Construction sector joint health and safety committees: Can their effectiveness be assessed using the JHSC assessment eTool?

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Joint health and safety committees (JHSCs) are a legal requirement for most Ontario workplaces. However, few evidence-based tools exist to assess JHSC effectiveness. The JHSC Assessment eTool has been developed and tested in the healthcare and education sectors with positive results.

OBJECTIVE:

The objective of this study is to test the usability and feasibility of the JHSC Assessment eTool in the construction sector.

METHODS:

Testing was carried out in two phases using a non-experimental study design. In the first phase, construction sector health and safety experts reviewed the content of the eTool to ensure that it had relevance for the sector. In phase two, a convenience sample of JHSCs from construction sector workplaces were recruited to pilot the eTool and provide feedback.

RESULTS:

Feedback from six constructor sector health and safety experts and six JHSC committees indicated that the eTool had value and relevance for use in the sector. Additionally, our study identified several minor areas for refinement including the addition of construction-specific resources in the final report.

CONCLUSIONS:

The results of our study suggest minor modifications to the eTool for use by construction sector workplaces.

Keywords

Occupational health and safety joint health and safety committee internal responsibility system construction,effectiveness

1 Introduction

In Ontario, Joint Health and Safety Committees (JHSCs) are a legal requirement for most workplaces with more than 20 employees or where a regulated designated substance is involved [1, 2]. JHSCs are built on the principles set out in the Ontario Occupational Health and Safety Act which highlight the need for collaboration between workers and employers in order to identify, manage and resolve any potential safety issues in the workplace [1, 3]. In addition, JHSCs have a role and responsibility to inspect the workplace on a regular basis and investigate any accidents or work refusals, forming a critical component of the internal responsibility system (IRS) [1, 3]. JHSCs may play a critical role in establishing a culture of health and safety within a workplace and this role may be further amplified when there is significant commitment and support from senior leadership [4].

Prior work has shown that much confusion actually exists within organizations regarding who is responsible and accountable for occupational health and safety [5]. A recent survey of over 170 labor organizations found that over 60% reported outstanding workplace safety and health needs at their institutions [6]. Assuming these organizations have JHSCs and given that JHSCs have a critical role in workplace inspections and identification and management of potential safety issues, this suggests that the mere presence of a JHSC in the workplace does not mean that the committee is effective. However, published literature around the function and evaluation of JHSC effectiveness has been limited and has focused on particular sectors [7 –13]. To aid in the assessment of JHSC effectiveness, an electronic assessment tool (eTool) has been developed and tested in the healthcare and education sectors [14 –16]. The tool focuses on assessment of attributes for a gold standard JHSC including approachability, representation, commitment, communication with workforce, support and resources, formal written recommendations, education and training, mandate and objectives, JHSC activities, and visibility and leadership [14 –16]. The results from this prior body of work suggest that the eTool developed was feasible for use in both single and multi-workplace JHSCs and that the eTool was valued as a mechanism for fostering discussion on the improvement of JHSC function and effectiveness [14 –16]. However, the use of this eTool has not yet been tested in the construction sector.

The construction sector has unique legislative requirements in regard to JHSCs. For example, JHSCs are required where a construction project has more than 20 workers and is expected to last more than three months [17]. When a project is expected to last less than three months and no designated substances are used, a JHSC is not required [17]. When construction projects are expected to exceed 3 months, a JHSC is required along with the establishment of a Worker Trade Committee (WTC) [17]. It is the responsibility of the JHSC to establish a WTC which is comprised of members representing each of the trades on the project that are responsible for informing the JHSC of any potential health and safety concerns for workers in those trades [17]. Therefore, WTCs provide additional information to JHSCs regarding safety concerns that may be identified from workers of a specific trade. All members of the WTC are workers and are elected among themselves. In addition to the unique legislative requirements for JHSCs in the construction sector, previous testing of the eTool has been in public sector workplaces, whereas the construction sector is part of private industry. The construction sector may have seasonality shifts in business whereas JHSCs in public sector workforces like healthcare and education may operate consistently throughout the year.

Given these unique legislative requirements for JHSCs in the construction sector and the positive results from testing the JHSC Assessment eTool (both for and single and multi-workplace JHSCs) in the healthcare and education sector [14 –16], the objective of our study was to test the usability and feasibility of the JHSC Assessment eTool in the construction sector.

2 Methods

Testing of the JHSC Assessment eTool in the construction sector was carried out in two phases using a non-experimental study design in collaboration with the Infrastructure Health and Safety Association (IHSA). IHSA is one of four sector-focused safe workplace associations that are part of Ontario’s occupational health and safety system and provide training and consultation for workers and employers under provincial jurisdiction. IHSA serves the construction, transportation and electrical and utilities sectors and works closely with both industry partners and labour associations to ensure the safety of workers and eliminate safety hazards in the workplace.

2.1 The JHSC Assessment eTool

The JHSC Assessment eTool was developed by our research team [14 –16] and is publicly available [18]. The eTool was designed to be completed by JHSC members as a group in order to facilitate evaluation, discussion and reflection. The eTool has a landing page asking individuals to identify whether they are a single- or multi-workplace JHSC before instructions for completing the eTool become available. There are a total of 20 items and JHSCs are instructed to choose the response that best describes their committee. When the assessment is completed, a summary and action report is generated. The report contains feedback on each of the chosen responses, embedded best practice resources, web links to inform improvement efforts, and a section to allow JHSCs to identify and list their top three priorities for action. While the final report can be saved and/or printed, no data is collected or stored online by the system for privacy and confidentiality reasons.

2.2 Phase 1

Figure 1 outlines the research flowchart for our study. In the first phase, construction sector health and safety experts reviewed the content of the eTool to ensure that it had relevance for the sector. The experts were identified through a snowball sampling technique from the two IHSA collaborators and were IHSA consultants. They had broad knowledge and expertise about construction sector occupational health and safety. Specifically, consultants are required to have work experience in the construction sector, have knowledge of occupational health and safety issues in the sector including occupational programs, policies, risks and exposures, and maintain a Canadian Registered Safety Professional designation which requires knowledge of occupational health and safety regulatory requirements, standards and best practices. Each expert was sent the link to the eTool and was asked to go through it and provide their feedback by email to the study investigators. Feedback received was organized according to four categories. Category one included comments that reflected that the tool was a good fit/relevant for the constructor sector. Category two included comments that would be considered “show-stoppers” where major revision of the tool might be required in order to be used in the construction sector. Comments received under category three included any fine tuning/minor improvements suggested for the tool overall while category four comments included any minor improvements suggested to the eTool for the construction sector in particular. If results of Phase one indicated that the eTool was relevant and applicable to the sector, we would proceed to the second phase of the study.

Fig. 1

Flowchart outlining the steps of the research study.

2.3 Phase 2

In the second phase, a convenience sample of JHSCs from construction sector workplaces were recruited through IHSA regional/trade committee meetings, training programs, marketing materials, and email listserv and newsletters. Those interested in participating in the study were asked to contact the study Research Associate to obtain more information about study procedures. The Research Associate provided information on study objectives and procedures to all those interested so that they could bring back and discuss with their JHSC. If the JHSC was interested in participating in the study, the Research Associate sent a link to the online Informed Consent Form and asked that it be completed by all committee members participating in the study. The contact information for the study team was available on the Consent Form in the case that any JHSC member had questions about the study.

Once JHSC members completed the consent, a link to the eTool and a short feedback survey was sent. The committee was instructed to complete the assessment as a group at one of their regularly scheduled meetings. Each item was assessed on a 5-point Likert scale with one being suboptimal and five reflecting the gold standard. The committees were also asked to identify a “recorder” who would be responsible for completing the eTool online with the responses of the group and then would save the summary report and email it to the Research Associate along with the top three priorities for improvement that the JHSC had discussed as part of the process. Committees were also instructed to have participating members complete the short feedback survey individually. Items on the survey were scored on a 5-point Likert scale (1- strongly disagree, 2-disagree, 3-neither agree nor disagree, 4-agree, 5-strongly agree). Several reminders were sent by the Research Associate to JHSC committees that expressed an interest in participating. If JHSC committees did not respond after three reminders, it was assumed that they were no longer interested in participating. A $50 gift card was provided to all participating committees as remuneration for their time.

2.4 Data analysis

Descriptive statistics were used to describe the study sample including the number of participating experts in Phase one and JHSC committees in Phase two. Results of Phase one were categorized accordingly and summarized using a descriptive content analysis approach to capture the essence of each comment [19]. For Phase two, the average rating and standard deviation was calculated for each item on the tool across the sample. Results of the feedback survey were tallied and presented in counts or descriptive narrative form where appropriate.

3 Results

3.1 Phase 1

A total of six construction sector consultants participated in Phase one of the study and reviewed the eTool regarding relevance for the sector. Overall, all six consultants had positive comments regarding the fit and relevance of the tool for the construction sector. For example, one participant stated that the eTool provided some great resources and that they valued the link to the latest e-laws. Another participant noted that the tool helped to prioritize what needs to be given attention first and that the action plan incorporated into the final report was useful.

On the other hand, some suggestions for refinement of the tool overall included simplifying some of the questions that were too wordy, and the fact that while there were many resources listed on the eTool, it would be time consuming to click on the resources to look at the content so this information should ideally be placed at the end of the tool. Additionally, participants noted that it would be helpful to have some visual representation of the results after completing the eTool.

Comments regarding improvements to the eTool for the construction sector specifically included having questions that would be relevant to only a select number of construction projects and providing some construction specific resources and links. The only comment that was classified as a category two comment included feedback received around the tool educating the construction industry on the fact that they could stop forming project specific JHSCs by applying to the Ministry of Labour for a multi-workplace committee. Although this new structure would be very cost-effective for the constructor, it would undermine the purpose of the project-specific committees that presently have good representation from each trade and address site-specific hazards. Based on the positive feedback received from Phase one, it was decided that testing of the eTool in the construction sector could proceed.

3.2 Phase 2

A convenience sample of six JHSCs participated in Phase two of the study and each JHSC completed the eTool as a group. The final reports along with top priorities for improvement were provided to the study team. Table 1 shows the mean and standard deviation for each item across participating JHSCs. Briefly, items that scored the lowest and therefore were identified as having room for improvement included annual member training/education in addition to JHSC certification training (item 7b), terms of reference (item 8a), and participating in accident/injury investigations where a worker is killed or critically injured (item 9b). Items that scored the highest included JHSC member participation during meetings (item 2a), and time to prepare for and attend JHSC meetings and carry out committee activities (item 5a).

Table 1
JHSC Assessment eTool average scores across participating JHSCs (N = 6)

Section /Concept Item # Item Mean SD

Approachability 1a JHSC member identification 4.33 0.82

1b JHSC member approachability 3.67 0.52

Representation 2a JHSC member participation during meetings 4.67 0.52

2b JHSC member attendance at meetings 4.33 0.52

Commitment 3a JHSC member engagement and enthusiasm 4.50 0.84

Communication 4a JHSC communicates OHS information to employees 4.33 0.52

4b Posting and distribution of the meeting agenda and minutes 4.33 1.21

Support & resources 5a Time to prepare for and attend JHSC meetings and carry out committee activities 4.67 0.52

5b Availability of OHS experts to JHSC 3.33 0.82

Recommendations 6a Employer addresses committee recommendations 4.00 0.89

Education & training 7a JHSC member training: Part I (Basic Certification) and Part II (Workplace-Specific Hazard Certification) 4.17 0.75

7b Annual JHSC member training in addition to certification training 2.67 1.51

Mandate & objectives 8a Terms of reference 2.67 1.51

8b Meeting agendas 3.83 1.83

Activities 9a Workplace inspections 4.50 0.55

9b Participating in accident/injury investigations where a worker is killed or critically injured 2.67 2.08

9c Work refusals 4.33 1.15

9d Sharing reports with and consulting JHSC on OHS issues 3.83 1.47

Visibility & leadership 10a Activities to raise the profile of the JHSC or communicate with workers 2.83 1.17

10b Workers knowledge of the JHSC and perceptions of JHSC members as effective leaders for Occupational Health and Safety 3.33 0.82

Section /Concept	Item #	Item	Mean	SD
Approachability	1a	JHSC member identification	4.33	0.82
	1b	JHSC member approachability	3.67	0.52
Representation	2a	JHSC member participation during meetings	4.67	0.52
	2b	JHSC member attendance at meetings	4.33	0.52
Commitment	3a	JHSC member engagement and enthusiasm	4.50	0.84
Communication	4a	JHSC communicates OHS information to employees	4.33	0.52
	4b	Posting and distribution of the meeting agenda and minutes	4.33	1.21
Support & resources	5a	Time to prepare for and attend JHSC meetings and carry out committee activities	4.67	0.52
	5b	Availability of OHS experts to JHSC	3.33	0.82
Recommendations	6a	Employer addresses committee recommendations	4.00	0.89
Education & training	7a	JHSC member training: Part I (Basic Certification) and Part II (Workplace-Specific Hazard Certification)	4.17	0.75
	7b	Annual JHSC member training in addition to certification training	2.67	1.51
Mandate & objectives	8a	Terms of reference	2.67	1.51
	8b	Meeting agendas	3.83	1.83
Activities	9a	Workplace inspections	4.50	0.55
	9b	Participating in accident/injury investigations where a worker is killed or critically injured	2.67	2.08
	9c	Work refusals	4.33	1.15
	9d	Sharing reports with and consulting JHSC on OHS issues	3.83	1.47
Visibility & leadership	10a	Activities to raise the profile of the JHSC or communicate with workers	2.83	1.17
	10b	Workers knowledge of the JHSC and perceptions of JHSC members as effective leaders for Occupational Health and Safety	3.33	0.82

JHSC = Joint Health and Safety Committee; OHS = occupational health and safety; SD = standard deviation.

When committees were asked about identifying their top priorities for improving the effectiveness of their JHSC, the top three priorities overall included JHSC member training, implementing terms of reference for the committee, meeting agendas, and distribution of meeting minutes and following up with management on written recommendations.

The feedback survey was completed by nine individual participants from the six JHSCs. Responses ranged from 3.56 to 4.67 out of a possible 5.0 indicating that the tool was well received (Table 2). Experience using the eTool was positive with respondents noting it functioned smoothly (4.22), was easy to navigate (4.67), was easy to understand (4.44) and was an appropriate length (4.56). Relevance to the construction sector scored well at 4.00 and it was reported that JHSCs were able to come to consensus on ratings (4.44), that the tool generated discussion (4.11) and it was a valuable use of time (4.00). Items that scored on the lower side of the range included “the embedded resources and web links were a valuable feature of the report and action plan” (3.56) and “using the JHSC Assessment eTool could improve the effectiveness of our JHSC” (3.67).

Table 2

Usability survey scores^* (N = 9)

Item	Mean	SD
The JHSC Assessment eTool functioned smoothly	4.22	0.67
The JHSC Assessment eTool was easy to navigate	4.67	0.50
The content of the JHSC Assessment eTool was easy to understand	4.44	0.53
The JHSC Assessment eTool was an appropriate length	4.56	0.53
The items in the JHSC Assessment eTool were relevant to the construction sector	4.00	0.71
Our committee was able to come to consensus on a rating for most of the items	4.44	0.53
Working through the JHSC Assessment eTool generated discussion among members on JHSC effectiveness	4.11	1.05
It was a valuable use of a committee meeting for our JHSC to use this eTool	4.00	1.00
The JHSC Assessment eTool highlighted important features of JHSCs that we had not previously considered	3.78	0.97
The JHSC Assessment eTool addressed all of the relevant issues for a gold standard JHSC	4.00	0.71
Using this JHSC Assessment eTool could improve the effectiveness of our JHSC	3.67	0.71
The report will help us to benchmark our committee’s effectiveness over time	3.78	0.67
The action plan will help our committee to prioritize and plan improvement strategies for the future	3.89	0.60
The feedback on our rating was a valuable feature of the report and action plan	4.11	0.78
The embedded resources and web links were a valuable feature of the report and action plan	3.56	0.73
Our committee would be interested in using the JHSC Assessment eTool again in the future	3.89	0.78

JHSC = Joint Health and Safety Committee; SD = standard deviation. ^*Survey items scored on a 5-point Likert scale (1-strongly disagree, 2-disagree, 3-neither agree nor disagree, 4-agree, 5-strongly agree).

4 Discussion

The results of our study inform the relevance of the JHSC Assessment eTool for the construction sector specifically. Feedback from construction sector health and safety experts and JHSC members indicated that the tool had value and relevance for use in the sector. Additionally, our study identified several minor areas for refinement including the addition of construction-specific resources in the final report. Overall, the results of our study support the use of the eTool in this sector and can inform the further refinement and testing of it for construction sector workplaces.

Items that scored the lowest on the eTool were also identified as action items and priorities for improvement by participating JHSCs. This alignment suggests that the completion of the eTool and the summary report provided were easy to utilize and potentially helped JHSCs identify where they should focus their improvement efforts. This was also supported by the survey results where members indicated that the feedback received was a valuable feature of the report and action plan.

The construction sector results are similar with what has been observed in both the healthcare and education sectors [14, 16]. Scores for items measuring visibility and leadership (items 10a and 10b) were low overall by participating JHSCs in our study as well as participating JHSCs in the education and healthcare sector [14, 16]. This may suggest that JHSCs, regardless of sector, do not prioritize visibility and leadership activities. Interestingly, a study by Facey et al. [10] collected data from 54 participants across 19 unionized workplaces in the healthcare, hospitality, and communication sectors. Findings suggested that JHSC worker members’ experiences in the everyday processes of JHSCs varied, and that there was limited consensus about the work and value of JHSCs across the numerous workplaces [10]. Participants reported that several employers viewed JHSC work to be non-productive, made limited attempts to accommodate workers for meeting attendance and other JHSC-related duties, and generally discouraged time spent on JHSC activities [10]. These devaluing attitudes and actions by employers towards JHSCs and their related functions may help to explain the low scores in visibility and leadership activities observed in our study and prior work.

Although the mere presence of a JHSC committee does not necessarily translate into a safer workplace [7], our study results show that JHSC members (management and worker representatives) tend to be highly engaged at committee meetings. This may be a reflection of our sampling strategy in this case. However, some research has suggested that increased participation, particularly from management, can translate into lower injury rates [7]. It is also encouraging that education and training were identified as a priority for JHSCs participating in this study as these activities have been shown to be critical components of effective JHSCs [4 , 12]. However, the limited training and educational opportunities of JHSC members is not solely an issue in the construction sector [7, 8]. This may be related to evidence that some employers may devalue the work of JHSCs and as a result may not accommodate additional time needed for training and education [10]. JHSCs across sectors may need to advocate for member training and education to ensure that committees are able to operate to their highest function. Mahan et al. [4] provide a detailed account of how health and safety training for all company employees, not just those that may sit on JHSCs, can improve occupational health and safety. However, the authors emphasize and recognize the importance of management commitment and participation in this process which may have not been present to the same extent in our study [4]. Similarly, scores were also low for conducting workplace investigations when a worker is critically injured or killed. This may also be a reflection of the limited accommodations made by employers for additional JHSC activities such as investigations that would take time away from regular worker responsibilities.

Despite the overall acknowledgement of the value of the eTool and some of its features by survey participants, scores for the JHSC Assessment eTool as a means of improving effectiveness of the JHSC were low. This may be because it is not necessarily the eTool that improves effectiveness but rather the actions taken as a result. Additionally, this may reflect the possibility that survey participants already viewed their committees as being effective and therefore the eTool would not have been useful in this regard. The implementation of the eTool into the regular processes of a JHSC may be an important intervention to maximize committee functioning, a critical component of the IRS. For committees that are already high-functioning, this tool can serve as a continuous improvement activity to ensure compliance with JHSC policy or identify future priorities. The eTool is also likely to act as an intervention in and of itself if completed accordingly, as committees are required to fill out the tool together, discussing and coming to a consensus on the answers and the top three priorities of the committee. However, the completion of the eTool only may not be enough if support from management for JHSC activities is not present [10]. Future research is needed to explore if our findings are generalizable across a larger sample in the construction sector specifically and if these results are similar to what was found in the healthcare and education sector. In addition, dissemination of these findings to management and senior leadership is critical as these stakeholders are likely to play a role in the culture of occupational health and safety at an organization. There is also the possibility to extend this research to other sectors where JHSCs are mandated.

The results of this study must be considered in light of the study strengths and limitations. Our study included a small convenience sample of only six JHSCs. We had difficulties in recruiting JHSCs for participation in this study as the information was shared through a third party and the study investigators could not individually reach out to potential JHSCs. As such, the interpretation and generalizability of these findings are limited. Additionally, many JHSCs that initially showed an interest in participating in the study would later report that other tasks had come up and were being prioritized by the committee. Therefore, multiple competing demands for some committees may have limited the time available for participating in our study. The results of this study were however, similar to previous work testing the eTool in other sectors. Although our study included a small sample of participating JHSCs, we were able to gather in-depth feedback from construction sector experts to inform the relevance and tailoring of the eTool for this sector specifically. These data can be used in future research and can inform testing of this tool more broadly in the sector or the development of a sector-specific version of the tool.

5 Conclusion

The results of our study support the use of the JHSC Assessment eTool in the construction sector as a way to assess and discuss JHSC level of functioning. While JHSC functioning is an important prevention strategy, it has not been well-studied and our research fills an important gap in the literature regarding assessment of JHSC functioning in the construction sector specifically. Construction sector inspectors could require construction employers to use the tool if they are found to be in non-compliance with JHSC policy or legislation or if there are issues with their IRS. Managerial implications of this work include the adoption of the eTool into the regular processes and activities of JHSC committees in the construction sector to ensure continuous improvement and self-assessment or in response to a Ministry of Labour order or inspection. While our results are based on a small sample, future research should focus on broader testing throughout this sector to explore if our conclusions are supported. Additionally, our results provide information to inform a refined version of the tool for construction-sector workplaces specifically or for use as part of a larger study examining IRS in workplaces.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge and thank Dean Dunn and Enzo Garritano from the Infrastructure Health and Safety Association, and the health and safety consultants and JHSCs that participated in this study.

Funding

This study was funded by a grant from the Centre for Research Expertise in Occupational Disease.

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare no conflicts.

Ethical approval

Research ethics board approval for this study was received from the University of Toronto.

References

Government of Ontario [homepage on the Internet]. Occupational Health and Safety Act, R.S.O 1990, c. 0.1. Available from: https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90o01.

Workplace Safety & Prevention Services (WSPS). Joint health and safety committees / Health and safety represen-tative. Available from: https://www.wsps.ca/Information-Resources/Topics/JHSC-H-S-Rep.aspx.

Plummer

, Strahlendorf

, Holliday

. The internal responsibility system in Ontario mines. Ontario Ministry of Labour. Queen’s Printer for Ontario; 2000. Available from: https://www.labour.gov.on.ca/english/hs/pubs/mining/synminirs2.php.

Mahan

, Maclin

, Ruttenberg

, Mundy

, Frazee

, Schwartzkopf

, Morawetz

. Labor-management cooperation in Illinois: How a joint union-company team is improving facility safety. New Solut. 2018;28(2):227–39.

Dufour

, Draghci

, Ivascu

, Sarfraz

, Occupational health and safety division of responsibility: A conceptual model for the implementation of the OHSASstandard. Human Syst Manag. 2020;39:549–63.

Okun

, Watkins

, Schulte

. Trade associations and labor organizations as intermediaries for disseminating workplace safety and health information. Am J Ind Med. 2017;60(9):766–75.

Yassi

, Lockhart

, Sykes

, Buck

, Slime

, Spiegel

. Effectiveness of joint health and safety committees: A realist review. Am J Ind Med. 2013;56(4):424–38.

Nichol

, Kudla

, Manno

, McCaskell

, Sikorski

, Holness

. Form and function of joint health and safety committees in Ontario acute care hospitals. Healthc Q. 2009;12(2):86–93.

Holness

, Hayes

, Nichol

, Kudla

, Nincic

. Joint health and safety committees –what is their impact in the acute care hospital? Work 2016;53:763–73.

10.

Facey

, MacEachen

, Verma

, Morales

. The everyday functioning of joint health and safety committees in unionized workplaces: A labour perspective. Policy Pract Health Saf. 2017;15(2):160–73.

11.

Bornstein

, Hart

. Evaluating occupational safety and health management systems: A collaborative approach. Policy Pract Health Safety. 2010;8(1):61–76.

12.

Crollard

, Neitzel

, Dominguez

, Seixas

. Training for an effective health and safety committee in a small business setting. New Solut. 2013;23(3):485–503.

13.

Morse

, Bracker

, Warren

, Goyzueta

, Cook

. Characteristics of effective health and safety committees: Survey results. Am J Indust Med. 2013;56:163–79.

14.

Nichol

, Kudla

, Robson

, Hon

, Eriksson

, Holness

. The development and testing of a tool to assess joint health and safety committee functioning and effectiveness. Am J Ind Med. 2017;60:368–76.

15.

Nichol

, Hon

, Kudla

, Young

, Holness

, Development of a web-based Assessment tool for JHSC functioning and effectiveness. Ontario Occupational Health Nurses Association Xpress. 2018;Jan/Feb:10-11.

16.

Nichol

, Kudla

, Young

, Eriksson

, Budd

, Holness

. Testing the joint health and safety committee assessment tools in the education sector. Arch Environ Occup Health. 2020;75(4):209–15.

17.

Infrastructure Health & Safety Association (IHSA) [homepage on the Internet]. JHSC/Health & Safety Representative. Available from: https://www.ihsa.ca/Resources/HSRep.aspx.

18.

Centre for Research Expertise in Occupational Disease (CREOD) [homepage on the Internet]. Joint Health and Safety Committee Program of Research. Available from: https://creod.on.ca/joint-health-and-safety-committee-program-of-research/.

19.

Vaismoradi

, Turunen

, Bondas

. Content analysis and thematic analysis: Implications for conducting a qualitative descriptive study. Nurs Health Sci. 2013;15:398–405.