The Ham Commission
The Royal Commission was established in the year 1974 as a response to the strike staged by the Uranium miners in Elliot Lake. Owing to the increasing alarm regarding the prevalence of lung cancer and silicosis, the miners decided to express their heightened concern regarding the issue involving their health and safety conditions relative to their employment. The government appointed Dr. James M. Ham as the chairman of the commission, hence the commission was widely known as the Ham Commission. The committee was tasked to investigate the safety and health conditions in mines. In the year 1976, the Ham Commission was able to release the complete report of their study and investigation that was made public. The said report by the commission presented more than a hundred recommendations on how to improve the safety standard and health conditions among mine workers (Ontario Ministry of Labour 2014). The concept of the International Responsibility System (IRS) was first introduced in this report that eventually became the basic philosophy of the Occupation Health and Safety Act (OHSA).
The political party that was in power during the period within which the Royal Commission was established was the Ontario Liberal Party under the leadership of Robert Nixon. The Liberal party was the majority political party that was charged with the government administration in Ontario that appointed Dr. Ham to form the Ham Committee. The conception of the Ham Commission Report that introduced the principles of the International Responsibility Systems was used by the Ontario government as the basis of various legislations that aim to improve the safety and health standards among miners. The political condition in Ontario then does not provide significant value in institutionalizing the workers’ rights to participate nn matters concerning their health and safety. The major setbacks experienced during these times by miners include death, injury and diseases that caused the increasing rise of concerns about their health and safety (Tucker 1992). Workers such as miners do not exercise their right to discuss their employment condition with their employers even on a consultancy basis or through negotiated agreements. There is also the lack of legislation concerning the protection of the miners against the hazards involved in their work. Moreover, Ham (1976) also reported the presence of complex structures in the relationship between the workers, managers, supervisors, union, government and the industry that was existing during those times.
The Liberal party showed significant concern to Ontario’s need for workplace health and safety improvements, which may be influenced by the government’s increased interest in reducing the impact of health care costs that are highly associated to work related illnesses and the injury arising from the employment hazards involved (Walters 1983). At the time the Royal Commission was established to procure the services of Dr. Ham, there is already a more serious concern about the health risks and safety standards that ignited worker strikes involving human health concerns. With the increasing numbers of dissatisfied workers, the emerging majority Liberal party pursued the intention of legislating better health and safe working conditions by using the recommendations provided in the Ham Commission Report. These political steps in improving health and safety in the working conditions of the miners introduced a portal of opportunity to introduce a safer and healthy work condition and environment for them.
The Internal Responsibility System
Dr. James Ham conceptualizes the principle of the Internal Responsibility System (IRS) which he envisions as an organizational structure that will encourage every member of an organization to take their active responsibility in promoting health and safety within the working environment. The main focus of the IRS principle is the promotion of shared responsibility among all the stakeholders of an organization to identify and recognize safety and health hazards and to utilize the resources available in controlling and preventing them (University of Windsor 2013). Ham describes the principle as the ultimate expression of respect of the human element in the workplace, thus he refers to the IRS as a people framework that serves as a foundation in the management system. It gives value to life and health while promoting individual responsibility towards keeping the people around you safe (Strahlendorf 2013). The concept of Dr. Ham with respect to shared responsibility among the stakeholders of an organization is mainly based on the principle of promoting self reliance instead of relying completely from the government to provide them protection. Everyone who is directly involved in the organization’s activities should exert accountability and responsibility in ensuring the safety and health of all the members of the organization. It also promotes the shared responsibility between the employer and the employee in promoting a disease free working environment (Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety 2008).
While the main thrust of the IRS principle is towards shared responsibility and self reliance among organizations, it does not preclude the role of the government in promoting the IRS principles in legislating health and safety standards. As a matter of fact, the government recognizes the value and significance of the IRS that it was integrated in many health legislations, including in the implementation of health and safety standards in the health care sector. This goes to show that while the IRS cultivates the direct participation of every member of the organization towards accountability and responsibility, the external sectors are also involved. The processes involved in the IRS can be said to be both internal and external. It is internal in the sense that direct responsibility is imposed within the internal organizational structure, including all organizational members from the supervisors, workers and employers. However, external stakeholders are also involved in the process, such as the health and safety representatives or the Joint Health and Safety Committees because they are also involved in the health and safety issues by ensuring the proper administration and implementation of the IRS in the workplace (Ontario Ministry of Labour 2015). There are also external parties that may be involved in the implementation of the health and safety standards among organizations, and this includes the Department of Labour, which is directly authorized to settle controversies involving health and safety issues in the workplace (Ontario Ministry of Labour 2009) and the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board.
Doug Smith in Consulted to Death referred to the Internal Responsibility System as the “eternal responsibility system” because he pointed out the lack of government initiative or the lack of resources to provide health inspectors to safeguard the health and safety among workers within their workplace. Thus, the internal responsibility of every member of an organization provides a good substitute to foster a disease free, safe and healthy work environment. Smith provides that the workers have the incumbent right to determine the ideal safety standards that should be observed in their work environment to guarantee their safety and a healthy workplace. Knowledge about the health hazards within the work environment are best understood by the worker themselves as they are the ones who know the critical areas of their jobs and they should not completely rely on the government and external agencies to work out a better environment for them. Thus, the principles of the IRS become an eternal organizational framework that will serve as the foundation of improving work condition among all members of the organization who are sharing personal responsibility and accountability in promoting a better work condition. Smith (2002) also pointed out that the worker’s health is still for sale, indicating that the greatest measure of workers’ health and safety will always depend upon what the government or the employer can afford. Thus, it is upon the employees and the employer to work out a better organizational structure that will help in obtaining more affordable, practical and viable solution in promoting workplace safety.
Ontario Health and Safety Act
The Ontario Health and Safety Act provides for three important rights that are given to workers, namely (1) the right to know, (2) the right to refuse, and (3) the right to participate. The worker’s right to know is pertaining to their knowledge and understanding about their exposure to work hazards. The employer has the responsibility to completely disclose all information that could subject the worker to an unsafe work environment, which includes the identification of the harmful chemicals, devices, tools and other potentially dangerous elements that they need to use and interact at work. They have the right to undergo the proper training on how to safely handle dangerous equipment and biological chemicals for their protection. They must also know the possible occupational illnesses linked to their job and to be granted with an access to health and safety reports about their workplace (Ontario Nurses Association 2014). The worker’s right to refuse gives them the freedom to decline working on a job that they find unsafe and can put their health at risk. The workers are given the independence of determining the safety of their working condition and they accord with the right to refuse if they deem it harmful to their safety and health. The right of workers to participate gives them the leeway to participate in the decision making process with respect to the safety standards in the workplace, with the right to share their ideas on how to resolve any health or safety issues confronting the organization.
The employers are primarily responsible in forming the joint health and safety committee. The Canadian Center for Occupational Health and Safety (2015) refers to the committee as an internal responsibility system that will serve as a forum to discuss and resolve health and safety issues confronting an organization on a regular basis. The management can organize the committee consisting of the management and labor representatives. The essence of forming the joint health and safety committee is to expedite the process of identifying health and safety issues in order to define an appropriate and prompt solution between the employer and the employees. Because the committee is mainly composed of the employer and the workers, the organizational process of managing concerns related to safety and health in the workplace is more efficient. The committee can also serve as an advisory body that can stimulate the awareness regarding safety standards in the workplace (Ontario Ministry of Labour 2015). It also upholds the right of the workers to be informed and to participate in matters concerning their health and safety at the workplace. This will allow them to share the responsibility of vigilance and working together with the management to resolve health and safety hazards and to contribute in improving their work environment.
The joint health and safety committees are usually composed in accordance with the guidelines provided by the Labor Ministry and other related health legislations, such as the Workers Compensation Act and Occupational Health and Safety Act, in terms of the structure of the committee, member composition, and the roles and duties of each member. The law requires the number of members for the committee based on the total number of workers within an organization. For instance, in an organization with at least 20 employees, the mandatory number of the committee is at least two, and half of which must be the representative of the workers. It is essential that at least half of the member of the committee are workers who are not exercising any management functions and are selected by the workers among themselves. If the organization has an organized worker union, the trade union chooses the worker representative. The employer, on the other hand, select their own representatives from among their employees who are exercising management functions (Ontario Ministry of Labour 2015).
Bibliography
Canadian Center for Occupational Health and Safety, “Joint health and safety committee – what is a joint health and safety committee?” Ccohs.ca. Last modified July 14, 2015. http://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/hsprograms/hscommittees/whatisa.html.
Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety, “OH&S Legislation in Canada - Internal Responsibility System”, Ccohs.ca. Last modified July 14, 2015. http://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/legisl/irs.html.
Doug Smith, “Consulted to Death,” Winnipeg: Arbeiter Ring Publisher, 2002. www.justlabour.yorku.ca/volume1/pdfs/jl_lhaiven.pdf.
Eric Tucker, “Worker participation in health and safety regulation: Lesson from Sweden,” Studies in Political Economy, 37 (2011): 95-127. doi:10.1177/0160449X9902300404.
James Ham, “Full text of the Ham Commission. Report of the Royal Commission on the Health and Safety of Workers in Mines,” Archive.org. Accessed July 15, 2015. http://archive.org/stream/reportofroyworkmine00onta/reportofroyworkmine00onta_djvu.txt
Ontario Ministry of Labour, “Joint Health and Safety Committee,” Labour.gov.on.ca. Last modified May 29, 2015. http://www.labour.gov.on.ca/english/hs/pubs/jhsc/jhsc_jhsc.php.
Ontario Ministry of Labour, “The Internal Responsibility System (IRS),” Labour.gov.on.ca. Last modified March 20, 2015. http://www.labour.gov.on.ca/english/hs/pubs/ohsa/ohsag_irs.php.
Ontario Ministry of Labour, “The Internal Responsibility System (IRS),” Labour.gov.on.ca. Last modified September 2009. http://www.labour.gov.on.ca/english/hs/pubs/mining/syn_minirs_2.php.
“Ontario Ministry of Labour,” Worksmartontario.gov. Last modified January 22, 2014. http://www.worksmartontario.gov.on.ca/scripts/default.asp?contentID=5-1-1-1s
Ontario Nurses Association. Occupational Health and Safety. Toronto, Ontario: Ontario Nurses Association. 2014. https://www.ona.org/documents/File/guides/ONA_OHSGuide_201410.pdf.
Peter Strahlendorf, The Internal Responsibility System Workplace Safety North, Sudbury. Toronto, Ontario: IQSEM. 2013. http://www.workplacesafetynorth.ca/sites/default/files/The%20Internal%20Responsibility%20System%20-%20Strahlendorf%20.pdf.
Vivienne Walters, “Occupational health and safety legislation in Ontario: An Analysis of its origins and content,” Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology, 20, no 4. (1983): 413-434.
