Category: railway

Fatigue management is getting clearer but is competing for attention

As a discipline for study, fatigue still seems to be in its early days and this presents a challenge for safety professionals and researchers.  Everyone knows what fatigue is because at some time we all suffer it, but try to define it and it is different things to different people.

Transport Safety Victoria (TSV), a division of the Department of Transport, brought together three speakers on the issue of fatigue management in early August 2011.  The public seminar provided a good indication of the complexity of the occupational issue of fatigue management.

The first revelation in the seminar came from Dr Paula Mitchell who stressed that fatigue cannot be self-assessed.  Researchers are struggling to create a widely accepted indicator for fatigue.  There is no blood alcohol reading device for fatigue and the Independent Transport Safety Regulator in July 2010 expressed caution on the application of the bio-mathematical fatigue model. Continue reading “Fatigue management is getting clearer but is competing for attention”

UK case exposes the hypocrisy of leadership commitment

Most safety professionals can tell stories about how workplace injuries are hidden so that bonuses or rewards are still distributed even though they are not warranted.  Most of these examples are at the shop-floor level where rewards, although much anticipated, are minor – first aid kits, movie tickets, sometimes money – and where peer pressure can be quite overpowering.  But occasionally a situation is revealed where senior executives also rort the system in order to obtain a reward or a bonus.  In September 2010, the UK union Unite has revealed just such a case in Network Rail, a case where the chairman has acknowledged that greed played a role. Continue reading “UK case exposes the hypocrisy of leadership commitment”

When information supply is NOT consultation

In Australia there is a purposely created commonality between the developing OHS law and industrial relations law on certain issues.  Consultation is one of those matters and, although a decision by the Federal Court of Australia on 11 June 2010 relates to the Fair Work Act, safety professionals and business owners should take note.

On 22 June 2010, Justice John Logan fined Queensland Rail $A660,000 for not consulting its workforce on the company’s privatization plan which would have affected employees’ jobs. (An ABC podcast of the matter is available online)  One media report paraphrased Justice Logan:

“[he]told the court that workers were never given the opportunity to discuss if they would be moved into the new private business, how the privatisation would occur, or if they wanted privatisation in the first place.”

The most pertinent comments from 11 June 2010 judgement by Justice Logan are also quoted in various media reports:

“This change so radical, a breach so comprehensive, the occasion for consultation so obvious that anything less than maximum penalties would not do justice to the case and the need to ensure public confidence in the adherence to industrial relations bargains.”

The Australian quotes Justice Logan as saying

“Benign dictatorship is not to be equated with consultation…” Continue reading “When information supply is NOT consultation”

The contract for building safe trains is a “dud” according to CEO

The Australian business newspapers and websites are all reporting on the  “dud” contract that Downer EDI has been saddled with over the construction of 78 eight-car trains for New South Wales’ RailCorp.  Market analysts say that company has lost $A1.7 billion in value this year.

CEO Geoff Knox, a man in genuine risk of becoming unemployed, is quoted as saying:

“We do seem to be able to build trains successfully and make good money on other states in this country, but in this state we seem to not do well and others seem to not do well…”

Others can discuss the financial problems of Downer EDI but Knox seems to only look at the contract rather than the reasons behind the “time consuming” design requirements of the contract – The Waterfall rail disaster of January 2003, the commission of inquiry’s reports and the government’s promises.

Continue reading “The contract for building safe trains is a “dud” according to CEO”

Mining company trial set over cyclone deaths

Further to the SafetyAtWorkBlog article about the prosecution of Fortescue Metals Group, The Australian newspaper reports on 28 April 2010 that the trial will start tomorrow.

The article states that

“Lawyers for the Department of Commerce — prosecuting the case through WorkSafe — successfully argued the site was not a mine and was instead a camp for workers constructing a railway to transport iron ore.”

The company was arguing that the site was a mining support site and that its contractors were responsible.

Interestingly the Magistrate, Joe Randazzo, wants a definition of “safe refuge”.  This may lead to a reconsideration of the use of dongas, or temporary accommodation units, in areas of extreme weather conditions.  There is the potential for safety improvements from this case and not just  a punishment.

Kevin Jones

Fortescue Metals contests cyclone deaths

In December 2008 Fortescue Metals Group said it would contest charges it breached OHS laws over the death of two people.  In April 2010, it is seeking to avoid the charges.

On March 9 2007, tropical cyclone George hit a camp site in north-west Australia killing two people and injuring others.  The temporary accommodation shelters, “dongas”, in which workers were sheltering provided insufficient protection for many workers.

According to one media report on 12 April 2010, the lawyer for FMG,  John Karkar,

“…. said his clients’ operations were governed by the Mines Safety Inspections Act because the Pilbara camp was built for the accommodation of mine workers and workers who were building a railway line which was to be used to transport iron ore.” Continue reading “Fortescue Metals contests cyclone deaths”

Compensation denied because police officers only saw the aftermath of fatal incident

In 2003, emergency responders attended a major rail incident at Waterfall in New South Wales, in which multiple passengers were injured and seven died.  According to a 14 April 2010 article in The Australian (page 7, not yet(?) available online):

“The officers [David Wicks and Philip Sheehan] were among the first at the scene of the crash that killed seven people, including the driver, who lost control of the train after he had a heart attack”.

Those officers have been denied compensation under the NSW Civil Liability Act because

“they did not witness the crash, only its aftermath.”

Both police officers had been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and been medically discharged.

Their claim for compensation has now reached the High Court of Australia Continue reading “Compensation denied because police officers only saw the aftermath of fatal incident”

© Workplace Safety Services P/L (ABN: 68091088621) and SafetyAtWorkBlog, 2008-2024. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Kevin Jones and SafetyAtWorkBlog with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Concatenate Web Development
© Designed and developed by Concatenate Aust Pty Ltd