workplace – Page 186 – SafetyAtWorkBlog

The OHS obligations of global corporations

BHP Billiton has issued a media statement concerning the death of a miner, Gregory Goslett, at its coalmine in Khutala in South Africa. Due to the number of deaths the company has had over the last two years, attention on any safety issue at BHP is intense. BHP’s short statement reads:

“It is with deep regret and sadness that BHP Billiton announces a fatal incident at its Khutala Colliery opencast operations in South Africa. At approximately 05:02 am on Tuesday, 20 October 2009 Gregory Goslett (27), Mining Operations Supervisor, was fatally injured whilst driving a light vehicle at the mine.

An initial investigation indicates that Gregory was travelling in a light vehicle when a piece of coal fell from a loaded 25 ton haul truck travelling in the opposite direction. The piece of coal went through the windscreen of the light vehicle and struck Gregory causing fatal injuries to him.

The company is offering all comfort, assistance and support to Gregory’s fiancée Tarryn, his parents and those affected at the operations. Our thoughts are with Gregory’s family, friends and colleagues at this difficult time.

Mining at the opencast area has been suspended and investigations are underway.”

The Age newspaper points out that

“The accident was of the type that BHP has previously moved to eliminate from its Pilbara iron ore mines in Western Australia after several deaths last year…..”

“A key safety change made by BHP in the Pilbara in response to last year’s run of fatal accidents was the improved management of the interaction of light vehicles with heavy vehicles.”

The circumstances of Goslett’s death illustrates the obligations, some would say challenges, that multi-jurisdictional corporations need to ensure that safety improvements are consistently applied across their workplaces, regardless of location or remoteness.

BHP Billiton has been tragically reminded of this but BHP is only one corporation in the global mining industry. Safety solutions and initiatives must extend beyond jurisdictions, countries and commercial entities to each workplace where similar hazards exist. (The oil refinery industry was reminded of this with the Texas City Refinery explosion) The communication and sharing of solutions is a crucial element of the safety profession around the world.

Kevin Jones

Prosecution results from fall through roof

On 22 October 2007, a commercial premise in Southbank, Victoria, was to undergo renovations which included replacing the asbestos roof with an iron roof. Two men were employed as project managers and during the roof replacement, according to WorkSafe Victoria.

“…the dogman fell [through an unguarded shaft] a total distance of 8 metres and as a result he broke 3 bones of his right wrist and a fractured scapula as well as sustaining bruising to the body and serious lacerations to the head.”

On 16 October 2009, the Magistrates’ Court fined the specialist roofing company contracted for the task $A15,000. The prosecution summary says that as the company specialised in roofing, the hazards of working on an asbestos roof, and unprotected edges, would have been well-known.

The two project managers were fined $A7,500 each as they were not sufficiently experienced for their project management roles. The lack of fall protection for those working on the roof was of particular note according to the Prosecution Summary from WorkSafe Victoria.

More details on the prosecution are available from the WorkSafe hyperlinks in this article.

It would be interesting to run this prosecution summary as a hypothetical under the proposed National OHS Model law to provide a contrast between the old and new laws particularly on the following matters, although many more could be considered if further details were available:

who controls the workplace
competence
suitably qualified
role and enforcement of JSA’s
contractor management

Kevin Jones

Two forklift cases in Australia – one death and one fine

On 19 October 2009, SafeWorkSA released details of a court case against Macbar Nominees Pty Ltd trading as Southern Cross Trailers . The company has been fined over $A15,000 due to the incapacitating injury of a worker from a load falling off a forklift. The event, described below, occurred in July 2007.

“A man aged 38 at the time had been with the firm just two weeks in his job as a labourer. He and two colleagues had been instructed to clean a work area: a job, which involved lifting several large items by forklift.

In the process of this task, a drum that was part of an unsecured load raised aloft by the forklift, fell about two metres onto the man as he moved a second pallet beneath.

He suffered a head wound, which required stitches and a finger injury that required surgery. In a Victim Impact Statement, the court heard that the worker had been unable to resume his work as a labourer as a result of the finger injury.”

A forklift-related incident occurred in Queensland on 5 October 2009 and details of the incident are being reported in the media. According to Queensland Emergency Services

“Firefighters and paramedics responded to a business on Riverview Road at Dinmore around 10.50pm after a man became trapped under a forklift. The 18-year-old suffered from crush injuries to his head, neck and chest and was declared deceased at the scene.”

According to media reports, the man had been working at the abattoir for only two months and was not licenced to operate a forklift. Clearly the management of the site has some very serious questions to answer to the family and the Government.

It is still too early to make more than basic recommendations from this case as the available information is conflicting or not yet released.

Licences for driving forklifts or for operating any specialised plant must be produced and verified, regardless of the size of the site or the complexity of the task.
Whether the man was specifically given the task to drive the forklift or whether he was “skylarking”, still raises the issue of supervision.
The matter of communication with the family of workplace victims, whether by the Government or the company, is also very relevant.

Kevin Jones

Evidence of heart attacks due to secondhand smoke

According to a media release from the Institute of Medicine (IOM) in the United States, a new research report says:

“Smoking bans are effective at reducing the risk of heart attacks and heart disease associated with exposure to secondhand smoke, says a new report from the Institute of Medicine. The report also confirms there is sufficient evidence that breathing secondhand smoke boosts nonsmokers’ risk for heart problems, adding that indirect evidence indicating that even relatively brief exposures could lead to a heart attack is compelling.”

The report claims to have undertaken “a comprehensive review of published and unpublished data and testimony on the relationship between secondhand smoke and short-term and long-term heart problems”. It has looked at “animal research and epidemiological studies” and “data on particulate matter in smoke from other pollution source”.

The study was sponsored by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention which has summarised the report on a new webpage. SafetyAtWorkBlog has been unable to obtain a copy of the full report.

The report is unlikely to help those safety professionals who need to control the hazard of secondhand smoke in the workplace. Legislation has been in some States of America for over thirty years identifying where people cannot smoke and around the world the major control measures are moving smokers outside and encouraging them to quit.

The IOM report seems to confirm the seriousness of the issue but provides no new ideas for control. This would be like producing a new research report that says mercury, lead or asbestos are harmful – like duh?

US OSHA provides some data on legislative interventions on tobacco smoke but new information on this hazard in the workplace setting is thin. The US Cancer Institute issued a monograph in 1999 defining ETS as

“…an important source of exposure to toxic air contaminants indoors. There is also some exposure outdoors in the vicinity of smokers. Despite an increasing number of restrictions on smoking and increased awareness of health impacts, exposures in the home, especially of infants and children, continue to be a public health concern. ETS exposure is causally associated with a number of health effects.”

More recent monographs are available at the Tobacco Control Research site.

The UK Health & Safety Executive provides this specific environmental tobacco smoke advice

Employers should have a specific policy on smoking in the workplace.
Employers should take action to reduce the risk to the health and safety of their employees from second hand smoke to as low a level as is reasonably practicable.
Smoking policy should give priority to the needs of non-smokers who do not wish to breathe tobacco smoke.
Employers should consult their employees and their representatives on the appropriate smoking policy to suit their particular workplace.

The status of workplace smoking and secondhand smoke in most westernised countries seems to have plateau-ed or perhaps got to the point where every control measure that is reasonably practicable has been done.

That people continue to die directly and indirectly from tobacco smoke illustrates the flaw in the reasonably practicable approach to safety legislation and management which is “so what do we do next?” Perhaps the attention being given to nano particles may help but is it the particulates in secondhand smoke that is the problem or the fumes themselves? Regardless, a new approach is needed to control this persistent workplace hazard. Shoving smokers onto the streets and balconies is not enough.

Kevin Jones

CFMEU, IPA, Gretley Mine – political lessons

Readers outside of New South Wales may vaguely remember that in 1996 four miners died in a coalmine in the Hunter Valley 0f New South Wales. They may also remember that the was some press about the prosecution of some directors of the mining company. It was one of those incidents and court cases that should have gained broader attention that it did.

As OHS stakeholders in Australia ponder the ramifications of the Government’s proposed Safe Work Bill, it is important to also ponder the legal legacy of the Gretley mine disasater. It may provide non-NSW and non-mining readers with a better understanding of the resistance to the new harmonised laws from the mining industry in both New South Wales and Western Australia.

On 15 October 2009, Andrew Vickers of the Construction Forestry Mining & Energy Union used the Gretley saga as a justification to call for the harmoinised legislation and support systems to allow for variations to meet the special needs of the mining sector.

cover PHILLIPS 5.04925E-210RETLEY On the other side of political fence, Ken Phillips of the Institute of Public Affairs, a conservative thinktank, produced a document about the politics of the Gretley saga. The publication was supported by a video, available below. Phillips’ paper is a useful illustration of business’ opinions of the unions and New South Wales’ OHS legislation. This legislation is a centrepiece to the ACTU and union movement’s concerns and opposition to many elements of the current draft Safe Work Bill.

Prominent sociologist, Andrew Hopkins, has written about the OHS management issues raised by the disaster and its aftermath.

SafetyAtWorkBlog believes that these political and safety resources can provide a primer to many of the issues being discussed in the current debate on OHS laws.

Kevin Jones

Changing weather conditions can present unexpected hazards

In the south-east corner of Australia, a drought has existed for over a decade. This week in Melbourne, it has rained on and off for several days, changing the way the community is feeling. Farmers are happy, owners of rain water tanks are happy, gardeners are happy, even commuters who have to relearn how to drive in the wet are less complaining.

Some months ago, I spoke to a mother whose two-year-old daughter had never seen a heavy rainstorm, thunder or lightning. Early last year, a colleague and I looked out of an office building window on a 13th floor and saw smoke swirling round the city. It turned out to be rain but we had not seen rain for so long that we mis-identified it.

This morning, I was removing money from an automatic teller in the street and I was dripped on from the leaking roof of the bank for the first time ever. A local chemist had buckets on its floor to catch drips from the ceiling that they had never seen before.

Yesterday, 15 October 2009, a concrete pumper at a housing development site in Coburg sunk in some mud just enough to swing the pump’s hose into a worker, killing him. Other media reports say that a stand of the pumper may have malfunctioned.

There are always many lessons from workplace deaths but one to be taken from this incident is that external factors to the actual tasks in hand must be considered. Those factors, in this case weather and soil stability, can change within a work period and this variability of environment must be watched and anticipated.

Mud on a construction site is not a new hazard. But if a hazard is not always present or regularly encountered, it is easy to give it less attention.

Kevin Jones

OHS is becoming criminal law in a social context

On 14 October 2009, Australian law firm Deacons hosted a breakfast seminar of the draft OHS model law proposed by the Australian Government. The speaker, Mike Hammond, expressed concern about many sections of the draft laws because they do not seem to fit how OHS law has been structured in Australia and the UK for over thirty years.

This is not to say the clauses and sections are worthless, useless or wrong, but the Government has not provided enough information on the rationale for the changes or the context for those changes so that those who need to use the law understand the law.

Hammond had five major concerns with the proposed law in the Victorian context:

Person conducting business or undertaking vs employer

Officers’ duty to exercise due diligence

Failure to acknowledge “Control” as issue of first principle

Abrogation of right to silence and privilege against self-incrimination for individuals

Unions able to cause work to cease

Hammond is, of course, looking at the laws from a lawyer’s perspective and not that of a safety professional or business operator but he raised some excellent points, some of which have been discussed previously in SafetyAtWorkBlog.

The coverage of the proposed OHS laws is so broad as to include anywhere where work is conducted. Tooma, a partner of Hammond at Deacons, touched on this impractical definition in some of his statements. The way some work is done in 2009 is radically different from 1985 for example, mainly due to technology.

This blog article could be written on a kitchen table, in a cafe, on a park bench or a desk in an office. Each of these would be workplaces because work is being undertaken however if the article is being written on a laptop in a cafe, at the moment, the cafe owner would have no OHS obligations on my actions. There would likely be public liability and safety issues, particularly if the laptop was also plugged into the cafe’s power supply, for instance, but the cafe is only a workplace for the employees of the cafe. Under the draft Safe Work Act (or Bill), if the customers are working there, the cafe owner would have OHS obligations for them. The customers, the workers, of course would have their own OHS obligations as they do now.

Hammond made the point that the new proposed laws dispense with the legal relationship of employer and employee. This fundamentally changes the coverage of OHS legislation. As I put it to Hammond at the seminar, the changes remove the “occupational” from the OHS law. It has become a criminal law in a social context.

Hammond sees no reason to change the employment relationship to the extent proposed if the aim is to encompass the new varieties of work activity and workplace. He believes that these circumstances can still be met specific provisions to deal with the new varieties of work whilst maintaining the fundamental employer- employee relationship. Business and society would then be able to better understand some of the changes because the context would be within what has been understood for decades as “work”.

The proposed Safe Work Bill is trying to be too much too quickly and will set back OHS gains a long way. OHS has accrued considerable social awareness and acceptance. The legal principles of a safe workplace and safe work have been largely embraced by the community. Australia has not experienced the “OHS has gone mad” campaigns waged in the United Kingdom but if this law proceeds as it is, government will not be able to manage it, business will dismiss it through frustration, and the community will think (rightly) that OHS is a joke. Safety professionals and OHS regulators will be seen as sucking the sense out of what used to be sensible.

Mike Hammond has seen criminal law reacting to changing social circumstances. He said that this proposed law is attempting to set a social agenda and a dangerous precedent.

Kevin Jones

Category: workplace

The OHS obligations of global corporations

Like this:

Prosecution results from fall through roof

Like this:

Two forklift cases in Australia – one death and one fine

Like this:

Evidence of heart attacks due to secondhand smoke

Like this:

CFMEU, IPA, Gretley Mine – political lessons

Like this:

Changing weather conditions can present unexpected hazards

Like this:

OHS is becoming criminal law in a social context

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: