At the Safety In Action conference in Melbourne Australia, SafetyAtWorkBlog was able to catchup with John Lacey, a past President of the Institute of Occupational Safety and Health in England. John has attended ten of the conferences and has some interesting comments on the conference, how Australian safety differs from the UK and who he would nominate as an example of safety leadership.
The short interview is available at delegate-day-1-02
The Australian Workers Union are justifiably angry at the latest workplace death associated with BHP Billiton. According to the company’s media statement on 19 march 2009
“We regret to inform that we have been advised by Mines and Port Development (a Joint Venture of Fluor and SKM), who manage our major construction activities, that there has been a fatal accident involving a John Holland employee at the construction site in Newman.”
The company’s own website provides the background to the union’s concern.
It is with regret that BHP Billiton Iron Ore advises that an employee, Bob Blake, a track machine operator, aged 56, was fatally injured in a rail accident approximately 74km south of Port Hedland at 3.30am on Tuesday 24 February.
It is with sadness that BHP Billiton Mitsubishi Alliance (BMA) advises that John Barker, an employee of Nixon Communications working at Blackwater Mine, was fatally injured in a motor vehicle accident at the mine late this morning.
We regret to advise that a fatality has occurred at BHP Billiton’s Yandi mining operations involving a HWE Mining employee.
BHP Billiton Iron Ore regrets to advise that an incident occurred during the night at its Yandi mine site, which resulted in the death of an HWE Mining employee.
BHP Billiton Iron Ore regrets to advise that an incident occurred at approximately 11.00am today at its Nelson Point operations in Port Hedland, which has resulted in the death of an employee.
It is with deep regret that BHP Billiton reports that a fatality has occurred today at the Cannington silver, lead and zinc operation in north-west Queensland.
In the “Chairman’s Review” for 2008, Don Argus wrote about the growth in demand for its products from the Asian region:
Our response has been to streamline our business to enable us to produce as much product as fast as possible within the non-negotiable framework of the highest safety and environmental standards.
The CEO, Marius Kloppers, states that even though the company has achieved its seventh consecutive year of “record attributable profit”
While we can report financial success, I regret to report we have not performed well on safety. In FY2008, 11 of our employees died at work. Many more lives will have been impacted, some forever, by these tragic and avoidable events. We have reflected deeply on what more we must do to reach our goal of Zero Harm. In FY2009, we are making even greater efforts to improve our safety performance.
As shown above, the FY2009 performance statistics are not looking too good.
In the 2008 Corporate Governance Summary, the Directors are lauded.
The non-executive Directors contribute international and operational experience; understanding of the sectors in which we operate; knowledge of world capital markets; and an understanding of the health, safety, environmental and community challenges that we face.
In its 2008 Annual Report under Risk Factors, safety is listed within assets. It reads like an acceptance that contractors are not living up to their OHS obligations or BHP Billiton standards. This rings hollow as contractor management should be an area that a company of such size, resources, longevity and experience, manages in an exemplary fashion.
Some of our assets are controlled and managed by joint venture partners or by other companies. Some joint venture partners may have divergent business objectives which may impact business and financial results. Management of our non-controlled assets may not comply with our management and operating standards, controls and procedures (including health, safety, environment). Failure to adopt equivalent standards, controls and procedures at these assets could lead to higher costs and reduced production and adversely impact our results and reputation.
Later in the Risk Factor chapter:
Despite our best efforts and best intentions, there remains a risk that health, safety and/or environmental incidents or accidents may occur that may negatively impact our reputation or licence to operate.
The company is active though. It has a Code of Conduct that applies to everyone, including contractors. In it there is a quick test:
If you are in doubt about what to do or whether to speak up, it may help to do the Business Conduct Quick Test by asking yourself some simple questions:
- The values test: Does it fit with the values in our Charter?
- The safety test: Could it directly or indirectly endanger someone or cause them injury?
- The law test: Is it legal and in line with our policies and standards?
- The conscience test: Does it fit with my personal values?
- The newspaper test: If the story appeared in the paper, would I feel comfortable with the decision?
- The family test: What would I tell my partner, parent or child to do?
- The ‘feel test’: What’s my intuition or ‘gut feel’? If it ‘feels’ bad, then it probably is bad!
Failing any of the above ‘tests’ indicates that you need to talk with someone about the concern you have.
It’s not that BHP Billiton seems to have fallen into a heap in the last couple of years. Following a major explosion in 2004 at its remote Boodarie Hot Briquette Iron (HBI) plant in Western Australia, it was fined $200,000 plus costs for “failing to provide and maintain a working environment in which employees were not exposed to hazards.” The explosion killed one worker and injured several others.
The court case revolved around the May 2004 explosion at the Port Hedland Boodarie HBI plant where one man died, and others received severe burns.
The prosecution case was that BHP Billiton undertook two activities, with the potential to cause an explosion, together without a proper risk assessment. This was considered to be a serious and substantial breach of the obligation to provide and maintain a safe working environment.
There is much more OHS performance information available at the BHP Billiton website but it is worth ending this post with the OHS statement included in the Code of Conduct:
BHP Billiton is committed to achieving leading industry practice in health and safety.
In all cases, we will aim to meet or exceed applicable legal and other requirements, as we believe that all accidents and occupational illnesses and injuries are preventable.
Our priority is to ensure that all our people – regardless of where they work or what they do – return home safely.
For three days next week, SafetyAtWorkBlog will be reporting from the Safety In Action Conference in Melbourne. This is the 12th annual conference and it remains the dominant OHS conference on the Australian circuit for duration, affordability and credibility.
For three days next week, SafetyAtWorkBlog will be reporting from the Safety In Action Conference in Melbourne. This is the 12th annual conference and it remains the dominant OHS conference on the Australian circuit for duration, affordability and credibility.
More information on the conference is available at www.siaconference.com.au. Check out the videos below on this page for an introduction to some of the speakers.
Contact me through my email if you are going to be at the conference and want to meet up.
Kevin Jones
Since the final report of Australia’s Review into Model OHS Law, discussion has been remarkably quiet. The ACTU was scheduled to meet for discussions on the report last Monday and no public statements have been made. Most of the labour law firms have been quiet also. It is fair to say that most are trying to digest the 480 page report.
But one employer group has provided an opinion piece in the business pages of The Age newspaper on March 2 2009. The article says little that is new but it is mischievous in some of its comments.
John Colvin, CEO of the Australian Institute of Company Directors, writes of his concerns about increased exposure for the Institute’s members. Colvin is concerned that upcoming OHS laws may be unprincipled and counterproductive.
The Model OHS Law report has said that it supports the statement of OHS principles as are already in place in the Victorian OHS legislation. According to WorkSafe Victoria
“The Act sets out the key principles, duties and rights in relation to occupational health and safety. The general nature of the duties imposed by the Act means that they cover a very wide variety of circumstances, do not readily date and provide considerable flexibility for a duty holder to determine what needs to be done to comply.”
These principles are
4. The principles of health and safety protection
(1) The importance of health and safety requires that employees, other persons at work and members of the public be given the highest level of protection against risks to their health and safety that is reasonably practicable in the circumstances.
(2) Persons who control or manage matters that give rise or may give rise to risks to health or safety are responsible for eliminating or reducing those risks so far as is reasonably practicable.
(3) Employers and self-employed persons should be proactive, and take all reasonably practicable measures, to ensure health and safety at workplaces and in the conduct of undertakings.
(4) Employers and employees should exchange information and ideas about risks to health and safety and measures that can be taken to eliminate or reduce those risks.
(5) Employees are entitled, and should be encouraged, to be represented in relation to health and safety issues.
The article is mischievous in a number of areas. Colvin mentions how the current laws vary from state to state. He mentions that
“Some carry personal criminal liability for directors, even where they may not have had any personal involvement in a breach. In some states, they reverse the onus of proof, removing the presumption of innocence, and offer narrow legal defences and limited appeal rights.” (my emphasis)
Colvin is talking primarily about New South Wales, the State that everyone agrees has the OHS law that is most onerous for employers. However, the New South Wales union movement has been remarkably quiet and flexible on the issue of its OHS laws. There has been some rhetoric for the benefit of its members and to retain some ideological “face” but the union movement across Australia is coming to accept the reality of better OHS outcomes from nationally harmonised legislation.
Repeatedly the National OHS Law Review panel stated that it has based its decisions on the structure of the Victorian legislation as, for one reason, it has undergone the most recent legal review. Colvin’s focus on New South Wales OHS law is outdated, reflective, and unhelpful.
Colvin mentions a survey that found
“..more than 65 per cent said the risk of personal liability occasionally made them take an overly cautious approach in the boardroom and another 13 per cent said this happened frequently. Almost two-thirds felt this had inhibited an optimal business decision to a medium to high degree.”
This indicates that the risk of being prosecuted on OHS breaches is being discussed at board level – great result. Whether this translates to the board improving the OHS performance of their company is doubtful as Colvin’s article implies that directors are looking at ways of avoiding responsibility and liability rather than accepting the reality of their OHS obligations and working to improve them.
Colvin says that
“Directors should not be held criminally liable for a company’s misconduct simply because they are a director.”
Directors are not prosecuted for OHS breaches because of their status or position. They are prosecuted because of the decisions that they make and the ramifications of those decisions. If a director is dismissive of OHS issues and palms them off to someone else in the organisation and an incident occurs, should not the director be called to account for why they considered the safety of their workers to be unimportant, even when for over thirty years directors and executives have had responsibility for OHS compliance?
Colvin believes that holding directors accountable implies that directors have more control over the actions of their employers than they do. Current business and management theories promote the position that directors should be more in touch with what is happening on the shopfloor. The theories promote informed leadership and an increased awareness of how the company and its people work, they promote a level of engagement that creates a positive workplace culture and displays leadership. Colvin seems to be encouraging the opposite.
He ends his article with
“More fundamentally, it unfairly treats directors more harshly under the law than the rest of the community.”
He misunderstands the application and aims of OHS law. All people in a workplace have a responsibility to ensure a safe and healthy workplace for themselves, for employees and for members of public on and off their worksites. Directors have more detailed obligations, but not less, because they have control of production and benefit more from the success of the company than do the employees.
Ultimately, Colvin’s article reflects the misunderstanding of OHS that directors and companies have had for decades. Companies need to realise that the best performing companies in OHS, and those with the best productivity, are those that have embraced their obligations for safety and have incorporated the principles within their own culture.
The review into model OHS law has indicated the way of the future and company directors would be well-served to realise this and get on board. Being left behind will benefit no one, especially the shareholders.
Health funding and management is a constant political issue. The attention increases hugely during election campaigns like the one that is currently occurring in the Australian state of Queensland.
This week the leader of the opposition parties, Lawrence Springborg, called for the release of a government report into the sexual attack on a nurse and security in Torres Strait islands. SafetyAtWorkBlog has written repeatedly on OHS issues associated with the attack in February 2008. Springborg has pledged increased safety resources for remote area nurses.
Queensland Health reports on 25 February 2009 that the CEO of the Torres Strait District’s health service CEO has been stood aside as a result of the government’s investigation. The statement reads
“Director-General Michael Reid said the Crime and Misconduct Commission had reviewed the report by the Ethical Standards Unit and was satisfied with the investigation.
“Some allegations that members of the Torres Strait and Northern Peninsula Health Service District executive did not act appropriately were upheld by this investigation,” he said. “We accept this investigation has found serious faults in the way Queensland Health staff responded to this critical incident and we are taking immediate action.”
The CEO of the Torres Strait-Northern Peninsula District has been stood down, effective immediately, while her role with Queensland Health is under further consideration.”
Many of the issues raised relate to possible corruption and improper behaviour by the Queensland Health and others. These are the political points that Springborg is likely to chase.
In terms of occupational health and safety, the focus of this blog, Queensland Health says
“There is substantial evidence that there has been a systemic failure by the Torres Strait and Northern Peninsula Health Service District to acknowledge and address workplace health and safety issues within the District over a long period of time.”
“There is sufficient evidence to conclude, on the balance of probabilities, that members of the Torres Strait and Northern Peninsula Health Service District (TSNPHSD)
Executive responded inappropriately and insensitively when notified of the alleged rape of a Remote Island Nurse on Mabuiag Island on or around 5 February 2008.”
“Further, there is sufficient evidence exists to find, on the balance of probabilities, that the repatriation of the remote area nurse from the outer islands as not managed or coordinated at a level cognisant with the seriousness of the events which had occurred.”
It is no wonder the CEO of the health service has lost her job. It is a little surprising that more, and more prominent, heads have not rolled. It is suspected that this may be one of the aims of the opposition politicians during the current election campaign.
To return to our core issue of OHS and accountability, this result clearly indicates that senior executives, particularly in the public sector in this instance, must take a preventative approach to the health, safety and security of their staff, wherever the employee is located.
A couple of weeks ago I conducted interviews with several speakers in the Safety In Action Conference to be held in Melbourne, Australia at the end of March 2009. The finalised videos are below.
Helen Marshall is Australia’s Federal Safety Commissioner who has a challenging job monitoring major government construction sites.
Dr Martyn Newman is a a fascinating speaker on the issues of leadership and emotional intelligence and how safety professionals can benefit for applying these concepts to their corporate aims.
Jill McCabe is a recent member of WorkSafe Victoria who provides quite startling survey information on the attitudes of supervisors to workplace safety.
Barry Sherriff is a partner with law firm Freehills and was recently also one of the review panellists into Australia’s OHS law review. Since this video, the final report of the panel has been publicly released and Barry will be discussing harmonisation at the Safety In Action conference.
John Merritt is the Executive Director of WorkSafe and a strong advocate of workplace safety.
Although part of my job is to help promote the Safety In Action conference, I have tried to provide a resource that will not be temporary and is actually useful to safety professionals everywhere.
Tip: Use the high quality YouTube settings if you can. It makes these much easier to view but does not improve the appearance of the interviewer.
In April 2002, I interviewed Lawrence Lorber of US law firm Proskauer Rose on workplace bullying. It was at the height of the Enron collapse and corporate behaviour towards staff was gaining a lot of attention. Over the last fortnight I have been researching some of the management books and concepts concerning leadership, emotional intelligence, modern expectations of managers – all of which could be thrown into “workplace culture.”
As I was reading back issue of the SafetyATWORK magazine, I used to published, there seemed to be valuable comments from Lawrence that remain relevant. Below is an extract of the interview. The full interview is available HERE
SAW: In Australia, the approach to workplace bullying seems to be coming from a systemic management system rather than one relying on psychological assessment.
LL: The highly competitive and highly contentious nature of what is coming out about Enron, the “up or out” atmosphere is one aspect of a system that can lead to managers or co-workers to engage in bullying. The characteristics of being tough or abrasive may be necessary to get ahead in the organisation. The environment can encourage or create bullying tendencies. However, not everybody turns into Attila the Hun in a highly competitive environment. Others survive without taking on the attributes of the bully.
Psychological testing is frequently applied in the States with regard to executive promotions. Dealing with bullying does require a combination of the systemic and individual approach. I work for some companies who are publicly perceived as fairly aggressive, there are tough people there who I might not want to work for but they are effective. They might be perceived as bullies. But looking at bullying as an environmental issue does mask the problem.
SAW: Managers sometimes need to motivate a staff member, perhaps, by rebuking them. The receiver of the rebuke may perceive that as bullying. How can we balance these perceptions?
LL: There were management books in the States in the 1980s, which encouraged management by intimidation. At one point that was the vogue. After the movie PATTON came out, everyone wanted to be General Patton.
If you look at a harsh manager who is demanding in an abrasive manner, that could be bullying.
How do you define bullying? Do you define it by your own reaction? A very US example is sex harassment. Is harassment in the eyes of the beholder? Does it have to be a reasonable woman who believes she is being harassed? In the circumstance where the bully is a male and the recipient is a female, frequently that becomes harassment.
SAW: That is a problem for the managers where for the last 30 years, harassment, bullying and discrimination has been handled outside the OHS field, in Human Resources. Now there are national and international moves to combat bullying because of the stress at work issues. I haven’t seen that approach in the United States.
LL: Here it’s not health and safety. Our definition of harassment is an “intimidating atmosphere”. That can also be a definition of bullying.
I don’t think it will be considered as a health and safety issue because workplace stress is not a field that is devoid of regulation. It is simply being regulated in a different context-employment discrimination and to a lesser extent under the disability laws.
