The Safety Institute‘s OHS Professional magazine for December 2009 included an article (originally published in an OHS newsletter from Piper Alderman for those non-SIA members) about the application of legal professional privilege using a New South Wales Industrial Relations Commission decision as its basis (Nicholson v Waco KwikForm Limited). The case received considerable attention by OHS law firms. Continue reading “Legal professional privilege and safety management”
Category: safety
HSE Chair’s review of 2009
Judith Hackett, Chair of the UK Health and Safety Executive (HSE), reviews the performance of the agency in the December podcast produced by the agency. Transcript is available online
The podcast provides a positive outlook for the HSE which one would expect. Hackett talks about the need for the HSE to dispel the myths that have been promoted throughout the media and the lack of credibility of the regulator discussed by many in the UK, such as Jeremy Clarkson. Continue reading “HSE Chair’s review of 2009”
Safety is more than common sense
“Common sense” is a phrase regularly used to describe workplace health and safety. More often than not the term is used dismissively. This is part of the reason that the OHS profession struggles for legitimacy and why there is a constant sense of frustration in the profession and OHS regulators. Continue reading “Safety is more than common sense”
Orewa College explosion update
The New Zealand Department of Labour has released a media statement about the prosecution reported on yesterday but
“The Department will not name either the parties or the specific charges until the charges reach court.”
This may be an indication of the political sensitivities of the prosecution.
A representative of the Orewa College Board of Trustees, Phil Pickford,was interviewed by New Zealand Radio on 21 December 2009. The interview is available online.
Pickford states that he is proud of the OHS systems that are in place at Orewa College and places Orewa in the top 10% of schools for OHS performance.
It is difficult for anyone to make public statements on an OHS prosecution without knowing who has been charged and with what.
From SafetyAtWorkBlog’s perspective, regardless of any action taken by the DoL, it would have been expected that both the school and the Education Department would have undertaken their own investigations in to the death of one of their own employees, if for no other reason than to stop a similar occurrence in other schools.
A TV report of the explosion from mid-2009 is available online.
Safety photo article reproduction
A very popular posting at SafetyAtWorkBlog has been Col Finnie’s piece on taking photographs for OHS purposes. An edited version of Col’s article was published, with authorisation, in the 19 November 2009 edition of Accident Prevention e-News which is now available online.
Our thanks goes to editor Scott Williams, firstly, for reading SafetyAtWorkBlog and secondly for going through due process in seeking a reprint of the blog article.
Col has been an important addition to the small group of SafetyAtWorkBlog contributors and we hope to see more of his articles in 2010.
CSR in firing line on asbestos compensation
SafetyAtWorkBlog has not reported on the asbestos compensation problems faced by James Hardie Industries directly because in 2009, the issue is one of corporate responsibility more so than workplace safety. The reality is that asbestos kills and victims deserve compensation. The fact that asbestos companies are avoiding their responsibilities is of little surprise.
In Australia, most of the focus has been on James Hardie due, principally, to its corporate conduct to the Australian stock exchange and its prosecution by the financial regulators. But another asbestos miner and building product manufacturer is at the Australian Courts in December 2009.
In some ways, CSR Limited is the more notorious asbestos manufacturer due to its operation of the Wittenoom asbestos mine. It could be said that CSR is the James Hardie of the 1980s.
According to a media report in the Sydney Morning Herald, CSR is planning to demerge but the Federal Court has been told that the Australian Securities & Investments Commission believes that insufficient allowance has been made in the strategy for asbestos compensation.
CSR is splitting its sugar and renewable energies divisions away from the building products division where the compensation is likely to sit. The sugar business will be called Sucrogen.
For those who do watch the corporate manoeuvrings of asbestos manufacturers, CSR’s actions should be familiar but those new to the issue should look beyond James Hardie to gain fuller appreciation of asbestos and capitalism.
For a global perspective on the whole industry it is hard to go past “Defending the Indefensible” by Jock McCulloch and Geoffrey Tweedale.
John Holland prosecution
The John Holland Group has featured several times in the SafetyAtWorkBlog in 2009. Any organisation as large as this Australian conglomerate who promotes their commitment to safety and whose Board Chair, Janet Holmes a Court, has such a high profile is going to draw media scrutiny. In fact, the evolution of the John Holland safety culture and the struggle to maintain such a culture as a company grows in profitability and complexity would make a fascinating case study.
On 18 December 2009, Comcare released details of its latest successful prosecution of John Holland. This time the company was fined $A180,000 over the death of a worker, Mark McCallum, at the Dalrymple Bay Coal Terminal in Queensland in May 2008. According to the media statement:
“Justice Collier stated that “It is clear that, despite the efforts taken by the respondent to implement a safe working environment, the operation involving the transportation unit was flawed in its original conception. The dangers were obvious from the start, relatively simple to avoid, but unrecognised and unaddressed in a manner which raises the objective gravity of the offence in these proceedings towards the higher end of the scale.” [emphasis added]
When a judge determines that the process was flawed from the very start, one’s expertise in managing an established practice safely should be critically reviewed. Such fundamental failures in a safety management system should cause any company to realise something is wrong in the way it is addressing safety needs, particularly in an economic climate that is bursting with new infrastructure projects for which one is competing.
The circumstances of the fatality are that
“A team of five John Holland workers were involved in moving large precast concrete decks to the end of a jetty under construction. The precast concrete decks were being transported on two jinkers that were being pushed by a front end loader. During this procedure, a worker’s foot became trapped under wooden scaffolding planks on the jetty, and he was fatally injured when he was run over by the wheels of the jinker.”
The Federal Court judgement listed the safety deficiencies that John Holland acknowledged
“The respondent acknowledges that:
(a) its work method statement did not adequately identify the risks associated with the relevant work process, and did not adequately identify suitable control measures to remove or minimise those risks; and
(b) it did not carry out a plant hazard assessment with respect to the front and rear jinkers, which may have identified a requirement for a remote braking system or other controls on the jinkers for use by spotters and others; and
(c) it did not have in place a formal system whereby employees were certified as being competent in the use of jinkers; and
(d) it did not have in place a formal protocol or procedure for the use of radios to ensure that the transmitter of a radio message was able to be informed that the message had been received by its intended recipient and understood; and
(e) it did not have sufficient communication mechanisms in place to ensure that employees working out of sight of the loader operator and the rear spotter were able to communicate directly with spotters and the loader operator; and
(f) it did not ensure that an observer of a trainee jinker operator was also issued with a radio to directly communicate with the other members of the transportation crew responsible for the propulsion of the load; and
(g) it did not provide workers who were working out of sight of the loader operator or rear spotter with any form of alarm or safety device, other than a radio to alert other workers of the occurrence of an emergency situation; and
(h) it did not ensure that the clearance of obstacles in the path of the loader was done in a timely or effective manner, thereby requiring the front jinker operator to perform that duty during the progress of the transportation unit and whilst out of the line of sight of the loader operator.”
Mark McCallum’s death gained even greater media attention when unions challenged John Holland’s nomination for a safety award shortly after McCallum’s death.