nated (site specific, at least). And remem-ber to keep records of all indoctrinations.When employees are moved from site tosite, a site specific indoctrination isrequired and, once again, a record kept.

If you hire a company or individual toperform work at your office (cleaning,lawn,windows),who may work alone or atnight, you should provide safety instruc-tion. Do they have liability insurance orWSIB coverage?

Are emergency plans in place at your sitelocation(s)? How about your office, shopand storage areas? Are they visibly posted?

Do you meet all the required legislatedtraining requirements within all areas ofyour company (e.g., first aid, CPR, fall pro-tection, man lifts, propane, fork lifts, explo-sive actuated tools, WHIMIS, WHIMISreview)? Has current training in theOccupational Health and Safety Act andapplicable regulations been taken by man-agement and supervisors? Who,within yourcompany, is trained in workplace inspec-tions, accident/incident investigation, safetycommittee/worker representative? Do you,your supervisors and managers meet thedefinition of "competent" under the Act?

Do you have employees trained in con-fined space, tagging and lockout, fire pro-

tection, emergency procedures, materialhandling, hot or live work, signs and barri-cades, personal protection or suspendedaccess equipment? Do you review employ-ees’ responsibilities, and do you alsoreview their four basic rights (right toknow, right to participate, right to refusework and right to stop work under certaincircumstances) under the Act?

Before work starts on a project, is a pro-ject safety analysis conducted?

Do you conduct job task analysis duringa project or where risk factors are high?

Do you perform valid workplace inspec-tions, planned or unplanned, by manage-ment, supervisors, committee or safetyrepresentative(s)? How about your office,shop and storage areas?

Do you conduct accident/incident inves-tigations for lost time and medical aid?How about non-disability first aid, proper-ty damage, fire, explosions, chemicalspills/releases, chronic/acute occupation-al illness or near misses? Do you compilean annual accident analysis for review?

Do you have a claims management pro-gram that includes monitoring injuredworkers’ progress, alternative work oppor-tunities and assigned responsibility (byname) for program management?

At this point, you may have recognizedareas where your current health and safetyprogram could be improved.

Here are some other areas for your con-sideration:

Environmental policyDrug and alcohol policyDiscipline policyTools and equipment trainingFleet safety trainingOnce again, can you add to this list?

Safety programs, just like productionprocesses, can usually be made better. Byconstantly reviewing situations, question-ing existing practices and taking actionyou can move safety forward.

Rick Mei is a representative of QualityConnection, the Joint Electrical PromotionPlan's occupational health and safetyprogram.


15


Moving Safety Forward

By Bob Collins

Annual Losses of $1.3 BillionThe underground economy maintains astrong presence in Ontario’s construc-tion industry. Research by the OntarioConstruction Secretariat (OCS), conduct-ed by Prism Economics, shows that theunderground accounts for an estimated$1.3 billion in lost revenues to govern-ment and government agencies andaround 25 percent of the industry’s totalemployment. Its’ presence has seriousimpacts on the construction industryand creates even more devastating con-cerns for selected regions and tradeswhich are more vulnerable to under-ground practices.

Recent TrendsMeasuring the size of the undergroundeconomy in construction is a complexprocess. Statistics Canada and otherresearch groups have developed severalbroad based measures, most of which aredifficult to update. However, there are twoimportant indicators that can be updatedand neither suggests any significantdecline in underground activity.

The first indicator is the increase in thenumber of reported self-employed con-struction workers over the past decade.Self-employment in itself is a legitimatepractice; however, research has shown astrong correlation between self-employ-ment and income concealment and taxevasion. Self-employment is seen as a firststep for individuals to participate inunderground activities. Therefore, anysignificant increase in the rate of self-employment can act as a gauge for thelikelihood of increased undergroundactivity.

Exhibit 1 shows that the number of self-employed to total employment for con-struction occupations has been on a gen-eral increase since the early 1990s.


16


Underground Economy Continues to be a Problem

Based on Statistics Canada labour force statistics, carpenters share of self-employed increasedfrom an average of 25% of total employment in the late 1980’s to 48% in 2001. Paintersincreased from an average 38% in the 1980s to 53% in 2001.

CONTRACTORELECTRICALELECTRICAL CONTRACTORIn the late 1980’s self-employment aver-

aged around 24 percent of total employ-ment compared to 34 percent in the late1990s. For trades such as carpenters andpainters, which commonly report higherfrequency of self-employment, the rates aremuch higher. Key forces driving theseincreases were the introduction of theGoods and Services Tax (GST) in 1991 and aprolonged recession through the mid-1990s.

While Exhibit 1 shows a marginal declinein the rate of self-employment in 2000 and2001, the actual number of self-employedworkers continued to increase. The num-ber of hourly-paid workers, however,increased at a greater rate than self-employed,causing the self-employed shareof total employment to decrease.Consequently, there is no reason to sus-pect any significant decline in the level ofunderground activity.

The use of cash is a second key measure.Payment for services in the undergroundrequires the elimination of audit trails lead-ing to the preference for the use of cash.

Therefore, an increase in cash purchases iswidely associated with increases in theunderground economy.

Exhibit 2 shows that the ratio of curren-cy outside banks in relation to total expen-ditures by households on goods and ser-vices continues to increase. Prior to 1991there was a downward trend in the use ofcash. However, post 1991 (with the intro-duction of GST), there has been a steadyrise in the use of cash.

The combined effect of increased self-employment and the use of cash has ledresearchers to trace the growth of theunderground economy over the pastdecade. In it’s 1998 report , the OCS con-cluded that underground economy prac-tices have become embedded in the con-struction industry and there is little evi-dence of any significant decline.

$2.4 Billion in Unreported IncomeThe OCS has undertaken several studiesthat estimate the size of government rev-enue losses associated with activity in the

underground economy. The 1998 study(updated in 2001), estimated that theunderground economy accounted forroughly 25 percent of total constructionemployment. The highest incidence ofemployment was in the residential renova-tion market where 67 percent of totalemployment in that sector was associatedwith underground activity. An average of34 percent of all residential employmentwas linked to the underground where as11 percent of non-residential constructionemployment was work being donethrough underground practices.

Recent measures of undergroundemployment translate to $2.4 billion ofunreported income annually or 19 percentof the total industry income. The share ofincome is lower than the employmentshare because underground workers typi-cally work at a discounted labour rate.Unreported income has major ramifica-tions for both government revenues andmaintaining a level playing field for allworkers and contractors in construction.


17

Lost Government RevenuesIt is estimated that federal/provincial government and government agencieslose approximately $1.3 billion dollarsper year as a result of underground econ-omy. Most of the loss, $808 million (or 64percent) is the loss of income tax result-ing from unreported income. Lossesrelated to GST and provincial sales tax toout-of-province contractors averagearound $187 million while CPP losses are$178 million annually. The Workers’ Safetyand Insurance Board (WSIB) loses an aver-age of $28 million per year.

Impacts Spread Beyond FinancialThe affects of the underground economycan be felt across all construction sectors,governments and society as a whole.Losses to industry go beyond pure finan-cial, major impacts include:" lost revenues to governments and gov-

ernment agencies;" higher tax burdens on legitimate con-

tractors and workers;" weakened health and safety practices;" lower labour standards and erosions of

construction standards;" weakened apprenticeship training and

skills development program; and" unfair competition for legitimate con-

tractors and workers.

In addition to offering lower wages, con-tractors working through the under-ground economy can typically savebetween 15 - 20 percent by not payingstatutory contributions and paymentssuch as CPP,EHT,and WSIB. This is a grow-ing concern for legitimate contractors thatmust be addressed.

The Ontario Construction Secretariatcontinues its work on the undergroundeconomy. On-going research is exploringways that industry can work with govern-ment agencies to curb underground activi-ty and work toward a level playing field forall contractors. What was once believed tobe a residential renovation problem hasnow spread to all sectors and threatens theactivities of many legitimate contractors.

Bob Collins is a partner with PrismEconomics and Analysis, which specializesin labour/human resources, internationaltrade and industrial economic analysis.


18


Income Generated by Underground Economy Activity Ontario (Millions Current $)Avg. Income1998-2000 Best Estimate Rate

Underground Income

New ResidentialNew HousingRenovations

$4,062 $518 13%$2,010 $957 48%

Total New Residential $6,072 $1,475 24%Repair Residential $730 $416 57%Total Residential Construction $6,801 $1,890 28%New Non-Residential

Buildings $2,411 $307 13%Engineering $2002 $68 3%Total Non-Residential New Const. $4,413 $34 9%

Repair Non Residential $1,088 $129 12%Total Non-Residential Const. $5,501 $505 9%Total Construction $12,302 $2,395 19%Source: Ontario Construction Secretariat, Estimates of Revenue Losses as a result of Underground Practices in OntarioConstruction Industry (2001).

Income Generated by Underground Economy Activity Ontario (Millions Current $)Total Industry

Provincial Sales Tax Loss to Out-of-Province ContractorsAvg. Annual Loss

$11GST Loss on New Housing $47GST Loss on Residential Repair $129GST Loss on Residential Renovation $187GST LossIncome Tax Loss $808CPP Loss $178EI Loss $44EHT Loss $5WSIB Loss $28

Total Revenue Losses $1,259Source: Ontario Construction Secretariat, Estimates of Revenue Losses as a result of Underground Practices in OntarioConstruction Industry (2001).

Ontario Construction Secretariat, The Underground Economy in Ontario’ Construction Industry (1998) andEstimates of Revenue Losses as a result of Underground Practices in Ontario Construction Industry (2001).

Employment Associated with Underground Economy Activity Ontario (‘000)Avg. Employment

1998-2000 Best Estimate RateUnderground Employment

New ResidentialNew HousingRenovations

106.9 16.0 15%59.1 33.1 56%

Total New Residential 166.0 49.1 30%Repair Residential 187.5 14.4 67%Total Residential Construction 187.5 63.5 34%New Non-Residential

Buildings 51.3 7.7 15%Engineering 40.9 1.6 4%Total Non-Residential New Const. 92.1 9.3 10%

Repair Non Residential 25.3 3.5 14%Total Non-Residential Const. 117.5 12.9 11%Total Construction 304.9 76.4 25%Source: Ontario Construction Secretariat, Estimates of Revenue Losses as a result of Underground Practices in OntarioConstruction Industry (2001).

Contact Info Page #DC Van Outfitters 1-800-263-3392 3Edwards [email protected] OBCFederated Insurance 1-800-665-1934 13Gerrie Electric www.gerrie.com IBCGoodmans 416-597-4281 9Ideal www.idealsupply.com 11

Contact Info Page #Leasemaster 1-800-465-1174 12O’Neil Electric 416-798-7722 7Skipwith & Associates 1-800-661-9023 14Wesco 1-866-937-2622 IFCWestburne 1-800-461-1727 17

A D V E R T I S E R S ’ I N D E X

NEVER TOUCH BARE, UNPROTECTED GLASS!FOR SAFE INSTALLATION AND DISPOSAL useSafety Max® Silicone or Teflon® ProtectiveCoated Lamps

These protective coatings eliminate anydanger of glass shards, metal fragments ortoxic gases. For use in any interior or exteriorenvironment.

For more product information material visitwww.gerrie.com

I L L U M I N A T I N G I D E A S

TM

SAFETY MAX® by

Incandescent Halogen

Fluorescent - T12

T8

CFL

NEVER WORK UNPROTECTED!

HID

COATED LAMPSAccepted by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA)

Now available at your local

GERRIE ELECTRIC branch

BRANTFORD(519) 754-1166 Fax: (519) 754-1160

BURLINGTON(905) 681-3660 Fax: (905) 632-1606

CAMBRIDGE(519) 740-2912 Fax: (519) 740-2833

GEORGETOWN(905) 877-2264 Fax: (905) 877-8208

GUELPH(519) 823-8442 Fax: (519) 823-0068

HAMILTON(905) 548-0388 Fax: (905) 548-9400

KITCHENER(519) 893-1932 Fax: (519) 893-4462

MILTON(905) 878-8406 Fax: (905) 878-8076

MISSISSAUGA(905) 625-3118 Fax: (905) 625-5714

OAKVILLE(905) 845-2891 Fax: (905) 849-4525

SIMCOE(519) 428-2884 Fax: (519) 428-3024

ST. CATHARINES(905) 688-4212 Fax: (905) 688-6933

WELLAND(905) 732-4473 Fax: (905) 732-1681

Lighting ShowroomOAKVILLE

(905) 845-2461 Fax: (905) 845-6356

Gerrie Electric SubsidiariesBRAMTOR ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO. LTD.

BRAMPTONTel: (905) 792-1111 Fax: (905) 792-0718ECONOMY ELECTRIC WHOLESALE INC.Tel: (905) 681-3656 Fax: (905) 681-3221

WHOLESALE LIMITED

G

Ideal Supply Trade Show 2003Solutions for SuccessIdeal Supply will be hosting its Corporate Trade Show this year onWednesday April 30th and Thursday May 1st from 3:00 to 9:00p.m. both days.The show is held at the Orangeville AgriculturalFair Grounds with over 30,000 square feet of floor space to show-case over 160 vendors and is open to all wholesale customers inIdeal Supply’s automotive,electrical and industrial markets.

Ideal held their first show in Hanover in 1986 and every yearsince the attendance by suppliers and customers has grown.Theshow now attracts over 1,900 customers during the two days.

Ideal Supply is a privately owned wholesale distributor,founded in Listowel, Ontario in 1926. The Electrical,Industrial and Auto Parts Divisions serve Central andSouthwestern Ontario through 22 branch locations. Idealprovides products and services for plant floor automation,the data communications market, as well as the efficienttransmission, distribution and control of electricity.

Further information about the "Solutions for Success" tradeshow or Ideal Supply is available at www.idealsupply.com orcall 519-291-1060 and ask for extension #261.

Westburne Ruddy Showcase 2003Westburne Ruddy Electric will be hosting its annualTradeshow and Conference on June 12, 2003 at the CivicAuditorium in Oshawa. The show will feature productdemonstrations, seminars and displays from all facets of theelectrical industry; automation, distribution, lighting, datacommunications, wire and cable, and utility. Over 70 manu-facturers will be represented, including Rockwell Automationand their associated Encompass Partners, Cutler-HammerDistribution, GE Lighting, Bussmann Fuses, Fluke TestingEquipment, Lithonia Lighting, Thomas and Betts, Hubbell,Leviton, Hoffman, and Woodhead.

Manufacturers’ representatives will be on hand to displaythe latest products and discuss applications. As in pastshows, Westburne Ruddy Electric will be offering severalseminars throughout the day on topics ranging from indus-trial automation, power quality, and lighting control to resi-dential communication systems. Each seminar is an hour inlength and is intended to provide a condensed update onthe latest technology innovations, trends, concepts andmaintenance techniques.

Food and refreshments will be available, and door prizes willbe drawn throughout the day.Various vendors will also be host-ing hourly contests.

The show runs from 11:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. and is by invi-tation only. Please contact Sarah Voll at 905-576-7100 ext.3237 for more information or e-mail at [email protected].


10


Hannover FairApril 7-12, 2003Hannover, GermanyTel: (800) 727-4183

EFC Annual General Meetingand Executive EveningApril 9, 2003Mississauga Convention CentreTel: (905) 602-8877 ext. 238Web Site: www.electrofed.com

Electrical Showcase 2003"Energizing The Future"April 15-16, 2003Winnipeg Convention CentreThe Manitoba Electrical LeagueTel: (204) 783-4125Web Site: www.meleague.net

"Solutions for Success" Ideal Supply Trade ShowApril 30 – May 1st, 2003Orangeville Agricultural FairGroundsOrangeville, OntarioTel: (519) 291-1060 ext. 261www.idealsupply.com

Safety Awareness MonthIn association with OEL, IBEW,CCO, CSA International,Electrical Safety Authority,CLBMedia, InternationalAssociation of ElectricalInspectors, Hydro OneNetworks, EDA Month of May

Metering Billing CRM/CISAmericas Conference andExhibitionMay 4-8 2003Chicago Illinois USAwww.metering.com/events

Electrical Showcase 2003 –NanaimoMay 8, 2003Nanaimo, BCTel: (604) 291-7708Web Site: www.bcea.bc.ca

Westburne Ruddy ElectricTradeshow and ConferenceJune 12, 2003The Civic AuditoriumOshawa, OntarioTel: (905) 576-7100 ext. 3237e-mail: [email protected]

The Electrical Supply &Distribution AnnualConferenceSetting Channel Strategy -Where the river meets the seaJune 4-7, 2003Fairmont Le Manoir RichelieuCharlevoix Region, QuebecWeb Site: www.electrofed.com

Canadian ElectricalContractors AnnualConferenceJune 18-22, 2003The FairmontSt John’s, Newfoundland

IEEE Power EngineeringSocietyJuly 13-17, 2003Toronto, Ontario

To add a date to ECAO’scurrent events calendar

please e-mail [email protected]

Upcoming Events

Documents

Ground Fault Protection - ECAO