Approving a working alone policy for Elliot Lake employees contained in a report from manager of human resources Blayne Croskery garnered considerable discussion when it was presented to council at its Monday meeting.
The actual wording of the policy was not the main concern even though it raised issues.
But the fact the city’s CAO Daniel Gagnon had approved buying 15 devices for $13,500 to be worn by staff when they are working alone did concern some councillors.
Croskery said development of the policy and the devices purchased came about after incidents of employee injuries during work-alone situations.
“Recently we had a couple of events… and there was no harm done to any of our employees, but it identified a gap we had for employees who are working alone,” she said, referring to the province’s occupational health and safety policy that requires employers to do what they can to respond to workplace accidents.
In the city’s case, the devices would be used for employees who work alone at the arena, pool and overnight at city hall.
The City of Elliot Lake will provide a safe work environment for its employees. In doing so, the city will take all reasonable and practical measures to eliminate or minimize injury or incident risks associated with the nature of the work performed when employees work alone.
The intent of this policy is to protect workers who are working alone and to enable them to summon immediate assistance in the event of an emergency, Croskery wrote in her report.
The devices would alert a call centre to determine the extent of the injury and if an emergency response is needed that would be relayed to a department head.
Councillor Luc Morissette asked for a deferral of the motion to approve because he wanted more information on the content of the policy. His request for deferral failed to get a seconder and council proceeded with talks on the original motion to approve the new work alone policy.
Councillor Rick Bull said he supported the policy calling it a “good one” to safeguard city workers, especially when they are working on their own.
“This is a policy I think should go through, the policy is a good one,” he said.
Councillor Charles Flintoff questioned why the device purchase was done before a new policy was endorsed by council calling it the “cart before the horse” situation.
“This procedure something seems off to me, you’ve already bought the 15 units and now you’re coming to us to pass the bylaw,” he said, questioning what would happen if council voted against the policy and had committed to the device purchase.
He supported the policy.
Gagnon said he thought there was an escape clause to return the units if the policy failed to get council approval. However, Gagnon said he was responsible for the decision to purchase the devices prior to final council approval because a quick decision was needed to purchase them at a lower cost than $20,000 originally quoted.
“I made the decision to acquire the units,” Gagnon said. “That was in my management discretion to do that to protect the workers.”
Gagnon said if there was an accident and there was no policy in place to allow for the use of the units, an investigation might question why.
“We’re only debating the policy here,” he added.
Council, with the exception of Councillor Morissette, approved the policy. A bylaw for it will come up to council at a later date to make it official.