Behaviour in the Workplace – Planking

Employers have often had to determine where to draw the line in relation to employer behaviour in the workplace. Never before have employers and employees had as much responsibility to ensure the safety of themselves and others in the workplace.

Current legislation in each State requires employees to either take care of themselves or others safety in the workplace, or not to do anything that places at risk the safety of themselves or others in the workplace. This theme runs through all safety legislation, including mining safety and health acts.

National employer Woolworths, is reported as dismissing eight employees for “planking” in three different States (http://bit.ly/jKaIeG). One person in Queensland has fallen to his death while planking on a balcony in Brisbane.

With a death and numerous injuries having been reported, it could be argued that an employer would be expected to foresee an injury in their workplace from planking and therefore be expected to address the risks associated with this activity.

One item of interest to me is the fact that many times employers receive flack for enforcing systems that are really designed to protect employees from themselves. The question must be asked:

“Would this employee expect the employer to provide them with compensation and cover in the event that they are injured while undertaking this behaviour?”

I am not passing judgement, nor validating the behaviour of the employer or employee, but wish to raise one issue.

In all states, the failure of an employee to ensure the safety of themselves or others (however it is phrased), represents a breach of the relevant State Safety Legislation. These breaches can be met with charges arising from the breach.

I feel that it would be interesting to see the relevant State bodies to prosecute a couple of employees in these cases and support the efforts of the employer to enforce the safety legislation that the relevant Government requires them to enforce.

Your thoughts?

Harmonisation and the WHSO

We continue on our discussion surrounding the Federal Harmonisation of Safety Legislation in Australia.

I recently read an article written by the National Research Centre for OHS Regulation, which I wish to discuss here. The full article can be found here

The National Research Centre for Occupational Health and Safety Regulation (NRCOHSR) is a research centre within the Regulatory Institutions Network, in the School of Regulation, Justice and Diplomacy, at The Australian National University.

One area of interest is the discussion surrounding contract, sub-contract, home-based arrangements and other “outside the box” type of engagements. The Centre stated:

“A second noteworthy point is the need for OHS regulators to pay greater attention to work relationships outside the traditional employment relationship. With the dramatic changes that are taking place in the Australian labour market, mirroring changes taking place elsewhere in the world, regulators need to develop standards, guidance material, inspection programs and enforcement strategies that accommodate subcontracting, labour hire, home-based work and franchise arrangements.”

I was interested to note that the Centre went on to discuss the election of sub-contractors to positions of Safety Representatives, removing the past norm of Representatives being sourced from the employee pool. I would be concerned of the shifting of Representatives from employees (who have certain inalienable employee rights under legislation) to subcontractors who are reliant on the organisation to renew contracts or to engage them in future services.

Another item discussed by the Centre was past Australian legislation omitting the promotion of “multi-disciplinary occupational health services by employers”. The Centre goes on to discuss the Queensland model of Workplace Health and Safety Model and promotes this model as an example of positive format:

“The most successful provision appears to be the Queensland provision requiring an employer to appoint a workplace health and safety officer when there are 30 or more workers normally employed at a prescribed workplace;…”

Safety & Security Australia has consulted and audited in all States of Australia and we have concerns that the proposed national legislation in its current format, removes the role of Workplace Health and Safety Officer. It does seem incongruous to us that a model held as example of positive safety management as identified by the NRCOHSR, is to be removed by the harmonisation legislation.

It may also be a concern that the changes could lead to Safety Representatives being sourced from sub-contract positions which could be more prone to pressure of contract renewal or any other perceived influences.

Employers failing to ensure staff receive adequate fire training

There is growing concern amongst many safety professionals about the standard of fire and emergency training provided by many employers in Australia.

During audits, I often find employers who have held fire training two, three or more years in the past, but have not held any refresher training, or training for new staff since then. Many industries suffer from significant staff turnover, often leading to very few, if any actual staff on site being recipients of appropriate training. I have often expressed concern to many employers all over Australia regarding their staff lack of knowledge of procedures and usage of the fire equipment.

It appears that my concerns are well founded, with Wormald releasing a survey recently that indicates that:

“Nearly two thirds of small business managers and employees in regional and suburban areas of Australia have never been trained in how to use the fire equipment in their workplace…”

I have been engaged in fire training for over 12 years and I agree with many of the findings in this report. I have also evidenced many companies cut funding for training due to difficult financial circumstances over recent years. According to the survey results, only 19 per cent of employers rated the offer of training as a key factor when deciding their fire protection needs, with the highest consideration going to cost, and service and maintenance second.

Employers and persons in charge of a workplace in every State of Australia, must remember that they have an obligation to have adequate fire safety procedures and measures in place at the workplace, including competent and trained personnel.

Safety & Security Australia encourages all workplaces to ensure that adequate, appropriate and timely fire training is provided to all personnel in the workplace. It is also imperative to ensure refresher training is held for existing staff and new staff are trained when entering the workplace.

Assess risks at site access points – consider the public

Over the years I have managed safety on many large construction and project sites. In many cases, ensuring safe access and egress for delivery vehicles on these sites has been a challenged that we have had to face and manage.

Often small, crowded streets, trees or shrubs near the access roads or small sites make addressing this issue even more difficult. Vehicles of people working on the project parked on the street can add complexity to the issue.

It is however, critical for the safety of the workforce on site and also the public in close proximity to these access ways that the risk is managed. Often I see organisations put significant effort into managing crane lifts over or near the site boundary that might impact members of the public, however totally ignore or forget about the delivery vehicle that has just delivered or collected the item.

The importance of managing the risks associated with service vehicles was highlighted by a recent decision in the Victorian Broadmeadows Magistrates’ Court. The firm that was removing a skip bin from site, Melbourne Bin Hire Pty Ltd, was convicted and fined $20,000 after pleading guilty to a charge of failing to ensure that members of the public are not exposed to health or safety risks under section 23(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act (VIC) 2004.

For a full explanation of the case, you can visit the WorkSafe Victoria article here.

WorkSafe Victoria stated:
“It’s an obvious risk, and there were obvious solutions which the company could have taken to protect pedestrians.
“We’re talking about straightforward steps like using another staff member as a spotter, putting a mirror on the fence line so drivers could see the footpath, or ordering drivers to drive slowly and sound their horn when exiting the property.
“The company didn’t assess the risks and they didn’t take any preventative steps – as a result, an elderly person has suffered a traumatic injury…”

Remember, when planning tasks on sites to consider not only the project or construction areas, but areas that can be affected by the way we conduct our activities on or near those areas.

Incorrect Commissioning of Chairlift Led to NZ Injury

In June 13 2010, Janine Learmonth got onto a chairlift operated by NZSki. The restraining bar, designed to stop people falling out of the chairlift during operation, closed and caught the back of Learmonth’s helmet and continued to close. It is reported that the force of the closing mechanism pushed Learmonth’s head downwards, jamming it between her knees.

Learmonth suffered injury and was hospitalised for two days. She is still recovering from her injuries to date. Due to the positioning of the operator of the chairlift, Learmonth’s predicament was not noticed and she was forced to ride the lift to the top before the bar released.

After an investigation by the New Zealand Department of Labour, it concluded that the restraining bar was wrongly set, exceeding the United States manufacturers recommended settings.

Since the incident, NZSki erected new signs warning people not to wear backpacks on the lift. The operator position has also been moved to ensure better visibility of riders of the chairlift during operation.

This incident appears to have a root cause of miscommunication between the supplier/installer of the piece of plant and the operator/client. The tension settings of the bar appear to have been missed as part of the commissioning process.

This incident should highlight the importance of commissioning risk assessments and checklists to ensure that when we introduce a new piece of plant or equipment, or we bring a shut down piece of plant or equipment back into operation, that it is in a condition to operate safely.

Update to Harmonisation of Australia’s Safety Laws

I thought it might be timely to briefly discuss the current situation to the Harmonisation of Australia’s Safety Legislation. This is the first of four articles that I will post relating to this issue.

It is timely to discuss this matter as the timeline for public comment is drawing to a close. Safe Work Australia has announced that the time for public comment will close on 4 April, 2011.

This morning I viewed the number of public submissions and must admit that I was surprised by the numbers. As at 15 February 2011, there are a total of 19 public submissions only lodged. I was surprised with the small number of people who have taken the time to comment on such a significant change to legislation that will change for all employers in Australia to some extent.

The first draft of the Act was released for six weeks in September 2009 for public comment and there were 480 submissions received by Safe Work Australia. The current period for public comment is the last prior to the final Act being released.

It must be remembered that not only is there a model work safety and health Act, but there are model supporting Regulations and Codes of Practice being developed as well. It is important to all persons who have an interest in safety, employees, employers and safety professions, that we take time to read this model legislation and codes and exercise our right to have a say.

Many times when working with employers, I have been asked the question, “Why is this obligation on me?” or “Who in the Government thinks this is fair/manageable?” Well, for those employers, here is your chance to put your case.

I undertake now to dedicate a day a week to reviewing these documents and ensuring that Safety and Security Australia Pty Ltd submits our concerns or agreements with the model material. I challenge you, the readers and all persons who have an interest in safety management in Australia to take the time to look into the model material and comment on matters that may impact your workplace or business.

For those who are considering commenting, please follow this link: http://www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/Legislation/PublicComment/Pages/PublicComment.aspx . Submissions must be submitted in the correct format and accompanied by a Public Submissions Cover Sheer, available in a link on the site above.

Ship Spill Report Released

The ATSB has released its final report into the disaster, which saw the Pacific Adventurer lose 31 containers overboard in gale-force weather during cyclone Hamish on March 11 2009 off Cape Moreton, in southeast Queensland

Out of the report it became apparent that there were a number of factors that attributed to the incident, as is usually the case when we conduct a root cause analysis. The ATSB identified a number of safety issues during their investigation: the condition of the lashings was poor, their inspection and maintenance regime was deficient, there was no requirement for a third party to inspect the equipment, and the cargo in the containers was not packaged correctly.

Along with these issues however, is the fact that Australian Authorities failed to identify the fact that the ammonium nitrate prills in the cargo containers didn’t meet the requirements of the International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code.

The ATSB report identified “synchronous rolling” during high seas. The report stated:

“The severe and sometimes violent rolling motions caused the lashings on the containers, and possibly some of the containers themselves, to fail,”
“The option of altering the ship’s stability by adjusting the seawater ballast in its tanks, and therefore its natural roll period, as the ship made its way up the Queensland coast, was not considered,”
“No changes to the ships water ballast configuration, either before the ship departed from Newcastle or during the passage, were attempted.” The report continued.
Swire Navigation Company Ltd and Bluewind shipping still face one charge each of discharging oil in coastal waters, in a trail scheduled for October.
The incident saw 270 tonnes of oil to be released into Moreton Bay and affect up to 60kms of coastline and was declared Queensland worst environmental disaster. The cleanup operation took up to 16 months and cost $30 million.

iPhone app helps address working in isolation

Over the last 10 years of working with a number of employers who have staff working in isolation, the challenge to ensure staff have finished work at the end of the day safely has often presented. Over the years we have developed a number of systems to assist employers ensure that staff working remotely are not forgotten at the end of the work day. This issue is particularly challenging in Australia, where the “workplace” for many can be hundreds, if not thousands of square kilometres.

Often we have worked with employers who have required remote employees to call in at the end of the day when they arrive at their hotel or homes. If the call is not received, then a designated person is then to call them to try to track them down.

Now, an iPhone App is available that is free to download which may help employers deal with this issue. The application is called Bluelight and can be found here:

As the Bluelight website states:

“Tell Bluelight how much time you need to get to your destination and designate a contact (a friend or family member from your address book). When you arrive at your destination, check in with Bluelight, and your contact won’t be bothered. If you don’t check in, Bluelight will send a text message or email to your contact with your most recent location (GPS coordinates plotted on a map). Your contact will then know to reach out to you to make sure everything is okay.”

Bluelight was designed by Betsy Huigens, a junior at Depaul University in Chicago. Although currently available on the iPhone, we would love to see this application on Windows and Android phones.

A current example of how age old safety issues are being solved in cost-effective ways with technology which does not require a massive infrastructure or capital investment for business.

Floodwaters gone, but hazards may remain.

Today I read two articles posted by the RACQ in Queensland relating to residual risks to motorists as a result of the floodwaters that Queensland experienced. One article spoke of hidden defects that may be present in vehicles that were inundated during the floods, the other spoke about the need to replace child restraints and other safety equipment that may have been damaged by floodwaters. The link to these articles can be found here: https://newsletters.racq.com.au/em/message/email/view.php?a=14670&id=747065

These articles and the concerns outlined therein can just as easily be applied to the workplace. It must be remembered that even though electrically a flood affected workplace may have been checked, it is equally important that employers utilise commissioning checklists for machinery and equipment that has been in contact with flood waters to ensure that it is safe to use.

These checks need to include ensuring guards are in place, interlocks are still functional on guards and emergency stops are operating as per specifications. Any inspection in the workplace, including these pre-start inspections must be conducted by a trained and competent person and should be documented to provide evidence that they have occurred.

Workplaces that have not been flood affected, but closed over a Christmas break or other such extended period should also ensure that pre-start inspections are conducted. Whenever a machine or piece of plant or equipment is being started after shutting down, over weekends, or other such period, a pre-start should be undertaken by a trained and competent operator and documented within the Safety Management System.

Avoiding Repeat Incidents – Keeping our true goal in mind

This morning I have attended a client review of an incident that occurred at their workplace yesterday. The incident involved a large vehicle and an uncontrolled/unintended movement of the same. There were no injuries as there was no-one in the vicinity other than the operator, who was uninjured.

During the course of the review, it became apparent that one of their safety KPI’s was that they do not suffer a repeat incident. I watched as the conversation continued for about 5 minutes as to whether this incident would or would not constitute a repeat event.

Historically, they had the same event occur approximately 10 months ago. When this event occurred, there had been no procedure for the task that was being undertaken, whereas there had been one written after the first incident that had been implemented prior to the second, more recent event. The clients safety team was debating that the lack of control during the first incident, opposed to the presence of the control for the second incident, meant that there was a substantial enough difference between the two for it not to be considered a repeat event.

The issue with this line of discussion is that the team was losing focus on the real goal of setting no repeatable event targets. That is to reduce injuries and to provide a safe working environment.

The fact that the team were obsessed with avoiding the definition of a repeat incident missed the point. The fact that the incident occurred, means that we have to look at a new root cause analysis.

The second event may have been caused by a gap in the control measure that was implemented after the first event. It could be that the control measure does not address the actual issues faced that cause the incident. It may also be that the control measure was not correctly implemented. To correctly implement control measures, we need to ensure that we support new controls by adding any administration support, maintenance issues are identified and relevant persons inducted and trained into the new control process. A failure of any of these could actually be the root cause.

It may be more than just a “procedure breach” on behalf of the employee. I recommend that if your investigation determines an incident is a procedure breach, ensure that you did a little deeper to determine why this occurred. Was it poor human behaviour, or was the control measure not implemented with adequate training and reviewed correctly?

Most times that I investigate a repeat incident, I find that the recurrence has occurred due to lack of review of implemented control procedures.

To avoid this, we need to remember that there are 5 STEPS to the risk management process.

These 5 steps are:

1. identify any hazards and identify the risks associated with those hazards

2. assess the risks

3. control the risks using the ‘Hierarchy of Control’

4. implement the control

5. monitor and review the outcomes and effectiveness of controls.

Many organisations struggle with implementation and monitoring and reviewing controls. It is usually a breakdown in this area that causes recurrence of incidents. Once the initial rush of step 4 is complete, organisations often get caught back up in day-to-day business and forget to ever correctly implement the control measures with training and administrative support, or forget to return to revisit the issue in a timely manner to determine if additional risks have been implemented with the new controls, or whether the control measures actually achieve what we intended them to (i.e., has their been a reduction in the frequency of like events.)

We need to remember that goals and KPI’s are great, but they cannot be allowed to get in the way of achieving safety’s main KPI – to ensure the safety of persons in our workplace.