On 20 November 2009, Standards Australia announced the public release of the new risk management standard ISO 31000 which replaces the Australian Standard AS4360. The media release is available here and a preview of the risk management standard is available here.
Category: guidance
PCBUs have begun appearing
A reader has drawn SafetyAtWorkBlog’s attention to one State regulator in Australia who has already begun to apply the broader definition for “employer” in their OHS guidance material.
In September 2009, the ACT Safety Commissioner published a Guidance on “Safe Structures, Systems and Workplaces“. In that guidance, the Commissioner refers to
…”New general duties to ensure work safety by managing risk apply to a person:
…carrying on a business or undertaking;…”
This anticipates the definition put forward in Australia’s OHS model Act in relation to PCBUs (Peek-A-Boos).
The matter of a “business or undertaker” was also used in the ACT’s Work Safety Act 2008 (effective from 1 October 2009) throughout the document but with slight variation. Of most interest here are the definitions of employer, worker and “business or undertaking”:
“employer, of a worker, includes a person who engages the worker to carry out work in the person’s business or undertaking.”
“worker means an individual who carries out work in relation to a business or undertaking, whether for reward or otherwise, under an arrangement with the person conducting the business or undertaking.”
“business or undertaking includes—
(a) a not-for-profit business; and
(b) an activity conducted by a local, state or territory government.”
The logic of such an inclusive term is understandable but needs greater clarity which is likely to some from regulations or supportive documents.
Having a Peek-A-Boo is one thing, let’s just hope that the jargon does not develop to start referring to “undertakers”.
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.
Getting the OHS message out there
Next week in Australia is Safe Work Australia Week in which each State jurisdiction undertakes information and promotional activities in support of occupational health and safety.
In Sydney, the Safety Institute of Australia (SIA) is hosting a Safety Conference. A major theme, understandably, is Australia’s OHS law harmonisation and there are excellent speakers at the conference on the topic.
There has always been an operational tension between the conferences and the trade shows that accompany most of the Safety Institute conferences even though there is a contract between the SIA and Australian Exhibitions & Conferences, the trade show owners. The tension is over which event gets priority in promotions. Effectively this differs depending on promotional target but for years it has been possible to attend a trade show without having any idea that a conference may be in the room next door.
This year the trade show, technically “The Safety Show“, is offering free workshops on the harmonisation laws to show attendees with speakers from a law firm, amongst others, who is also hosting a panel discussion in the conference . Why would one run a free event that competes with a partner’s conference for which the daily attendance fee is $A500???!!!
Admittedly, the conference is likely to include more detailed examinations of the laws as there is more time and many of the speakers are lawyers or academics specialising in the area but if one’s charter is to promote health and safety awareness and to advance the science and practice of safety, as the SIA states, is this appropriately met by speaking to a group of maybe 400 conference attendees or a potential 10,000 trade show visitors?
Working in heat – still contentious
Australians associate working in hot conditions as outside work although the occupational hazard of heat is just as relevant in bakeries and foundries. OHS regulators and safety lobbyists often try to include too much in their heat-related strategies – heat stress, skin cancer, hydration, dust, and a range of other hazard combinations related to specific industries.
What the community and many workers want is a defined unsafe temperature limit. Some will remember being allowed to take their school ties off when the temperature reached 38 degrees Celsius (100 degrees Fahrenheit). But OHS legislation, more often than note, focuses on the system of work and this allows for work in excessive temperatures as long as the system can ensure this is safe.
Legislatively, this position is understandable but it is not what people want or expect.
The issue was raised recently at the Trade Union Congress in September 2009 in England in a discussion on working temperatures. Pauline Nazir, representing the Bakers, Food and Allied Workers’ Union, said
“The question is why there is no maximum temperature and why has the Health and Safety Executive and the Government have consistently dodged calls for similar protection for those who work at the higher levels of temperature? It is a big question for a big organisation, but one that the Health and Safety Executive has failed to answer logically despite years of pressure. While they have failed to act, workers suffer the consequences, year in and year out.
It seems illogical that we have regulations that limit the temperatures at which cows and pigs can be transported around the country, but offers no protection other than the general health and safety legislative offerings. It is true that if you move livestock in Britain, there is a maximum level of 35 degrees Centigrade within the carrier, but poor old human beings can regularly carry out physical and strenuous work at temperatures that far exceed these levels. Why have we failed to get the Health and Safety Executive to act?”
The variety of factors contributing to excessive heat at work is probably the reason for lack of progress on the hazard. There are many organisations advocating prevention of harm from working in heat but they all have their own funding models, costs, agendas and “sub”hazards. Nazir’s call for the Health & Safety Executive to do something sounds unfair but the common activity she is referring to is working in heat so it is not unreasonable to expect an OHS regulator to coordinate resource and, perhaps, research.
Coordinated safety action is expected of business operators to ensure these hazards are controlled but that operator would need to read up to a dozen brochures, codes, guidances or policy statements to get close to achieving a situation that employees would consider safe.
It may never be appropriate for an OHS regulator to state a defined (un)safe temperature (the hygienists would argue safe working conditions) but what can be achieved is guidance that pulls together the multiple hazards and control measures so that achieving a safe workplace is as easy as can be.
WorkSafe Victoria has started along this path with a (thin) guidance and more generic terms of discomfort and illness but there is a need for a much more comprehensive guide.
UPDATE: 9 October 2009
A reader has pointed out a podcast by the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety from the July 2009 that explains some of the justification for not issuing a specific working in heat benchmark.
GHS is coming to the United States
On 30 September 2009 the Occupational Safety and Health Administration in the United States said in a media statement:
A proposed rule to align the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s Hazard Communication Standard (HCS) with provisions of the United Nations Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS) will be published in the September 30 Federal Register.
Jordan Barab, acting Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA said
“The proposal to align the hazard communication standard with the GHS will improve the consistency and effectiveness of hazard communications and reduce chemical-related injuries, illnesses and fatalities…… Following the GHS approach will increase workplace safety, facilitate international trade in chemicals, and generate cost savings from production efficiencies for firms that manufacture and use hazardous chemicals.”
On 6 October 2009, Safe Work Australia released the draft “Australian Criteria for the Classification Hazardous Chemicals”.
The closing date for comments is 18 December 2009.
Safe Work Australia stresses what the draft is not and the web page on the issue is very important to read.
Safe Work Australia says it
“…will be preparing guidance material for different audiences on the GHS and introducing two training courses (as basic and an expert one) to understand GHS classification.”
It should also be noted that the draft Classification Criteria is being revised in the context of the OHS harmonisation program of the Federal Government.
Freshening an OHS career
OHS professionals, as with any profession, can easily become out-of-touch with what their profession is all about. This is to improve the safety of people through a professional and competent approach.
Some professionals lose touch because they may be dealing with corporate OHS policies all day, they may never get away from head office and the endless round of meetings, they don’t get to go to events outside their own professional network or they are simply comfortable with the “academic” role and not miss getting their hands dirty on the shop floor.
In each of these scenarios the OHS professional is doing themselves, and their profession, no favours. Their career may progress but their thinking does not. Some OHS professional associations are at the same plateau.
There are some small things one can do if one wants to break the cycle and obtain a better quality of work.
- Test the validity of the corporate polices by arranging for an internal audit by someone else and participate as an observer.
- Take one’s skills out of head office and offer to mentor some of your contractor’s OHS people.
- Establish a pro-bono service for the smaller businesses nearby.
- If one’s company is in an industrial estate, start-up an Estate OHS group where business owners can meet to share or create solutions.
- Offer one’s OHS services to a not-for-profit organization, if your company offers “volunteer” leave.
- Offer to assist students at all levels with their OHS assignments.
- Take a sabbatical to majority world sectors, such as Asia, and offer one’s OHS skills to OHS and labour advocates in that region.*
The biggest threat to one’s safety skills is stagnation. If one’s professional safety organisation does not have the programs available to freshen up your skills and approach, go outside the safety field. It is surprising how one’s skills in one area can be applied in others, such a public health, environmental safety, transport or maritime safety.
* A particularly useful organisation that is worth contacting is ANROAV – the Asian Network for the Rights of Occupational Accident Victims
A colleague in Asia recently told SafetyAtWorkBlog that ANROAV is in need of variety of educational materials. Many of these are basic tools such as jigsaws that can be used to identify hazards or safe work options.
$A10,000 would be a great help in establishing a basic education fund which could access a suite of OHS comics and short films that can be used for education on fire risk, cancer, mine safety, electronics, solvents etc..