communication – Page 54 – SafetyAtWorkBlog

New Bachelor degree in OHS

A new Bachelor degree in OHS is being offered at the University of Queensland. Professor of Occupational Health and Safety Mike Capra says in a media release that

“graduates would become a new generation of highly-trained OHS specialists who would be in demand due to a workforce shortage.”

The New South Wales WorkCover has had to remind employers not to cut corners on safety due to the tough economic climate. With the unemployment rate increasing in Australia, the demand claimed by Professor Capra is disputable.

The issue of employability was raised in a discussion forum recently. One person pointed out that employers are able to be more selective. When they have to choose between a graduate fresh from university or an applicant with experience, experience will win every time.

It will be interesting to see what programs the Bachelor Degree has in place to provide the necessary practical experience.

Hopefully on graduation in 2015, the career opportunities have improved with a stronger economy.

Professor Capra is quoted further.

“The program was developed at the request of the OHS industry, including peak body the Safety Institute of Australia, which saw the need for a professional qualification in the field,” Professor Capra said. “The lack of well-qualified OHS professionals is causing alarm among members of major OHS associations, government authorities and employers.”

The biggest motivation for improved professionalism has come from WorkSafe Victoria through the Health and Safety Professionals Alliance, and only within the last couple of years. It is is the “alarm” of the OHS regulator that seems to have been the biggest factor. At least WorkSafe is willing to fund the development of such a program having provided a grant of almost $A400,000 recently.

Some of the claims in the promotional video for the course are dubious (“never be out of a job”, for example) and the video could pass, in parts, for a tourism ad, but if the target audience is school leavers, the focus on fun, sun and job variety is probably relevant.

If it is the first course of its kind in Australia, as claimed, it will be very interesting to watch how it is received.

Kevin Jones

Driving and talking

The issue of driving while using a mobile is a perennial issue for the media but nothing much changes. The New York Times on 20 July 2009 carried an article on the latest research which confirms many previous studies that using a mobile phone while driving increases the risk of an accident.

Pages from 6i17 raw No US State has banned the practice because social use of mobile phones has become so widespread that any ban is impossible to enforce effectively.

In January 2009, SafetyAtWorkBlog reported on the recommendations from WorkSafe Victoria on the matter. Even in their guide they would say nothing more than

“recommend that hands free calls be kept to a minimum”.

At some point for most workplace hazards, the evidence outweighs the enforcement difficulties and bans ensue. It has happened to asbestos, it has happened with smoking, but these are decades after dancing around the most effective control measure – elimination.

Pages from 6i02 v4 The industrialised world, in particular, has been wrestling with the hazard of phones and driving for well over a decade. One report from 2002 said

“Tests carried out by scientists at the Transport Research Laboratory established that driving behaviour is impaired more by using a mobile phone than by being over the legal alcohol limit.”

The footnote to this comment said

“Previous research has shown that phone conversations while driving impair performance. It was difficult to quantify the risk of this impairment because the reference was usually made to normal driving without using a phone. “Worse than normal driving” does not necessarily mean dangerous. There was a need therefore to benchmark driving performance while using a mobile phone to a clearly dangerous level of performance. Driving with a blood alcohol level over the legal limit is an established danger.”

There are always conditions set with research findings but these are sensible and valid.

Pages from 3i13 According to a 2004 report by the US National Highway Traffic Safety Administration reported by UPI (unable to find a link)

“…estimated 8 percent of all motorists — about 1.2 million drivers — were using cell phones at any given time while driving, up from 6 percent in 2002 and 4 percent in 2000. About 800,000 of those drivers used handsets and not hands-free devices.

Handheld cell phone use increased from 5 percent to 8 percent among drivers aged 15 to 24 between 2002 and 2004.

Use of cellular-phone handsets increased from 4 percent to 6 percent of female drivers, while the number of men talking on handheld cell phones while driving remained constant at 4 percent.

Motorists were more likely to use a cell phone while driving alone, but drivers with children in the vehicle were just as likely to use the phone as those without children in the car.”

For those readers who like dollar figures, the same UPI article stated

“A 2002 study by the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis, part of Harvard University’s School of Public Health, found drivers using cell phones caused 1.5 million accidents annually resulting in 2,600 deaths and 570,000 injuries.

Researchers estimated banning cell phone use in vehicles would cost $43 billion a year in lost economic activity.”

[The only HCRA report on the website is is a 2003 study – Cohen, J.T. and Graham, J.D. A revised economic analysis of restrictions on the use of cell phones while driving. Risk Analysis. 2003; 23(1):5-17.]

A September 2003 report from NIOSH lists a range of driver hazards related to work activities and is worth downloading. Pages 51-555 deal specifically with phone use.

(If any reader knows of a literature review on this topic, please contact SafetyAtWorkBlog)

This workplace hazard has been around for so long that in the opinion of SafetyAtWorkBlog, when someone is driving a work vehicle 100% of their attention should be on the principal task at hand – driving.

Achieving this realistic aim can be helped by

not passing on mobile phone numbers when one knows the person is driving. The low tech alternative of taking a message works.
having employees turn off the phone while driving. (The phone does have an OFF switch)
not fitting workplace vehicles with hands-free units.
reminding employees of the safe driving policies of the business; and
enforcing those policies so that employees know that dangerous acts will not be tolerated or compensated by the company.

Above all, employees must be informed of the risks involved with distraction, must be reassured that employers will support safe actions, and must realise the affect on other drivers and their families from their own mistakes.

Kevin Jones

New Worker Memorial

On 13 July 2009, Tasmania’s Minister for Workplace Relation Lisa Singh braved

Lisa Singh MP, Minister for Workplace Relations

the elements to launch the Tasmanian Workers Commemorative Park in Launceston. The park is a work in progress and the local council is looking for support in the memorial’s completion.

According to the Minister’s media release, the Park was created to honour those who have died in the workplace.

“A memorial dedicated to those who lost their lives at work is an important way of reminding the community that workplaces can be dangerous places,” Ms Singh said. “The cost to the community can be calculated in dollar terms, but it is the social cost that is incalculable. How can anyone even imagine the grief felt by family and friends when a loved one is killed at work?”

It is not unreasonable to hope that every Workplace Relations Minister has talked with victims of workplace fatalities and illnesses and could “imagine the grief”. The Tasmanian government has pledged $A5,000 to the project.

Simon Cocker, Secretary of Unions Tas, told SafetyAtWorkBlog that the Tasmanian union movement is supportive of all memorials to injured workers and hoes that this is the first of a series of memorials in each of the major Tasmanian cities. The union movement is discussing how much financial support they can provide the memorial.

A media release from the Launceston City Council says:

Elizabeth Gardens, on the corner of Invermay Road and Forster Street, was chosen as the most appropriate site as it provides a peaceful and uncluttered spot suitable for contemplation and it has strong connections with past work places of Invermay. Its close proximity to the popular Aurora Stadium also gives the site state prominence.

The path through Elizabeth Gardens will be sealed and edged with bricks and an arbour will be constructed along the path, using materials selected for their relevance to a wide range of employment sectors.

The design includes a seating area that will be surrounded by ripples. The ripples will be made from clay bricks that represent the individuals who have died.

Cocker says that he hopes the memorial project (pictured below) can be completed in time for the International Workers Memorial Day on 28 April 2010.

Kevin Jones

Tas Workers Comemorative Park plan for broch nospon small

Fair Work Act and OHS

On 1 July 2009, the Australian industrial relations (IR) climate changed with the introduction of the Fair Work Act. Regardless of the politics of the new Act’s origin, this legislation changes the way that working conditions for Australians are negotiated and set.

The Fair Work Act has no relevance to occupational health and safety, so why mention this on SafetyAtWorkBlog?

The new IR legislation should reduce the conflict that has been existent in workplace negotiations. The new industrial climate is consultative and forward-looking. In fact, the government is hoping that, to some extent, this legislation reboots industrial relations (to borrow a phrase from current international diplomacy).

It is in this IR climate, and consultative structure, that OHS issues will need to be discussed and negotiated in the future.

In a webinar conducted by SmartCompany and Gadens Lawyers on 9 July 2009, the openness of the information/consultative processes was stressed by panellist, Kathryn Dent.

This positive management climate reflected that presented in an earlier seminar conducted by Douglas Workplace Lawyers. Fair Work Australia Commissioner Lewin and lawyer, Andrew Douglas, spoke about how the new IR system is more inclusive than the previous WorkChoices systems. However, they also admitted that the Fair Work Act has nebulous support documentation and information.

The level of prescription is much less than previous. This allows for less restrictive negotiation but it also means that clarity may rely on determinations made by the tribunal. Commissioner Lewin concurred with Andrew Douglas’ point that the operations of the Fair Work system will require several years of “settling in” and some adjustments depending on determinations.

When raising OHS issues for the next year or so in Australia, employees and professionals need to be reminded that many of the managers and employers with whom they are dealing may well be feeling swamped by new industrial relations processes. This distraction may be understandable but OHS obligations remain the same regardless of other management issues.

OHS may seem to be more messy during this period as the IR overlaps with the “safe systems of work”. Unless IR is already part of the responsibilities of an OHS professional, the advice is to keep away from the details of the Fair Work Act. However it is recommended that at least one seminar on the Fair Work Act be attended so that the “tone” of the new legislation is understood. More important is how the Act is to be applied within the workplaces of one’s clients or employer.

Safety management systems will need to be tweaked to fit with the new consultative aims and processes. Of course, they will need to be tweaked again once the harmonised national OHS legislation comes begins in 2010. Don’t expect stability in Australian workplaces for the next couple of years.

Kevin Jones

Peanut allergy fatality saga to continue

Safety management in the education sector seems to be one of the hardest management challenges. There are overlapping safety obligations through OHS legislation, education department guidelines, public health matters and meeting the demands of parents and students.

A decision in the Federal Court of Australia on 30 June 2009 illustrates the challenges.

A 13 year old boy from Scotch College, in Melbourne, Nathan Francis, died after eating from a ration pack of beef satay on a Defence Forces camp. The school, which was supervising the camp, were aware of the boy’s severe allergy to peanuts.

The Australian Department of Defence was fined over $A200,000.

The full judgement of the court raises several issues that are relevant to the management of safety of people in one’s care. The judge has recommended a State coronial inquest to determine the roles and responsibilities of Scotch College in Nathan’s death.

Justice for Nathan and his family is likely to have many more months to go. [ SafetyAtWorkBlog will follow the issue.]

A fantastic audio report on the decision is available at the ABC website. The payment of the fine back to the government is not dealt with in this blog.

The first section of the judgement (below) indicates what the judge believes are the failures that need to be addressed through an appropriate safety process:

Communication;
Instruction;
Provision of appropriate supplies;
The importance of labelling; and
Following procedures and guidelines

Some readers may find that this prosecution could make an interesting case study for safety management.

Kevin Jones

Justice North found that the Federal OHS Act was breached by the Commonwealth government through the Chief of Army. The respondent

(a) supplied Cadet Nathan Fazal Francis, Cadet Nivae Anandaganeshan and Cadet Gene van den Broek with one-man combat ration packs (CRP’s) containing a satay beef food pouch which contained peanuts or peanut protein for their consumption despite having been informed that the said cadets were allergic to peanuts;
and, in so doing, it failed to:

(b) warn parents of the [Australian Army Cadets] AAC cadets about the contents of the CRP’s;

(c) warn AAC cadets about the contents of CRP’s;

(d) warn AAC cadets with pre-existing food allergies of the contents of CRP’s;

(e) make appropriate use of information provided by AAC cadets and parents of AAC cadets regarding pre-existing or known allergic conditions and correlate that information with the potential risk of being exposed to allergies through the supply of food contained in CRP’s;

(f) ensure that the contents of CRP’s allocated to AAC cadets did not include food products or allergens that may have triggered allergic responses by removing or requiring the removal of peanut-based food products from CRP’s;

(g) prevent distribution or provision of peanut-based food products to AAC cadets with pre-existing allergic reactions by:

i. inspecting the contents of CRP’s to be allocated to those individual AAC cadets who had given notice of allergic conditions;

ii. isolating cadets with pre-existing medical conditions and/or notified food allergies at the time of distribution of CRP’s and issuing them with CRP’s that did not contain peanut products or other food allergens;

iii. removing all CRP’s known to contain peanut protein or other food allergens from circulation amongst AAC cadets;

iv. requiring all AAC cadets with notified allergic conditions to provide their own food supplies;

(h) issue any or any adequate instructions or provide adequate supervision regarding distribution of CRP’s;

(i) issue any adequate instructions or provide adequate supervision regarding consumption of contents of CRP’s;

(j) prevent the consumption of CRP’s containing food allergens by AAC cadets with food allergies;

(k) distribute CRP’s after consulting or considering pre-existing medical conditions; and

(l) take into consideration the findings of a report dated 22 November 1996 by the Australian National Audit Office entitled ‘Management of Food Provisioning in the Australian Defence Force’.

Cheeky workers compensation premium statistic

“The premium has dropped eight per cent from last financial year. This is the third consecutive drop in the Commonwealth sector premium rate.” [my emphasis]

Fantastic news – eight per cent reduction in 12 months! The media release goes on:

“… this is a very pleasing result for Commonwealth agencies as it indicates injuries are continuing to fall due to effective prevention strategies that promote safer workplaces.”

The second quote is from Martin Dolan, CEO of Comcare in Australia, on his second-last day in the job.

But 8%? In one year?

The Comcare media release includes a table of premium figures for the five years. The overall premium rate in 2008-09 was 1.36%. For 2009-10 it will be 1.25%, that’s the 8% fall in Comcare media release terms. In reality it is a fall of 0.11%

The premium rate is indeed low and it may be justified in congratulating Comcare on a job well done but expressing such a fall as 8%? This is a cheeky farewell statistic for a CEO which should have said

“a 0.11% fall from 2008-09 and a decline of 0.5% over 4 years”.

This is surely a fairer statistic and a worthy achievement in itself, if not quite so sexy.

Kevin Jones

UPDATE: 1 July 2009

Martin Dolan is moving to the Australian Transport Safety Bureau.

More workplace stressors, email and upwards bullying

According to a paper presented at the latest Industrial & Organisational Psychology Conference organised by the Australian Psychological Society, poor quality emails are causing almost as much stress in the workplace as the number received.

New Zealand provisional (?) psychologist, Rowena Brown, was presenting findings from her PhD studies and said

“Email is a double-edged sword. We know that email can help employees to feel engaged with and connected to their work colleagues, however the impact of a poor quality email, combined with the expectation to respond immediately, can create unnecessary stress. Our research raises important issues for employers, who have a responsibility to train their staff in appropriate email etiquette.”

This type of research really doesn’t help business and managers to deal with the stress of their employees because it doesn’t provide any useful control measures. There are more significant causes of stress that demand the attention of OHS professionals and managers.

The same conference illustrates one of those other stressors. Sara Branch, a psychologist Griffith University was quoted on the matter of employees bullying their bosses.

“Upwards bullying, like other forms of workplace bullying, is often more subtle and less obvious to other staff. However, it can also include more aggressive behaviours such as yelling, verbal threats, and confrontational phone conversations.”

“Workplaces need to understand that bullying can occur at any level in an organisation. Although managers clearly have formal authority, they can also be victims of bullying and need just as much support as other staff.”

The study also found, according to a media release about the conference, that one of the main triggers for upwards bullying is organisational change.

“If an employee is disgruntled by change, such as new working conditions, management, or processes, they may blame their manager and respond by bullying them.”

With the increased attention to psychosocial hazards in the occupational health and safety profession, it is necessary to pay attention to these sorts of studies but they are simply new perspectives on established issues that should already be monitored and changed.

These studies may illustrate the issue that OHS professionals can use to gain that managerial or client attention but they should be handled carefully so that these specific issues do not dominate the understanding on the manager or client.

SafetyAtWorkBlog advocates looking outside the OHS discipline for new evidence and understandings of workplace issues be it sociology or psychology but one must avoid reacting to hype.

Kevin Jones

Category: communication

New Bachelor degree in OHS

Like this:

Driving and talking

Like this:

New Worker Memorial

Like this:

Fair Work Act and OHS

Like this:

Peanut allergy fatality saga to continue

Like this:

Cheeky workers compensation premium statistic

Like this:

More workplace stressors, email and upwards bullying

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this: