In total there were 23 managers some from the Joint Health and safety Committee, 11 worker representatives and 3 nurses were interviewed. Questions that were asked of the sample of people were designed to get there view on what a legitimate claim for compensation would be. As well as what constitutes a work related accident and what constitutes as a hazard.
Another method used was to look at three aspects of occupational health and safety. These aspects are the interpretation of the Workers Compensation Board lost time frequency rates, whether or not accidents are really work related, and looking at the process where hazards are defined and examining distinctions between acceptable and unacceptable conditions of work.
At the end of the article the authors comment on the possibility of development of a symbiotic relationship between management and workers or worker representatives which may stop the dispute of prevailing definitions of risk and pathology. The authors make this comment because even after looking at there small sample, they conclude that there are slow processes of negotiation. As a result definitions of hazards change and what "is" or "is not" considered being a real accident also slowly change. They also conclude that when workers are in a weak position in the labour force definitions may become more limited, broaden or change character. What the authors are basically trying to say is that we have a poor understanding of what and how these changes occur, by finding the answers to questions that were raised in the article will help to reduce crimes against Occupational Health and Safety in regards to hazards in the workplace.
The authors in the articles makes some good statement and conclusions, however I would not put much faith with the evidence that they provided as proof. Because the sample they used is filled with bias, for example they did not interview people from non unionized workplaces, and there was a lack of access to worker representatives in one work place.
