death – Page 81 – SafetyAtWorkBlog

Panic in disaster planning

Three years ago I had the privilege of arranging for Dr Lee Clarke of Rutgers University to attend the Safety in Action Conference in Australia. Lee had a book out at the time, Worst Cases, and spoke about the reality of panic. Lee’s studies have continued and are, sadly, becoming more relevant.

Recently, Rutgers University posted a video interview with Lee on Youtube.

Shortly after the World Trade Center collapse in 2001, I asked Lee to write something about the event from his experience and perspective. He wrote a piece for a special edition of Safety At Work magazine. The article has been available through his website for some time and is now available through here by clicking on the image below.

I strongly recommend Lee’s books. As he says in the video, they’re quite fun, in a sad sort of way.

Kevin Jones

Level crossings and safety management

Regular readers will know that SafetyAWorkBlog believes that there is little justification for road/rail crossings, particularly in metropolitan areas, and that grade separation should be the aim of any crossing upgrades. Too often governments dismiss grade separation without serious consideration because it is usually the most expensive control option. Regardless of expense, elimination of hazards must be considered in public safety policy and OHS. It is only after the elimination of a hazard is seriously considered that lower order control measures are seen to be valid.

At the moment in Victoria, there is community outrage because the truck driver involved in the deaths of 11 train passengers at a level crossing at Kerang has been cleared of any legal responsibility for the deaths. Several relatives of victims are pursuing civil action against the driver, Mr Christiaan Scholl.

The wisdom of civil action against the driver is debatable as any potential financial “win” will come from the insurance pockets of the Transport Accident Commission and not Mr Scholl. Compensation may be gained but any hope that the action could be seen as a “penalty” is false.

The Kerang rail crossing illustrates some basic OHS issues:

Worker responsibility

The Kerang level crossing had design deficiencies that had repeatedly identified by a number of government authorities, local companies and the public. The court case heard that the crossing was known to be dangerous.

In OHS, known hazards are controlled in a number of ways. Clearly the rail and road traffic was not separated and engineering controls were not introduced at the time of the incident. The owners of the crossing (and this is debated also) determined that signage was appropriate (or even perhaps “as far as is reasonably practicable”?).

Clearly signage was not adequate but there is also the issue of driver (worker) responsibility. It was mentioned in court and repeatedly in the media that the level crossing was known to be dangerous. Why then, would drivers continue to treat the crossing as if it was not? The legal speed limits remained at 100kph, at the time of the incident. The road laws clearly state that road traffic must give way to rail traffic and yet drivers have admitted to complacency.

This is perhaps the source of a lot of the community outrage in relation to the Kerang incident. The findings in favour of the driver place all the responsibility for the incident on the inadequate design of the crossing.

Working environment

As employers have responsibility to ensure a safe and health work environment, so government has a social and legal obligation to make public areas safe. Victorian governments for decades have neglected the hazards presented by inadequately designed or controlled level crossings. Governments must take responsibility for inaction just as much as taking credit for action and infrastructure improvements.

Infrastructure spending had started to increase prior to the incident but the need was sharply illustrated through the unnecessary deaths of 11 rail passengers. Many Australian governments are spending millions of dollars on rail/road crossing upgrades as a result of the Kerang incident.

Road Safety and OHS

Many OHS professionals illustrate OHS by drawing on road safety. The correlation is very poor but the attempt is understandable – most people drive, they drive within strict laws that were learnt in training (induction), and the road laws are enforced by an external body (police = WorkSafe. However, this relationship has no corresponding role for employers, who have a workplace responsibility. The road user has a direct relationship with the regulator. In OHS the role of the employer is crucial.

Perhaps the Kerang incident and other level crossing incidents could be used in brainstorming to illustrate personal accountability, employer accountability and government responsibility. It would be a worthwhile exercise to discuss whether road safety and workplace safety could share as many educative elements as some of the advocates suggest.

As with most posts on SafetyAtWorkBlog, these thoughts are a work-in-progress and debate and commentary are welcome.

Kevin Jones

Note: SafetyAtWorkBlog is not privy to any of the court evidence and must rely on media reports. More information will be presented when available.

Charges laid on swing stage collapse

SafetyAtWorkBlog reported on a scaffolding incident in Queensland in mid-2008. Charges have now been laid but not manslaughter charges as were called for at the time by the unions.

The workers were fatally injured on 21 June 2008 when the swing stage scaffold they were using to carry out concrete patchwork on the Pegasus high-rise, then under construction at Broadbeach, failed and fell 26 levels to the ground.

According to Workplace Health and Safety Queensland

Allscaff Systems Pty Ltd, which erected the swing stage, is charged with failing to ensure the plant was erected in a way that ensured it was safe when used properly.

Ralph Michael Smith, director of Allscaff Systems Pty Ltd, is charged with failing to ensure the company complied with its obligations under the Act.

Karimbla Construction Services Pty Limited, which built the high-rise, is charged with breaching obligations as a person in control of a workplace and as project manager.

Pryme Constructions Pty Ltd, which undertook the concrete patching, is charged with breaching its obligations to ensure workplace health and safety.

SsfetyAtWorkBlog will be following this case over the next few months.

Australian Minister’s latest comments on OHS law reform

Last week the Deputy Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, spoke at the ACTU Congress for 2009. Industrial relations was clearly the principal agenda issue but Gillard did mention OHS. The relevant OHS text of her speech is below.

For those wishing more information about her rowdy reception, coverage is available at several Australian news sites.

The OHS content got no mention in any of the mainstream press and some of the political websites also ignored it.

Prior to the Deputy PM’s speech, the congress held a minute’s silence for all those who lost their lives through traumatic injuries at work. The Deputy PM was presented with a petition (details to come).

During the silence, two relatives of young construction workers in Queensland who had died, were on stage. On screen a role call of the dead scrolled slowly as a backdrop.

Occupational Health and Safety

Friends, as representatives of working Australians you know that nothing is more important to them than safety at work.

Recently State Ministers for occupational health and safety and I reached a vital reform milestone: agreement for the creation of a uniform national occupational health and safety regime.

This is a massive advance for workplace safety. As you will recall, the first, but ultimately unsuccessful steps towards a uniform occupational health and safety regime were taken by the Hawke Government in 1984. 25 years is too long to wait for better laws to cut preventable workplace deaths and accidents. But we are now primed to achieve a great outcome for Australian workers and businesses alike.

Under current occupational health and safety laws, only four jurisdictions allow workers to stop unsafe work – Western Australia, Tasmania, the Northern Territory and the ACT. This represents approximately 14.5% of Australian workers. The new occupational health and safety laws will extend this right to all Australian workers.

For too long employers have thought that they could cut costs by cutting corners on health and safety. Under these new laws every employer will understand that cutting corners comes at a huge price.

The penalties under the new occupational health and safety laws will far exceed existing penalties in today’s legislation in Australia. Currently, the highest maximum fine for a corporation is $1.65 million. In some jurisdictions the maximum is significantly less. Under the new laws, the maximum will be increased to $3 million, almost double the largest penalty in the country today.

Through the tripartite body, Safe Work Australia, you will be partners in developing the model laws for this new national system.

Kevin Jones

Big fine for go-kart death

The AAP and others are reporting a big fine over the death of Lydia Carter whilst driving a go-kart at a work function held in Port Melbourne in 2006. The significance of the $A1.4 million fine is that the company, AAA Auscarts Imports Pty Ltd, is not a large or multinational corporation.

Ms Carter was wearing a seat belt that did not fit properly and safety barriers on the track had been incorrectly installed.

Judge Duncan Allen said

“There is no doubt in my mind that (Auscarts) not only was fully aware of the risk, but was fully aware of the ways to reduce them”

“The company showed a gross disregard concerning the safety of employees and the public.”

For OHS professionals this case, which ended today (12 May 2009) in the Victorian County Court, will generate a fair degree of attention because of the fine’s size. However, from the information currently available, the case seems one of the go-kart company having a work environment that was unsafe for customers, the company being aware of this and not doing enough to fix it.

SafetyAtWorkBlog is also looking into how Ms Carter’s death has changed her employer’s organisation, what effect it had on her colleagues, what policy changes have been made, amongst other matters.

The judgement will also be made available as soon as possible.

Kevin Jones

Release of Melick Report on Beaconsfield mine collapse

SafetyAtWorkBlog has repeatedly called for the release of the report into the Beaconsfield mine disaster that was undertaken by Greg Melick, QC. The Tasmanian Government has today made the report and appendices available online.

The OHS-specific reports by Professor Michael Quinlan have also been released.

The real business cost of safety

In February 2009, BHP Billiton forecast a full-year production target of 130 million tonnes of iron ore. On 6 May 2009, the BHP president, Ian Ashby, has admitted that the company will be a “few million tonnes short”. The reason? Workplace deaths.

Ian Ashby was talking at a conference yesterday and pledged to improve safety however BHP, as has been pointed out in previous SafetyAtWorkBlog postings, has professed to place a high value on safety and its staff for some years. This is not a new issue for the company and that is what makes the statements of the president potentially hollow.

It is useful to look at the areas that Ashby has identified for additional attention for the implication is that this is where the OHS management system has been deficient. The measures to be adopted, according to media reports, include

restricting access,
improving traffic management, and
suspending non-essential night-shift work.

In 2008 the spot price for iron ore had reached $US190 per tonne. In late 2008, the price fell to $US77 per tonne. BHP is currently negotiating prices for its iron ore so no accurate figure of value is available. But let’s allocate a conservative figure of 3 million tonnes to the Ashby quote above and perform a rough calculation for the cost of poorly managed OHS in BHP.

3 million x $US77 = $US231 million; or

3 million x $US190 = $US570 million

Following the economic crisis of 2008-09, shareholders are going to be less forgiving on corporate performance. This has already been seen on the issue of executive salaries but the BHP experience should have shareholders asking why the management activity has not kept up with the safety rhetoric and the corporate values. Because soon the poor safety practices in the outback mines of Australia will be hitting the shareholders’ pockets and they are justified in expecting answers form the executives.

The trap for shareholders is to forget the deaths of the workers and only hear the commitments of the executives for the future. Should one believe the future promises when the corporate values of safety have not been upheld in the recent past?

Note: an independent government review was undertaken and a report was handed to the government in early May. The report has yet to be released and may not be.

Kevin Jones

UPDATE: 8 May 2009

A spokesperson for the West Australian Dept of Mines & Petroleum has advised SafetyAtWorkBlog that the report into BHP was undertaken under Section 45 of the Act and therefore cannot be released unless in the course of a prosecution. However, just as has occurred with the Melick Report into the Beaconsfield Mine collapse, there is always hope.

Category: death

Panic in disaster planning

Like this:

Level crossings and safety management

Like this:

Charges laid on swing stage collapse

Like this:

Australian Minister’s latest comments on OHS law reform

Like this:

Big fine for go-kart death

Like this:

Release of Melick Report on Beaconsfield mine collapse

Like this:

The real business cost of safety

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: