Duty of Care – Page 84 – SafetyAtWorkBlog

Post-Disaster PR/Risk Management – Upper Big Branch

A regular SafetyAtWorkBlog reader emailed in a comment this morning that we believe is justified as including it as a post itself. The Upper Big Branch Mine disaster is out of the news outside of the United States but as the Australian reader shows below, there are important lessons from how this disaster occurred and its aftermath as there is in most disasters. What needs to occur is for the issues to continue to be discussed and lessons applied. Some links in the post below have been added.

“I’ve been following the Upper Big Branch Mine disaster West Virginia, in which 29 miners died from an explosion that occurred on 5 April 2010. It appears that the explosion occurred due to a build up of methane and coal dust in the mine. Records show that, in the weeks leading up to the explosion, some miners had expressed fears for their lives to their families. One left a note for his family. To my thinking it reads like a suicide note. Continue reading “Post-Disaster PR/Risk Management – Upper Big Branch”

BP oil rig explosion – lawyer video

The explosion of the BP oil rig raises a huge number of issues in a variety of safety and environmental disciplines. In much of the media reportage, the plight of the workers on the rig has been given much less attention.

One media report has described BP as

“a London-based multinational oil giant with the worst safety record of any major oil company operating refineries in the United States.”

The oil rig, Deepwater horizon, was leased by BP through Transocean.

On 3 May 2010 a maritime injury lawyer with Gordon, Ellias, and Seely, Jeff Seely, reportedly acting on behalf of the a family of one of the (presumed) dead workers from rig, Karl Kleppinger, released a Youtube video, produced by the World Socialist Web Site, in support of his legal action against BP and others claiming negligence.

Shift work research findings are grounds for big concern

A scientific symposium held in Canada in April 2010 has raised some serious concerns about the health impacts of shift work. Some of the evidence has existed for a while but collecting it all together makes one wonder how companies can justify shift work in the face of such high risks to workers’ health.

From the evidence presented at the symposium, workers will be tired at work when working shift work and are more likely to be injured than those on day shift. Some workers have an increased risk of breast cancer. Foetal growth in some pregnant women may be impeded. Circadian disruption may encourage the growth of tumours and an international agency is convinced sufficiently of the risks to determine that shift work itself is probably carcinogenic.

The Occupational Cancer Research Centre and the Institute for Work & Health should be applauded for making the evidence presented at the symposium publicly accessible. Continue reading “Shift work research findings are grounds for big concern”

Workplace safety still missing from British election and political radar

Several weeks after UK Prime Minister called a general election and several months since David Cameron spoke volubly about the importance of occupational safety and health, workplace safety is yet to get a mention in the British election campaigns.

Croner and LabourNet reports that Mick Holder of the Hazards Campaign, said:

“While there isn’t anything positive for workplace health and safety activists in either the Labour or Tory manifestos, there is the worrying commitment to reduce regulation in the Tory one…..Given the Tory’s persistent and corrupt attacks on health and safety laws, including those in recent weeks, this must be an issue for those considering which way to vote in the forthcoming election.” Continue reading “Workplace safety still missing from British election and political radar”

Australian safety conference – confused but in a good way

Day 2 of the Safety In Action Conference is almost over and I am confused. Some speakers say that safety cannot be improved without commitment from the most senior executives of a company. Others are saying that safety improvement can be best achieved by trusting employees.

One speaker questioned the validity of the risk management approach to safety. A colleague argued that this was not a return to prescriptive legislation, regulation and codes of practice but an opportunity for companies to assess their needs and set their own “rules” of compliance based on the risk assessment results, effectively determining their own level of OHS compliance.

Another speaker speculated that a particular Federal Minister may have been prosecuted under the model Work Health & Safety Act if Ministers had not been excluded from their duty of care.

Some see new the OHS laws as revolutionary, others see it as tweaking a legislative approach that is over 30 years old.

Some speakers I found thought-provoking, others thought these were facile and had lousy PowerPoint skills.

What this Safety In Action Conference in Australia has not been is dull. Continue reading “Australian safety conference – confused but in a good way”

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”

Can current fall protection systems save fat people?

Australian OHS research has raised some concerns about the “adequacy of personal fall arrest energy absorbers in relation to heavy workers“. In summary:

“The research demonstrates that most energy absorbers are not able to ensure that the two test criteria are not breached during the arrest of a heavy worker in the worst case scenario fall.”

There are many variables in this statement but it means that safety professionals may need to review their fall arrest devices to verify that the safety devices meet the needs of the (increasingly obese) workforce. Continue reading “Can current fall protection systems save fat people?”

Category: Duty of Care

Post-Disaster PR/Risk Management – Upper Big Branch

Like this:

BP oil rig explosion – lawyer video

Like this:

Shift work research findings are grounds for big concern

Like this:

Workplace safety still missing from British election and political radar

Like this:

Australian safety conference – confused but in a good way

Like this:

Fortescue Metals contests cyclone deaths

Like this:

Can current fall protection systems save fat people?

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: