training – Page 11 – SafetyAtWorkBlog

Safe Work Australia Week 2009 begins

The last week of October 2009 is Safe Work Australia Week. The federal OHS authority sets an overall framework for the States’ OHS promotional activities.

A media statement in support of the week, reiterated the statistics –

“More than 260 Australians die as a result of work related injuries and over 135,000 are seriously injured every year.”

Below is a list of the links for each Australian State’s acitivities.

SWAW_generic_WEB

Unintended consequences of inadequate preparation

The Australian Government instigated a rebate scheme for ceiling insulation for domestic homes in order to the climatic impacts of heating one’s home. The rebates effectively make insulation free and, as a result, there is a boom in insulation installation.

As with any boom in any industry, there is an influx of new workers. The Australian newspaper reports the death of an installer in Brisbane in mid-October 2009 and the shortcomings this death illustrates.

The article says that the rebate scheme has been so popular that fibreglass batts are not available so installers are using foil-based reflective insulation.

“Master Electricians Association president Malcolm Richards said the foil-based products should be banned in established homes because untrained installers were stapling foil on to live electricity wires. He said the practice was the cause of last week’s tragedy in Brisbane and electricians were being increasingly called on to repair dodgy work.”

Firstly, electricians are always being called on to repair the botched electrical work of others. Secondly, it’s not the fault of the foil suppliers so it seems unfair to ban a legitimate insulation product.

The Master Electricians Association is facing the problem that others face every day, unqualified workers doing the work normally undertaken by qualified workers.

The political opportunism by some in this article is regrettable.

The Australian Government should have learnt from its computers-in-schools initiative/debacle that there are ancillary costs with any government program and that these costs should be considered in the policy development and/or have relevant organisations consulted so that the necessary support services are prepared for the plan’s launch and operation.

The computers-in-schools program did not consider the software costs to use on the free computer for ever secondary school student. The LPG conversion rebate did not consider the scale of demand. The solar panel rebate scheme was cancelled even though the demand was great. The home insulation scheme has drawn inexperienced installers into the industry. All good intentions harmed through poor planning and some of that harm can be the death of workers.

Kevin Jones

Accusations of poor nuclear safety

Australia does not (yet) have nuclear power but its most prominent nuclear reactor is at Lucas Heights in Sydney. On 21 October 2009, the Australian Greens Senator Scott Ludlam was told that several incidents had occurred at the reactor since 2008.

According to a media release from the Greens, Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) revealed that

“A major recent event involving a vial being dropped and left unreported for up to three hours leading to exposure by workers.
An internal audit found gross deficiencies in safety procedures.
Management was unaware some workers present during the incident had not completed OHS induction training or a radiation safety course.
Procedures required upgrading since the incident.
Other incidents have occurred since and procedures are constantly being upgraded.”

A short AAP article on the comments is also available online. The article is likely to gain considerable media attention through the inclusion of the following comment

“A spokesman for Senator Ludlam told AAP that if safety procedures could not be followed at Australia’s nuclear reactor, “God help” Australia if ANSTO was put in charge of a full scale nuclear power facility.”

It seems unfair to put out this story without some response from ANSTO. Late this afternoon ANSTO released a detailed response to the Greens claims and AAP story which it claims were full of inaccuracies. Below are some extracts of the statement which is available here in full.

“No incident of the type reported took place at the OPAL reactor. An incident did take place on 28 August 2008 at ANSTO’s radiopharmaceutical production facility. This was not a spill and no staff were exposed to significant radiation doses. The incident took place in a shielded manufacturing enclosure.”

“ANSTO acknowledges that conservative decision making was not used at the start of this incident. Procedures have improved since as acknowledged in the Greens’ press release.”

“The quantity of medical isotope in the vial was 1/10 of a teaspoon and when the vial was dislodged the worker initially attempted to retrieve it and notified his supervisor within 30 minutes of the initial incident. The vial was finally retrieved after three hours. Molybdenum-99 production did not continue following the incident.”

“Incident reporting is a standard practice in the radiopharmaceutical manufacturing environment. Senator Ludlam appears to have confused the reporting of incidents with an assumption of these incidents being severe or hazardous to workers. This is not the case.”

Nuclear issues always need to be taken seriously and, as with any incident, must be investigated appropriately. The Greens have made, understandable, political mileage out of the information revealed in the Senate hearings. The comments match the interests of its constituents and members.

What it also indicates is that Australia has yet to enter a nuclear energy debate that has already been experienced in Europe and elsewhere over the last thirty years or so. As nuclear energy becomes an increasingly important option for Australia in response to climate change, the debate is likely to be furious.

Kevin Jones

Safe Work Bill, suitably qualified and professional plans

Dr Geoff Dell of Protocol Safety Management and a prominent member of the

Safety Institute of Australia (SIA), believes that the most crucial issue facing the safety profession in Australia is the lack of the requirement to use a “suitably qualified” safety adviser.

The Australian Government was recommended to include such a requirement in its draft OHS model laws but rejected the recommendation because

“an unintended consequence could be that persons conducting a business or undertaking would be encouraged to delegate their responsibilities”.

This is odd because the Safe Work Bill includes seemingly clear duties:

“The person who has management or control of a workplace must ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that the workplace, the means of entering and exiting the workplace and anything arising from the workplace are safe and without risks to the health of any person.”

Unless the “suitably qualified” person (undefined in the Safe Work Bill) is also the “person who has management or control of a workplace” who has to ensure safety, it is hard to see how the Government’s concerns about abrogated responsibility are relevant.

Dr Dell wrote to the Workplace Relations Minister, Julia Gillard, on behalf of the SIA.

“Our motivation for urging you for inclusion of a “suitably qualified” requirement in the model OHS legislation should not be misinterpreted as any desire on our part to diminish or eliminate the equally important requirement for companies to consult their workers, or the workers’ elected representatives, on issues and decisions relating to the workers’ health and safety. Collaboration of employers and workers in the delivery of appropriate workplace health and safety outcomes is an essential precept.

Rather, it is our strong view that when those workplace collaboration processes need the OHS advice of others, there is an important need to ensure the persons providing that advice have the appropriate credentials to deliver that advice to the maximum benefit of those involved at the workplace.”

The argument is repeatedly expressed as a comparison between a suitably qualified safety advisor and doctors or plumbers or other licensed or registered occupations. But the Government has twice now indicated that it sees no the risks of abusing such a formalised position outweigh the benefits – the first in not accepting a review panel recommendation and second by omitting the issue in the Safe Work Bill.

Should the safety profession, as a whole, continue to push the issue with an unsupportive government or should it accept that the battle is lost and begin a Plan B? A plan where, perhaps, the market begins to demand certainty about the skill level of their safety advisors to such an extent that a scheme of accredited safety professionals is an indispensable business resource?

This may be the tactic of the SIA in its support of an elite level of safety professional who must have a tertiary OHS qualification. It is certainly devoting considerable resources to the program, supported by hundreds of thousands of dollars from WorkSafe Victoria. The caveat of this approach is that the SIA gets control of the profession.

This is not the case with the professions with which the SIA likes to compare itself. Those professions have independent assessment bodies, ethics bodies and sometimes industry/profession ombudsmen.

What the safety profession needs to counter is the argument that the Government has accepted from somewhere, that business is highly likely to push its OHS responsibility to others if it can. The profession, and the SIA, needs to convince the Government that business will accept its OHS duties.

Dr Dell told SafetyAtWorkBlog that the Safe Work Bill has been written for lawyers by lawyers and seems aimed at what to do after an incident has occurred. It is about harm minimisation and not safety. He says that the preventative aim of OHS legislation has been severely diluted. In this he echoes some of the SafetyAtWorkBlog position that the new laws are not about safety management but about safety law, and have little bearing on the shop floor where hazards are most often faced and controlled.

It is also important to remember that OHS law was intended to be a law that could be understood by the layman and implemented by the layman. The new Safe Work Bill will be incomprehensible to anyone other than lawyers and even then, as seen from recent blog articles about Mike Hammond, Michael Tooma and others, the lawyers are unlikely to agree on interpretation and application.

Kevin Jones

[Note: Kevin Jones is a Fellow of the Safety Institute of Australia]

Verify website data

At SafetyatWorkBlog the use or reuse of material is carefully considered. Some articles are not proceeded with, or media used, because of copyright, restrictions or cost. No content is used from websites without permission or without referring back to the original source and providing hyperlinks if possible. An example of how internet information can go wrong occurred earlier this month in Australia.

On 2 October 2009 the Safety Institute of Australia advised its members through its homepage that the Cancer Council, one of its strategic partners, is

“is gearing up to launch three new workplace guides as part of National Skin Cancer Week in November.”

The guides are listed on the SIA website:

Skin cancer and outdoor work: a guide for employers
Skin cancer and outdoor work: a guide for working safely in the sun brochure
SunSmart and iCourses ‘Working safely in the sun’ online training course

www-sia-org-au_news_updates_sun-protect-workplace-announce20091002-html The odd thing was that the first guide listed was published in January 2007. The second seems to be a companion leaflet for the guide for employers. They are not new and are not being launched in November 2009.

When the anomaly was brought to the attention of the Cancer Council advised SafetyAtWorkBlog that their website had not been updated for a long time and that the information was out of date. Not only should this have been obvious from the age of the publications listed but the page said the guides were to be launched on Tuesday November 20. In 2009 November 20 is a Thursday. The advice on the SIA site is based on old information.

(A slightly more recent policy statement for “sun protection in the workplace” is available elsewhere on the Cancer Council website)

It is very important, particularly in OHS where safety advice can change frequently, that any information taken from the internet is verified, especially if one is putting one’s name to it as the SIA’s CEO did in this instance.

The Sunsmart guidances produced by the Cancer Council still contain solid advice but if the risk of skin cancer or the hazard of working in direct sunlight is relevant to your worksites, make sure that the safety guidance is current and do not just rely on one information source. In this instance, see what advice the local OHS authority can provide, particular in the couple of months preceding summer.

If you run your own OHS information website or intranet, be extra careful when using other organisation’s information………..and check the dates of the information.

Alarming statistics on young workers and compensation

Safe Work Australia has issued some important statistical reports on workplace injury statistics. One statistic, in particular, stood out:

“…young workers aged 15 to 24 incurred much higher rates of injury than other age groups and were the least likely to apply for workers compensation”

The injury statistic is not surprising and is consistent with other data but why are young workers “least likely to apply for workers compensation”? Are they unaware of their rights? Do they work in a situation where claiming compensation is taboo? Is illiteracy a deterrent? Has their employer deterred them from applying? Is their type of work illegal, casual, or in the black market?

SafetyAtWorkBlog asked Safe Work Australia, if not through workers compensation, how are young people funding their medical/rehabilitation costs. A spokesperson provided the following non-age specific response:

“We are unable to provide an answer to this question as the data has not been analysed separately by age.

However, the last section of the report on workers’ compensation applications shows the various forms of financial assistance that all injured workers used.

For all injured workers, 34% received workers’ compensation, 39% did not access any financial assistance (these were mostly injuries involving no time lost from work) and the remaining 27% did access some form of assistance. Within this latter group regular sick leave was the most common.

Of the injured employees who did not access workers’ compensation, 18% used their regular sick leave, 9% accessed Medicare or other social security benefits, 7% had costs paid by their employer, 5% used other resources such as money from family and friends while 4% access private health insurance or income protection insurance.

Respondents to the survey could select more than one response to this question.”

Inverting some of these stats raises some concerns. (Please note that statistics is not the strongest skill of SafetyAtWorkBlog, so please correct any issues through the comments section below).

For all injured workers, 66% did not receive workers compensation. This should be a big red flag to OHS regulators and deserves more analysis.

Of the 66% over half (57%) funded their injuries without recourse to health insurance, sick leave, employer contributions, support from family or friends, Medicare or social security. Expanding the young worker question above to workers generally, how are these injured workers funding their rehabilitation from outside the regulated and social support mechanisms?

Some years ago SafetyAtWorkBlog attended an international conference on OHS. There were many people at this Melbourne conference who spoke about the Asian and African countries where injured workers must rely on family, or other social security mechanisms, for an income, as workers’ compensation was non-existent. This is one element of economic integration into the Asian region that Australia should not be tolerating.

A spokesperson for Safe Work Australia told SafetyAtWorkBlog (read slowly as there are numbers involved):

“The survey estimated that 689,500 workers were injured at work during 2005-06. Of these, 625,900 were employees and hence eligible for workers’ compensation. However, 388,100 did not apply for compensation and 23,800 applied but did not receive compensation.

This means that 66% of injured employees did not receive compensation. While this equates to 60% of injured workers not receiving compensation it is not correct to use this figure as 12% of workers were not eligible for it.

Looking only at the 411 900 injured employees who did not apply for workers’ compensation

75,700 accessed regular sick leave

30,100 had their employer pay their costs

35,500 used Medicare/social security

18,200 used private health insurance/ income protection insurance, and

18,700 accessed money from other sources such as family and friends.

Please note that when looking at these figures that 42% of injuries involved no time off from work and hence costs would be very small.

Analysis of additional data from the survey, that has not been included in this round of reports shows that over 60% of injured workers aged 15 to 24 felt their injury was too minor to claim or that they felt it was not necessary to claim. This is double the percentage for all workers. While this may sound like young people had more minor injuries, this is not the case. Young workers had the same proportion of injuries that involved no time off work as the workforce as a whole and the same proportion that involved longer periods of time off from work.”

The last paragraph cycles this article back to the start.

“….over 60% of injured workers aged 15 to 24 felt their injury was too minor to claim or that they felt it was not necessary to claim. This is double the percentage for all workers.“

There is something missing from how OHS is promoted to young workers. The quote above indicates that young workers know about OHS but do not understand OHS. But that’s not something that can be provided in a 30 minute TV ad, a medium that young people are increasingly less interested in.

Perhaps, we should be spending less time telling people not to stick their hands in a guillotine and more time empowering them in their workplace rights.

Kevin Jones

Principal Contractor duties clarified in the High Court of Australia

Managing contract labour is almost always a pain. The extension of OHS obligations through the “supply chain” has not helped although it was intended to.

Companies have been expected to treat contractors as employees for the sake of OHS obligations. This was intended to generate a cultural change where a certain safety standard was extended through the links of project management. To some extent safety awareness in the small suppliers of services to large companies and projects has improved. But whether that safety awareness has changed to an active safety management or simply a belief that OHS is an unavoidable evil is debatable.

Regardless of the reality, the High Court of Australia recently provided some clarification on the duty of care of a principal contractor. According to a summary of the High Court decision, Australian law firm Allens Arthur Robinson report that

“The High Court’s decision means that a ‘principal contractor’ does not have a common law duty to train or supervise the employees of specialist subcontractors in the specifics of their work.”

The High Court acknowledged that this may not relate to the New South Wales legislative situation but it is an important decision for the harmonised future of Australian OHS Law.

What it also indicates is the length of time it can take for a legal concept to be clarified and, hopefully, defined. What does a company do in the meantime? This is important for businesses to consider as the OHS law moves into a new national regime where individual State jurisdictions are expected to provide clarity on the legislative vagaries of “reasonably practicable”. The government seems to be comfortable that the legal processes (cost and time) are worth the flexibility offered in OHS law. Some see flexibility, others may see confusion, complexity and the need to reeducate.

Kevin Jones

Category: training

Safe Work Australia Week 2009 begins

Like this:

Unintended consequences of inadequate preparation

Like this:

Accusations of poor nuclear safety

Like this:

Safe Work Bill, suitably qualified and professional plans

Like this:

Verify website data

Like this:

Alarming statistics on young workers and compensation

Like this:

Principal Contractor duties clarified in the High Court of Australia

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: