government – Page 230 – SafetyAtWorkBlog

Management – the importance of what comes before

A special guest for the Safe Work Australia events in Queensland was Matthew Gill, former Beaconsfield Gold mine manager. According to a media statement from the Government

“Matthew Gill who was the public face of the Beaconsfield mine rescue will speak about how he immediately took control of the emergency and then implemented rescue operations for the three missing miners,” [Workplace Health and Safety Queensland Executive Director, Dr Simon Blackwood] said. “Mr Gill maintained an unwavering commitment to the safety of the people conducting the rescue and to the trapped miners.

“He oversaw the rescue teams which battled 24 hours a day for 14 days to release the two miners trapped almost 1km underground. Mr Gill will relive the emotional story of finding Larry Knight’s body and having to talk to his family afterwards.

“Previously he has been involved with mine rescue at rock falls at Mt Lyell in Tasmania and in Papua New Guinea, but Beaconsfield was the first time that he had such ‘hands on’ involvement.”

Matthew Gill has a lot of skills to share on disaster management and media handling but a lot of that skill seems to come about after the rockfall in 2006 that killed Larry Knight.

Cover KNIGHT,_Larry_Paul_-_2009_TASCD_25 Prior to that time, in 1995 to 1997, Matthew Gill was the Responsible Officer for the mine. From 1997, Gill appointed other people to undertake the role that is required by legislation. Sometimes there were three people in the role at the same time. Professor Michael Quinlan was quoted in the Coroner’s report saying that

“……….the very notion of appointing a Responsible Officer would have little meaning unless that person so appointed exercised overall control of the workplace and could therefore make critical decisions in relation to OHS not simply recommend them, be part of them, or make decisions but not others than might affect safety. For example, as Responsible Officer Mr Ball was a participant in decisions on mine design and mining methods – decisions that have a critical effect on the safety of underground workings – but he was not the only or final decision maker.”

The Tasmanian coroner Rod Chandler,agreed that there should be only one Responsible Officer and that the legislation be amended to reflect this.

Media reports of the inquest into Larry Knight’s death reported that after rockfalls in October 2005 and various risk consultants’ reports Matthew Gill undertook some remedial work on the mine and in February 2006, Gill declared the mine safe to restart mining. The decisions made on the basis of those consultants’ reports came under close scrutiny in the coronial inquest.

On 10 November 2008, AAP’s Paul Carter reported the following:

Lawyer Kamal Faroque [representing the Knight family and the Australian Workers’ Union] told Coroner Rod Chandler in Launceston that Allstate’s management failures contributed to Mr Knight’s death…. Mr Faroque said mine manager Matthew Gill was ultimately responsible for deficiencies in the mine’s ground supports. “It is submitted that deficiencies in ground support contributed to the Anzac Day rockfall which killed Mr Knight,” he said.

He also said there was no reasonable basis for Allstate to conclude that it was safe for workers to return to the area after two earlier rockfalls.

“Mr Gill accepted responsibility for the decision to recommence stoping in the western zone following the October (2005) rockfalls,” Mr Faroque said. Stoping is a mining method in which underground chambers are opened up deep beneath the surface.

Mr Faroque said the risk management process conducted following the October 2005 rockfalls was inadequate. “It is submitted that these failures are a sound foundation for a finding that Allstate contributed to the death of Larry Knight,” Mr Faroque told the court.

There is no doubt that Matthew Gill was integral to the successful rescue of Brant Webb and Todd Russell but Gill had been employed at the mine for over a decade before the fatal rockfall and therefore was also involved with the decision-making leading up to the rockfall. The decisions made by the company over many years should be analysed to see the combination of bad, poor, or short-term decisions that ultimately led to Larry Knight’s death and the entrapment of his colleagues.

The rescue of Webb and Russell is an exciting tale with a happy ending and at least one book and several long articles (even a school lesson plan) have been written about this. The most lasting lessons for safety professionals, mine managers and business operators would be what contributed to the bad decisions leading to Larry Knight, Brant Webb and Todd Russell being in an unsafe working environment during a rockfall.

This is a more complex story that requires knowledge of geology, the stock markets, corporate accountability, OHS and mine safety regulations. If this story had been Matthew Gill’s presentation during Safe Work Australia Week, it would have been worth travelling to Queensland to hear.

Kevin Jones

Amputations, shocks and burns – court cases

In late October 2009, there were several OHS court cases in Australia that raise issues that need to be kept at the forefront of the thoughts of safety managers, safety professionals, workers and business owners.

Amputation

One case in South Australia identified the need to have sufficient detail in policies and procedures for workers to be safe. The comment of Industrial Magistrate Michael Ardlie is particularly important.

Beerenberg Pty Ltd was fined $A9,000 dollars for breaching OHS law

“The incident happened in May 2007 at the company’s Hahndorf premises. A female employee was operating a mincer as part of the process of producing green tomato chutney.

The court was told that at the conclusion of the task, the employee switched off the machine but noticed a piece of tomato hanging from the mincer plate. She went to flick the piece off, but in doing so lost the tip of her index finger.

SafeWork SA’s investigation concluded that the woman’s finger had gone through one of the holes in the mincer plate and come into contact with the cutting blade behind, which was still winding down after the machine was switched off.

The fingertip could not be reattached, but the woman returned to work with the business after five weeks. Aside from the cosmetic appearance, there remains some numbness in the finger.

In his penalty decision today, Industrial Magistrate Michael Ardlie acknowledged that while there was a safe operating procedure written and a warning sign in place, these measures alone were insufficient.

“(The measures) did not specifically warn employees of the dangers presented by the moving parts of the mincer after the mincer had been turned off… the procedures in place did not go far enough.”

Since the incident, the company has fitted a purpose-built distance guard as well as an interlock that shuts the machine down once the guard is removed.”

Magistrate Ardlie fined the defendant $9,000 this being its first offence.

Crushed Fingers and Guarding

The same Industrial Magistrate as above, McArdlie, had to deal with a very different case. Whereas Beerenberg was facing its first offence, OE & DR Pope are on their fifth.

“SafeWork SA prosecuted OE & DR Pope Pty Ltd after investigating an incident at its Wingfield printing plant in March 2007.

A 34-year-old male employed as a machine operator, suffered crush injuries to three fingers of his right hand, which were caught between moving rollers. While he returned to work after three weeks, he suffered residual sensitivity problems, and left the business in December 2007 for unrelated reasons.

The court was told that the operator had attempted to clean dry spots from a roller without stopping the machine, and was able to gain access to the moving parts through a 70mm gap in the guarding. Furthermore, the employee’s usual assistant was not available leaving him to perform two roles on the machine. The supervisor who also should have been present was elsewhere on the premises at the time.

In his decision on penalty handed down today, Industrial Magistrate Michael Ardlie noted that the machine involved had replaced another involved in a previous injury, but that a risk assessment failed to identify the problem which ultimately occurred:

“Whilst the defendant prior to the incident did assess the machine, installed a guard and introduced a Standard Operating Procedure, the steps it took were inadequate.”

The court was told that this was the company’s fifth offence dating back to 1998, and all previous incidents resulted in similar injuries from similar circumstances.

Therefore, being a subsequent offence under the Occupational Health Safety and Welfare Act 1986, the defendant faced a maximum fine of $A200,000. Magistrate Ardlie fined the company $A40,000.”

Fifth incident in just over ten years – “similar injuries from similar circumstances”. The reduced fine of $A40,000 seems a little odd in this context.

There are several elements that are disturbing in this case – ineffective guarding, excessive or conflicting workload and absent work supervisor.

Overhead Hazards

Just as falling in some workplaces is as “easy as falling of a log”, so it is that many people forget to look up. A court case in Western Australia has fined Shrigley Drilling Contractors $A40,000 after one worker was shocked and another burnt when their drilling rig tilted into high-voltage overhead powerlines in 2006.

“Laurence Victor Shrigley – trading as Shrigley Drilling Contractors – pleaded guilty to failing to ensure that the workplace was safe and, by that failure, causing serious harm to another person and was fined in the Perth Magistrates Court this week.

In May 2006, Western Power had contracted Outback Power Services to perform works and construct a voltage regulator at Eneabba. Outback Power had contracted Mr Shrigley to perform drilling works.

On May 17, Mr Shrigley and an electrical contractor were engaged in drilling holes with a drilling rig underneath power lines. The position in which the drilling contractor chose to place the rig required him to raise the mast very close to the power lines.

In repositioning the rig, the left-hand outrigger was raised and the mast tilted towards the power lines. The mast touched the power lines and Mr Shrigley received an electric shock and was thrown backwards from the drilling rig.

Another man, who was driving the truck that carried the drilling rig and was working with Mr Shrigley on a voluntary basis, also received an electric shock serious enough to set his clothing on fire. He sustained burns to around 60 per cent of his body.

The court heard that no formal pre-start meeting had been held before the work commenced, and no directions were given for the work, with the exception of where the holes were required to be placed.

Mr Shrigley had not checked whether the power lines were live, or attempted to make any arrangements for the power in the area to be isolated.”

The features in this case include contractor management, using a volunteer, inadequate preparation, and inadequate number of workers (apparently, no spotter).

It is understandable that cynicism is rampant in the safety profession when the same work practices lead to injuries in the 21st century just as they did in the 20th and sometimes in the 19th.

Kevin Jones

Gov’t responds to insulation installer’s death

Recently SafetyAtWorkBlog reported of the death of a worker installing insulation in a domestic home. A staple for the foil insulation apparently pierced an electrical cable and electrocuted the worker.

The Queensland Government has introduced mandatory provisions to avoid the hazard in the future. In a media release on 1 November 2009, the Industrial Relation Minister, Cameron Dick,

“… issued a ministerial notice under the Electrical Safety Act 2002 to prohibit the use of metal fastenings for ceiling insulation.”

The ban is effective from 1 November 2009.

It may already be the case, elsewhere in the world, that non-conductive fasteners are used for installing metallic insulation. If not, the rules introduced by the government should prove useful references.

“The ministerial notice means that installers will have to use nylon or plastic fasteners (which are already in use within the industry), glue or tape to fix foil insulation in ceilings.

As well as banning metal fasteners, the notice also:

forces insulation installers to comply with the Wiring Rules with respect to the placement of any type of insulation near recessed downlights

makes electrical safety risk assessment training mandatory for all installers

forces installers to document their on-site electrical safety risk assessments and keep a record f or five years.”

Such a mandatory rule is clearly a necessary short-term fix but it does little to address the concerns of the Master Electricians Association. Training and enforcement are the long-term solutions but policymakers must also anticipate the applications of their policies more closely. New policies should not be announced in an industry that does not have the resources to meet the policy’s aims.

Kevin Jones

Grandad’s disease

Almost as a follow-on from the Matt Peacock podcast the UK’s Health and Safety Executive has given asbestos the feature slot in its October 2009 podcast that has just been released.

The podcast and accompanying campaign is aimed at the recent tradespeople who may be under the impression that, as asbestos was banned in the UK in 2000, that the hazard no longer exists. This is not the case and the podcast pushes this point.

The podcast also mentions how people panic when there is any risk of exposure to asbestos. Strangely, the speakers say that harm from asbestos is more likely to come from prolonged exposure than from a single fibre. This seems to contrast with the asbestos campaigns of the past and given that symptoms of asbestos-related diseases can appear “out-of-the-blue” decades later, the statement sounds odd.

The HSE podcast can be downloaded HERE.

Kevin Jones

New approaches on OHS fines and penalties

At the moment Australian OHS professionals, lawyers and businesses are preparing submissions to the Government on the harmonisation of OHS laws. One of the areas that the Government is seeking advice on is penalties. The Discussion Paper asks the following

Q17. Are the range and levels of penalties proposed above appropriate, taking account of the levels set for breaches of duties of care by the WRMC?

Q18. What should the maximum penalty be for a contravention of the model regulations?

Q19. The intention is that all contraventions of the model Act be criminal offences. Is this appropriate or should some non-duty of care offences be subject to civil sanctions e.g. failure to display a list of HSRs at the workplace, offences relating to right of entry?

The amount of any fixed financial penalty is not a big issue in my opinion. There is an assumption that the threat of a large financial penalty imposed on one company will encourage other companies to improve safety. Is anyone seriously saying that all of the financial penalties imposed over the decades are in some way responsible for an improving level of safety in workplaces? The motivation to improve safety comes from elsewhere.

The threat of large financial penalties send companies to seek ways of insuring against having to pay a fine. Often it is cheaper to pay an insurance premium on the slim chance of being prosecuted and fined. I acknowledge that this has been a corporate and risk management approach primarily but there are cases where such options are being offered to small business.

Large financial penalties, such as the then record fine to Esso over its Longford gas explosion, are easily paid with little OHS improvement resulting from the fine. It can be argued that the negative corporate exposure from the resulting Royal Commission, a reulting class action and the media coverage resulting from its unforgivable treatment of Jim Ward were stronger motivators for improvement.

In most Australian States, there is not a crime of industrial manslaughter. This issue has faded from the political agenda but it remains very much alive in England. On 27 October 2009, the Sentencing Guidelines Council wrote the following:

“Companies and organisations that cause death through gross breaches of care should face punitive and significant fines, a consultation guideline published by the Sentencing Guidelines Council proposes today.

Fines for organisations found guilty of the new offence of corporate manslaughter may be measured in millions of pounds and should seldom be below £500,000.

The new sanction of Publicity Orders forcing companies and organisations to make a statement about their conviction and fine introduced under the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act should be imposed in virtually all cases.

The consultation guideline proposes that the publicity should be designed to ensure that the conviction becomes known to shareholders and customers in the case of companies and to local people in the case of public bodies, such as local authorities, hospital trusts and police forces. Organisations may be made to put a statement on their websites.”

The Council recommends a minimum financial penalty and a publicity order that has teeth. More on the publicity order is below.

Council member Lord Justice Anthony Hughes clearly states the purpose of financial penalties and it is not preventative. He said in a media statement

“Fines cannot and do not attempt to value a human life – compensation will be payable separately in these cases. The fine is designed to punish and these are serious offences so the fines imposed should be punitive and significant to reflect that.”

Penalties as a Percentage of Turnover

Hughes says that the Council rejected a Sentencing Advisory Panel proposal that I believe should be floated in the current debate on penalties in Australia, even though it is likely to be similarly rejected.

The Panel recommended the following

“In order to achieve an equal economic impact on offending organisations of different sizes, the proposed starting points and ranges for offences of corporate manslaughter are expressed as percentages of the offending organisation’s average annual turnover during the three years prior to sentencing. The relevant turnover is that of the company convicted of the offence or, where the offending organisation is a holding company, the consolidated turnover of the group of companies of which it is the holding company.”

Here is the penalty table

Manslaughter table

Lawyers argue extensively about the use of manslaughter in relation to deaths in workplace but the public jumps across the legalese by repeatedly asking how the death of their loved one is not manslaughter when the actions of a director or company led directly to the death? No level of legal explanation is going to counter this need for accountability, some would say revenge.

Similarly the penalty rate listed in the table above is easier for the public to understand conceptually compared to a judge’s or lawyer’s explanation of why a financial penalty for a workplace death was less than the maximum.

Sentencing options are complex and SafetyAtWorkBlog has no legal contributors but on 30 October 2009 within a public discussion period on national OHS laws and at the end of Safe Work Australia Week, it seem thats penalties imposed from a percentage of turnover may be an attractive concept to many safety advocates and one that needs to be considered in the Australian context.

Publicity Orders

On the issue of publicity orders, many Australian jurisdictions have had this option for a while. Indeed, the issue of enforceable undertakings is getting a broader hearing after some of the recent actions by Comcare against John Holland Group and others.

It is always important to look at the most recent actions and decisions in OHS law and regulation from outside one’s own jurisdiction so that innovations are not overlooked. It seems that the Sentencing Advisory Panel has looked at lots of jurisdictions in making the following requirements.

The Sentencing Advisory Panel listed specific requirements of a publicity order to be applied within a specified timeframe:

a quarter-page advertisement in a local or regional newspaper, in the case of an organisation operating in one area; or

an eighth-page advertisement in three specified national daily newspapers, in the case of an organisation operating nationally; and

an eighth-page notice in a relevant trade publication; and

a prominent notice in the organisation’s annual report (also in electronic format where applicable); and

where applicable, a notice on the homepage of the organisation’s website for a minimum period of three months.

The panel also closed a possible (out) for offending companies.

” The making of a publicity order does not justify a reduction in the level of fine imposed on an organisation for an offence of corporate manslaughter.”

The ads on home pages, local newspapers and trade publications (if there are any) seems very reasonable but the media option that may be most influential is the inclusion in the company’s annual report. Acknowledging a workplace death and expressing regret in an annual report is admirable but “a prominent notice in the organisation’s annual report” goes straight to the shareholders who often have the ear of the corporation. Just look at the influence being applied by them at the moment on executive salaries.

Now is the right time for Australia to consider alternative OHS penalty options.

Kevin Jones

Combining safety and RTW awards

Finally, a State-based safety awards night that has both OHS and Return-to-Work awards. On 27 October 2009, Workplace Health & Safety Queensland held its annual safety awards night as part of Safe Work Australia Week. In a media release, the Minister for Industrial Relations, Cameron Dick, said

“The inaugural Return to Work Awards are run by Q-COMP – the statutory authority that oversees workers’ compensation in Queensland – to showcase the state’s top employers who understand the importance of helping injured workers make a successful return to work.”

It is curious that other States do not also have combined awards. The logic of the combination would, perhaps, be easiest for Victoria as the Victorian Workcover Authority handles rehabilitation through VWA as well prevention through WorkSafe Victoria. The combination may be simpler for those States that have a single insurer for workers compensation.

It is noted that one workers compensation insurer in Victoria, xchanging (formerly Cambridge), has conducted its own awards for several years. (The author was a judge of these awards several years ago) The judging process was tripartite with applicants from a pool of the insurer’s clients. Whether an insurer would relinquish such a role is unknown but the opportunity for State recognition of RTW performance should be attractive.

It should also be noted that winners of State OHS awards are also nominated for national OHS awards conducted by Safe Work Australia.

SafetyAtWorkBlog has questioned the plethora of OHS awards nights in the past as Australia has a fairly small industry and as OHS and workers compensation laws are becoming harmonised, it seems sensible for Safe Work Australia, or the Australian Government more generally, to start harmonising the award processes. Just imagine how many corporations would be champing at the bit to receive an award for safety that covers all aspects of their safety management. It would be an award for leadership that may just be warranted.

Kevin Jones

WorkSafe Victoria Awards winners

On 29 October 2009, WorkSafe Victoria held its WorkSafe Awards event at the Palladium Room at Melbourne’s Crown Casino. SafetyAtWorkBlog attended as a guest. All the winners were deserved and there are short profiles of some of the winners below.

WorkSafe Awards 2009 004 The first award was for the Health & Safety Representative of the Year, won by Phyl Hilton. Hilton was clearly honoured by the award and in his acceptance speech acknowledged that good OHS laws are “socially progressive” – a position that is rarely heard outside of the union movement or from non-blue-collar workers. It is an element missing from many of the submission currently being received by Australian Government in its OHS law review.

Hilton presented as genuine and his commitment to the safety of his colleagues was undeniable. Significantly, he thanked several WorkSafe inspectors for their support and assistance. WorkSafe would have been chuffed but the comment which reinforced safety as a partnership.

WorkSafe Awards 2009 001 The Best Solution to a Health and Safety Risk was given to Bendigo TAFE for a machine guarding solution. Guards have become an unfashionable hazard control solution and often now seem to rely on new technology. The chuck key guard was as hi-tech as an interlock device but one that the users of the lathes, almost all young workers, would not need any involvement with. If chuck key remains in the place, the guard is out of position and the machine cannot start. Simple is always the best.

The combination of beer and safety is a heady mix for Australians so the keg handler had a cultural edge on the other award finalists in the category, Best Solution to Prevent Musculoskeletal Injuries. The keg mover and the keg stacker seemed to be two different devices WorkSafe Awards 2009 002 and it would have been great to have a single device but the stacking option was particularly interesting. Many pub cellars are cramped and being able to stack beer kegs in a stable fashion is attractive, and sensible. The cross-support that is placed on top of each keg was, perhaps, the standout feature. One can almost see the staring at the top of the keg by the designers and the creative cogs turning. The best solutions always seem to be those where one asks “why didn’t I think of that?”

WorkSafe has placed a lot of attention on safety in the horse racing industry, particularly, as injuries received by jockeys and the killing of injured racehorses are in public view and therefore are highly newsworthy.

WorkSafe Awards 2009 003 The attraction of this winner of Best Design for Workplace Safety is that the inventor has looked beyond PPE for jockeys to what a jockey is likely to hit when falling of a racehorse at speed.

The OHS law drafters should take note that this innovation has come from looking at “eliminating a hazard, at the source”, an important terminology omitted from the last Australia OHS law draft. Would there have been the same level of innovation if the racing industry had done what was “reasonably practicable”? It is very doubtful.

This post has focussed on individual achievement and physical solutions to hazards. The awards for OHS committee and safety management systems are not detailed here as they are more difficult to quantify but for completeness, the Safety Committee of the Year went to RMIT – School of Aerospace, Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering, Bundoora East, the Best Strategy for Health and Safety Management went to the Youth Justice Custodial Services – Department of Human Services, Parkville for its program in Clinical Group Supervision.

Some of these solutions need to be viewed to fully understand their merit and it is hoped that SafetyAtWorkBlog will be able to post the videos of the winners and, more importantly, the other finalists, shortly. Certainly the other finalists in the solutions categories deserve almost as much recognition.

Kevin Jones

Health and Safety Representative of the Year

Recipient: Phyl Hilton – Toyota Motor Corporation, Altona

Phyl, who works as a toolmaker at Toyota’s Altona Plant, has been a health and safety representative for 10 years. Representing 27 members in the trades department within the Press shop, he takes a leading role in identifying opportunities for safety improvements in his workplace. Using a practical and collaborative approach, Phyl has played an integral part in many initiatives, including the design and construction of weld bay facilities, the procurement of portable fume extractors and the development of press plant policies in English and Japanese. Phyl was also part of the Traffic Management Control Working Party and the Working at Heights and Trades Hazard Mapping projects. He is committed to developing and driving safety knowledge among Toyota apprentices and actively mentors and coaches fellow health and safety representatives.

Best Design for Workplace Safety

Recipient: Bendigo Regional Institute of TAFE, Bendigo

Initiative: Lathe Chuck Guard

Bendigo Regional Institute of TAFE works with students and apprentices to prepare them for the workforce. An incident highlighted the risk of an operator forgetting to remove a key from the chuck on a lathe before turning it on. Working on lathes is a normal part of work in many businesses within the manufacturing industry. The chuck can spin at 1000rpm or more and this could cause the key to fly out from the machine with high force, creating a projectile that could result in serious injury to the operator or others close to the lathe. The Lathe Chuck Guard protects the operator by refusing to close if the key is left in the chuck. The guard is interlocked to ensure the lathe can only be started with the guard closed. Having a guard assists with providing a safe work environment within the TAFE workshop. The Lathe Chuck Guard is a simple, cheap, yet effective, way of reducing the risk of projectile keys. It is adaptable for a range of lathes across industries and will benefit other educational facilities and the wider manufacturing industry.

Best Solution for Preventing Musculoskeletal Injuries

Recipient: Cherry Constructions and Workright Safety Solutions, Seaford

Initiative: Keg Handling System

The Keg Handling System is a mechanical aid system to assist the hospitality industry. It consists of a keg lifter, trolley, ramp and stack safe crosses and is used for handling beer kegs. Keg handling has been a major issue in hospitality for several decades and is traditionally done by hand without the use of mechanical aids. The Keg Handling System seeks to improve the way kegs, which can weigh up to 67kg, are handled and reduce the risk of injury. The keg lifter can lift a keg, manoeuvre it into position and lower it to the floor or on top of another keg with minimal effort from the operator. The trolley can pick up a keg from any position so that it doesn’t have to be moved to meet the trolley. It has a locking device so the keg is fixed to the trolley. The stack safe crosses allow the kegs to ’nest‘ into each other, stopping them from toppling. The major risks associated with handling beer kegs are musculoskeletal injuries to the back, shoulders and arms, and crushing injuries. The automated and easy-to-manoeuvre system is readily used in small spaces and by a range of staff. This design can also be adapted for other industries to aid in lifting and transporting many items including gas bottles, oil drums and even large pot plants in nurseries.

Best Design for Workplace Safety

Recipient: Racing Victoria (Flemington), Dan Mawby and Delta-V Experts (North Fitzroy)

Initiative: Running Rails

Running rails have been a safety issue in the racing industry for many years, causing serious injuries to jockeys and horses involved in collisions. Track staff have also been hurt due to the manual handling required to set up and move rails. Designed and invented by Dan Mawby, tested by Delta-V Experts and used by Racing Victoria, this new lightweight durable UV-rated plastic running rail is a welcome replacement for the solid aluminium rails currently in use. The major improvement is that the horizontal rail doesn’t break from the impact of weight-bearing objects – instead, it elevates, springs and bends on impact. The design and flexibility of this rail system also has the ability to steer a horse back on track should light contact be made, therefore avoiding injury. The new Running Rail is in place at Flemington and Caulfield Racecourse and some training facilities.

Category: government

Management – the importance of what comes before

Like this: