Welcome to the September 2011 OH&S Newsletter
This month we examine the need to focus on leadership & foreseeable risks; sitting, obesity & mustard gas; highest risk jobs, £1 fines; trainers fatality action & plankers; mixed messages & miners tripping on safety barriers ...Enjoy!
What prevents good safety leadership?
A recent article quoted Major General Gerard Fogarty of the Australian Defence Force (ADF) suggesting that the ADF’s "pervasive values set is key to managing safety risks & ensuring leaders know what to do when things go wrong, on the battlefield or in the office”. He suggests that “qualities such as professionalism, loyalty, integrity, courage, initiative & teamwork can be taught, & provide leaders with the moral courage to act...” & that “without these values there would be nothing to guide behaviour in times of chaos”.
There is no doubt that this is correct but it does assume one factor & that is that the leader knows what to do to effectively manage risk or respond to changes in risk. It takes me back to navy case years ago where an able seaman was permanently incapacitated by being required to handle a poorly designed 50 kg hatch cover. This guy (and no doubt countless others) had to not only be injured but the navy had to be prosecuted before it was identified that the design of the hatch covers & their handling on vessels was ludicrous placing users at risk. An army officer I later worked with raised the issue that the military first began to systematically examine risk associated with their systems of work & workplace design only when they introduced women & for the first time actively scrutinised how they could reduce unnecessary risk from their work.
The point here is that a leader at any level needs to know what to do to be proactive. If I was to describe the most consistent issue across companies for OHS management at any level, it would have to be understanding & knowing what is required to do to effectively manage risk. Ask any line manager (LM) at any level what the company’s top 3 OHS risks are & how these are controlled & the answer should be similar. However I have yet to come across a company where this, most basic information is consistently known, understood & practiced. Most LM’s don’t know what they are required to do specifically to manage risk & are not generally held accountable until something goes wrong.
Australia Post’s CEO suggests that their incident rate fell when they stopped giving managers safety bonuses but bonuses for what, managing risk or reactively managing injuries? Recent KPI’s developed to encourage the use of lead performance indicators have merged into a world of numbers that generally drive the wrong behaviour such as having endless ineffective meetings, endless training sessions that personnel do not practice the requirements of or audits & inspections that do not identify risks, do not derive appropriate corrective actions or consider if corrective actions have actually controlled the risk.
Most LM’s do not know they are doing a poor job or managing safety until an incident occurs as no one gives them any feedback prior to an incident occurring. Yes Major Fogarty is quite right to suggest it is “too late to sort out in a crisis what to do, when everyone is looking for guidance” & that “it may not be possible to lead others until you really understand who you are” but you have not got a hope of effectively managing risk if you do not understand it & the most effective options available for controlling it. That is where we need to focus our efforts at each level of management, train & support them in this & hold personnel accountable for specific proactive risk management practices to ensure they are effective!
Why not the safety commitment before the double fatality from a known risk
The Australian Rail Track Corporation (ARTC) has entered enforceable undertakings to control risks to the public after a double fatality where a member of the public & his passenger drove their vehicle onto a disused rail bridge on an ARTC track in South Australia & were killed in 2008. The driver, who was intoxicated, lost control of the vehicle, which fell 7 m to the dry river bed below. The track was a popular local short cut. There were no signs or gates forbidding access to the track or indicating the hazard posed by the bridge, which didn't have a railing. ARTC have since committed to public safety on the thousands of kilometres of rail corridors it operates across the country & have acknowledged its duty to manage any potential risks to non-employees who might access its workplace or infrastructure only after this double fatality. ARTC has committed to a number of remedial measures but the question does remain as to why this foreseeable fatality risk not apparent to ATRC prior to this incident. What is going wrong in our broad brushed HS risk assessments in the identification of such fatality risks especially where the public access risk for example is so obvious.
Should your workers be standing, sitting or moving?
Recent research published in the British Journal of Sports Medicine on TV viewing would indicate we should have a re-think about how we work. The study, led by the University of Queensland found that every single hour of television watched after the age of 25 reduced the viewer's life expectancy by 21.8 minutes. Those who watched about six hours of TV a day over their lifetime could expect to live 4.8 years less than someone who watched no TV. By comparison, lifelong smoking (among smokers who lived past 50) was associated with a loss of life of about 4.2 years. The authors said that too much sitting could contribute to cardiovascular disease (CVD), & needed to be recognised as a stand-alone risk. Prolonged sitting could have adverse health effects similar to those of physical inactivity, obesity & smoking.
The study reflected previous research which found sedentary behaviour was a risk factor for CVD even among those who exercised regularly. Published last year in the European Heart Journal, it found workers who took the most breaks had smaller waistlines, & noted that such breaks could be as short as one minute, and did not necessarily entail exercise. The researchers said it was important to consider a "whole of day approach" to physical activity that involves reducing & regularly breaking up sedentary time may be an important health message with well-established recommendations for regular participation in exercise. Organisations & workers need to look at changing the social and cultural norms to allow for more moving around in the workplace, should make it a policy for workers to take regular breaks from sitting & move around, in the same way that companies require workers take regular breaks from the computer to avoid eyestrain.
Heart Foundation recommendations for sitting less for adults involve:
- taking a break from the computer, standing & moving every 30 mins;
- taking breaks from sitting during long meetings;
- standing during phone calls;
- using a height-adjustable desk so that work can be done while sitting or standing;
- eating lunch away from the desk; and
- standing at the back of the room during presentations.
How much time is your workforce spending sitting and how many years is it taking off their life?
Do you think you are healthy? Could you be overweight?
Whilst we should be moving more at our workplaces perhaps our perception of our health could be what is also harming us! The Heart Foundation has found that nearly a third (30%) of overweight adults mistakenly believe their health is excellent or good. A survey of 12,500 people found that women were more likely "to be in denial" about the impact their weight has on their health.
Federal Health Minister Nicola Roxon and peak employer & employee bodies recently signed a joint statement of commitment to promote healthier workplaces. Roxon said up to $295 million will be invested in the initiative, which will aim to reduce obesity and increase both levels of physical activity and fruit & vegie intake among workers. Programs to help people stop smoking & reduce alcohol consumption will also be implemented. What is done at your workplace to try to promote healthier workplaces and does it work? Many workplaces run such programs but few are able to achieve sustainable change- maybe we should start with a bit of workplace movement & some healthy food choices especially in the vending machines.
Gas exposure causes death 27 yrs later
If you think you have challenges in managing the risks your know your employees may be exposed to have a thought for the employers of those covering wars. An inquest has heard that BBC sound recordist died 27 years after inhaling mustard gas while covering the war between Iran and Iraq. Coroner Hulett recorded a verdict of industrial disease as the condition was contracted whilst he was at work. Cyril Benford had been with colleagues in 1984 when an Iranian soldier opened a shell releasing the gas, an exposure that he later died from on 16 January 2011, aged 78. The inquest, heard that Mr Benford, who had worked as a sound recordist and cameraman for the BBC for 38 years, had gone to Iran in 1984. A statement made by Mr Benford before he died was read out at the inquest. He said he was on the border with three other BBC colleagues and toxicologist Aubin Heyndrickx, who was there to carry out an investigation for the UN to try & gain evidence and report on the use of chemical weapons.
While they were recording an Iranian guard opened a shell which released must ard gas & he was standing nearest to it. As well as being near the shell that released the gas, Mr Benford had also sat next to an Iranian soldier on a plane journey who was holding a jar of mustard gas, stoppered with cotton wool. Mr Benford had seen an RAF physician who had examined his lungs & noted the gas agent damage. Home Office pathologist Dr Fegan-Earl told the inquest Mr Benford had died from respiratory failure from scarring of the lungs. A BBC spokesperson confirmed legal proceedings were ongoing with Mr Benford's family. The challenges in reducing this risk are significant for broadcasting organisations- do you know what your workers could be potentially exposed to in the course of their duties and how well are they protected against those risks.
Highest risk jobs in the US!
Ten occupations in the US have a death risk at least 5 times the average for all jobs. Fishing tops the deadliest jobs list, with a fatality rate higher than 1 in 1,000. The death rate of 116/100,000 workers compares to an overall figure of 3.5 fatalities/ 100,000 workers. Logging comes second on the list, followed by aircraft pilots & flight engineers, farmers and mine machine operatives. These jobs however did not account for the greatest number of deaths. While construction killed most workers in the US in 2010, accounting for over 17% of all fatalities, second was transportation & warehousing at 14.4%. At fourth, below agriculture, forestry, fishing & hunting, came professional & business services, at 8.2%. This was followed by manufacturing at 7.1%, then retail trade & public administration, both at 6.6 %, leisure & hospitality at 5.4% & education & health services at 5.1%. Overall, around half of all workplace fatalities in the US in 2010 were in jobs not traditionally considered to be high risk. What are the highest fatality risks your personnel are exposed to and do you effectively manage that risk?
Australian fatalities increasing with falls the biggest problem!
There were 120 work-related notified fatalities in Australia in the 10 months to 30 April 2011, up from 104 in the same period in the previous financial year, according to Safe Work Australia's latest monthly report. Twenty of the deaths were caused by falling objects, and 14 by falls from height. There were 12 work-related fatalities notified to OHS regulators in April, with 1 in 3 caused by falling objects. Three of the deaths were caused by crushing, & 2 by being trapped in machinery. One person was electrocuted, & 2 were killed in incidents involving vehicles. Queensland & Victoria reported 3 fatalities each, & NSW & Western Australia reported 2 deaths each. By industry, construction workplaces & the agriculture, forestry & fishing sector reported the most fatalities, with four each. Safe Work Australia noted that the figures did not include many work-related deaths caused by vehicle incidents on public roads & aircraft fatalities. How well are you managing your fatality risks?
Fine of GB £1 (A$1.50) for a fall death at Foxtel!
Foxtel Ltd (FL) has been fined £1 following the death of a worker who fell while working on a roof. FL pleaded guilty to a criminal safety offence but, because the firm is no longer trading in the UK & has no assets, was fined just £1. This is a good argument for holding individual company directors to be held accountable for criminal health and safety offences.
The engineer involved suffered fatal head injuries after falling 13.5 m from a 4-storey house onto a side patio in Belsize Park, London in 2008. The Old Bailey heard safety equipment found in the engineer's van was unsuitable for the type of work he was undertaking. A Health & Safety Executive (HSE) investigation after the incident exposed a number of failings at FL, including a failure to ensure work at height was properly planned, organised and monitored. When the engineer was first employed by FL, references were not sourced from his previous employer, nor were any training certificates provided. He was not accompanied on any initial visits, so no assessment could be made of his competence. As a result, the HSE investigation concluded as soon as he stepped onto the roof, he was at high risk of slipping, tripping or falling.
Under such circumstances the installation should have been cancelled or postponed until the risk had been effectively controlled. Most of the work on satellite dishes the engineer undertook involved work at height on large properties with more than 2 storeys and without any indication of how well he was able to manage the risk of working at height.
Unnecessary work risks
Fair Work Australia upheld the Seafarm Pty Ltd supervisor's termination for serious misconduct, saying there were "no mitigating circumstances" that could support his claim for unfair dismissal and reinstatement. FWA said the experienced worker put himself & others at risk by failing to follow "basic steps" outlined in his employer's emergency procedure.
Last year, the worker was driving an excavator through Seafarm's Nth QLD aquaculture facility, when he was momentarily distracted & the excavator moved towards the edge of a pond, where the wheels sank into the grass. After about 20 mins he decided the excavator was stable enough to attempt to pull it out using the machine's boom, & asked another employee to remove the boom's retaining shackle. When he began to move the boom the excavator rolled into the pond. The worker was still in the cabin at the time, but escaped without assistance. He was stood down the next day pending an investigation, & dismissed 2 days later. The worker argued that the only reason the excavator fell into the pond was because the bank beneath the machine gave way.
The employer contended that it occurred because he repositioned the boom. The employer also argued that it had a policy requiring any hazards or incidents to be reported & dealt with by qualified personnel. When asked why he hadn't complied with this procedure, the worker said that everyone else was busy, he thought he could fix the problem quickly and he felt under pressure to move to the next job. Do you opt to fix problems quickly?
How good is the due diligence you do on your training providers?
A major safety training organisation has been fined $121,000 in the Northern Territory Magistrates Court, after 6 people were injured in a simulated marine fire emergency. Four trainees & two trainers sustained injuries, with one trainer receiving serious burns to the face and neck, when an explosion occurred during the exercise at an Industrial Foundation for Accident Prevention (IFAP) facility in Darwin in July 2009. The Western Australia-based company was charged with failing to ensure the safety of workers and others Magistrate Fom-Lim said it would have received a substantially higher fine if it weren't for its early guilty plea. This is an interesting case as it is well known in a number of high risk industries that many serious injuries and deaths occur during training. The challenge for any employer is to determine if the risk their personnel may be exposed to in a training situation will be adequately managed. How well does your workplace manage this?
What stops us acting on fatality risk warnings?
The NSW Industrial Court has heard that a machine operator was crushed to death while cleaning an industrial blender more than 12 months after an audit identified a lack of guarding on the plant as a "high priority" issue. In March 2008 the operator, who was working alone on night shift, entered the heavy duty blender, which had faulty limit switches on its access doors, to clean it. About 2 hours later, another employee noticed smoke coming out of the machine's electric motor and discovered the operator trapped by the two sets of mixing arms. He had been fatally crushed and sustained injuries caused by the starshaped cutting blades. An investigation found the limit switches had failed to deactivate the machine, and the main isolator switch on the control panel had not been turned off, locked out and tagged.
In the Industrial Court, Justice Backman heard that the blender was one of six at the premises and was in the process of being replaced. However, due to problems with the new machine a maintenance supervisor requested the blender be cleaned for testing and recommissioning. At the time of the accident, one of the limit switches was "inoperable", and the damage to its mounting box was visibly obvious. The other switch was "intermittent and unreliable". The blender was also programmed so that it immediately reactivated when the doors were shut, without any need for anyone to operate the control panel. These faults had been identified in a February 2007 company-commissioned risk assessment, which found that a lack of guarding on the blenders was an "issue which needs addressing as a high priority".
Although the company had a monthly safety inspection schedule, the blender was often missed, and had not been inspected for three months when the incident occurred. They had not provided systematic & consistent training to workers on cleaning & isolating the blender. Workers were trained on the job by coworkers who had themselves been trained by colleagues. The deceased worker, who had not been trained in the company's lockdown procedure, was tasked with teaching new employees how to clean the blender.
FIP Pty Ltd, trading as FIP Brakes International, and director Chris Katakouzinos were charged with failing to provide a safe cleaning/lockout procedure for the blender, failing to maintain the limit switches, failing to regularly inspect and maintain the blender, failing to supervise the worker and failing to train workers in safe cleaning/lockout procedures. Both pleaded guilty, and were fined $117,000 and $10,400 respectively.
Inspector Maddaford (WorkCover Authority of NSW) v F.I.P. Pty Limited t/as FIP Brakes International [ACN [2011] NSWIRComm 115
Is this natural selection of our gene pool?
Possibly for these 2 workers who took pictures of themselves "planking" on the job having taken no precautions against falls and posted their exploits on Facebook. They have been fined $1500 each in the Ringwood Magistrates Court as well as losing their jobs over the incident. They photographed each other planking on top of a 4 m high spray booth & across the raised tynes of a forklift. The regulator was alerted to the Facebook postings & they were charged with failing to take reasonable care of their own health and safety. Both men pleaded guilty, & were fined without conviction- challenging for them to get employment as “safe operators” in future.
The magistrate added that about 7000 workplace injuries caused by falls from height occurred in Victoria in the last 5 years at a cost of $200 million in treatment & rehabilitation. The possibility of a fall from these stunts potentially could have resulted in death, brain damage or paraplegia. Magistrate Cashmore said the workers had escaped conviction by the "skin of their teeth", and had only been saved by exemplary references, a lack of prior offending and good work histories. Would this be tolerated at your workplace?
Do your supervisors & manager provide mixed safety messages by not leading by example?
Do your supervisors provide the right example in their leadership? Do they know and understand how risks associated with jobs should be managed and do they make this clear to those they are instructing? A recent
Fair Work Australia decision has shown just how important it is for managers to lead by example on safety, and how costly it can be for employers if they don't.
Commissioner Ryan ordered Axcess Demolition & Excavations Pty Ltd to pay more than $23,000 in compensation to a worker it sacked for refusing to comply with a site supervisor's instructions, after he found the supervisor's unsafe conduct "undermined any request he made for assistance". In earlier proceedings, Commissioner Ryan heard that on 7 December 2010 the supervisor directed the worker, who was employed by Axcess as a truck driver, to help him remove asbestos-contaminated soil from beneath a house at a demolition site. The worker refused, saying he was neither employed to perform asbestos removal work, nor paid the higher rates that Axcess's asbestos removalists received. He was sent home from the site, dismissed by the managing director the following morning, and lodged an unfair dismissal claim.
Commissioner Ryan found that while the worker was licensed to remove asbestos containing materials, he was overseeing the loading of his truck and trailer at the time he declined to comply with the supervisor's instructions. He did not find the workers refusal to pick up asbestos had breached a requirement to comply with reasonable directions from his employer. He also found the worker's refusal was probably influenced by the actions of the supervisor, who had commenced removing the asbestos-laden soil without the appropriate PPE. The site supervisor gave evidence that he was only wearing gloves and that he was not wearing a protective suit or mask when picking up the asbestos.
The supervisor conceded that he would not have required the worker to pick up asbestos without wearing a mask or suit although this was never made clear to the worker at the time. The site supervisor set a poor example for other employees to follow and his conduct undermined any request he made for assistance from the worker. The Tribunal also found that the worker was not given an adequate opportunity to respond to the reason given for his dismissal ("unsatisfactory performance"), or to obtain the assistance of a support person in discussions on the issue. In the remedy proceedings at hand, Commissioner Ryan found that reinstating the worker would be inappropriate, and awarded him $23,067 in lost remuneration. What example do your supervisors set in relation to safety risks?
James Stewart v Axcess Demolition & Excavations Pty Ltd [2011] FWA 5286
Distracted underground mine worker tripsunsafe safety barrier to blame?
Two employers that failed to alert employees to a trip hazard have been ordered to pay more than $550,000 to a 187 cm underground worker who did not usually work in this workshop when he was injured taking a shortcut over a low point in a chain barrier at his knee-height.
In August 2006 the worker, who was employed by Tucaby Engineering Pty Ltd & stationed at a mine occupied by North Goonyella Coal Mine Pty, was attempting to jump over the chain, which was in place to stop machinery from unexpectedly entering a workshop, when his spats caught on a hook (that was not visible) that attached a sign to the chain & he fell heavily, seriously injuring he left shoulder. He took action against both companies, alleging they breached their duty of care. In the Supreme Court, the employers contended the worker could have avoided jumping the chain by using a door available for pedestrians, or used a safer method of negotiating the chain, such as unhooking it or ducking under it. They also argued that he failed to clear the hook because he stepped over the chain without breaking his stride.
The Supreme Court found that a hook protruding from a sign attached to the chain meant the "seemingly innocuous step was more fraught with risk than it appeared", & ruled out any degree of negligence on the worker's part. The "unseen & unknown" hook brought the worker down, Justice McMeekin said. "The real roblem was that the chain was so low as to appear to be an easy hurdle to clear." At the time of the incident the worker was apparently pre-occupied with a task, & that the low chain was a "temptation" to workers to step over it. There was no evidence the employers had ever issued a warning against jumping the barrier or that they had instructed workers to use the door or go under the chain.
The Justice said there was "no absolute rule in life or in the workplace that it is inherently &unreasonably unsafe to step over something". He said it was not unreasonable that the worker should use the shortest & most direct route, & that it was even commendable that he was being efficient. He found the employers had not alerted employees to the tripping hazard, & noted that in formulating a safe system of work; employers were obliged to consider "the possible distraction of an employee engrossed in his task". The worker, now 48, gave evidence that surgery on his shoulder had failed, & that he was faced with the prospect of finding a lesser paid job in the mining industry or elsewhere. Considering wages in the coal industry today he could have easily made this amount since the incident, had a functioning shoulder & the ability to continue to earn!
Hughes v Tucaby Engineering Pty Ltd [2011] QSC 256 (2011)
Written by Julie Armour