Archived - Decision: 96-013 CANADA LABOUR CODE PART II OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH

Review under section 146 of the Canada Labour Code, Part II

of a direction issued by a safety officer

Decision No.: 96-013

Applicant: Yellow Freight System

Mississauga, Ontario

Represented by: John Curran, Branch Manager

Respondent: Teamsters, Local 938

Represented by: Al Morrison, Vice-President

Mis en cause: John MacDonald

Safety Officer

Human Resources Development Canada

Before: Serge Cadieux

Regional Safety Officer

Human Resources Development Canada

An oral hearing was held on April 10, 1996 in Mississauga, Ontario.

Background

In a written complaint made in July 1995, an employee of Yellow Freight

System alleged that his employer was no longer using wheel chocks at

their loading docks. Wheel chocks are normally used as a means of

protecting trailers against accidental movement during loading and

unloading. In response to the complaint, the safety officer carried

out an inspection of the work places of the company and inquired into

the activities that take place at the company's warehouse. In his

Narrative Report, the safety officer described the issue of wheel

chocks in the following manner:

"With respect to wheel chaulks (sic), although no loading or

unloading of trailers took place during the inspection, it was

confirmed with Mr. MacLauchlan that Yellow Freight does not require

employees to use wheel chaulks when loading or unloading trailers

with tow motors. Mr. MacLauchlan stated that the company's reasons

for not using wheel chaulks were as follows:

The use of wheel chaulks is unnecessary when loading or unloading

Yellow Freight trailers because the company has recently

installed anchorlok spring brakes on all Yellow Freight trailers.

Activation of a dash mounted control valve activates the spring

brakes by exhausting air from the spring brake chamber,

permitting spring force to actuate the service brake for positive

parking.

Yellow Freight System Inc., which is based in the USA, has

conducted a study on the effectiveness of spring brakes, and

concluded that the use of spring brakes allows for greater time

efficiency in the loading and unloading of trailers than does the

use of wheel chaulks, with no negative impact on safety.

Wheel chaulks are still available for use at loading doors

designated for use by trailers from other companies, which may

not be equipped with spring brakes.

It was agreed that this issue would be reviewed further, and I would

inform Yellow Freight shortly as to whether wheel chaulks would be

required or not. Mr. MacLauchlan agreed to forward me technical

information regrading (sic) spring brakes. This was received on

August 11, 1995.

Following consultation with this department, and with the

Transportation Safety Association of Ontario, I concluded that,

regardless of the type of brake system on the trailers, the use of

wheel chaulks when loading and unloading trailers with tow motors is a

recognized and well established method of ensuring against accidental

trailer movement, and as such, the employer has a general duty under

Section 124 of Part II of the Canada Labour Code to ensure that they

are used."

A direction (see APPENDIX) was issued under subsection 145(1) of the

Canada Labour Code, Part II (hereafter the Code). The safety officer

cited Yellow Freight System for a contravention to section 124 of the

Code in which the description of the contravention resembles the

proposed amendment to Part XIV (Materials Handling) of the Canada

Occupational Safety and Health Regulations (hereafter the

Regulations).

Submission for the employer

The detailed submission of Yellow Freight System is on record. The

written submission of the company addresses the following points:

1. Trailer chocking is obsolete.

2. Trailer chocking creates a greater potential for injury.

3. The Teamster Safety Committee approved the company's

discontinuance of trailer chocking.

4. The reliance on trailer chocks to prevent a trailer being pulled

away from a dock prematurely is misplaced.

Mr. Curran noted that the wording of the description of the

contravention in the direction resembles very much the proposed

amendment referred to above but emphasizes that this amendment is not

presently in effect and that there is no guarantees that it will come

into effect.

Mr. Curran is adamant. The system of blocking is antiquated and was

established when single chamber brakes (also known as service brakes)

were in use and when round wheels were on the dollies (support legs) of

the trailers and these are no longer in place. He explained that every

trailer of Yellow Freight System is equipped with flat dolly legs and

spring loaded brakes which are according to manufacturer's

specifications and are safe for parking.

The documentation submitted by Mr. Curran explains that the difference

between the common service brake and the spring brake lies in their

operation. The service brake chamber applies the brakes by air

pressure and releases them by spring pressure when the brake is

released. The spring brake applies the brakes by spring pressure and

releases them by air pressure. When trailers were parked using only

the action of service brakes, the air pressure could be lost over a

short period of time causing the trailer to move under the action of a

fork lift truck entering or exiting the trailer during loading or

unloading operations. Hence, wheel chocks or blocks were necessary to

prevent accidental movement of the trailer.

With the technologically advanced spring brakes, it is no longer

necessary to use chocks since those brakes are automatically set upon

the disconnection of the trailer or, when the trailer is not

disconnected, by pressing a dash mounted button which will release the

air causing the spring to set the brakes. In fact, trailers

manufactured in the U.S. since July 1, 1973 and in Canada since 1976

must have brakes that automatically set upon disconnection of the

trailer from the power unit or yard tractor, under the Canada Motor

Vehicle Safety Standard (CMVSS) 121, Air Brake Standard and Federal

Motor Vehicle Standard (FMVSS) 571.121 (in the U.S.).

In addition to the above, Mr. Curran feels that there is a greater

potential for injury by forcing dock workers, hostlers (drivers who

shuttle trailers around the yard) or drivers to circulate around moving

vehicles and under and around the corners and edges of trailers. With

the addition, on all of its vehicles, of a second chamber to the

braking system as described above, the company has effectively reduced

the accident rate relating to injuries associated with chocking. The

company conducted a study which reported a 77% reduction in workers

compensation claims. This reduction supports the company's claim that

it is providing its employees with a safer workplace.

According to Mr. Curran, there are no records of trailers being pulled

away from the docks when the spring brakes are set and there are no

injuries associated with that possibility. There are however instances

where drivers did drive over the chocks and where chocks became

entrapped between the wheels of the trailers, creating a dangerous

situation to pedestrians or other drivers. In addition to using the

spring loaded brakes at the company own docks, a procedure complements

the use of this type of parking brakes in replacement of wheel chocks

or blocks.

The employer submitted detailed information in support of the no

chocking rule adopted by the company. For example, in the written and

oral submissions, the employer made the following points:

- the spring brake represents a significant technological

improvement over the service brake and all Yellow Freight System

trucks and trailers are equipped with this upgraded brake system.

There are two spring brake units per axel;

- the spring brakes are set by pressing a dash mounted button when

the truck remains connected to the trailer or they are automatically

set upon disconnection of the trailer;

- in a terminal with several doors, the distance between the

trailers can, at times, be reduced to less than a foot thereby

creating special problems for employees chocking the trailers;

- work at terminals takes place on a 24 hour basis thereby

increasing the hazards of having to position chocks in reduced

lighting conditions between and under the trailers; there is

greater hazards in chocking trailers under those conditions and also

by the simple fact that employees chocking trailers are among moving

vehicles;

- only Yellow Freight System trailers at the company's terminal

would not be chocked; foreign trailers would continue to be chocked

or blocked and Yellow Freight System trailers would adhere to

chocking policies at other terminals;

- Yellow Freight System Inc. developed and implemented a Chocking of

Trailers' procedure ( a communication system) which establishes the

requirements for safe dropping of trailers without the use of wheel

chocks.

- a test was performed at the Atlanta consolidation centre where a

forklift truck loaded with a palette weighing approximately 1500 to

2000 pounds to give it traction attempted to push various trailers,

some loaded at various degrees, some not, with the spring brakes

set. The trailers did not move;

- a study was conducted system-wide by the company and the results

indicate a marked reduction in injuries associated with chocking; a

77% reduction in WCB claims was reported as a direct result of

upgrading Yellow's fleet to spring brakes;

- spring brakes have been demonstrated to effectively restrain

trailers during the loading or unloading operation at the docks;

- in the number of years that Yellow Freight has implemented its no

chocking rule, there is not a single instance of an employee of the

company being injured as a result of not blocking the trailers. The

company's conclusion is that it is less safe to block than not to

block trailers that have spring brakes;

Mr. Curran has also entered into evidence testimonies of experts and

decisions of regulatory bodies and a union which support the no

chocking rule. For example:

- a California Highway Patrol officer enforcing the US Department of

Transportation regulations testified that spring brakes are as

efficient as blocking the wheels if not more efficient. The officer

observed during his inspections that when spring brakes are set, the

drivers can hardly or cannot get the truck to move. However, if the

wheels are blocked and the spring brakes are not set, they can

literally drive over the blocks;

- in the United States, the Department of Consumer Services, Oregon

Occupational Safety and Health Division reviewed the issue of the

chocking of wheels of over-the-road freight trailers and trucks when

they are at loading docks and are being loaded or unloaded by

employees on powered industrial trucks. The Oregon OSH Division

concluded that there is no need to chock trailers equipped with

spring brakes since they were specifically designed for the purpose

of preventing trailers from moving while at loading docks. On a

more cautious note, the Division also stated that, in the event that

a trailer is not equipped with these brakes or they are not

operating properly, the wheels would be required to be chocked. A

Compliance Officer would have to document if a hazard exists and if

it does, require wheel blocking.

- After being informed of the company's policy to discontinue the

chocking of trailers and having been provided with the statistics

respecting the reduction in workers compensation claims, the

[American] International Brotherhood of Teamsters approved the

expansion of the discontinuance.

Submission for the employee

Mr. Morrison expressed some reservation concerning the decisions

entered as evidence and the statistics submitted, indicating that they

reflect the requirements of American legislation as opposed to the

Canadian legislation and therefore it is unfair to compare the two

models. Mr. Morrison further explained that while the spring brakes

are good brakes, they are only mechanical devices that can be defective

and therefore not completely safe. In fact, one mechanic of Yellow

Freight System testified that, in several instances, he has detected

inadequate spring brake adjustments on some of the company's vehicles.

In some cases, the springs are either broken or the adjustments so far

out of alignment that the brakes are ineffective.

As far as Mr. Morrison's union is concerned, if the safety aspect of

loading and unloading a trailer parked at a dock can be reinforced by

chocking, then surely this should be done.

Decision

The safety officer issued a direction under the authority of subsection

145(1) of the Canada Labour Code, Part II (hereafter the Code) for a

contravention to section 124 of the Code. Subsection 145(1) and

section 124 of the Code provide the following:

145(1). Where a safety officer is of the opinion that any provision

of this Part is being contravened, the officer may direct the

employer or employee concerned to terminate the contravention within

such time as the officer may specify and the officer shall, if

requested by the employer or employee concerned, confirm the

direction in writing if the direction was given orally.

124. Every employer shall ensure that the safety and health at work

of every person employed by the employer is protected.

Therefore, the issue to be decided in this case is whether section 124

of the Code has been contravened. The current Canada Occupational

Safety and Health Regulations (hereafter the Regulations) are silent

on the issue of preventing accidental movement of trailers in the

process of being loaded or unloaded by using chocks or any other means

to prevent its movement. In order to be in contravention of section

124, one would have to demonstrate that the employer failed to take the

necessary steps to ensure that his/her employees are protected at work.

The operative word in this provision is "ensure" which means to make

certain.

The safety officer relied heavily on the proposed amendment to Part XIV

(Materials Handling) of the Regulations to support his rationale for

issuing the direction. That proposed amendment reads as follows:

14.37(2) Where motorized or manual materials handling equipment is

required to enter or exit a vehicle other than a railway car to load

or unload materials, goods or things to or from the vehicle, the

vehicle shall be immobilized and secured against accidental movement

by means additional to the vehicle's braking system.

One should keep in mind that, as pointed out by Mr. Curran, there is no

assurance that the proposed amendment will ever become law. I must

however acknowledge that the proposed amendment is a consensus reached

by employer and employee representatives having the best interest of

employees at mind and who are well aware of the existence of the spring

brakes and their efficiency. In any event, if the proposed amendment

becomes law, then compliance with that provision will be mandatory. In

the meantime, I will decide the issue on the basis of the facts

submitted, not on the proposed amendment.

It has been an accepted practice, in the past, throughout the trucking

industry to chock or block trailers to ascertain that trailers being

loaded or unloaded do not move. In light of the submission of Yellow

Freight System, I must recognize that the chocking or blocking of

trailers can be a hazardous task with potentially serious consequences

depending on the conditions under which that task is performed. It

appears that the chocking or blocking of trailers at Yellow Freight's

terminals presents serious problems, possibly due to the large number

of trailers being parked in a terminal at a given time or the large

number of loading doors at the terminals. The reduction of WCB claims

reported in the study conducted by the company is, I am led to believe,

related to the chocking of trailers. If this is the case, then

obviously another method to prevent the accidental movement of a

trailer during loading or unloading operations may have to be

implemented.

I accept the argument that spring brakes represent a significant

technological improvement over the conventional service brakes. Spring

brakes are now used as highly effective emergency brakes. However,

they are part and parcel of the braking system and as such they cannot

be considered independently from that system. The fact that there are

two units per axel is insufficient to make it a fail safe system since

the company acknowledged that the majority of its trailers are single

axel trailers. Therefore, if one unit fails, the effectiveness of the

whole system is compromised.

The argument was made that employees can be injured when chocking

trailers during evenings where lighting conditions are reduced. That

argument is unacceptable since a minimum amount of lighting is required

for employees working under any conditions. Part VI (Levels of

Lighting) of the Regulations can be used as a reference. If employees

are injured as a result of tripping over or stepping on material lying

on the ground, then it would appear that a housecleaning problem also

exists and would have to be addressed without delay.

The "Chocking of Trailers" procedure developed by the company to

support the no chocking rule is essentially a communication procedure

that requires a thorough understanding of the method implemented by all

the interested parties. The problem with the procedure is that it

varies from one terminal to another depending on the size of the

terminal. In some cases, mirrors will be used, in other cases coloured

chains, closed dock doors or safety cones will be used to indicate when

it is safe for the hostler to move the trailer. There is however no

direct communication between the dock workers and the hostlers and

therefore, no means to positively ascertain when the loading or

unloading of a trailer is completed.

I also note that both the California Highway patrol officer and the

Oregon Occupational Safety and Health Division are not categoric about

the use of spring brakes. Of particular interest is the

acknowledgement by the Oregon Occupational Safety and Health Division

that, in some circumstances, the spring brakes may not be operating

properly and that as a consequence, the wheels would be required to be

chocked. An inspector would have to document if a hazard exists and if

it does, require wheel blocking. In my opinion, that note of caution

is very damaging to the proposition that spring brakes can be used as a

safety system because it establishes the weakness of the system: spring

brakes can fail.

The testimony of the maintenance officer at the hearing is very

important in this case because that mechanic testified that he observed

broken springs on some of the spring brake units. Evidently, it is

impossible to positively determine the condition of the brake by a

simple visual inspection. In fact, other than through maintenance,

there is no means to verify the integrity of the spring brake other

than by experiencing movement of the trailer, a most unacceptable

situation. The consequence of the failure of a spring brake during

loading or unloading operations can be a serious injury or a fatality

if no other method is used to prevent accidental movement of the

trailer.

It was indicated that the no chocking rule is highly effective on a

surface free of ice and snow. While these conditions may be found to

exist in Atlanta, they definitely do not exist in Canada where snow

covers the ground for several months of the year. It would also be

interesting to observe the effect of the movement of a trailer being

loaded or unloaded while parked on another low coefficient of friction

surface such as sand, mud or gravel. I believe that it is safe to

assume that spring brakes are less effective under the conditions

listed above.

Unlike a lock-out device which positively ensures that a particular

piece of equipment or machinery is not being used or does not move

while someone else uses it, the spring brakes are not fail safe. They

are an integral part of the braking system with the advantages and the

disadvantages of such a system. In order to make certain that a

trailer does not move under loading and unloading conditions, an

additional means to prevent the accidental movement of the trailer is,

in my opinion, necessary.

Therefore, for all the above reasons, I HEREBY CONFIRM the direction

issued on October 5, 1995 under subsection 145(1) of the Canada Labour

Code, Part II by safety officer John MacDonald to Yellow Freight System

Inc.

Decision rendered on May 30, 1996

Serge Cadieux

Regional Safety Officer

APPENDIX

IN THE MATTER OF THE Canada Labour Code

PART II - OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH

DIRECTION TO YELLOW FREIGHT SYSTEM, INC. UNDER SUBSECTION 145(1)

On August 9, 1995, the undersigned safety officer conducted an

inspection in the work place operated by Yellow Freight System, Inc.

being an employer subject to the Canada Labour Code, Part II, at 6130

Netherhart Road, Mississauga, Ontario.

The said safety officer is of the opinion that the following provision

of the Canada Labour Code, Part II, is being contravened:

Section 124. of the Canada Labour Code, Part II.

Motorized materials handling equipment is being used to enter or exit

tractor trailers at the loading docks in order to load and unload

materials, goods or things from the trailers, and the tractor trailers

are not being immobilized and secured against accidental movement by

means additional to the tractor trailers braking system.

Therefore, you are HEREBY (sic) DIRECTED, pursuant to subsection 145(1)

of the Canada Labour Code, Part II, to terminate the contravention no

later than October 19, 1995.

Issued at Toronto, this 5th day of October, 1995.

John MacDonald

Safety Officer

# 1770

To: Yellow Freight System, Inc.

6130 Netherhart Road

Mississauga, Ontario

L5T 1B7

SUMMARY OF REGIONAL SAFETY OFFICER DECISION

Decision No.: 96-013

Applicant: Yellow Freight System Inc.

Respondent: Teamsters, Local 938

KEYWORDS:

Checking, blocking, fail safe, trailer, brakes, spring brakes.

PROVISIONS:

Code: 124, 145(1)

SUMMARY:

A safety officer gave a direction to a transport company because the

company was not securing the movement of trailers being loaded or

unloaded against accidental movement by a means additional to the

vehicle braking system. The company argued that it was safe not to

chock the trailers. They were using the technologically improved

spring brake as part of their safety system to prevent the accidental

movement of trailers. The Regional Safety Officer found that while the

spring brakes are a technological improvement, they are still an

integral part of the braking system. A means additional to that system

was believed to be necessary. The Regional Safety Officer CONFIRMED

the direction.