Between 1945 and 2000, General Electric’s factory in Peterborough was the epicentre for many work-related illnesses among employees and retirees, a study of chemical exposures at the plant reveals.

This, however, is nothing new. The community has been saying this for quite some time, and the 173-page report confirms this. GE’s plant workers built household appliances all the way to diesel locomotive engines and fuel cells for nuclear reactors. The workers were exposed to more than 3,000 toxic chemicals in the process, some of which include 40 to be cancer-causing. Workers were exposed to these chemicals at levels hundreds of times higher than what is now considered safe, says the report.

General Electric allowed workers in the past to handle the toxic substances without protective gear, which they were rarely offered. As they were paid by the piece and not by the hour in the 1980s, there was an incentive to cut corners. Seeing as about 500 lbs. of asbestos was used daily and workers did not have respiratory protection or proper ventilation, it is no wonder these employees have had trouble with their health after being exposed. The managers also knew the harm that these chemicals can cause to people without the proper protection, as early as the 1920s and 1930s.

The lead was another huge component that circulated the plant. Workers used about 40,000 lbs. in a week to produce PVC pellets until the 1980s, and also experience daily exposure to:

• Solvents
• Welding Fumes
• Epoxy Resins
• PCBs
• Beryllium
• Uranium

Daily exposure to the above without proper protection is extremely dangerous. However, around 2000 is when safety measures were being mandated, and since then, GE’s plant is a smaller operation, and spotless.

The report will be used to support occupational disease claims that were previously denied by Ontario’s Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (the “WSIB”). Hundreds have filed compensation claims, and unfortunately, Ontario’s worker compensation system does not allow employees to sue their employer when they have been given the ability to claim benefits when they are injured or fall ill because of work.

The WSIB has been given 660 compensation claims from GE workers since 2004, with 280 accepted, more than half withdrawn, abandoned or rejected because of insufficient evidence that the conditions were work-related.

“Workers that suffered from working within the plant were forced, for many years, to provide proof of their working conditions, only to be told this is anecdotal,” said Sue James, whose father worked at the plant for 30 years and died of lung and spinal cancer, believed to have been caused by exposure to the chemicals used in GE’s plant.

A former employee believes he developed colorectal cancer because he worked more than 22 years under asbestos-wrapped pipes, which would occasionally shed while he worked. This employee, Roger Fowler, was one of the former employees who worked on the report.

With this investigation drawing some attention, the provincial labour ministry announced it will be setting up an occupational disease response team by the end of the year to focus on chemical exposure prevention and help sick workers file compensation claims.

11 retirees worked as advisers on this report. Together, this committee along with health researchers Bob and Dale DeMatteo, interviewed over 75 former workers to gather information on working conditions and production processes.

The data collected from these workers was coupled with data from labour ministry inspection reports, joint health and safety committee minutes, company memos, industrial hygiene literature and other documents, gathered by the union.

At Devry Smith Frank LLP we provide a full range of services to suit any need. If you are seeking information or representation for a similar situation, please contact the lawyers of our Health and Safety and Employment Law Teams today. If you require more information please call us today at 416-449-1400.

“This article is intended to inform and entertain. Its content does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon by readers as such. If you require legal assistance, please see a lawyer. Each case is unique and a lawyer with good training and sound judgment can provide you with advice tailored to your specific situation and needs.”