OHS – Page 418 – SafetyAtWorkBlog

Grappler death in forestry operations – WorkSafeBC Slide Show

Below is the latest safety video from WorkSafeBC. It is included not only as an important indication of a hazard that can be readily controlled or avoided but as a terrific example of how generic safety alerts can be given currency by using the available technology.

It is one thing for text-based safety alerts to be circulated, or for media releases to be broadcast, but this type of safety alert has more influence and provides a clearer understanding of the hazard than text ever could.

Yes, the video is Canadian and may not reflect the work practices in other countries but the hazard is usually the same. In this case, it was the location of the spotter, the level of communication between the workers and overall a clearly inadequate system of work.

WorkSafeBC should be applauded for its efforts in communicating safety to a broad audience in an effective manner.

Kevin Jones

A spotter working in blind conditions was struck by a grapple. Confirm spotters are in the clear before throwing a grapple.

[vodpod id=ExternalVideo.882790&w=425&h=350&fv=allowfullscreen%3Dtrue%26quality%3Dhigh%26bgcolor%3D%23ffffff%26]

more about “WorkSafeBC Slide Shows – Mon Oct 12, …“, posted with vodpod

The bad news and the good news of New Zealand agricultural safety

On 8 October 2009, New Zealand’s Department of Labour issued a press release that stated

“New research confirms the importance of work in agriculture safety and health. The research by Otago University’s Injury Prevention Research Unit found that the rate of serious injuries and fatalities on New Zealand farms has remained high in contrast to declines in other industries over the past two decades.”

The release states that DoL continues to place a high importance on preventative action in the agriculture sector, an undeniably important economic sector for New Zealand.

However, what was most noticeable was that

“the rate of serious injuries and fatalities on New Zealand farms has remained high in contrast to declines in other industries over the past two decades.”

Surely this is not a good news story. Twenty years of preventative interventions in the agriculture sector have not been as successful as those in other industries.

SafetyAtWorkBlog contacted DoL for clarification. The commitment of DoL to the agriculture sector was re-emphasized. DoL responded very promptly to our enquiries and provided links to additional information including the original research report.

Part of the Otago University project was a literature review in the sector from 2000 to 2008. The major findings were

“The most common mechanisms for serious non-fatal injury and fatal injury include agricultural machinery (including vehicles –tractors, ATVs), livestock and falls for all age groups, in all three regions under review.

The exposures and risks of disease in the agricultural sector currently being researched and where researchers agree there is a need for further research include:

exposure to dust and organic materials and the relation to respiratory disorders;

exposure to pesticides, herbicides and insecticides and associations with various cancers including: non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma; prostate cancer, breast and ovarian cancer, leukaemia, multiple myeloma and brain cancers;

environmentally associated cancers (for example, skin cancer and cancer of the lip) and their association with production practice.

Occupational fatalities in agriculture remain high, despite decreases in occupational fatality rates for other industry groups, in all three regions over the last decade. The research demonstrates that there are various groups that are particularly at risk, these include:

men in all age groups;

older workers/farmers;

migrant and seasonal workers;

youths (particularly those aged between 11-15 years and male)

Children (particularly male children)

Farm-owners and managers, with respect to intentional fatal self harm injury) again predominantly men.”

Several other surveys were undertaken, one by telephone. Those results are also telling. Amongst the results was this paragraph concerning injuries:

“With respect to injury, thirteen percent (13%) of farmers from the AgriBase™ sample had had an injury, in the three months prior to interview, which had restricted their activity for a half a day or more and/or which required medical treatment from a health professional. Generally these injuries were reasonably serious and respondents reported work capacity was poor following injury. For two-thirds of those injured it was over a week before they could resume normal farming duties; yet only a third of these respondents made a claim to the Accident Compensation Corporation.”

Key findings of the report for governments include

“….there is no long term prevention strategy for injury and disease that specifically addresses the agricultural sector.”

“The dominant stereotype of the farmer as being rugged, independent and self-sufficient (and masculine) is also largely uncritically accepted by many stakeholders. These and associated stereotypes about the nature of rural life and notions of rural isolation are problematic and potentially can undermine effective health interventions in this sector.”

“…there is a tendency for initiatives to be ad-hoc and for there to be a lack of co-ordination and coherence, and in some instances, where there are some questions around the efficacy of various interventions, an unwillingness to accept that there are problems.”

There are many others that discuss a lack of resources, dubious targeting, a lack of coordination and inter-organisational politics.

For farmers and other individuals, some of the findings include:

“In connection to this evident stoicism was a vocational identification to the work they do; most could not imagine not farming, it was not just a job. The implications here are that they would often keep on working with an injury (such as a back condition), as doing the work was more important, not just economically, but also in terms of their identity, and an underlying belief that it would heal itself if they just kept on going.”

“Many said they were too tired at the end of a working day to read about injury and disease or to go onto the internet to learn about it either. When they opened the paper they wanted to know about local and international news, not health matters. This presents some real challenges for the sector in terms of disseminating information.”

The University of Otago also issued a media release on the research project. This release reflects the tone and results of the research project much more accurately.

The whole report reflects the current status of safety in the agricultural sector in New Zealand. It reports on good intentions in the wrong areas, a need to look beyond the stereotypes and the need for sustained intervention.

What seems to be needed is a creative and effective response from the Government that acknowledges that past strategies have failed, or at least that some of them have. All the existing strategies need reviewing to determine which have shown promise and could succeed if appropriate resources were allocated. Inspiration needs to be sought from within the region and from around the world. If this has already been sought and found wanting, the sad reality will be that it falls to New Zealand to make the change.

New Zealand’s DoL may already be facing this bleak reality. In their media statement, the Department’s Chief Adviser, Safety and Health, Dr Geraint Emrys said:

“The Department will use the findings of the research to inform policy decisions and to better target operational interventions to make them more effective in reducing the injury and death toll in agriculture.”

New Zealand could lead the world in this important area.

Kevin Jones

Recent Queensland OHS prosecutions

In early October 2009, Workplace Health and Safety in Queensland (WHSQ) released a raft of media statements about recent court cases involving OHS prosecutions. WHSQ seems to do this regularly rather than releasing each statement individual. Below is a quick cut and paste from the media reports:

Brown Engineering & Construction Pty Ltd has been fined $38,000 after a worker was injured in a fall on a construction site in April 2007. It pleaded guilty to having failed to ensure workplace safety.

The Court heard a worker for a sub-contractor on the construction site where the company was principal contractor had placed a ladder against a steel beam on the building to access the roof frame/purlins to take measurements. His left leg was broken when the beam fell, causing him to fall 5.5 metres to the ground.

The WHSQ investigation revealed the company was responsible for leaving the steel beam unsecured at the end of work the previous day.

Russell Matthew Pratt has been fined $8,000 after a worker was severely injured at Sheldon in August 2006.

Pratt pleaded guilty in the Cleveland Industrial Magistrates Court on 24 April 2009 to having failed to ensure workplace safety.

The court heard that during a tree-felling operation a worker was struck by a falling tree and sustained multiple injuries to the spine, chest and head resulting in him becoming a quadriplegic.

Two workers started work that day at Mr Pratt’s premises and were supplied with equipment for the day’s activities. However, they were unaware that the task they were being used for was not Mr Pratt’s job.

The WHSQ investigation found that Mr Pratt did not have systems in place to ensure his workers were not exposed to health and safety risks at the times that they were undertaking work for him.

LaSpina, Trabucco & Co Pty Ltd has been fined $34,000 after a worker was injured at Karana Downs in August 2008. The company pleaded guilty to having failed to ensure workplace safety.

The Court heard a tele-lifter, its bucket filled with concrete, had been parked by the company’s supervisor on an incline with the engine idling while two workers stood in a trench nearby scooping concrete from the bucket, filling a besser-brick wall.

As the machine was moved forward to allow easier access it’s front wheels went over the edge of the incline. One worker jumped out to the way avoiding injury, but the other was struck in the chest and lower left leg and pushed against a besser block wall which then collapsed and fell on top of him. He sustained a crush injury to his left leg.

The WHSQ investigation revealed the workplace did not have a work method statement for the job being performed or for high risk construction using mobile plant.

Launderers Pty Ltd has been fined $35,000 after two workers were injured at Southport in April 2008. The company pleaded guilty to having failed to ensure workplace safety.

The court heard the two workers were attempting to ‘un-jam’ a piece of metal that caused a guided platform hoist to cease operating. The platform hoist was used to raise and lower materials between floors. When the wedged piece of metal was released, the platform hoist, along with the two workers, fell to the ground floor.

One worker sustained crush injuries and the other a fractured right arm.

The WHSQ investigation revealed the company did not adopt and implement a safe system of work for the operation of the guided platform hoist. It also failed to adopt and implement a safe system of work for how maintenance or repairs were to be undertaken on the hoist.

Mark Frawley Plumbing Pty Ltd has been fined $30,000 after a worker sustained facial injuries in a workplace incident at East Brisbane in November 2007. The company pleaded guilty to having failed to ensure workplace safety.

The Court heard two workers were beneath a house working within a 2.1 metre clearance. While one used a 100mm grinder to cut a cast iron pipe, the other, an apprentice, held a torch to provide light. The grinder jammed and kicked back striking the operator in the left cheek causing a full thickness cut requiring surgery and 20 stitches.

The Workplace Health and Safety Queensland investigation revealed:

the guard supplied as standard by the manufacturer had been removed at some time prior to the incident and the company could not locate it

the system of work used did not adequately account for both the confined space and lack of illumination.

As a result of the incident the company took the grinder out of service and instituted a system to audit and monitor the use and integrity of plant and tools.

Industrial Magistrate Mr Graham Lee, found that the injury occurred because the grinder was used without its guard and the confined space and lack of illumination had increased the likelihood of such an incident.

MJ Fallon Pty Ltd has been fined $30,000 after a sub contractor was injured in a fall from a roof in September 2008. It pleaded guilty to having failed to ensure workplace safety.

The Court heard the worker was a sub-contractor carrying out construction work for the company on a domestic building site in Toowoomba.

While working on the roof he slipped and fell 3 metres to the concrete slab below, fracturing his left wrist and right elbow.

The WHSQ investigation revealed the company failed to implement appropriate safety control measures such as edge protection for workers when working at height.

Where is the human right to safe work?

Australia is in the middle of a debate about the possible introduction of a charter or bill of human rights. The debate has been invigorated by the presentation to the Federal Government of a consultation report on human rights.

Occupational safety is often said to be an issue of human rights but this seems to be a secondary action inferred from labor rights rather than a specific statement. Below are a selection of the articles in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights that may relate to safe workplaces:

Article 1 – All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 3 – Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Article 7 – All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Article 23 – 1. Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.

Article 24 – Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

The closest one would get to a specific right to “safety at work” would be Article 23 – 1 where there is a right to “favourable conditions of work”. Favourable is a term that is not seen in OHS legislation or discussions but may tie in with the Australian Government’s concepts of Fair Work.

Article 25 – 1 refers to “the health and well-being” but the following examples place this clearly in the social, non-workplace context.

Article 25 – 1. Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

One could argue that the right to a “standard of living” may include the qualitative elements of a safe working environment but a standard of living – usually income, education and, sometimes, access and quality of health care – is not the “quality of life” which includes safety.

The report referred to above again does not have an overt statement that people have a right to a safe workplace but it does say, in its summary, that introducing a Human Rights Act

“…. could generate economic benefits, reducing the economic costs associated with policies that do not protect the lives and safety of Australians.”

This language may get a sympathetic ear from the Government in its context of a review of OHS legislation.

But no-one is making the case for a right for a safe workplace.

The argument that a specific right is not required as the state and national OHS legislation places clear obligations on employers and employees does not hold water as similar obligations are in other legislation and some of those sectors are advocating for human rights.

It should be clear from this article that SafetyAtWorkBlog is not a lawyer or a human rights specialist. But what the Government is looking for is discussion on the potential impacts of a Human Rights Act and it is clear from much of the contemporary discussion on occupational health and safety that the overlap between OHS and social safety is increasing very quickly, in the opinion of SafetyAtWorkBlog, quicker than the legislations and laws can cope.

In the past the trade union movement would take the running on human rights as part of their social charter but, as has been said in other SafetyAtWorkBlog articles, the trade unions still remain focused on the material interests of work, primarily, and are currently lobbying on OHS in Australia, primarily, from an industrial base.

The labour lawyers are debating the intricacies of the proposed OHS laws rather than the big picture, the context of the OHS laws in the broader legal and social fabric. Perhaps this is considered a dead area of examination and discussion. Once a law is introduced or a precedent set, lawyers tend to adjust their analytical thinking to fit. Safety professionals and commentators have the luxury to think more broadly.

The safety professional associations are remarkably quiet on the whole idea, preferring to bow to their legal advisers while at the same wondering how they can find relevance in the evolving social context of OHS.

If readers of SafetyAtWorkBlog can shed any light on the human right for safe work, please submit comments below.

Kevin Jones

More on leave retention and mental health

The research statistics quoted in an earlier blog article have finally been located.

It is important to understand the limitations of the study. Firstly, these are not statistics from the Australian Bureau of Statistics so they do not have the same weight as the regularly issued Labour Force statistics. It would be great if the government began collating this useful economic and business information.

The data released by Tourism Australia also does not include owner-operators or part-time employees. Part-time employees account for over 3 million Australians out of a total population of 22 million*. That seems a large number to leave out of the calculation.

Nor does the study include any annual leave that does not involve travel. So if one takes annual leave and recuperate in one’s backyard for four weeks or some quality time with the kids, this is not included.

These restrictions alone show that official statistics on leave use and retention are needed.

The Research Data has some comments specifically about the workplace

“There is a consistent and widespread perception that leave is harder to take than it used to be. Two separate shifts have contributed to this feeling: that it is harder to take time off from work and that it is more difficult to plan holidays.”

Whether it is harder to plan holidays is not relevant to SafetyAtWorkBlog but why is it harder to take time off from work? It is unclear if this is a perspective of the employee or the employer. What is easier to accept is that

“Organisations were no longer seen to factor leave-taking into employee workloads, but expected people to work 52 weeks per year.”

From an OHS perspective this is unforgivable, unhealthy and unsafe. Any companies that do this are breaching their OHS obligations of providing a safe and healthy working environment.

“People are shifting into ‘work addiction’ behaviour irrespective of how they feel about it. They’re working longer hours and are under pressure to perform. Despite a higher consciousness of the importance of work/life balance, many believe things are going in the other direction.

Rather than the onus of planning leave being on the organisation as in the past, it was viewed that this has shifted to the individual. Whereas many organisations used to have cover for people going on leave, it was seen that it is now the responsibility of individuals to organise their workloads if they want to take leave.”

Further research on what caused the change of attitude would be fascinating. It is suspected that the survey frenzy generated by the global financial crisis may be showing results soon on this issue.

What the research data indicates is that there may be “employers of choice” and one’s awareness of work/life balance is high but the reality is vastly different. There may be financial, organisational and career barriers to achieving some form of stability in mental health and productivity. What is undeniable is that having leave from work is as important for one’s mental wellbeing as sleep, and to neglect either is not healthy or productive.

What we need is hard and authoritative evidence so that those who motivate change can do so from a position of authority rather than from impressions.

Kevin Jones

*As with all statistical calculations in SafetyAtWorkBlog, please verify them from the original data. (Arts graduates can describe “alliteration” but can’t count very well) If wrong, please advise us immediately.

Handedness is not considered when investigating a workplace incident

Robyn Parkin has completed her small survey of handedness in safety management. Initial results are below:

“92% of respondents stated that their companies do not ask whether a person is left- or right-handed on their accident report form, and 77% do not consider handedness as a possible root cause of accidents.
13 companies stated that they may consider handedness where ergonomics is a possible issue, eg with poor access to equipment controls.”

More details will be available in an upcoming edition of New Zealand’s Safeguard magazine. Robyn Parkin can be contacted about her research at robyn@impac.co.nz

Kevin Jones

HWCA could be influential in Australia’s workers’ compensation reforms

Australia and New Zealand have a small strategic organisation called the Heads of Workers’ Compensation Authorities (HWCA, pronounced “howca” by those in the know). It is a regular meeting (some say “love-in”, others say “coven”) of the CEOs of the various workers’ compensation bodies in Australia and New Zealand. Over the next five years, as the Australian Government begins to harmonise/reform the workers’ compensation system, HWCA will be important to watch.

In early October 2009, HWCA met and endorsed a coordination strategy, that has yet to be publicly released. The main objectives of the strategy were noted in a media release (also not yet publicly available) to mark the latest meeting.

“To deliver best practice services to injured workers and employers to assist recovery: and

to build sustainable workers’ compensation schemes.”

The terminology of the first objective may provide a good indication of the type of organisation HWCA seems to be. “Best practice services”??? “Best practice” is one of the worst corporate jargons being used at the moment. This article at Wikipedia outlines the context of the phrase well.

“As the term has become more popular, some organizations have begun using the term “best practices” to refer to what are in fact merely ‘rules’….”

In other words, HWCA has a strategy to do what its member organisations should have been doing all along – enforcing the rules of good customer service and providing the best level of service to injured workers.

Perhaps it is the second strategic objective that best illustrates the aims of HWCA – to make sure that the workers’ compensation schemes do not lose money.

According to the communique that is released after every meeting (top points for open communication)

“HWCA agreed the Bio-psychosocial Rehabilitation Working Group would develop a national action plan regarding prevention of long-term disability and work loss, which will support the strategy.”

Prevention is the role of the OHS authorities in Australia and the Department of Labour in New Zealand. Clearly HWCA will be discussing these strategic aims with those in charge of preventing injuries and illnesses. But can the various WorkCovers and WorkSafes cope with biopsychosocial hazards? Surely HWCA will also be talking with all the NGOs who lobby on depression, anxiety, fatigue, stress, wellness, happiness ………….. (Get ready for even more influence for BeyondBlue)

Consultation will also be needed with the various government departments involved with health promotion, public and occupational. Not to mention the unions, employer associations and health professional bodies.

A strategy of such magnitude would require considerable resources and horse-trading through government ranks in all jurisdictions. It is hard to see this being achieved through a meeting of Chief Executive Officers, and should such a strategy be pushed through individual workers’ compensation bodies anyway?

To achieve true reform of workers’ compensation and to resist the substantial pressure that is likely to come from the Australian and international insurance companies, the Australian government is going to need considerable negotiating skills. Because of the involvement with the financially influential insurance companies, it is doubtful the intended reforms will be achieved. (HWCA already has discussions with the “Heads of Compulsory Third Party Insurers” according to the communique)

Almost as a post-script, it is noted that Greg Tweedly, CEO of WorkSafe Victoria, takes over the chairmanship of HWCA from the CEO of WorkCover NSW, Jon Blackwell. Tweedly is a very busy CEO and will become more so, if the rumour proves true that he will be joining the National Board of the Safety Institute of Australia.

As the chairmanship moves from New South Wales, so will HWCA’s administrative support. The next HWCA meeting is scheduled for 5 February 2010 and will be coordinated through the Victorian Workcover Authority or Comcare.

Kevin Jones

Category: OHS

Grappler death in forestry operations – WorkSafeBC Slide Show

Like this:

The bad news and the good news of New Zealand agricultural safety

Like this:

Recent Queensland OHS prosecutions

Like this:

Where is the human right to safe work?

Like this:

More on leave retention and mental health

Like this:

Handedness is not considered when investigating a workplace incident

Like this:

HWCA could be influential in Australia’s workers’ compensation reforms

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: