Welcome to the December OH&S Newsletter
Merry Xmas & a Safe 2011. This month we look at European workers & chronic disease; occupational asthma, admin controls & effective compliance; McDonalds blinding, pallet handling & heat stress death; offshore radiation, mine blasts & sleep deprivation; keen employees & tying back hair.
Quarter of European workers hurt by their jobs!
Work is adversely affecting the health of 25% of European workers, a new survey has found. The first results of the fifth European Working Conditions Survey, previewed last month by the Dublin-based European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions (Eurofound), are based on responses from 43,816 workers in 34 European countries. The study found 84% of workers in the 27 European Union member states report that they are satisfied or even very satisfied with their working conditions, an increase of 2% over 2000 and 2005. However, one quarter of European workers still feel that work is having an adverse effect on their health.
The proportion of workers required to make repetitive hand or arm movements continues to increase. In 2010, the share of workers exposed to this risk stood at 63.5%, an increase of 7.4% in ten years. Exposure to chemical products and substances is also on the rise. Currently, 15.3% of EU workers are exposed to chemicals, compared to 14.5% in 2005. Among skilled manual workers, almost one worker in three is exposed. How have the statistics in your region changed in the last 5 years? Is there improvement?
Are you at risk of chronic disease?
Well if you are a sedentary worker this is perhaps not the Xmas present you were after! Nearly all of Australia's sedentary workers are not doing enough to reduce the risk of chronic disease, and many don't even realise it. A Monash University study has found that only 5% of deskbound workers were non¬smokers who exercised enough and ate enough fruit & vegetables. The researchers examined the health & lifestyle of more than 700 Melbourne employees who had sedentary jobs & were enrolled in some form of work health promotion program.
They measured workers' weights & assessed fasting glucose, total cholesterol & triglyceride levels. They also surveyed workers to determine whether they smoked, & whether they ate more than 2 serves of fruit & four serves of vegetables a day and exercised more than 150 minutes per week, as recommended by 'Australian guidelines'. The average age of participants was 40 and most (80%) were tertiary educated, 8% reported having been diagnosed with Type 1 or Type 2 diabetes, & 5% had been diagnosed with cardiovascular disease (CVD). The researchers found that only 1 in 20 workers were meeting recommendations for all four 'behavioural risk factors' (relating to physical activity, fruit intake, vegetable intake and tobacco).
Most workers were overweight, more than a quarter had high cholesterol, a fifth had high blood pressure & one in five had high triglyceride levels. More than half (53%) of participants had an intermediate risk of developing Type 2 diabetes within 5 years, 7% were at high risk of diabetes, and 8% had an intermediate risk of developing CVD in the next 10 years. Of the participants deemed high risk, a third were unaware they had high blood pressure and nearly one in five did not know they had high cholesterol. A key component of workplace intervention programs should therefore be the detection of each worker's risk of chronic disease.
The present study supports the current theory that on an individual level, risk should be assessed by using a number of risk factors in conjunction because this avoids both missing high-risk individuals with multiple moderate-level risk factors and over-treating individuals with an isolated single high-risk factor.' How much are you at risk? Are you able to change your workplace and lifestyle practises?
Freak-Poli, R et al; Risk of Cardiovascular Disease and Diabetes in a Working Population With Sedentary Occupations., J Occ Env Med 51(11) 2010.
How much of a risk is occupational asthma at your workplace?
More than 3,000 people develop asthma because of their work conditions in the UK but the state and the individual share the costs, with employers picking up just 3% the bill, recent research has. The thousands of new cases of occupational asthma diagnosed every year in Britain are mostly in people working with insulation, paints, flour, foam, carpentry & adhesives. The NHS and the patient themselves bear the costs burden, the researchers said in the journal Thorax. They concluded about 49% of the lifetime costs of occupational asthma are borne by the individual, 48 % by the state and just 3% by the employer.
The team, which included experts from the University of Birmingham, reported that the cost to society of occupational asthma in the UK is high. Given that the number of newly-diagnosed cases is likely to be underestimated by at least one-third; these costs may be as large as £95-£135 million. With each year a stream of lifetime costs will be added as newly diagnosed cohort is identified. Approaches to reduce the burden of occupational asthma have a strong economic justification. However, the economic burden falls on the state and the individual, not on the employer. The incentive for employers to act is thus weak but there is scope for huge savings to be made if steps are taken to reduce the levels of exposure to agents which cause workplace asthma. The findings also suggest that the employer should bear more responsibility for establishing approaches to disease reduction by introduction of appropriate exposure control interventions and changes in work processes. How much incentive is there at your workplace to effectively manage occupational asthma?
Ayres, J et al and others. Costs of occupational asthma in the UK, Thorax, 25 Nov 2010
Do you rely in administrative controls when an engineering one would be more effective?
The owner of a fishing vessel has been fined 4 times more than its self-employed skipper after a South Australian (SA) court found it had greater authority and control over the systems and plant that caused a worker's death.
In November 2005 the skipper of the Jean Bryant Fisheries Pty Ltd (JBF) vessel was reeling in a net when a piece of rope looped around a worker's neck, drawing him into the spool. A crew member alerted the skipper, who brought the net to a halt, but the worker had already been strangled and crushed to death.
JBF was charged with breaching the State Occupational Health, Safety and Welfare Act 1986, and its skipper was also charged as a self-employed person. Both parties entered not guilty pleas, each claiming the other controlled the operation.
In July 2010 proceedings, Industrial Magistrate Hardy found JBF had known of the danger posed by the spool, & instituted a "no-go zone" as a precaution, but had relied too heavily on worker compliance. In finding JBF guilty, he said it should have fitted the spool with an adequate emergency-stop device. Industrial Magistrate Hardy found the skipper, who gave the crew instructions, was also guilty.
In the penalty proceedings at hand, Industrial Magistrate Hardy found JBF's recognition of the risk and the steps it had taken to address it were "to its credit", and reduced its culpability. However, "the point" was that it should have taken physical as well as administrative measures to mitigate the risk, he said. In fining JBF $70,000, he said it owned the boat, controlled most aspects of the system of work, configured the plant, and had the greatest authority and control over the plant in question. The circumstances leading up to the incident were not all of the skipper's "making".
The skipper had no say in the manner in which the JBF winch was set up and his fault lies simply in not maintaining a line of sight to the worker and continuing to turn the spool. The magistrate also noted the skipper had suffered post-traumatic stress as a result of the incident, which limited his ability to work. The skipper had, "in his own mind", taken responsibility for the death. In fining him $17,500, Industrial Magistrate Hardy said there was little or no need for specific deterrence, but that general deterrence was still necessary. Have you opted for administrative controls when engineering ones would have been more effective?
Baker v Jean Bryant Fisheries Pty Ltd and Another [2010] SAIRC 33 (29 Nov 2010)
Busy compliance program did not unfortunately prevent 2 deaths
The NSW Independent Transport Safety Regulator (ITSR) has conducted 260 worksite inspections & incident assessments in 12 months as part of a railway track worker safety campaign, according to its newly released 2009/10 annual report. Based on intensive scoping work, ITSR targeted the areas of highest safety risk issuing many statutory notices. Rail safety officers from ITSR were deployed on a concerted operation of compliance inspections on track maintenance worksites across NSW. Sadly, while this compliance operation was underway, there were two fatalities in separate work-on-tracks incidents. This reinforced ITSR's determination for worksite protection to continue to be closely monitored. To date, ITSR has focused on the railway firms responsible for managing worksite protection on respective networks controlled and managed by ARTC and RailCorp. Is your compliance activity leading to changes in practices?
McDonald’s fined for partial blinding.
Fast food giant McDonalds has paid out more than £20,000 (A$32 000) after an employee at a London drive-thru was partially blinded by an acid-based cleaner. The burger chain was taken to court by Wandsworth Council after the worker suffered burns to his face and eyes that has left him with only around 55% vision in his left eye. The injuries were caused when the man, who was working as a maintenance operative, used the acid-based drain cleaner to unblock a waste pipe. The employee had purchased the corrosive drain cleaner from a nearby DIY store.
The first attempt at using the sulphuric acid-based cleaner did not work and so the employee was given money by a manager to buy a second bottle. When this bottle was poured into the pipe, its contents blew back into the employee's face and both his eyes. He was given first aid at the scene before being taken to hospital by ambulance. Following treatment he recovered almost all the vision in his right eye but much less in his left eye. The council's environment spokesperson said: that a member of their's was given money by his managers to buy a very hazardous product. No risk assessment was carried out to ensure this product was safe to use, he was not properly supervised while using it, he was not given any training to reduce the risk of an accident, nor was he provided with protective clothing. This was a serious lapse in the company's internal procedures. Could this happen at your workplace? What do you have in place to prevent it?
Falling from a pallet resulted in a fine for the MD!
The NSW Industrial Relations Commission (NSWIRC) has handed down a light penalty against a managing director deemed guilty for breaching the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000 (OHS Act) after it ruled that he had limited experience running a business and had largely inherited his company’s safety problems.
Jun Pacific Corporation Pty Ltd (Jun) was prosecuted for failing to ensure the health and safety of its employees, after one of its workers fell some 3.3 m and suffered a serious injury. Mr Er-Er, a warehouse employee, was standing on a pallet at the time. The pallet had been raised by a pallet jack, which was being reversed by another Jun employee while the worker attempted to clean the pallet so that it could be used to store more stock. Jun’s managing director, Mr Umeda, was also prosecuted on the basis that he was at all times a director. Both Jun and Mr Umeda pleaded guilty. Neither had any prior convictions.
The only consideration for the NSWIRC was the extent of any penalties to impose on Jun and Mr Umeda. Mr Umeda gave evidence that, although he did not have direct involvement in activities on
the warehouse floor, he was aware that the staff sometimes used pallet jacks in the manner Mr Er- Er had when he fell. Mr Umeda claimed he had told staff not to employ this technique for cleaning pallets. However, there was no written evidence of a warning being given to staff.
Jun did not have any system for reaching pallets at the height Mr Er-Er was at when he fell, other than using a pallet jack or climbing on the steel frame of the storage racking. While there were some A- frame ladders used in the warehouse, these only extended to 2.5 m. Mr Er-Er’s supervisor was away from the warehouse at the time of the incident.
Balanced against this, after the incident, Jun had implemented a safe operating procedure and had purchased a number of appropriate stock picking ladders so that employees could safely access stock at a height greater than 2.5 m. The company had engaged an OHS consultant to develop effective consultation mechanisms within the workplace and had trained staff in these. It had also shown genuine contrition for its part in Mr Er¬Er’s accident and had given support both to Mr Er- Er and his family.
Mr Umeda also gave evidence that he had commenced working for Jun just a year before Mr Er-Er’s accident and had limited experience as a managing director. He also submitted that he had inherited a working system that was inadequate and where little attention had been paid to obligations under the OHS Act, and that Jun’s board of directors retained a large degree of control over the company’s operation.
The company’s contrition combined with Mr Jun’s circumstances meant that penalties of $110,000 and $5,000 should be imposed on Jun and Mr Umeda respectively
First Singaporean fine for heat stress death!
The sole proprietor of a company was fined S$20,000 for failing to implement adequate measures to protect his workers from heat stress. On 25 April 2009, the worker was involved in fabrication work in an open yard. He collapsed after working under the sun (average ambient temperature was about 32.9 C) for 5 hours within the yard. He died of heatstroke 4 days after the incident. Investigations revealed that the deceased worker was from NE China where the average annual temperature was between 6 and 11 C. It was his second day working in Singapore & he was likely not adjusted to the Singapore climate. The employer should have managed the risks of heat stress and heat stroke, and this may lead to serious health consequences especially with hose no acclimatised to hot humid environments.
Offshore works at risk of radiation exposure!
Offshore industry firm, Schlumberger has been fined £300,000 after workers on a North Sea installation were placed at risk of exposure to radiation. Schlumberger Oilfield UK admitted breaching health & safety laws on a rig during a drill programme in 2008. Radioactive material was left lying on the drill floor for about 4 hours, during which time 14 workers were placed at risk of exposure.
The company was fined at Aberdeen Sheriff Court. The incident happened in the North Sea, about 210 miles east of Dundee in April 2008. Schlumberger had been contracted to undertake work as part of a Maersk drilling programme for the Cawdor well.
Elaine Taylor, head of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service's health and safety division suggested this wholly avoidable incident could have had devastating consequences for the workers involved in the operation. Workers who were in close proximity to the source were placed in danger as a result of failings on a range of issues including risk assessment, the system of work, training and instruction.
The loss of control of any radioactive source is extremely serious, particularly of the size involved in this incident, and it was only by good fortune that the source was recovered in a relatively short period of time. Had someone held it, even just for a few minutes, they would have received a significant radiation dose which may have resulted in injuries to their hands and increased their risk of developing cancer in later life
Miner fined after failing to protect personnel from exposure to carbon monoxide after blasting
A Victorian employer that allowed workers to re-enter a mine following blasting work without testing the air quality has been fined $150,000 for safety breaches, after 10 workers suffered carbon monoxide poisoning.
Deputy Chief Magistrate Lauritsen found that following the December 2007 blast, MG Mining Services Pty Ltd (which had been contracted by Fosterville Gold Mine Pty Ltd to carry out all underground work at the mine, near Bendigo) authorised re-entry without ensuring the underground air quality had been tested or the ventilation circuit "re-established". Two miners were overcome by carbon monoxide fumes and collapsed.
Workers who came to their aid were also affected by the fumes. Magistrate Lauritsen also found the emergency response that followed was inadequate and exposed others to the toxic atmosphere. MG Mining had pleaded guilty. Fosterville Gold Mine Pty Ltd has also been charged over the incident. How well are toxic exposures and the emergency response to them managed at your workplace?
Sleep deprivation no excuse for stealing Ugg boots!
Fair Work Australia (FWA) has upheld Qantas’s decision to dismiss a flight attendant who stole a pair of pink ladies’ boots from the foyer of an upmarket hotel. The flight attendant removed the mid-length ladies pink fur-lined suede Ugg boots from the foyer of the first class hotel in Orange County, California where he had been staying while on “slip time” after a flight from Brisbane to Los Angeles. After the owner of the boots complained, the hotel reviewed CCTV footage & contacted Qantas when it saw that the flight attendant was the culprit. Qantas commenced its own investigation into the flight attendant’s alleged misconduct & advised him of the investigation. The flight attendant’s immediate reaction was to ask whether he was going to lose his job.
The flight attendant subsequently admitted his guilt & indicated his remorsefulness. In written submissions he told Qantas he had engaged in the conduct because of sleep deprivation. He also claimed he had looked for the owner of the boots but genuinely believed they had been abandoned. He said he had taken the boots as a gift for his daughter but that she had not wanted them. After finishing its investigation and meeting with the flight attendant, Qantas concluded the flight attendant had engaged in serious misconduct which tarnished its own reputation. It terminated his employment.
The flight attendant brought an unfair dismissal application, submitting that Qantas was overreacting to the incident and noting that he had admitted his guilt immediately when confronted with the allegations. He also claimed he had 20 years of good service and that he shouldn’t have been dismissed for one lapse in judgement when he was affected by lack of sleep. However, FWA rejected the flight attendant’s submissions, finding that the misconduct was serious.
Fair Work Australia noted that the employee had only expressed contrition when contacted by Qantas and realised his employment could be in jeopardy. Although there was little chance he would commit a similar offence again, there was also no evidence to suggest that sleep deprivation was responsible “for his absolute failure to establish that the boots were discarded or abandoned or for him to think he could simply take what was not his”.
Fair Work Australia noted that, while the flight attendant was the sole breadwinner for his family and had little prospect of obtaining a similar job after his dismissal, this wasn’t of itself enough to counter the fact that dismissal was an option that was reasonably open to Qantas or that it was proportionate to the misconduct the flight attendant had engaged in.
Problems in failing to train new employees
A NSW employer that failed to properly train & supervise a "keen" new employee has been fined $190,000, after the worker was crushed to death at an offsite location. On 28 September 2007, the 7 Star Glass Pty Ltd workers attended the premises of SF Manufacturing & Trading Sydney Pty Ltd (SFM) to prepare some sheets of glass for collection.
On his way, he picked up a friend to assist him. At SFM, the worker and his friend entered a shipping container & began unloading the 1.3 by 2.2 m sheets of glass from timber crates. The final four crates were held together with timber support planks to prevent movement during transit. The worker removed the timber frames & had begun opening one of the crates when about 20 sheets of glass weighing about 1.5 tonnes fell on him. He was trapped for more than an hour and sustained fatal injuries.
In the Industrial Court, Justice Kavanagh heard that 7 Star Glass had not assessed the risks posed by unloading glass from shipping containers, and had no safe work procedure for the task. The employer had not provided the worker, “an eager employee" who had only been with the business for two weeks, any formal training or induction, or provided him with adequate supervision or equipment.
The company's sole director contended it was his usual practice to hire a crane to assist in removing glass from shipping containers. However, he admitted to removing glass from the same container about a week before the incident without hiring a crane.
The director also noted the incident did not occur at his premises, and that he had not placed, delivered or overseen the container's delivery. He blamed the incident on the "chain of actions" of the worker and his friend. It was the worker's decision to remove the wooden supports and remove the glass by hand that exposed him to risk, the director said.
However, Justice Kavanagh found no proper equipment was available on the day of the incident, and said the worker, who knew the glass was to be collected the following day, could not be blamed for exposing himself to the risk. The employer failed to properly supervise the worker and provided no training on lifting and moving glass safely, she said. The risk of injury by sheets of glass falling when the glass was unloaded from the wooden crates was foreseeable in any circumstance.
Do you have safe working procedures for your eager employees to follow? How much learning at your workplace relies on new employees watching what others do? Is what they do the right way to go about a task?
Inspector Hayes v 7 Star Glass Pty Ltd [2010] NSWIR Comm 174 (7 December 2010)
Do your employees tie back their hair?
A Queensland worker's repeated failure to tie back his hair in accordance with his employer's safety policy justified his dismissal but the process this was done by was unfair. In June 2010, Davidson Farm Services Trust held a toolbox meeting in which workers were reminded to tie back long hair so it would not catch in overhead machinery. The following month, a machine operator was directed to tie up his pony tail, which had come loose. Later that day he received a written warning about frequently leaving his work station and failing to protect his hair. He was then called into a meeting and dismissed.
The worker lodged an unfair dismissal claim. Before Fair Work Australia Senior Deputy President Peter Richards, the employer contended the worker had been given a number of warnings about "policy violations" such as smoking in the packing area and failing to tie up his hair. Further, he was "always making excuses" to avoid unpleasant duties, his attendance was poor, and his productivity was low, it said.
The worker contended the dismissal took him by surprise, and said his employer offered him no opportunity to respond to its concerns. He also said he sometimes left his work station because he had been recovering from surgery for a double hernia, and needed to take pain killers and urinate frequently.
Prior safety incidents "heightened" employer's concern. Senior Deputy President Richards dismissed the employer's productivity concerns, saying the evidence was anecdotal and "lacked particularisation". He said the worker's failure to remain at his work station could have been a by-product of his surgery, but found his failure to adhere to his employer's hair policy warranted termination.
Senior Deputy President Richards said the employer was right to demand "strict compliance" with its safety policies, noting prior incidents involving loose- fitting clothes and unrestrained hair had "heightened" its awareness and concern. However, he also found the worker, who was never directly warned his employment was in jeopardy, was denied procedural fairness. In an "informal environment" where the worker's conduct had not been "sufficiently guided", it was open to the worker to assume his behaviour amounted to a "minor infraction" of policies, and to think his job was safe. He was also denied the opportunity to bring a support person to the meeting or explain his conduct. Had the worker been permitted to counter accusations regarding his productivity, he "might arguably have given his employer pause to reconsider its intentions", Senior Deputy President Richards said, awarding him six months' pay in lieu of reinstatement.
Mr John Abercrombie v Davidson Farm Services Trust [2010] FWA 8884
Written by Julie Amour