Worker electrocuted in Saint-Pamphile: CNESST identifies flaws

Flaws in working methods exposed a 32-year-old electrician to a fatal electric shock last summer in Saint-Pamphile, in Chaudière-Appalaches, concludes the CNESST.

• Also read: A worker electrocuted in Saint-Pamphile

On June 3, 2024, the companion of the company Pelletier Électrique inc., based in Saint-Pamphile, was carrying out preparatory work at the municipality’s wastewater pumping station, as part of the upgrade of the electrical installations.

According to the CNESST report, unveiled Tuesday, the electrician and the apprentice who was with him failed to “padlock” the main switch inside the station in order to “perform their work in mode off”.

The work began immediately at the rear of the building, where the victim received a 600 V electric shock while handling two wires which were still live.

The shock lasted a few seconds before his colleague was able to free him from his position using a stepladder.

Missing procedure

The victim was identified at the time as a 32-year-old man. Neither the CNESST nor the Coroner’s Office wanted to confirm his identity on Tuesday.

Padlocking is a method of “locking energy” allowing, among other things, to ensure that there is no electric current which threatens the safety of workers, inspector Yannick Boutin explained at a press conference.

The latter avoided “speculating” on the possibility of an oversight on the part of the workers. The investigation report, however, underlines that “no lockout procedure was present on the site on the day of the accident”.

“There was a meeting that was informal, verbal with the worker to show him the work [à réaliser]“, explained Mr. Boutin, noting that “small businesses are often like that”.

However, “when we do not have a written procedure, we are in derogation from an article of the regulation [au Code de sécurité pour les travaux de construction]“, he clarified.

Role of the employer

In its report, the CNESST identifies three causes of the tragedy: the electrical discharge itself, the lockout which was not carried out, but also the role of the employer who “does not ensure that the electrical work is carried out using an energy control method.

In addition, we learned that the electronic multimeter available to the worker, which allows you to check whether the equipment is under voltage, was inoperative because it did not have a battery.

“Due diligence implies for the employer that it is not enough for the latter to provide the appropriate equipment and give instructions to employees with the assumption that the instructions will be followed,” recalls the document.

Contacted by The Journal, an owner of Pelletier Électrique inc. did not want to comment.

For its part, the CNESST is still studying the possibility of issuing a statement of offense in connection with this event.