Blitz Results: Lifting Devices And Forklifts At Industrial Sector Workplaces

• Issued: July 2009
• Content last reviewed: June 2009

Note: Although workplace inspection blitzes by the ministry are announced to the appropriate sectors in advance, individual workplaces receive no prior warning.

Forklifts and lifting devices continue to cause serious—sometimes fatal—injuries to workers in Ontario’s industrial sector workplaces.

During February 2009, Ontario Ministry of Labour (MOL) inspectors checked specifically for hazards related to lifting devices and forklifts during an inspection “blitz.”

The high number of orders issued during the lifting devices and forklifts blitz (3,155) — and the high number of stop work orders (182) — indicate that many workplace improvements are needed to mitigate hazards.

Workplace inspection “blitz”

Workplace inspections by the ministry are announced in advance, and results are posted on the ministry's website. The blitzes raise awareness of known workplace hazards and promote compliance with the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA) and its safety regulations.

Inspection blitzes are part of the province's Safe At Work Ontario compliance strategy, launched in June 2008. In selecting workplaces for proactive inspections, the ministry uses predictive indicators such as inherent hazards and poor records of compliance with safety regulations.

Inspectors' findings determine the level of engagement and frequency of subsequent inspections of individual workplaces. Inspectors often refer employers to Health and Safety Associations (HSAs) for compliance assistance and training.

Industrial workplace lifting devices and forklifts hazards

Ministry data show that 13 deaths resulted from incidents involving lift trucks, reach trucks, forklifts and tow motors in industrial sector workplaces between January 1, 2003 and December 31, 2007.

Occupational Health and Safety Council of Ontario (OHSCO) data for 1996–2008 show that there were 10,308 incidents (a yearly average of 793) related to forklifts that resulted in lost–time injury (LTI) claims to the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB).

WSIB statistics for forklifts in all sectors (industrial and others) for 2003–2007 indicate that the WSIB allowed 4,536 claims involving 303,825 lost workdays. The average forklift–related LTI claim resulted in 67 days lost from work.

Blitz focus

The blitz focused on:

• Lifting device inspection and maintenance
• Operation of the lifting device by a competent person
• Safe work environment

OHSCO, WSIB and MOL data indicate that lifting devices and forklift incidents occurred most often in certain industrial subsectors: retail; wholesalers; transportation; automotive; wood and metal fabrication; food, beverage and tobacco; offices and related services (agencies that supply non–clerical labour); and chemical, rubber and plastics. Ministry inspectors focused on these subsectors during the blitz period.

Inspectors focused on firms for which MOL had recently received complaints or work refusals related to lifting devices or forklifts. They also selected firms known to have lifting devices and forklift hazards.

Blitz activity

Industrial inspectors throughout Ontario conducted 1,295 field visits and issued 3,155 orders, including 182 stop work orders. They issued 16 Part I summonses and 11 Part I tickets for offences under the Provincial Offences Act. These 27 citations comprised the highest total of any industrial sector blitz in fiscal year 2008–09 (April 1, 2008 to March 31, 2009).

Inspectors identified the wood and metal fabrication subsector as having the highest risk. This subsector had the highest number of orders issued (796), the most field visits (304), and the highest number of stop work orders (45).

Order analysis

Lifting devices and forklifts

The number of orders issued per field visit during the lifting devices and forklifts blitz was more than 50 per cent higher than the average rate for the Industrial Program in fiscal year 2008–09.

Of all orders issued during the blitz, 61.55 per cent were related to the blitz’s three priorities:

• Lifting device inspection and maintenance — 1059 orders were issued, representing 33.57 per cent of orders issued during the blitz.
• Operation of the lifting device by a competent person — 133 orders were issued, representing 4.22 per cent of orders.
• Safe work environment — 750 orders were issued, representing 23.77 per cent of the total number of orders.

Other orders

There were 260 orders issued under OHSA Section 8 (Health and Safety Representative) and Section 9 (Joint Health and Safety Committee). These orders represent 8.24 per cent of the total number of orders issued during the blitz.

A total of 159 orders, 5.04 per cent of the total orders issued, were for employer responsibilities under Section 25 of the OHSA. These orders pertained to the duty of employers to prepare and review—at least annually—a written occupational health and safety policy, to develop and maintain a program to implement that policy, and to post in the workplace a copy of the policy and a copy of the OHSA.

Failure to meet requirements the OHSA Workplace Materials Hazardous Information System (WHMIS) Regulation 860 resulted in 117 orders, 3.71 per cent of the total.

Results

Inspectors issued orders in all industrial subsectors that were the focus of the blitz. The top three industrial subsectors received 1,603 orders, or 50.81 per cent of the all orders issued:

1. Wood and Metal Fabrication: orders (796), field visits (304), stop work orders (45)
2. Wholesale: orders (436), field visits (194), stop work orders (32)
3. Retail: orders (371), field visits (162), stop work orders (25)

During the blitz, inspectors issued 50 per cent more orders per field visit than the average rate for the ministry’s Industrial Program in fiscal year 2008–09.

Of the 4,172 orders issued during February 2009, 3,155 (just over 75 per cent) were attributed to the lifting devices and forklifts blitz.

The low percentage (4.22 per cent) of orders relating to the operation of a lifting device by a competent person suggests that workers had received adequate training.

More than a third of the orders (33.57 per cent) pertained to lifting device inspection and maintenance. These orders are expected to improve awareness among employers that lifting devices must be examined in accordance with legislated requirements and be well maintained.

Nearly a quarter of the orders (23.77 per cent) pertained to safe work environment. This includes pedestrian traffic and workplace environment issues (e.g., equipment guarding, eyewash fountains, material handling, floors being kept free of hazards⁄obstructions, securing machinery from tipping or falling, guardrails, securing compressed gas cylinders, and securing vehicles from accidental movement).

There were a higher than expected number of orders (291 orders, 9.22 per cent of the total issued during the blitz) in the vehicle sales and service subsector; many of these related to vehicle hoists.

Orders under Sections 8 and 9 of the OHSA, regarding Health and Safety Representatives and Joint Health and Safety Committees respectively, represented 8.24 per cent of those issued during the blitz.

There were 27 Part I offences under the Provincial Offences Act (16 Part I Summons and 11 Part I Tickets), the more than any other Industrial blitz in fiscal year 2008–2009.

Another lifting devices and forklifts blitz will be conducted by the ministry’s Industrial Health and Safety Program in February 2010.