Welcome to the January 2012 OH&S Newsletter. 

We hope you enjoy our topics for January where we examine the need to focus on the risk management basics.

What was not reasonably practical in the minimisation of these risks –is safety culture the answer?

Three SA cases at the end of 2011 highlight the issues in “poor risk management (RM)” that perhaps shouldn’t be explained away as “poor safety culture” as the regulator attempted to do. In the first 2 cases, workers were injured when operating or cleaning machines when their hands were able to be pulled into the rotating parts of the machinery. In the first case there was found to be no risk assessment (RA) or safe work procedure (SWP) for the hide pulling task the worker was doing; no guards were fitted; training was undocumented & inadequate. In the second case, missing screws on a machine enabled a worker to move a guard & access moving parts. Although there was a SWP requiring the machine to be turned off & locked out for cleaning, there was no supervision to ensure this process was followed.

A third company was fined over the death of a maintenance worker, who fell 3 m to the ground through a hole in an elevated work platform (EWP) (incidentally this same company has just been nominated for a Safe Work Australia Award so we are hoping they have learnt from this incident.). The regulatory investigation found that no JSA was done to identify & manage the risk posed by the hole, & that the worker was not wearing fall protection. The hole was covered with plywood after the incident. This company was found to have extensive health & safety (HS) management systems (MS) in place at a national corporate level; but these were not practiced at site where there was too much reliance placed upon a verbal communication of the task risks.

In all these cases there were easy & inexpensive risk control options available but in this world of moving onto the next exciting HS product we seem to have got hung up on safety culture without first passing the risk management module. The regulator claimed these cases highlight poor safety cultures within these organisations whereas this author would argue it is as simple as poor plant operation & maintenance risk management at all levels combined with poor HSMS’s that did not identify the inadequacies in the training, supervision, work practices & post emergency incident management (corrective action implementation). To blame these cases on culture as opposed to poor RM would seem odd. It would appear that some have taken Reason & Hudson’s organisational culture theories too literally & have forgotten the original concept that assumes we have safe plant and equipment which we were supposed to have mastered between the 1950’s & the 1980’s! How could these 3 workers be put in a position where they could have been injured &/or all killed & it not be related to the inability of the organisation to effectively manage the risk associated with poorly designed/maintained plant! Perhaps you should think about that when you are signing a contract for an expensive safety culture program this year! 

Another case continued on this theme where in 2010 a stevedore was crushed between 2 containers during loading operations on a container ship while berthed at the Patrick Terminals' (PT) Port Botany terminal. The stevedore, who was the lashing team leader, died instantly after placing himself in a position of danger when a twistlock foundation (TF) unexpectedly failed during the repositioning of the container, he was unable to get clear of the swinging container. The failure of the TF was brought about by an attempt to reposition the container & was consistent with its exposure to gross overstress conditions as a result of the leverage forces applied to it by the container & the unsecured hatch cover.

While the dangers of working between a moving container & a fixed object were taught to PT new employees during their induction training, it was not specifically covered or reinforced in the company’s SWP, the RM processes or, in some instances, followed in practice by stevedores on board the ships. There was also found to be an absence of policies or procedures concerning safety zones near container operations; deficiencies in PTs' HSMS; discontinuity between training of new employees & the contents of the SWP; poor un/lashing risk controls; no review & compliance auditing of SWP’s & reporting risk-related events; & that the recognized SWP of not working under or near a container being loaded was not well reflected in national & international guidance. It seems we can’t keep blaming poor culture when the site, company & industry (nationally & internationally) do not manage this foreseeable risk or its communication well. Let’s get back to RM basics!

Are pre-employment screening tests always worth the cost in predicting injuries?

Are you using pre-employment tests to fit people to your jobs rather that fitting jobs to people? Musculoskeletal Disorders (MSDs) are among the leading causes of  morbidity (illness/disease/disorder) among working aged adults & armed service members according to the authors of a recent study. In their introduction, the researchers review US statistics from Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom show that with some 34,000 medical evacuations the most common cause was an MSD (24% of all medical evacuations) while combat injuries were the cause of only 14% of evacuations. MSDs are also quite common in basic training. An example being that in a few year period, the Marine Corps Recruit Depot in San Diego CA had 22,000 recruits for 12 weeks of basic training & during this time they recorded 53,000 lost training days at a cost of $16.5 million/year.

Due to the frequency of these injuries the researchers set out to accurately identify those at highest risk. Previous studies have found several factors associated with higher risk of MSD in armed services recruits including: low levels of physical activity prior to basic training, previous injury history, high running distances, low fitness levels, cigarette smoking, older age & biomechanical factors. Even with these known MSD risk factors, there is still a great need for a more sensitive tool that more accurately predicts who is at risk for an MSD.

Many in the sports medicine community have become interested in functional movement and core stability programs & the belief that these programs may improve  fitness, performance & assist in injury prevention.  Functional Movement Screening (FMS) moves away from static biomechanical testing for deficiencies (e.g. sit and reach testing), & instead uses comprehensive functional movements & core stability to establish an individual’s functional platform. This study was the first large prospective study of FMS aiming to validate the concept that screening or correcting functional deficits will either predict or minimize injury or improve performance.

The FMS was not shown to be a strong predictor of injury in this training study. Fitness scores proved to be as predictive, or better so, of injuries as was the FMS score. Do you know the predictive validity of any tests you employ in pre-employment medicals? Some ergonomists have argued that we should be fitting tasks to the person rather than the other way around-a definite challenge with a military workforce where the work environment is more difficult to control although the fact that there were more medical evacuations related to MSD’s than combat is definitely food for thought.
O’CONNOR, F et al; Functional Movement Screening: Predicting Injuries in Officer Candidates, Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 43(12): 2224–2230, 2011

Still not looking at alternatives to shaving off beards!

This case illustrates how employment and OHS law often conflict- so much for trying to adopt the hierarchy of controls. Fair Work Australia (FWA) has dismissed an engineer's beard-related unfair dismissal claim after it found it was not unusual or unlawful to require employees to modify their appearance for OHS reasons. FWA Senior Deputy President rejected the engineer's claim that he was forced to resign after his employer, Incitec Pivot Ltd,  implemented a new PPE policy (requiring employees to wear respirators in certain areas) at a Queensland plant, and directed him  to remove or modify his beard. The Australian  Standard for the respirator (AS/NZS 1715:2009)
required workers to be clean shaven so the face piece could properly seal. However this standard also does offer alternative positive pressure respirators that can be used with beards. Previously such alternatives have been prohibitively expensive but with more recent  advances the prices have been reduced.

The engineer, who was also a team leader, argued that he had no option but to resign in August this year after he was told he had effectively eliminated any employment opportunities with Incitec Pivot in refusing to shave his beard. He argued that an ammonia leak (which prompted the introduction of the policy) was due to the fact the employer had not examined the use of control methods other than PPE. Senior Deputy President Richards found that it was not unusual for an employment contract or policy to require employees "to modify their cosmetic appearances". “Hair length & hair management”, was quoted as an example, “in industries where work is performed in close proximity to moving equipment... or where food contamination is of concern," " The policy is not an unlawful one as an employer has a duty of care to provide a safe place of work." It is a challenge when at the same time the WHS Act in Queensland under Section 27A required the adoption of the hierarchy of controls.

FWA also found the policy was not unreasonable, because it "requires modification of the facial hair of an employee in exchange for measures to prevent injury or disease occurring to the employee as a result of misadventure, or otherwise". He found the engineer resigned "at his own volition". What would you have done at your workplace? Have you explored higher order controls in a manner that was reasonably practical as opposed to what you have always done? Are you keeping up with technology when similar priced alternatives are available? Do you fit you jobs to your personnel or do you have an expectation that the personnel should fit the job?

Are you at risk of a stroke because of your work?

Danish researchers have found that work pressure is more likely to be a predictor of stroke for men in white collar occupations. The 30 year study of nearly 5000 middle aged men found that white collar workers (WCW) were more likely to feel exposed to work pressure, & that those who felt under regular pressure had a 38% increased risk of stroke. Researchers found that in the largely blue collar workers (BCW) there was no association between perceived work pressure and increased risk of stroke.

The study, led by Bispebjerg University Hospital, began in the early 1970s, & questioned workers age  between 40 & 59 about psychological pressure at work & home, lifestyle factors & medication use, & measured their blood pressure & body mass index. Respondents were divided into 5 social classes based on education level & job position in terms of numbers of subordinates. What the researchers termed the "higher social classes" were "predominantly WCW" and the remainder were "basically BCW". 

The 30-year follow up found that regular psychological stress at work was directly linked to 9% of all stroke events for workers defined as being in the three "higher social classes". It found the link between work conditions and stroke was "much more pronounced" among the younger half of the respondents who were in the study for longer. The study also found the 1069 men who reported feeling pressured at work also felt regular psychological pressure in their leisure time & were nearly 3 times more likely to use sedatives. Out of the whole group, 779 (15.8%) suffered a stroke event during the 30- year study. Of these 21.7% (167) died as a result of the stroke. By the end of the study 2663 (53.9%) respondents had died in total.

The study found that men in the "lower social classes" who reported exposure to work pressure had a much higher "clustering" of major risk factors for disease & death from numerous diseases other than stroke. These men were more likely to smoke & drink than those in the higher classes, & tended to have a much higher body mass index. The researchers concluded that regular psychological work pressure is a highly  prevalent & independent risk factor for stroke among men in higher social classes. In contrast, no association to stroke risk was found among low social class men. How many of your WCW are susceptible to stroke- how does your organisation try to reduce theses work pressures and do these strategies work or are you simply throwing good money after bad rather than getting to the root of the  problem?
Poul Suadicani, et al: Perceived Psychological Pressure at Work, Social Class, & Risk of Stroke: A 30-Year Follow-Up in Copenhagen Male Study., Denmark, J Occ Env Med, 53(12), 2011.

Blue collar workers at greater risk of injury!

A Safe Work Australia (SWA) report has found that labourers are more likely than other workers to apply for (52%) & receive (47%) workers'  compensation, & those labourers took the longest time to return to work after injury. One in three injured labourers took more than 5 days off work which is not that surprising considering the physical nature of their work.

Australian workers' injuries were most likely to be caused by lifting, pushing or pulling an object (29%), followed by hitting, being hit or cut (24%) and falls on the same level (13%), the report found. Workers who incurred a fall on the same level were more inclined to apply for compensation, but workers who were injured in a fall from height were the most likely to receive it. The largest numbers of workers injured were employed as technicians & trades workers (20%), followed by labourers (16%), professionals (15%) and community and personal services workers (14%). These 4 occupational groups also had the highest number of employees who applied for & received workers' compensation.

According to the report, 567,500 workers were injured in Australia in 2009-10. This was a slight decrease in the number of workers injured in 2005- 06. However, the number of workers who received compensation increased from 33 to 38%. SWA described this "notable" increase in successful claims as "encouraging", but noted that the number of workers who claimed compensation but did not receive it increased from 3.8 % in 2005-06 to 5.4%.  The report also found that men accounted for just over half (54%) of all work-related injuries, but were much more likely to apply for compensation. Of the men injured at work, 47% applied for compensation, compared to 39% of the women who suffered harm.

Nearly one in 10 (9%) of the injured employees surveyed did not know they were covered by workers' compensation. Casual employees with no leave entitlements were much less likely to apply for workers compensation. Of this group only 32% requested compensation though 82% received it. Only 26% of female casual workers requested compensation after injury. Accepted mental stress claims by all workers also more than doubled in the five years to 2010. Workers who requested compensation for exposure to mental stress had the lowest claim success rate, with about a third of applications being rejected. Despite this, the proportion of mental stress claims accepted in 2009- 10 was more than double than in 2005-06. How are these figures reflected in your workplace stats & compensation attitudes?

Workplace mental health

Whilst Australian mental stress claims double, mental illness is recognised in a new OECD report as a growing problem in society & is increasingly affecting productivity & well-being in the workplace. 'Sick on the job? Myths &
realities about mental health at work' says that 1 in 5 workers suffer from a mental illness, such as depression or anxiety, & many are struggling to cope.

According to the OECD report, 3 in 4 workers with a mental disorder report reduced productivity at work, compared to 1 in 4 workers without a mental disorder. Work absences are also much more frequent for workers with mental illness, and about 30-50% of all new disability benefit claims in OECD countries are now attributed to mental ill-health. The report challenges some of the myths around mental health & concludes that policymakers need to look for new solutions.

Most people with a mental disorder are in work, with employment rates of between 55% to 70%, about 10 to 15% lower than for people without a disorder. The OECD warns that increasing job insecurity & pressure in today's  workplaces could drive a rise in mental health problems in the years ahead. It says the proportion of workers exposed to work-related stress or job strain, has increased in the past decade all across the OECD nations. In the current economic climate, more and more people are worried about their job security.

Was it job insecurity, the challenges of being a safety manager in a remote area or alcohol that prompted this outbreak?

Well the outbreak that resulted in his dismissal was not reversed by Fair Work Australia (FWA) despite the short comings in the employer’s procedures. The safety manager was sacked for urinating in front of colleagues & trying to strangle an employee during a post-work drinking session.

The safety manager told FWA that Orbit Drilling Services Pty Ltd dismissed him in May last year for staying at a client's accommodation camp at a mineral exploration site in WA instead of Orbit's own camp. The employer however claimed it sacked him because of the drunken incident. Commissioner Williams said Orbit had "never made it plain" to the manager that the drunken incident was the reason for terminating his employment, & had not allowed him to respond to the employees' statements.

Commissioner Williams accepted written statements from 2 employees who said a group of workers had been "sitting around" drinking after work before the manager became drunk resulting in him becoming physically & verbally aggressive. According to the statements, he urinated in the centre of the group of workers, then punched & tried to strangle a worker who complained. I don’t think anyone would suggest that this was acceptable behaviour in any workplace but how does someone come to behave like that in their workplace?  Perhaps those who have worked in remote areas where you are required to stay in camps where there is no control over alcohol use could easily explain this situation. Is that not a risk of remote area work that the employer is required to manage? FWA ruled that the company's medium size & paucity of HR expertise explained the deficiencies in their dismissal process, & found the incident provided a valid reason for dismissal. Is it not the case that all workers should not be exposed to such behaviour & regardless of the employers size there should be processes in place to manage this very foreseeable risk? It does beg the question of the employer’s obligation? What would happen in your workplace in relation to such remote area work combined with accommodation camps and alcohol? How do you/would you manage that risk combination?
Desmond Robert Howard Anthony v Orbit Drilling Pty Ltd [2012] FWA 309 (16 January 2012)

Greener buildings are at a cost if HS risks aren’t effectively managed

Researchers have found that construction workers involved in environmentally friendly, green building projects can face additional traditional & new hazards. Problems identified in the study identify a greater risk of falls & new, high risk tasks. Certain tasks mean they are also more at risks of lacerations, strains & sprains (up 36% from handling recycled materials), eye strain (up 19% from installing reflective membranes) & exposure to hazardous chemicals (up 14% from installing wastewater technologies). The University of Colorado study, examined construction projects built to achieve the US Green Building Council's Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design (LEED) certification.

The researchers suggested that it doesn’t have to be this way. With proper layout of the worksite, recyclables can be sorted safely & efficiently. With properly scheduled breaks for hydration, a reflective roof doesn't have to mean trips to the hospital. With proper fall protection, solar panels can reduce our dependence on fossil fuels without risking workers' health & safety. Contractors & designers interviewed for the study said measures to reduce injuries & better protect workers could include incorporating prefabrication, more effective site layout & use of alternative products. Using low-emission materials also could reduce occupational health risks for workers in enclosed environments. It seems with our new environmental technologies we are forgetting the basics of our risk management processes in construction. Let get back to improved integration between designers and constructors!
Dewlaney, KS et al: Safety risk quantification for high performance sustainable building construction, J Const Eng Managemt, 2011

Arrest warrant for UCLA professor after lab researcher’s death

A university chemistry professor could face a jail term on charges relating to the death of a laboratory research assistant. Sheri Sangji, 23, suffered severe burns on 29 December 2008 while working with tert-butyllithium
(tBuLi), a substance that will spontaneously ignite when exposed to air. The chemistry graduate, who had worked in the laboratory at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) for just 3 months, succumbed to her injuries in hospital almost 3 weeks later. Los Angeles district attorney issued a felony complaint arrest warrant on 27 December 2011 against UCLA chemistry professor Patrick Harran. 

The professor and the Regents of UCLA are accused of 'wilfully' violating worker safety standards. On 3 January, the warrant was withdrawn after the accused made a brief court appearance. An arraignment date is set for 2 February. Professor Harran could face up to 4.5 years in prison & UCLA could be liable for a $1.5 million penalty.  UCLA's press office issued a statement in response to the DA's action, describing the charges as 'truly baffling' & adding: 'UCLA intends to mount a vigorous defence against the outrageous charges announced... The facts provide absolutely no basis for the appalling allegation of criminal conduct, and UCLA is confident an impartial jury would agree.'

The victim's family takes a different view. In a letter to the Los Angeles DA sent before the felony warrant was issued, Sheri Sangji's family asked the prosecutor to 'make those who were legally responsible for Sheri's safety answer in court about their deliberate disregard of the law. We ask that you hold them fully accountable for the death and suffering of an innocent 23 year old girl.'  The letter adds: 'There is no doubt in our minds that criminal prosecution, against the university and the professor, will be the single most effective deterrent to unsafe laboratory conditions in the future at UCLA, and at other universities where right now individual professors, by the virtue of the money they bring to a university or by the research they accomplish, are allowed to do whatever they want, either because they demand it or because others kow-tow to them in these academic institutions.' We shall keep you posted on this one! Could this occur at your university or research labs?

Nanoparticle emissions from laser printers?

Safe Work Australia has outlined steps to control nanoparticle emissions from laser printers, after 2 reports were released on the issue. The SWAcommissioned reports, based on an examination of more than 100 printers in offices across Queensland, showed the majority of the nanoparticle exposure experienced by workers came from other sources, such as vehicle emissions that infiltrated buildings.  However, they found that while the risk of direct toxicity & health effects from exposure to laser printer emissions was low, workers sensitive to unusual or unexpected odours could suffer a reaction. 

SWA advised employers to:

• position printers near a ventilation inlet or outlet grill, provided this does not result in increasing exposure for occupants of work stations adjacent to the printer;
• reduce the number of laser printers positioned amongst work stations. If possible, place them in a printer room or in an area of the office that is a sufficient distance away from occupied workstations;
• ensure that air flow in areas where printers are located has a higher velocity than general office air conditioning air flow, to provide greater particle dilution; and
• have laser printer particle emissions assessed by a person competent in emission evaluation, such as an occupational hygienist.

Would your laser printers comply with these requirements?

Those utility contact fines keep coming- why are we not learning?

A company & its manager have been fined after 2 workers were engulfed in a fireball when they cut through a live 1,000 volt electrical cable at an industrial unit in Telford, England. The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) prosecuted Birmingham firm RVB Investments UK Ltd and manager Clifford Leigh following the incident. Telford Magistrates' Court heard the 2 RVB employees had been told to find an underground water leak at an empty industrial unit. Mr Leigh instructed them to dig at a spot outside the unit. Using an electrical drill, they drilled nearly 400 mm into the ground until they hit a live 1,000 volt cable. 

They were engulfed in a fireball & suffered burns to their hands, arms & faces. Both were airlifted to hospital with one was so seriously injured that for the first few days, doctors believed he might not survive. The heat was so intense that part of the electricalbreaker's metal tool was vaporised & a 500 amp fuse was blown in a nearby electrical substation.

HSE's investigation found that RVB had not assessed the risks involved, devised a safe system of work or obtained site plans of the area, checked whether there were any electrical cables underground or used safe digging methods. The 2 men had received no training about the dangers from underground services. The manager, Clifford Leigh failed to ensure that proper precautions had been taken before telling them to start work. Could this happen at your workplace- what would stop it?