See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/24280875

Form and Function of Joint Health and Safety Committees in Ontario Acute
Care Hospitals

Article  in  Healthcare quarterly (Toronto, Ont.) · February 2008

DOI: 10.12927/hcq.2009.20666 · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS

6 118

6 authors, including:

Kathryn Nichol Irena Kudla

University of Toronto St. Michael's Hospital
11 PUBLICATIONS   99 CITATIONS    41 PUBLICATIONS   257 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Lisa Mccaskell Dorothy Linn Holness

Ontario Public Service Employees Union St. Michael's Hospital
6 PUBLICATIONS   117 CITATIONS    214 PUBLICATIONS   2,930 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

8th Occupational and Environmental Exposure of Skin to Chemicals (OEESC) Conference 2019 View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Irena Kudla on 27 March 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Special Focus on HHR

Form and Function of Joint Health

and Safety Committees in Ontario
Acute Care Hospitals
Kathryn Nichol, Irena Kudla, Michael Manno,
Lisa McCaskell, Joseline Sikorski and D. Linn Holness

Abstract
Even though joint health and safety committees (JHSCs)
have been in existence in Ontario workplaces for almost 30
years and healthcare workers are at high risk for workplace
injury, there has been little research done related to JHSC
functioning in Ontario’s healthcare sector. In his recent
review of the 2003 outbreak of severe acute respiratory
syndrome in Toronto, Justice Archie Campbell found that
JHSCs in Ontario hospitals were not fulfilling their intended
roles and responsibilities. The objective of this study was
to gain a deeper understanding of the role, resources,
structure and functioning of JHSCs in Ontario hospitals.
A cross-sectional survey of JHSC co-chairs from all
acute care hospitals in Ontario was performed. The results
revealed that the strengths of the current state of JHSC
functioning in Ontario hospitals include legislative compli-
ance and availability of resources and experts. Gaps in
current JHSC functioning include a lack of JHSC member
education beyond certification training and suboptimal
JHSC status and visibility within healthcare organizations.
Further research examining the effectiveness and impact of
JHSCs on healthcare worker health and safety is warranted
to address the concerns raised in the Campbell report.

86 Healthcare Quarterly Vol.12 No.2 2009

 Kathryn Nichol et al. Form and Function of Joint Health and Safety Committees in Ontario Acute Care Hospitals
S ince 1978, joint healthand safety committees (JHSCs)
have been a legal requirement for all Ontario workplaces
with 20 or more employees (Geldart et al. 2005). These
labour-management committees are a key component of the
internal responsibility system, a system of “universal, but
personal, responsibility” in which every worker is responsible for
safety (Downie et al. 2006: 3). Even though JHSCs have been in
existence in Ontario workplaces for almost 30 years and health-
care workers have been identified as having a greater risk of
workplace injury than any other occupational group (Ostry and
“Neither internal responsibility systems
nor joint health and safety committees
were, in general, fulfilling their intended
roles and responsibilities.”
– Justice Campbell
Yassi 2004), there has been little research done related to JHSC
form and function in Ontario’s healthcare sector. In his recent
review of the outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome
(SARS) in Toronto in 2003, Justice Archie Campbell found “a
grave lack of worker safety expertise, resources and awareness
in the health system, a lack whose impact was compounded
by a similar lack of infection control expertise and resources
… Also missing were two key components of a safe workplace:
Neither internal responsibility systems nor joint health and
safety committees were, in general, fulfilling their intended roles
and responsibilities” (Campbell 2006: 18.)
The objective of this study was to probe the findings of the
Campbell report and gain a deeper understanding of the role,
resources, structure and functioning of JHSCs in acute care
hospitals in Ontario. The results of the study will inform and
guide further research related to the effectiveness and impact of
JHSCs on healthcare worker health and safety to address the
concerns raised in the Campbell report.
Methods
The study design was a cross-sectional survey of JHSC manage-
ment and worker co-chairs from all acute care hospitals in
Ontario. The study was conducted in 2006 and was approved by
the Research Ethics Board of St Michael’s Hospital in Toronto.
Survey
A six-page, 41-item survey tool was developed. Questions
were formulated based upon existing legislative requirements
regarding JHSC composition and functioning (Ontario
Ministry of Labour 1990) and upon federal and provincial
government–approved JHSC educational resources (Canadian
Centre for Occupational Health and Safety 2006; Ontario Safety
Association for Community and Healthcare [OSACH] 2003).
Survey questions were organized into nine sections: general
information, worker members, management members, experts,
co-chairs, information and reporting, training and education,
decision-making and recommendations, and communication
and status. The survey tool was reviewed for readability and
length by the JHSC co-chairs from one hospital. The survey was
identical for the worker and management co-chairs.
Population and Distribution
The eligible population was co-chairs in acute care hospitals
in Ontario. Hospitals were identified from a list provided by
OSACH, the safe workplace association designated for the
healthcare sector by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board
(WSIB) of Ontario. One hundred eighty-nine hospitals were
identified as eligible.
The surveys were colour coded and packaged in an envelope
marked either worker co-chair or management co-chair. The
survey package, including a cover letter and the two envelopes
for the co-chairs, was mailed to the chief executive officer (CEO)
of each of the hospitals. The covering letter provided informa-
tion about the study and asked the CEO to forward the appro-
priate envelopes to the worker and management co-chairs of the
JHSC. This method of distribution was chosen specifically to
include the CEO in the communication loop and to make sure
the surveys reached the right people. Two mailings were carried
out six weeks apart in the fall and winter of 2006.
Analysis
All analysis was done using SAS Version 9 (SAS Institute Inc.,
Cary, NC). Descriptive statistics were computed for all items in
the questionnaire. Comparisons of responses between groups
were made using the Fisher exact test for categorical variables
and t-test for continuous variables. Comparisons of interest were
hospital size categories (teaching or 100+ beds versus <100 beds
based on information from the Ontario Ministry of Health and
Long-Term Care [2004]) and JHSC status (high profile versus
no/low/moderate profile as reported by respondents).
For institutions where both management and worker co-
chairs responded, an additional paired analysis was carried out.
The McNemar test was used for differences, and a p value < .05
was considered to be statistically significant. The kappa statistic
was used to assess agreement between responses from manage-
ment and worker co-chairs.
Results
A total of 378 surveys were mailed out and 220 (105 from
management co-chairs and 115 from worker co-chairs) completed
surveys were returned, a response rate of 58%. Complete pairs
Healthcare Quarterly Vol.12 No.2 2009 87
Form and Function of Joint Health and Safety Committees in Ontario Acute Care Hospitals Kathryn Nichol et al.
(completed surveys received from both the management co-
chair and worker co-chair from the same facility) were received
from 73 of 189 organizations (39%).
Legislative Compliance
Survey results indicated that the majority of hospitals were
approaching compliance with health and safety legislative
requirements. Ninety-nine percent of respondents indicated
their organization had a JHSC. Reported compliance with
JHSC legislative requirements is summarized in Table 1.
Table 1. Hospitals that reported compliance with
legislation*
Legislative Requirement Percentage of
Hospitals
Names of JHSC members were posted 100
Met at least quarterly 99
Certified members received basic and 93
workplace-specific hazard training
JHSC has taken steps to ensure that sections 92
8, 9 and 10 of healthcare regulations have
been implemented
New members were selected by workers they 79
were to represent or the trade union
Co-chairs were selected by the members who 67
represent workers
Employer consulted JHSC on development and 60
establishment of health and safety measures
and procedures
Worker members to attend certification 26
training were selected by workers they
represent or the trade union
JHSC = joint health and safety committee.
*N = 220.
Representation and Resources
Other elements of a properly functioning committee were also
assessed. A documented terms of reference to guide committee
activities was in place in 99% of hospitals. The term of office for
committee members was two years or less for 50% of respon-
dents. All hospitals indicated union representation on their
JHSC, with the Ontario Nurses’ Association (91%), the Ontario
88 Healthcare Quarterly Vol.12 No.2 2009
Public Service Employees Union (55%) and the Canadian
Union of Public Employees (35%) being the most common.
Co-chairs reported an average of seven worker members and
five management members on their committee.
Results showed a variety of occupational groups represented
on JHSCs. Nursing was the most commonly represented
profession (96%) within the worker members. Others groups
included administrative (58%), laboratory (58%), housekeeping
(57%), radiology/diagnostic imaging (42%) and dietary (39%).
Occupational groups represented at the management level
were similar. Nursing was still the most commonly represented
(72%), followed by administrative (65%), housekeeping (52%)
and dietary (38%). At just over a quarter of hospitals, the CEO
appointed management members to the JHSC. The CEO sat as
a voting management member on the JHSC at 9% of hospitals.
Co-chair respondents reported a variety of resources available
to the JHSC to assist them in carrying out their responsibili-
ties. Employees with specialized expertise who sat on JHSCs as
voting members included occupational health nurses (75%),
infection-control practitioners (68%), return-to-work coordi-
nators (39%) and fire safety experts (36%). Other respond-
ents reported that staff with similar expertise were available to
their JHSC but did not sit as voting members. Some co-chair
respondents reported that experts from outside the hospital were
brought in to assist the JHSC. These experts included health
and safety consultants (59%), fire safety experts (58%), indus-
trial hygienists (42%) and ergonomists (35%). Only 15% of
hospitals had an industrial hygienist on staff.
Information Reporting and Training and Education
Information reported to the JHSC was assessed. All co-chairs
indicated that JHSC members regularly received health and
safety reports. The specific types of information received are
summarized in Table 2.
The majority of co-chairs reported that their committees had
certified members who had completed workplace-specific hazard
training (93%). OSACH was identified as the main provider of
certification training to the acute care hospital sector.
Co-chair respondents reported on other training and educa-
tion received by JHSC members. Only 22% reported that
committee members received training at least once every two
years, and 8% reported that their JHSC members had never
received training. The most common types of training programs
received included workplace inspection training (66%) and
orientation for new committee members (58%). Most training
was delivered via lecture or seminar (62%) or video (39%). A
quarter of respondents indicated that they had received web-
based or electronic training.
Decision-Making and Recommendations
Decision-making strategies reported included discussion leading
 Kathryn Nichol et al. Form and Function of Joint Health and Safety Committees in Ontario Acute Care Hospitals

to consensus (80%), voting (57%) and delegation to a sub-
committee (22%). Almost all co-chairs (95%) indicated that
their JHSC made formal recommendations to management to
improve health and safety conditions for workers. The most
common process followed included recommendations being
provided in writing, signed by both co-chairs and passed on
to a person with authority to take action. In 16% of cases, the
CEO received the recommendation.
Table 2. Information reported to joint health and safety
committee*
Type of Information Reported Percentage Receiving
Information
ences (p ≤ .05) were noted between the JHSCs of large and
small hospitals. JHSCs in larger hospitals met more often and
had more members, a shorter term of office for members, wider
union representation and representatives from more occupa-
tional groups than smaller hospitals. Smaller hospitals had more
maintenance/engineering representation on the JHSC and were
more likely to have the maintenance/engineering representa-
tive as the worker co-chair and the certified member. JHSCs in
larger hospitals were reported to follow legislative requirements
regarding the election/selection of new worker members more
often than smaller hospitals. Smaller hospitals were more likely
to have new members volunteer to be on the committee and have
management appoint workers to attend certification training.

Work-related incidents, accidents, 97 Table 3. Communication strategies used by joint health

injuries and illnesses and safety committees*

Workplace inspection activities and 97 Communication Strategy Percentage Using Strategy

follow-up
Postings on the health and safety 99
Accident investigation activities and 83
bulletin board
follow-up
Activities during health and 80
Infection-control information 75
safety week
Infectious disease occurrences 65
Information sharing during 79
Industrial hygiene testing activities 60 workplace inspections

Occupational disease occurrences 60 Presentations, posters 56

Other 21 Formal reports at staff or 53

management meetings
*N = 220. E-mails or electronic postings 46

Newsletters 38

Other 6

Communication and Status *N = 220.

Table 3 summarizes the variety of communication strategies
used by JHSCs to communicate with the workforce. More than
half the co-chairs (60%) indicated that their JHSC had excellent
interaction with the infection-control practitioner or infection-
control committee at their workplace.
Eighteen percent of co-chairs indicated that their JHSC had
a high profile within the organization. The majority indicated
that their JHSC was moderate profile (57%), and 25% indicated
that the JHSC had low or no profile.
Comparison between Large or Teaching and Small
Hospitals
Comparison was carried out between teaching or large hospitals
(37%) and smaller hospitals (63%). Several significant differ-
The CEOs of smaller hospitals were more likely than CEOs
in large hospitals to be directly involved with JHSC functioning;
they were more likely to appoint management members to
the committee and be the person designated to receive JHSC
recommendations. JHSCs in larger hospitals had more access to
internal and external experts, specifically occupational hygien-
ists and occupational medicine physicians. These committees
were also more likely to receive industrial hygiene and external
consultant reports. JHSCs from larger hospitals were more likely
to have orientation and training for new committee members

Healthcare Quarterly Vol.12 No.2 2009 89

Form and Function of Joint Health and Safety Committees in Ontario Acute Care Hospitals Kathryn Nichol et al.
and to use e-mail or electronic postings to communicate with
the workforce.
Comparison between JHSCs Reporting High Profile
versus Moderate, Low or No Profile
Comparisons were made between those hospitals where a co-
chair indicated the JHSC had high profile and visibility (18%)
and those hospitals where a co-chair indicated the JHSC had
moderate, low or no profile and visibility (82%). Again, the
comparison resulted in notable statistically significant differ-
ences (p ≤ 0.05).
High-profile JHSCs were more likely to have workers volun-
teer to be members of the committee and to follow legislative
requirements regarding the election/selection of worker co-
chairs. High-profile JHSCs were more likely to receive informa-
tion on workplace accident investigation activities and follow-up
and WSIB statistics. Regarding training, low-profile JHSCs were
JHSCs in healthcare workplaces are of
particular importance as healthcare workers
are at greater risk of workplace injuries
and more mental health problems than any
other occupational group.
more likely to report that members never get training and educa-
tion. In direct comparison, high-profile JHSCs indicated that
they were more likely to receive JHSC effectiveness, workplace
inspection and hazard-specific training.
High-profile JHSCs were also more likely than low-profile
JHSCs to use a wide variety of communication strategies,
including activities during health and safety week, information
sharing during workplace inspections, formal reports at staff or
management meetings, presentations and posters, newsletters
and e-mail or electronic postings. Low-profile JHSCs were more
likely not to be asked for regular feedback on the establishment,
maintenance and monitoring of programs, measures and proce-
dures respecting the health or safety of workers.
Paired Analysis
A paired analysis of 65 worker co-chair and management co-
chair responses was conducted. Eight pairs were excluded from
the original 73 matched pairs due to ambiguous or conflicting
information regarding whether the respondent held the role
of management or worker co-chair. Items requiring an exclu-
sive answer were analyzed. Results showed that while some
worker and management co-chair responses appeared to be well
matched (frequency of meetings [κ = 0.84], existence of terms
of reference [κ = 1.0], names of members posted [κ = 1.0] and
number of management members on JHSC [κ = 0.82]), others
90 Healthcare Quarterly Vol.12 No.2 2009
were not (frequency of JHSC member education [κ = 0.19],
management request for feedback from JHSC [κ = 0.07], inter-
action with infection control [κ = 0.26] and implementation
of healthcare regulations [κ = 0.35]. Worker and management
co-chair responses regarding the completion of certification
training were also poorly matched [κ = −.07]. The negative
kappa statistic is due to a high prevalence of co-chairs providing
a positive response. Results also showed that 51 co-chair pairs
agreed on the ranking given for status and visibility of the JHSC
within the organization, and 12 disagreed [κ = 0.29].
Discussion
JHSCs and the Healthcare Workforce
JHSCs act as a forum for encouraging co-operation between
workplace parties on occupational health and safety issues and
a means of enabling workers’ participation rights (Downie et al.
2006). They bring together a range of practice experience and
technical knowledge, provide a means of communication to and
from the workforce and facilitate the commitment of workers
and employers to health and safety (Bryce and Manga 1985).
The successful operation of JHSCs in healthcare workplaces is
of particular importance as research on the Canadian workforce
has consistently indicated that healthcare workers are at greater
risk of workplace injuries and more mental health problems
than any other occupational group (Ostry and Yassi 2004). In
the healthcare sector in Ontario, the lost-time injury rate in
2007 was 2.01 injuries per 100 workers; this was higher than the
rate for all Ontario workers, which was 1.55 (OSACH 2008).
Legislative Compliance
Study findings indicated that the majority of hospitals were
approaching compliance with most of the legislative require-
ments specific to JHSC form and function. Other studies have
shown similar results (Ostry and Yassi 2004; SPR and Associates,
Inc. 1986, 1994). In the case of our study, reports of high compli-
ance could be due, in part, to the enhanced attention the Ontario
healthcare sector has received from the provincial government
since the SARS outbreak. This enhanced attention included
(1) a permanent sectoral health and safety advisory committee
under the Occupational Health and Safety Act; (2) the hiring of
200 additional health and safety inspectors, including six inspec-
tors dedicated to the healthcare sector; (3) additional training for
all Ministry of Labour industrial sector inspectors and hygienists
on the Healthcare and Residential Facilities Regulation under
the Occupational Health and Safety Act; (4) the inspection of all
acute care facilities and selected long-term care homes in Ontario;
and (5) a plan to continue proactive inspections in healthcare
(Ontario Ministry of Labour 2007).
Representation and Resources
All hospitals reported union involvement with the JHSC.
 Kathryn Nichol et al. Form and Function of Joint Health and Safety Committees in Ontario Acute Care Hospitals
Respondents indicated that there was a wide variety of occupa-
tional groups represented on their committee. A range of
resources were also reported to be available to the JHSC to assist
members to carry out their responsibilities. Several references in
the literature show that experts have an important role to play in
occupational health and safety (Johnstone et al. 2005; Milgate
et al. 2002; O’Grady 1998).
Information Reporting and Training and Education
The results of this study showed that 93% of JHSCs had certi-
fied members who had completed workplace-specific hazard
training. The importance of certification training has been
reported in the literature. One study conducted by SPR and
Associates, Inc. (1994), showed that JHSCs with members
that had completed core certification training performed better
than those whose members had not yet begun core certification
training. Another study supported legislation mandating the
certification of JHSC members (Tuohy and Simard 1993).
Contrary to high certification rates, only 22% of respond-
ents reported that committee members received training (other
than certification training) at least once every two years, and 8%
reported that their JHSC members had never received training.
In the literature, one study was found regarding JHSC member
training that showed similar results, with 38% of respondents
indicating that they had received no training in health and
safety (SPR and Associates, Inc. 1994). These findings indicate
a continuing need for training of joint committee members.
Decision-Making and Recommendations
Our study found that JHSCs reported using several different
kinds of decision-making strategies and almost all co-chairs
(95%) reported making formal recommendations to manage-
ment to improve health and safety conditions for workers. In
their study, Ostry and Yassi (2004) found that 90% of JHSCs
made recommendations to address hazards.
Communication and Status
Our study found a wide variety of strategies used by JHSCs to
communicate with the workforce. Regarding status and visibility
within the organization, only 18% of co-chairs indicated that
their JHSC had a high profile. The majority indicated that their
JHSC was moderate profile (57%), and 25% indicated that
their JHSC had low or no status within the organization. We
found no studies examining JHSC communication and status
within the organization.
Large versus Small Hospitals
Our study found that JHSCs in larger hospitals reported
higher compliance, had more resources, had wider represen-
tation, were more likely to receive health and safety informa-
tion and were more likely to have orientation and training for
new committee members. These findings are supported in the
literature. A survey by SPR and Associates, Inc. (1994), showed
that smaller workplaces had more non-compliance. Frick and
Walters (1998) showed that virtually all the reported examples
of effective systems for worker safety representation occur in
large workplaces, and that evidence shows that workplace size
is indeed a strong determinant of the effectiveness of health and
Strategies to enhance JHSCs should
focus on small and non-unionized
workplaces for special support.
safety representation. Tuohy and Simard (1993) found that the
effects of committees were generally most pronounced in large
or unionized workplaces. These findings suggest that strategies
to enhance JHSCs should focus on small and non-unionized
workplaces for special support.
High versus Low Profile
Our study found that co-chairs who identified their JHSC as
being high profile or having high visibility were more likely to
report compliance with the legislation and training of members,
use a wide variety of communication strategies and be asked for
feedback. No studies examining status and visibility of JHSCs
were found in the literature.
Paired Analysis
Our study population included both worker and management
JHSC co-chairs in acute care hospitals in Ontario. Results showed
that while some worker and management co-chair responses
from the same hospital appeared to be well matched, others
were not. Agreement was more likely on objective measures.
Several studies in the literature have targeted JHSC co-chairs
(Bryce and Manga 1985; Kochan et al. 1977; Lewchuk et al.
1996; Shannon et al. 1992; SPR and Associates 1994) or other
similar groups including manager and union trainees (Ostry and
Yassi 2004), labour and management JHSC members (Yassi et
al. 2002) and employees and management (Eaton and Nocerino
2000; Tuohy and Simard 1993). Only one study examined
and reported on paired analysis (Ostry and Yassi 2004). These
authors surveyed manager and union trainees and found that
managers responded more positively than union trainees to
almost all the survey questions but that differences were statis-
tically non-significant except in the case of the estimation of the
extent of co-operation on the committees.
We conducted matched pair analysis on items measuring
objective variables or closed-ended questions with mutually
exclusive and exhaustive response categories. This type of
analysis is less useful for subjective measures of perception.
Healthcare Quarterly Vol.12 No.2 2009 91
Form and Function of Joint Health and Safety Committees in Ontario Acute Care Hospitals Kathryn Nichol et al.
Future research should be done to determine whether JHSC
co-chairs are a valid source of information.
Study Limitations
Our study used a new data-collection tool. Study results may
not be generalized to JHSCs in other geographical locations or
occupational settings. Self-selection bias may be a limitation as
participation in the study was voluntary. Subject recall and social
desirability bias may be problems given the total reliance on
self-report data for this study. The matched pair analysis showed
discordance between co-chair pairs for some variables. While
this study provided information on the basic elements of JHSCs,
it did not address questions related to effectiveness and impact.
Conclusions
The results of this study have provided a deeper understanding
of the structure, functioning and resources of JHSCs in acute
care hospitals in Ontario. Strengths of the current state of JHSC
functioning in Ontario hospitals include legislative compliance
and availability of resources and experts. Gaps in current JHSC
functioning include a lack of training and education of JHSC
members outside of certification, and poor status and visibility
within healthcare organizations. The results of this study will
be used to examine the effectiveness and impact of JHSCs on
healthcare worker health and safety to address the concerns
raised in the Campbell report.
Acknowledgements
Partners in the study include the Ontario Public Service
Employees Union, United Steelworkers, Ontario Nurses’
Association, Canadian Union of Public Employees, Service
Employees International Union and OSACH.
The study was funded by the Centre for Research Expertise in
Occupational Disease, a collaborative program of the University
of Toronto and St Michael’s Hospital. The centre is funded by
the WSIB to improve understanding and prevention of occupa-
tional disease.
References
Bryce, G. and P. Manga. 1985. “The Effectiveness of Health and Safety
Committees.” Relations Industrielles 40(2): 257–82.
Campbell, A. 2006. SARS Commission Executive Summary: Spring of
Fear Volume 1. Ottawa, ON: SARS Commission. Retrieved July 11,
2007. <http://www.sarscommission.ca/report/v1-pdf/Volume1.pdf>.
Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety. 2006. Joint
Health and Safety Committee – Measuring Effectiveness. Hamilton, ON:
Author. Retrieved July 11, 2007. <http://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/
hsprograms/hscommittees/measure.html>.
Downie, J., W. Lahey, D. Ford, E. Gibson, M. Thomson, T. Ward, F.
McDonald and A. Shea. 2006. Patient Safety Law: From Silos to Systems
(Appendix 3: Sector Reports and Occupational Health and Safety).
Ottawa, ON: Health Policy Research Program, Health Canada.
92 Healthcare Quarterly Vol.12 No.2 2009
Eaton, A. and T. Nocerino. 2000. “The Effectiveness of Health and
Safety Committees: Results of a Survey of Public-Sector Workplaces.”
Industrial Relations 39(2): 265–90.
Frick, K. and D. Walters. 1998. “Worker Representation on Health
and Safety in Small Enterprises: Lessons from a Swedish Approach.”
International Labour Review 137(3): 367–89.
Geldart, S., H. Shannon and L. Lohfeld. 2005. “Have Companies
Improved Their Health and Safety Approaches over the Last Decade?
A Longitudinal Study.” American Journal of Industrial Medicine 47(3):
227–36.
Johnstone, R., M. Quinlan and D. Walters. 2005. “Statutory
Occupational Health and Safety Workplace Arrangements for the
Modern Labour Market.” Journal of Industrial Relations 47(1): 93–
116.
Kochan, T., L. Dyer and D.B. Lipsky. 1977. The Effectiveness of Union-
Management Safety and Health Committees. Kalamazoo, MI: W.E.
Upjohn Institute for Employment Research.
Lewchuk, W., A.L. Robb and V. Walters. 1996. “The Effectiveness of
Bill 70 and Joint Health and Safety Committees in Reducing Injuries
in the Workplace: The Case of Ontario.” Canadian Public Policy 22(3):
225–43.
Milgate, N., E. Innes and K. O’Loughlin. 2002. “Examining the
Effectiveness of Health and Safety Committees and Representatives:
A Review.” Work 19(3): 281–90.
O’Grady, J. 1998. The Role of Joint Committees in Workplace Health and
Safety: A Review of the Legislation and Previous Studies. Victoria, BC:
Royal Commission on Workers’ Compensation in British Columbia.
Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care. 2004. Public Hospitals
Act – Regulation 964 – Amended to O. Reg. 321/01. Classification of
Hospitals. Toronto, ON: Author. Retrieved February 21, 2007. <http://
www.health.gov.on.ca/english/public/contact/hosp/hospcode.html>.
Ontario Ministry of Labour. 1990. Occupational Health and Safety Act.
Toronto, ON: Author.
Ontario Ministry of Labour. 2007. Backgrounder January 9, 2007.
McGuinty Government Committed to Applying Lessons Learned from
SARS. Toronto, ON: Author. Retrieved July 11, 2007. <http://www.
health.gov.on.ca/english/media/news_releases/archives/nr_07/jan/nr_
010907.html>.
Ontario Safety Association for Community and Healthcare. 2003.
“Questionnaire to Evaluate the Effectiveness of JHSC Meetings.” In
Making Joint Health and Safety Committees Effective: A Resource Manual.
Toronto, ON: Author. Retrieved July 11, 2007. <http://www.osach.ca/
products/resrcdoc/rjhse337toc.pdf>.
Ontario Safety Association for Community and Healthcare. 2008.
Data Source: Enterprise Information Warehouse. Toronto, ON: Author.
Retrieved August 1, 2008. <http://www.osach.ca/>.
Ostry, A. and A. Yassi. 2004. “The Design and Evaluation of a Joint
Health and Safety Committee Education Programme in the Healthcare
Sector in Western Canada.” Just Labour 4(Summer): 23–32.
Shannon, H., V. Walters, W. Lewchuk, J. Richardson, D. Verma, T.
Haines and L.A. Moran. 1992. Health and Safety Approaches in the
Workplace. A Report Prepared by the Interdisciplinary Health and Safety
Research Group of McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario. Toronto,
ON: Industrial Accident Prevention Association.
SPR and Associates Inc. 1986. “An Evaluation of Joint Health and
Safety Committees in Ontario: As Based on Mail Surveys of Worker
and Management Members to Joint Health and Safety Committees in
 Kathryn Nichol et al. Form and Function of Joint Health and Safety Committees in Ontario Acute Care Hospitals
Over 3000 Industrial, Mining,, Educational and Health Workplaces.”
In Government of Ontario, Advisory Council on Occupational Health
and Occupational Safety, Eighth Annual Report, April 1, 1985 to March
31, 1986 (Vol. 2). Toronto, ON: Queen’s Printer.
SPR and Associates, Inc. 1994. Highlights of the 1994 Ontario Survey of
Occupational Health and Safety and Joint Health and Safety Committees.
Toronto, ON: SPR and Associates and Workplace Health and Safety
Agency.
Tuohy, C. and M. Simard. 1993. The Impact of Joint Health and
Safety Committees in Ontario and Quebec. Gatineau, QC: Canadian
Association of Administrators of Labour Legislation.
Yassi, A., A.S. Ostry, J. Spiegel, G. Walsh and H.M. de Boer. 2002.
“A Collaborative Evidence-Based Approach to Making Healthcare a
Healthier Place to Work.” Hospital Quarterly 5(3): 70–78.
About the Authors
Kathryn Nichol, PhD(c), MHSc, BScN, CRSP, is a consultant
and program specialist with the Ontario Safety Association for
Community and Healthcare (OSACH); a lecturer within the Dalla
Lana School of Public Health and Department of Medicine,
University of Toronto; and with the Centre for Research Expertise
in Occupational Disease, University of Toronto and St. Michael’s
Hospital, Toronto, Ontario. She is currently a fourth-year PhD
student at the University of Toronto studying the use of facial
protection to prevent the occupational transmission of infectious
respiratory illness. You can contact her at 416-698-5644, by fax at
416-698-5622 or by e-mail at knichol@osach.ca.
Irena Kudla, MHSc, HBSc, CIH, is an occupational disease
prevention specialist at St. Michael’s Hospital, Department of
Occupational and Environmental Health; an industrial hygienist
at St. Michael’s Hospital with a focus on occupational exposure
assessment methodology including development of standardized
data collection instruments for use in epidemiological and
intervention studies; a lecturer within the Dalla Lana School of
Public Health and Department of Medicine, University of Toronto;
and with the Centre for Research Expertise in Occupational
Disease, University of Toronto and St. Michael’s Hospital. She can
be reached at 416-864-6060, ext. 3236, by fax at 416-864-5421
or by e-mail at kudlai@smh.toronto.on.ca.
New Names in New Places
… a record of transitions in healthcare.
See longwoods.com/transitions
View publication stats
Michael Manno, MSc, BSc, is a biostatistician at St. Michael’s
Hospital, with a specific interest in the areas of occupational
health and multivariate survival analysis; a lecturer with the Dalla
Lana School of Public Health and Department of Medicine,
University of Toronto; and with the Centre for Research Expertise
in Occupational Disease, University of Toronto and St. Michael’s
Hospital. He can be contacted at 416-864-6060, ext. 3333, by fax
at 416-864-5421 or by e-mail at mannom@smh.toronto.on.ca.
Lisa McCaskell is the senior health and safety officer with the
Ontario Public Service Employees Union (OPSEU), North York,
Ontario, where she works with union members, joint health
and safety committees and provincial OPSEU health and
safety committees to address health and safety concerns; and
represents OPSEU on the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board
Research Advisory Council, the provincial Health Care Sector
Section 21 Health and Safety Committee and the Centre for
Research Expertise in Occupational Disease. You can reach her at
416-443-8888, ext. 8772, by fax at 416-443-0553 or by e-mail at
lmccaskell@opseu.org.
Joseline Sikorski, MScN, CHE, is the president and chief
executive officer at OSACH, a position she has held since 2003;
a certified healthcare executive who has held senior executive
positions with the Lakeridge Health Corporation, St. Joseph’s
Healthcare Hamilton, Winchester District Memorial Hospital,
KPMG Consulting, Centenary Health Centre and the University
of Ottawa Heart Institute; and a past surveyor with the Canadian
Council on Health Services Accreditation. She can be contacted
at 416-250-7444, ext. 10, by fax at 416-250-7484 or by e-mail at
jsikorski@osach.ca.
D. Linn Holness, MD, MHSc, FRCPC(Occ Med), FFOM(Hon),
is a professor at the Dalla Lana School of Public Health and
Department of Medicine, University of Toronto; chief of the
Department of Occupational and Environmental Health, St.
Michael’s Hospital; director of the Centre for Research Expertise
in Occupational Disease; and director of the Gage Occupational
and Environmental Health Unit, University of Toronto and St
Michael’s Hospital. You can contact her at 416-864-5074, by fax
at 416-864-5421 or by e-mail at holnessl@smh.toronto.on.ca.
Healthcare Quarterly Vol.12 No.2 2009 93