Yossi Berger, Australian OHS guru with the Australian Workers’ Union, has posted an article on the Croakey blog explaining his thoughts on the issue of quad bike safety.
Category: transport
Workplace skin cancer risk remains high
The July 2004 edition of SafetyATWORK magazine contained an interview with Sam Holt the CEO of Australian company Skin Patrol. The fascinating service of Skin Patrol was that they travelled the outback of Australia with a mobile skin cancer testing unit. That is a big area to cover but with the increasing incidence of skin cancer and the acceptance of ultraviolet exposure as an OHS problem, the service seemed timely.
(The interview is available HERE)
SafetyAtWorkBlog was contacted by Skin Patrol in early December 2009 as it was releasing the findings of a survey of 1,000 outdoor workers. Its survey has these key findings:
- 2.5 times the national reported incidence of malignant melanoma
- One in 10 patients had a lesion highly suspicious of skin cancer
- 26% of patients were diagnosed with moderate to severe sun damage
- 70% of patients diagnosed with a lesion suspicious of skin cancer were aged 40 years or greater
- Over 90% of workers who attended the Skin Patrol clinic because they were worried about a particular spot or the condition of their skin had not had their skin checked in the past 12 months prior to the onsite clinic.
The company’s media release also states:
“The incidence of melanoma for all Australians currently sits at 46 in 100,000, however for those that work outdoors that figure jumps to 100 in 100,000.”
The risks from exposure to ultraviolet are well established and our understanding of the risks have changed considerably within one generation. The Australian culture has changed to one of sun-worshipping to one where the wearing of hats is enforced at school, hard hats have wide brim attachments, and outdoor work is undertaken in long pants and long-sleeved shirts. Occupational control measures have been introduced.
Of course, particularly in the construction industry, principle contractors still struggle in a getting compliance with the UV-protection policies but that’s the case for many OHS policies.
Skin cancer risks through high UV exposure are well-established OHS Issues but the reality still does not mean that controlling the hazard is easy to manage. Culturally we still want to have a tanned complexion even if it is sprayed on. Tanned skin is still synonymous with good health even though the medical evidence differs.
Skin cancer risks in the workplace are simply another of those workplace hazards that are ahead of the non-workplace culture and that safety professionals need to manage. The attraction with this hazard is that there is no disputing the evidence.
The Senate inquiry into Australia Post should provide important lessons in OHS, HR, RTW and LTIFR
For decades OHS professionals have known that the Lost Time Injury Frequency Rate (LTIFR) does not accurately measure the safety performance of an organisation. LTIFR can be manipulated and is responsive to single catastrophic events. The consensus has always been that LTIFR is one indicator of safety improvement but should not be relied upon at that same time as acknowledging there is no real alternative to the LTIFR.
From an Australian Senate inquiry that is currently running and sparked, to some extent, from an ABC current affairs report in September 2009, it seems that the Australian postal service, Australia Post, is doing just that.
One of the attractive managerial elements of LTIFR is that it provides a figure from which incentives and rewards can be provided. This is attractive to both OHS managers and employers because LTIFR provides a tangible benchmark.
Safety incentives and rewards have been contentious for decades but have come to the fore in this inquiry due to this type of accusation from one of the Australian trade unions, the CEPU ( Communications, Electrical and Plumbing Union):
Australia Post boasts that Lost Time Injury records are the lowest they’ve ever been. But those results haven’t been achieved by a safer workplace – rather by manipulating the injury management process to force people back to work and deny employees their rights.
Meanwhile, the same managers receive cash bonuses for reducing Lost Time Injuries in their sections.
The CEPU has documented extensive abuse of the injury management process.
Facility Nominated Doctors
Workers are being bullied into attending company-paid Facility Nominated Doctors.
FNDs are instructed to get people eligible for workers compensation straight back to work, before they’ve had to time to recover.
Australia Post has a commercial contract with InjuryNET, a private organisation, which gives Post access to a network of doctors.
InjuryNET guarantees it will reduce Lost Time Injury rates, lost hours and duration until return to pre-injury duties.
Where workers are not eligible for workers compensation, company doctors are instructed to find them unfit for duties, so Australia Post can direct them off work without pay, or sack them.
The CEPU has obtained email evidence that managers use the injury management process to get rid of ‘undesireable’ (sic) employees.
This is the language Australia Post management uses to describe injured workers.
Many of the attachment the CEPU has provided to the Senate Inquiry are not being publicly released because they include details of many cases of alleged mismanagement. The CEPU has posted an example of Australia Post’s approach to injured workers on Youtube.
The Australian Government responded to pressure from unions and elsewhere and established the Senate inquiry with the following terms of reference.
“The practices and procedures of Australia Post over the past three years in relation to the treatment of injured and ill workers, including but not limited to:
- allegations that injured staff have been forced back to work in inappropriate duties before they have recovered from workplace injuries:
- the desirability of salary bonus policies that reward managers based on lost time injury management and the extent to which this policy may impact on return to work recommendations of managers to achieve bonus targets:
- the commercial arrangements that exist between Australia Post and InjuryNet and the quality of the service provided by the organisation:
- allegations of Compensation Delegates using fitness for duty assessments from Facility Nominated doctors to justify refusal of compensation claims and whether the practice is in breach of the Privacy Act 1988 and Comcare policies:
- allegations that Australia Post has no legal authority to demand medical assessments of injured workers when they are clearly workers’ compensation matters:
- the frequency of referrals to InjuryNet Doctors and the policies and circumstances behind the practices:
- the comparison of outcomes arising from circumstances when an injured worker attends a facility nominated doctor, their own doctor and when an employee attends both, the practices in place to manage conflicting medical recommendations in the workplace; and
- any related matters.”
Some submissions to the inquiry have been made publicly available, including a submission by Australia Post. The company responds to each of the allegations included in the terms of reference. A frequent response from Australia Post is that its actions do not breach the law be it privacy legislation, workers’ compensation or its own policies. This defence is common for companies and organisations but it is often contrary to many of the arguments from the workers.
In the video above Brett Griffin describes the treatment from his managers at Australia Post as “wrong”. It may be wrong but is it illegal? This is the question that most Courts and judges face.
However this inquiry ends, the management of its employees seems not to have been to an acceptable level. The safety and HR Management system seems not to have been working properly. The evidence for this is the number of disgruntled employees and ex-workers and the existence of the Senate inquiry.
Clearly Australia Post’s conduct was not “best practice”. In the company’s recently released annual Corporate Responsibility Report it says this under the section for People Management:
“The effective management of our human resources is, therefore, of vital importance to our brand strength, community engagement, service performance and financial returns. Over several decades, we have developed a set of policies and programs that are designed to protect and reward our people – including progressive industrial relations policies; proactive management of occupational health and safety; continuation of our successful injury management, rehabilitation and return-to-work programs; a strong commitment to diversity; structured workplace learning; and effective grievance procedures.”
RTWMatters said in an article on its website (subscriber access only) in late September 2009 this about Australia Post:
“Some of our team have had first-hand experience with Australia Post’s return to work. In the select number of cases they have dealt with the Australia Post system has been found to be frustrating and seemingly lacking in genuine interest in the employee. Perhaps our team has seen only isolated examples, not representative of the general approach – if so our opinion may be swayed by the appropriate data. Our experience is that the Australia Post system focuses on ‘process before people’.”
The “Senate Inquiry into Australia Post’s treatment of injured and ill workers” will undoubtedly provide important lessons that will be relevant globally on safety incentives, LTIFRs, return-to-work practices in a large organisation, rehabilitation provider conduct, and, most importantly, how to manage injured staff. What should not be lost in any inquiry of this type is that the inquiry exists because people have been hurt and, they feel, unfairly treated.
[Kevin Jones is a feature writer for RTWMatters]
All non-confidential submissions can be accessed as they are uploaded at http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/eca_ctte/aust_post/submissions.htm
Big fine for Queensland Rail – big risks in rail
Almost two years ago, two rail workers died in Queensland. According to the official report into the incident:
“At approximately 1056 on Friday 7 December 2007, two QR [Queensland Rail] Infrastructure Services Group (ISG) track workers were fatally injured as a consequence of being struck by a track machine (train) at Mindi, approximately 130 kilometres south-west of Mackay.
The collision occurred when Track Machine MMA59, in the process of conducting track resurfacing work on the Down line at Mindi, commenced a routine reversing movement.
During the process, two QR Systems Maintenance personnel, working on the same track and behind the track machine, were struck and fatally injured by this track machine.
Analysis of evidence and conditions surrounding the accident revealed:
- An overall lack of compliance with elements of the QR SMS at the Mindi site; and
- Inadequate communication and coordination between workgroups at the Mindi site.”
On 26 November 2009, Queensland Rail was fined $A650,000 over the deaths. The fine is only $A100,000 below the maximum fine applicable. According to a media release about the fine:
“The Workplace Health and Safety Queensland investigation found that QR’s safety management systems were inadequate for managing the separation of workers and plant, particularly when both were within the same section of track between signals.
It also found that QR knew the systems were inadequate and not working because it had been highlighted to management in a series of audits.”
Not only were Queensland Rail’s safety management systems inadequate, Queensland Rail knew they were inadequate because a series of audits had told it so.
Railway in Australia and elsewhere is one of the most regulated industries. It is also one of the industries with the most prescriptive set of rules. It is a complicated business but one where hazards are known and systems are in place to control these hazards.
The extent of QR’s failure to operate safely can be illustrated by some of the many recommendations made in 2008 by Queensland Transport:
- The necessity for consistent and effective Worksite Safety Briefings by ISG personnel;
- Preconditions to the reversal of vehicles in accordance with QR safeworking requirements;
- Responsibilities and training syllabi for ISG Resurfacing personnel;
- The necessity for pre-departure safety checks on ISG trains;
- Provision of safe separation and segregation between ISG track workers and trains;
- ISG SMS compliance monitoring, at the local level;
- Fatigue management within QR, and in particular ISG rostering;
- Management of the perceived relationship between ISG and Network Control;
- Awareness of the priority of safety over commercial pressures by remote ISG staff;
- Distribution of safety communications and documents within QR;
- Representation for relevant stakeholders in operational change management processes;
- Risk and change management training for ISG operational personnel;
- Safety risks presented to ISG through the permanent coupling of track machines;
- The safety value to QR of an enhanced and transparent reporting system;
- The management of ISG district staff relationship issues; and
- ISG and Network Access radio protocol compliance monitoring.
Many elements are familiar to other investigations in rail and other industries – fatigue, on-site communication, training, segregation, document control and distribution, local compliance enforcement, transparency in reporting…..
On 10 September 2008, the QR CEO Lance Hockridge said:
“When I arrived in November 2007, I found an organisation with a safety record that was improving but not what it should be. Only three weeks later we had a very tragic reminder of this when work colleagues Jamie Adams and Gary Watkins were killed at Mindi.
“Organisations hoping to achieve meaningful change must firstly be honest with themselves – we need to confront this reality and make the changes required.”
Queensland Rail did not face the reality of problems identified by safety auditors and two workers died.
The news of the record fine came at a time when the ownership of Victoria’s metropolitan rail network has changed from Connex to Metro. Victoria has a stressed rail service but has managed to avoid the controversy of Queensland Rail and RailCorp in New South Wales but this has been through luck rather than good management. The Victorian Government, and particularly the Transport Minister, Lynne Kosky, needs to read the Waterfall Inquiry report and the Queensland Mindi report to understand the personal, economic and political cost of not having a tightly managed, functional rail safety regime. Having been in power for just over 10 years, this government now owns all the Victorian problems and must account to the electorate for not fixing them.
The political risk was summarized in an editorial in The Age on 30 November 2009
“In September, a Senate report into federal funding of public transport found Melbourne’s network was badly managed in comparison with Perth’s government-operated system. A key problem was lack of accountability: it was unclear who was in charge. The consequences of the lack of an overarching transit authority to oversee the whole system are clear…..
New operators of trains and trams in new livery will struggle to deliver acceptable service unless the Government makes good its past neglect of infrastructure.”
The fact that the Victorian rail system is being privately operated will not be an acceptable shield when the first passenger train crashes with a jam-packed peak hour cargo.
Quad Bikes – industry response
On 30 November 2009, the CEO of The Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries, Andrew McKellar, responded to some of the issues raised in recent SafetyAtWorkBlog articles concerning the safety of quad bikes.
McKellar emphasised that a balanced approach to ATV safety discussions is required. He said:
“In terms of a statistical outcome, the results show that, on balance, [ROPS] does not result in a safer outcome, in some situations people are going to be killed where otherwise they would have been fine. In other circumstances, they will survive an accident or a rollover accident where they might have been seriously injured if they hadn’t had it…….There is no clear safety benefit from putting such structures on those vehicles.”
As has been shown in previous articles many Australian and New Zealand OHS regulators have not recommended ROPS for quad bikes. This indicates that there must be some convincing evidence that ROPS are inappropriate. But that leaves the same problem with quad bikes in 2009 that existed decades ago, people are becoming injured or are dying from the (mis)use of these vehicles.
In most other vehicle and manufacturing circumstances consistent misuse would indicate that the vehicle itself and the interaction between driver and vehicle requires considerable investigation and/or redesign. The investigation by Ralph Nader was referred to in an earlier article as an example of unsafe design being engineered out.
Equipment designers in a range of industries strive to make their equipment foolproof but there does not seem to be same motivation in the quad bike manufacturing industry which still advocates helmets as the best hazard control option. This option is supported by calls for safe driving courses and keeping within the manufacturers’ specifications.
Helmets may be best practice at the moment but it is hard to believe that that is where the situation should stay. By not progressing beyond this control option, manufacturers and safety regulators are focusing on rider awareness in a sector, agriculture, that is renowned for taking (inventive) shortcuts and whose principal workforce are men who have a macho dismissive attitude to safety. A new approach is required.
Australian research figures into quad-bike deaths and injuries
A SafetyAtWorkBlog reader drew our attention to a research report on quad bike safety by one of Australia’s most well-known researchers into agricultural safety, Lyn Fragar.
The report entitled “ATV Injury on Australian Farms – The Facts – 2006” details a compilation of police, hospital and injury data from many years concerning ATVs or quad bikes. Recommendations and observations are made but curiously the design of the vehicles is not considered as a contributory factor in rollovers and rollover protection structures are not mentioned.
Further quad bike safety information
In January 2003, the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries (FCAI) issued the following media statement outlining its initiatives to reduce the injuries associated with quad bikes on farms in Australia.
SafetyAtWorkBlog is following up with the FCAI for further information on quad bike safety and any objections the FCAI has to roll-over protection structures. An earlier article on quad bike safety is available HERE.
“The peak industry body representing the major motorcycle and All Terrain Vehicle (ATV) distributors has reinforced its support for on-going safety campaigns to help reduce ATV accidents.
The FCAI Motorcycle Group is concerned that a number of recent ATV accidents may have been the result of overloading or a lack of understanding of ATV operation.
The FCAI strongly recommends ATV operators should adhere to the following safety measures based on ATV manufacturers’ instructions:
- always wear a helmet
- do not carry passengers
- do not exceed recommended maximum load and towing capacities
- comply with the manufacturer’s recommended minimum user age for the vehicle
- never operate an ATV under the influence of alcohol or drugs
- follow the manufacturer’s maintenance procedures
The FCAI advises ATV operators who do not have a copy of the manufacturer’s instructions to seek a replacement from their nearest dealer.
The FCAI said recognising the risks associated with overloading an ATV and the dangers of carrying a passenger could significantly reduce ATV accidents.
“Appropriate speed for conditions and avoidance of riding on steep slopes could also further reduce ATV accidents,” said Mr Peter Sturrock, chief executive of the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries.
An average of 10,000 ATVs have been imported annually into Australia over the past five years, according to figures from the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries.
“Some ATVs are designed for competition and recreational riding but the greater majority of ATVs imported to Australia are agricultural ATVs sold directly to the farming sector,” Peter Sturrock added.
The FCAI Motorcycle Group has been actively involved in the promotion of ATV safety to consumers since 1997.
The Group committed $25,000 production costs to the first edition of a safety video “You and Your ATV” in 1998.
The video focuses on safe and responsible riding practices for ATVs and includes safe loading and securing methods.
More than 35,000 copies have been distributed free to ATV purchasers and owners.
The FCAI Motorcycle Group allocated $29,000 in 2002 to a second edition of the video.
The Group also provided expert advice and assistance to the development of an ATV Training Course for TAFE farm students.
The FCAI has also provided the services of its Motorcycle Manager Ray Newland to attend meetings of state and federal WorkCover Authorities for examination and progress of ATV safety issues.
In November of last year, the FCAI conducted a ‘field day’ for key national stakeholders involved with ATV safety.
The FCAI represents ATV importer/distributors Honda, Kawasaki, Polaris, Suzuki and Yamaha.”