Professor Niki Ellis speaks about OHS, CSR and resilience

Next week the National Comcare Conference is held in Melbourne Australia. One of the keynote speakers at the conference is Professor Niki Ellis, a prominent Australian OHS researchers and consultant who is also heading up the Institute for Safety, Compensation and Recovery Research (ISCRR).

On a sunny September 5 2011 I was able to spend half and hour with Niki at a noisy cafe outside Victoria’s State Library talking about:

The profile of OHS is Australia as a profession
The importance of a practical application for OHS research (what Niki refers to as “interventionist research”)
The need for innovation in tertiary institutions
The legacy of Dame Carol Black’s UK report “Working for a Healthier Tomorrow“
The challenge for OHS professionals to cope with emerging psychosocial hazards
The role and importance of Corporate Social Responsibility to workplace health and safety
The deficiencies of applying resilience to workplace mental health issues

Niki Ellis interview 050911

Kevin Jones

Safety Institute expulsion raises questions about fairness

John Lambert has been expelled from the Safety Institute of Australia (SIA). This is a fact that the SafetyAtWorkBlog would not usually report on due to privacy concerns but Lambert has already brought his expulsion to the attention of his occupational health and safety colleagues through various online discussion forums and has agreed to answer the questions below.

A quick background to his expulsion is that there was considerable debate in some sections of the Safety Institute of Australia about disciplinary action being taken against a Victorian Committee Member, Phillip Kamay. Many members, including John Lambert, saw an injustice and expressed opinions and advice, often, in email and on SIA discussion forums. It appears that Lambert overstepped the boundaries of criticism in some correspondence and complaints were lodged with the SIA

The National President of the Safety Institute of Australia, Sue Pilkington, has repeatedly promised answers to five questions about John Lambert’s expulsion for almost two weeks. No answers have yet been received but will be incorporated into this blog posts, if, and when, received.

Lambert answered some questions from us pertaining to his expulsion. Below is a slightly edited version of his response: Continue reading “Safety Institute expulsion raises questions about fairness”

Directors Sentiment Index mentions OHS but……

The survey results of the inaugural Directors Sentiment Index have been around for several months but recent breakfasts discussing the findings have generated renewed media interest.

The survey provides a useful profile of how directors see their role and lists forecasts of trends but in none of the recent media reports does workplace health and safety receive attention although it is mentioned in the survey results.

The survey, conducted for the Australian Institute of Company Directors (AICD), lists occupational health and safety (OHS) as one of the components of what is described as Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) issues (page 64).

(Curiously “Work Health & Safety” continues to be abbreviated to OH&S showing the persistence of OHS).

The chart shows that 54% of respondents believe that the importance of OHS issues will increase a little. This can be interpreted in many ways – directors do not know what they are talking about, the OHS profession has a bloated sense of its own importance, a survey over time may provide a better reflection of perception or that the work of Safe Work Australia on OHS and corporate governance is not gaining traction on the agendas at board meetings. Continue reading “Directors Sentiment Index mentions OHS but……”

Managerial OHS walk-arounds and D&O liabilities

The latest edition of The National Research Centre for Occupational Health and Safety Regulation’s newsletter lists two new working papers, one from Andrew Hopkins and one from Neil Foster. Both should be obligatory reading.

Hopkins discusses how to increase the value of the “management walk-arounds” an increasingly common key performance indicator for senior executives. Hopkins, naturally, uses the Deep Water Horizon case as an illustration of the flaws in the process but walk-arounds should not only be for large projects.

Hopkins shows that the VIPs had an inadequate understanding of safety. They identified the slips, trips and falls hazards rather than asking questions about the potential major hazards of the facility. This is a common trap for managers and safety professionals, for those with suitable OHS skills, and one that needs to be actively countered. Continue reading “Managerial OHS walk-arounds and D&O liabilities”

Is capitalism anti-safety? Systemic failures in oil industry

The Wall Street Journal and other media around the world have reported on systemic failures of the global oil industry and government regulators identified by the National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling. These articles are based on the release of a single chapter, Chapter 4, of the final report due for release on 11 January 2011.

A media release from the Commission includes the following findings from Chapter 4

“The well blew out because a number of separate risk factors, oversights, and outright mistakes combined to overwhelm the safeguards meant to prevent just such an event from happening. But most of the mistakes and oversights at Macondo can be traced back to a single overarching failure—a failure of management. Better management by BP, Halliburton, and Transocean would almost certainly have prevented the blowout by improving the ability of individuals involved to identify the risks they faced, and to properly evaluate, communicate, and address them.”

“. . .the Macondo blowout was the product of several individual missteps and oversights by BP, Halliburton, and Transocean, which government regulators lacked the authority, the necessary resources, and the technical expertise to prevent.”

“The blowout was not the product of a series of aberrational decisions made by rogue industry or government officials that could not have been anticipated or expected to occur again. Rather, the root causes are systemic and, absent significant reform in both industry practices and government policies, might well recur.”

“What we. . .know is considerable and significant:

each of the mistakes made on the rig and onshore by industry and government increased the risk of a well blowout;

the cumulative risk that resulted from these decisions and actions was both unreasonably large and avoidable; and

the risk of a catastrophic blowout was ultimately realized on April 20 and several of the mistakes were contributing causes of the blowout.”

The significance of these quotes is that the Commission is critical of an industry and not just a single company. Continue reading

Lessons Learnt…?

I would like to pose a question, or questions: are OHS professionals and the community in general, in all honesty, learning and applying the lessons we are being taught from workplace events?

Are we, or our organisations, being truly effective in preventing the recurrence of events in our workplaces, work processes or activities?

Do we, in truth, actually prevent risk before it has the opportunity to arise, or do we at best eliminate it once it does?

Most, if not all, will answer “yes, yes and yes”. And mean it. But let us take a good, hard look in the mirror.

Almost every day, most of us will become aware of another work-related fatality, another court case won or lost, another event which has resulted in significant harm to person, property, environment – or a combination thereof. What makes these events of note? Continue reading “Lessons Learnt…?”

Safety website says OHS association is heartless

Safety In Australia has posted an extraordinary article questioning the decision of the Safety Institute of Australia to proceed with a process to consider the expulsion of one of its members regardless of the member recently suffering a heart attack.

The article says that the SIA has received a doctor’s letter saying that Phil Kamay, the member in question, should not attend the special general meeting on health grounds but the SIA has decided to proceed regardless. Safety In Australia questions this decision on the grounds of fairness. It is unclear who, if anyone, will be presenting Kamay’s rebuttal of the accusations against him that have led to the expulsion moves.

On an unrelated note, it is understood that the SIA has two tables booked for Worksafe Victoria’s Safety Awards late next week and that Phil Kamay is a guest at one of those tables.

Kevin Jones

Category: ethics

Professor Niki Ellis speaks about OHS, CSR and resilience

Like this:

Safety Institute expulsion raises questions about fairness

Like this:

Directors Sentiment Index mentions OHS but……

Like this:

Managerial OHS walk-arounds and D&O liabilities

Like this:

Is capitalism anti-safety? Systemic failures in oil industry

Like this:

Lessons Learnt…?

I would like to pose a question, or questions: are OHS professionals and the community in general, in all honesty, learning and applying the lessons we are being taught from workplace events?

Like this:

Safety website says OHS association is heartless

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

I would like to pose a question, or questions: are OHS professionals and the community in general, in all honesty, learning and applying the lessons we are being taught from workplace events?

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this: