Category: WorkSafe

Man crushed by unstable stack

On 1 September 2009 there were early reports that

“… a man died at Stanhope in northern Victoria when a one-tonne bag of salt fell from a stack and crushed him at a cheese factory.”

Further details were revealed in a media report on 4 September 2009. The media officer for WorkSafe, Michael Birt, discussed the stacking of multiple, one-tonne, bags of salt.

“The improvement notice is requiring them to develop a safer system of work in relation to storing the salt because they can’t stack it three high in these bales which are about a metre tall,” he said.  “It’s symptomatic of what happens in typical cases after this, we look at it and we find the systems need to be further improved.  Our aim is to get safety improvements happening sooner rather than later and if those improvement notices are dealt with promptly everyone’s life moves on.”

WorkSafe informed SafetyAtWorkBlog that the 50-year-old man was at the base of a stack of three bags of salt.  Each bag had been placed in the factory on a pallet, so the stack from the floor was pallet – bag – pallet – bag – pallet – bag.  The bottom bag had leaked and has possibly destabilised the stack.  The stack fell, crushing the man.  There was not racking around the stack.

The bags (similar to the one pictured right) are large bale-type bags with handles.  The bags are used for a variety of contents and are in common use.

There were no witnesses to the man’s death on the Tuesday afternoon.  Gaffer tape was found near the man’s body

WorkSafe has placed a “do not disturb” notice on the fatality site and has formally directed the company to review its bulk handling procedures in the salt store.

WorkSafe Victoria has a range of advice and guidances concerning the bulk handling of raw material, a couple are below.

Kevin Jones

Pages from large_bulky_awkwardHSS0032-Pallets-Unloading 1tems- 1545694036sing 0x1.960ec0p-891bulk 0eliverymethod_Page_1239120

An Ombudsman for the safety profession

WorkSafe Victoria is very keen for the safety advice and management discipline to become professional.  It is providing considerable technical and financial support to the Safety Institute of Australia and other members of the Health and Safety Professionals Alliance (HaSPA).  The current status of HaSPA in Australia has been discussed in other SafetyAtWorkBlog articles.

HaSPA likes to compare itself to other managerial professions such as accounting, medicine and the law, and is trying to establish a contemporary profession.  One of the professions mentioned, law, an established profession for hundreds of years, is seriously considering the introduction of an ombudsman, a concept that should have been established already for the safety sector.

According to a media report in The Australian on 4 September 2009:

A taskforce of federal and state officials is working on a plan to create a national legal ombudsman with unprecedented power over the nation’s lawyers.

If the plan goes ahead, the ombudsman would be able to set standards for all lawyers, oversee the handling of all complaints from consumers and intervene with the profession’s state-based regulators.

One option being considered would establish the office of the legal ombudsman as a new national institution drawing authority from a network of uniform state laws.

This would unify the regulation of lawyers and give state governments a role in confirming prospective candidates for the new national office.

Lawyers, rather than taxpayers, could be asked to pay for the cost of establishing their new regulator.

The taskforce, which has been appointed by federal Attorney-General Robert McClelland, is examining the possibility of establishing the new office as the centrepiece for the promised regulatory overhaul of the legal profession.

OHS law in Australia is undergoing its most major national review in decades.  Shouldn’t the safety profession also develop the “Office of the Safety Ombudsman”?  The legal profession is doing all the work on a model.

Australia has a tradition of effective industry-based ombudsmen.  A list is available online but the most publicly well-known would be the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman.

[In the last couple of years the safety profession has heard from the Victorian Health Services Commissioner, Beth Wilson, on the purpose and role of the commission and how the safety profession can learn from her support, adjudication and  advocacy.  The commissioner is not an ombudsman but there may be a role for a safety commissioner to address WorkSafe’s concerns over the quality of safety advice being provided by safety professioanls to business.  A video of Beth Wilson briefly discussing the role is available on YouTube.]

The application of an Ombudsman model in the safety profession should be discussed but similar objections will be raised to those of the legal profession in the article quoted above.  Underpinning the objections is that an established profession is resistant to change and suspicious of relinquishing the power it has established over its lifetime.

If the safety advocates are truly committed to establishing a contemporary profession, the concept of a safety ombudsman must be discussed or else  the system of self-regulation will continue and so will the lack of independence, the lack of accountability, the limited communication and the lack of faith by the general community that safety professionals can be trusted to do a good job.

Kevin Jones

Uncovered holes

Recently SafetyAtWorkBlog reported on a new WorkSafe Victoria guidance on guarding cellar doors.  Comcare has started legal action against a company a similar hazard but one located in public.

Comcare has instigated proceedings against Australia’s leading telecommunications company, Telstra, for an unguarded pit in a public area.  According to the media release dated 19 August 2009,

“The proceedings arise from an incident on 31 January 2008 when two Telstra sub-contractors opened an access pit while conducting work.  The pit is located on a pathway between a train station in Brisbane and the office of an organisation that provides services to persons with impaired vision.  While the access pit was allegedly left open and unguarded, a member of the public, with a vision impairment, fell into the pit and sustained a serious personal injury.

The maximum pecuniary penalty for a breach of s17 of the Act by a body corporate is $242,000.”

This is not a new hazard and open telecommunications pits have been guarded for decades, often with canvas to provide weather protection for workers.   We’ll report on the judgement when it is handed down.

Kevin Jones

Why OHS performance targets don’t equal safe workplaces

On 19 August 2009, the Australian Financial Review (AFR) published an article (not available online) about the lack of success of OHS regulators meeting their agreed performance target.  The article is based on the information provided by Safe Work Australia in its 2006-07 progress report.

Below is a chart that WorkSafe’s John Merritt showed at a recent OHS seminar which clearly shows how far the State of Victoria has to go to reach the 2012 target, and it is one of the better performing States.

vic_ohs_johnmerritt_leadership_080804 graph

The Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) has placed its hope for improvement in the upcoming harmonised OHS laws.  Jeff Lawrence is quoted in the small AFR article from the ACTU media release:

“Australia has a long way to go before success can be claimed on achieving national targets for workplace death, injury and disease,” Mr Lawrence said.  “With proposed uniform national occupational health and safety laws, we have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to lift protections for workers by achieving the world’s best safety standards for the entire country.”

Jeff Lawrence and the ACTU need to remember that harmonised OHS model laws have never been about improving workplace safety.  They are about setting the legal framework within which employers and employees improve safety in their workplaces.  Safety improvement comes from the management of risk and hazards, not whether it is easier for a union to get onsite or for a company to be more easily prosecuted or for fines to be set at record amounts.

(In fact until recently, Australian lawyers and some OHS lawyers acknowledge that fines do not work for anything other than punishment.  Other legal penalty options have been promoted for some time but these seem to have been ejected from the proposed National OHS law.)

The ACTU, and the employer groups, need to start assisting companies to reduce hazards,  not only the sites or industry sectors of their own members.  Unions are often keen on pushing corporate social responsibility but do not promote safety outside their member organisations.  So where is their own corporate social responsibility?

The principal motivator of the union movement in Australia has always been industrial relations, of which OHS is of occasional relevance.  Though it is acknowledged that in some specific union sectors, particularly the emergency services and construction, safety has a higher priority than elsewhere.

If the union movement was genuine about improving the lot of Australian workers and of the importance of safety, assisting in the education of business operators, outside their own union sector, to improve safety may show to some workers that being a member of a union may be a good thing.

As has been discussed elsewhere the OHS performance targets of the regulators are purely academic.  Former Prime Minister John Howard introduced the concept of “aspirational targets” to the Australian political lingo and the current OHS targets were set during his government.  Aspirational targets are those that you sort-of try to reach but if you don’t, it doesn’t matter, as there is no penalty.

If the regulators were genuine about reaching this target, the enforcement of OHS would be substantially different and harsher.  The technical assistance for business to improve safety would not rely on the regulators alone or some token business consulting funding.  But the targets have no big “stick”,  the legislation is in a state of uncertainty, the unions have limited influence, and the community’s awareness of workplace safety is up but still only a trickle on their decision-making radar.

The targets also have no “carrot” other than a media opportunity to say that one State OHS regulator performed better than another, and that will surely create harmony.

No enforcement + no penalty = no effort.

Kevin Jones

Forest not required – indoor air quality and plants

Ever since modern offices have relied on air conditioning for ventilation, indoor air quality has been a contentious occupational issue from other people’s smells to thermal comfort to photocopier toner dust.

The prominence of air quality in offices as an OHS issue can be illustrated by a paragraph from the 1997 edition of Officewise when cigarette smoke remained a real hazard.  No mention was made of plants.

Air in offices may be contaminated by several different
sources, including odours and micro-biological and
chemical contaminants. In an office environment, the
quality of the air is often controlled through an air
conditioning system. A building’s air conditioning
system may be considered as its lungs. The function
of such a system is to draw in outside air, filter, heat,
cool or humidify it and circulate it around the building.
The system expels a portion of the air to the outside
environment and replaces this expelled portion with
fresh or outside air.

“Air in offices may be contaminated by several different sources, including odours and micro-biological and chemical contaminants. In an office environment, the quality of the air is often controlled through an air conditioning system. A building’s air conditioning system may be considered as its lungs. The function of such a system is to draw in outside air, filter, heat, cool or humidify it and circulate it around the building. The system expels a portion of the air to the outside environment and replaces this expelled portion with fresh or outside air.”

Continue reading “Forest not required – indoor air quality and plants”

Vehicles are workplaces too

Radical Concept 1 – A vehicle can be workplace

Today the Australasian New Car Assessment Program (ANCAP) urged fleet managers to consider OHS obligations in their choice 0f work vehicles.  ANCAP said

“Our understanding of the OH&S principles is that there is an obligation on companies and fleet managers to ensure a safe workplace.

“Vans certainly constitute a workplace under the legal definition. We would urge fleet purchasers to examine the legislation and then factor safety into their fleet purchasing policies.”

But in practice this creates enormous challenges for the fleet manager who may only have chosen vehicles in the past that were fit-for-purpose without considering the needs of the driver.

Only recently have steps been added to trucks to allow for easier access to goods on the rear trays.  When technology became affordable tilt-down hydraulic ramps were installed, although these have their own work hazards. In both of these examples the changes occurred outside the cabin and related to accessing the transportable products.  Looking after the physical and psychological needs of the driver as a worker is different.

For instance, emergency fire appliances in Australia have had substantially improved design over the last ten years.  Many of the features are for the benefit of drivers and passengers, such as flip-out steps  for when the vehicle is stationary or special seating to allow for personal protective clothing.  But the cost of each of these new “safer” vehicles is such that the introduction is phased in and most likely as replacement vehicles.  This process could take years.  How can a workplace justify allowing only some workers to use “safer” workplaces?  The churn of vehicles could establish an inequitable safety standard ion the workplace.

ANCAP’s argument seem to be that a fleet manager who chooses a vehicle that does not have the  highest level of safety available are not providing a safe workplace.  We could be back to determining what is reasonably practicable.

Radical Concept 2 – A road can be considered a workplace.

Some bus drivers consider their regular route to be a workplace.  To some extent this is supported by the road traffic authorities who only allow certain speed control mechanisms on the roads that have bus traffic, such as speed islands rather than speed humps.  Although this may be due to the needs of not knocking the passengers around as well.

Regardless of the whether it is passenger safety, pedestrian safety or public liability insurance that creates these design decisions, bus drivers take some “ownership” of their routes.

Important Consideration 1 – Vehicles have drivers

A lot of attention has been given to driver distraction and how drivers drive.  Not only are there distractions from within the cabins from passengers, radios, phones, cigarette smoking and a range of driving activities, the relationship between external signage and driver response has also been high.

The complexity of the distraction issue can perhaps be summarized by a couple of recent links. In July 2009 a roadside memorial to a fatality itself is identified as having contributed to a fatality.  Research in the United States has begun on the impact of roadside memorials but at the moment the jury is out.

“Our results showed that the number of red light violations was reduced by 16.7% in the 6 weeks after the installation of the mock memorials compared to the 6 weeks before whereas the number of violations at two comparison sites experienced an increase of 16.8%.”

Managers, fleet and OHS, also need to assess the suitability of their workers for driving and consider the following matters.

  • Companies have an obligation to induct new workers.  Do companies induct new drivers on their vehicles or is a valid driver’s licence deemed sufficient?
  • Is a driving licence a certificate of competence?
  • Is a worker’s driving record considered when employing them?  Would one employ a driver whose record shows a propensity for speeding?
  • Are driving applicants asked whether there is a history of road rage?
  • How many demerit points are left on their licence when employed?
  • For car driving the same licence is used for personal vehicle use and driving work vehicles.  What would happen if the worker has their driver’s licence suspended thereby ending their capacity to drive for work?
  • It would be necessary to clarify in what circumstance transport accident insurance applies and when injuries relate to workers’ compensation?
  • Who should investigate a traffic incident involving work vehicles – the OHS regulator, police or some other authority?
  • Are traffic incident statistics collected for work-related vehicles?

Perhaps ANCAP could begin looking not only at the design of vehicles and additional safety features but also how these matters affect a driver’s perception of their own safety.  Does the elevation of the driver compared to other vehicles change the way the driver drives?  Could the safety features encourage the driver to drive recklessly?  Is technology deadening the driver’s instincts?

Similar questions have been posed in the occupational field for decades in relation to the operation of plant, the safe design of workplaces and the types and locations of safety signage.  Now these concepts must be considered for the mobile workplace.  Many will find this process challenging with some thinking that it is just another grab by the OHS “fascists”.

The issues do need considerable discussion in workplaces.  The recent WorkSafe Victoria “Guide to safe work related driving” is a good starting point but for the development of appropriate policies and, more importantly, to affect cultural change on the matter, companies require an elaboration by traffic authorities and from groups like ANCAP.

Kevin Jones

Do health professionals make the best OHS leaders?

David Michaels has been nominated by President Obama as the new Assistant Secretary for the Occupational Safety and Health Administration in the Department of Labor.  (A brief profile of Michaels is available HERE.)  A posting at a US Workers’ Compensation website links through to a discussion on the potential impacts of the Michaels’ appointment.

There are several telling quotes in the podcast.  Sidney Shapiro, a law professor at Wake Forest University, says that OHS achieves more when run by someone with a health professional background.

“…I think it’s important that we know that David Michaels is a health professional.  And I think OSHA’s done best when it’s had administrators from the public health community.  It is, after all, a public health agency.  More times than many of us would wish, it’s been headed by someone who’s been an adamant critic of OSHA and has come from industry or been an industry lawyer.”

Whether this position can be applied to regulators in other jurisdictions is an interesting question.

The Chair of the UK HSE Board, Judith Hackett,  has a background in petrochemicals.  The CEO of the HSE, Geoffrey Podger, has a background in the civil service, health and food safety.   The chair of the Safe Work Australia Council, Tom Phillips was the former CEO of car manufacturer, Mitsubishi, and has served on a range of industrial company boards in South Australia.  The Chair of WorkSafe BC board, Roslyn Kunin, harks from human resources and the labour market.   Greg Tweedly CEO of WorkSafe Victoria has a background in insurance and compensation.  Nina Lyhne of WorkSafe WA comes from road safety and compensation.

This unrepresentative sample shows a mix of experience and not all from health promotion.  If the list was comprehensive, it would be interesting to see if Shapiro’s comments stack up and to see how many trade union officials have moved to “the top” or will simply remain “on the board”.

The Living on Earth podcast includes the following quote from Michaels from some time ago:

“What polluters have seen is that the strategy that the tobacco industry came up with, which essentially is questioning the science, find the controversy and magnify that controversy, is very successful in slowing down public health protections.  And so the scientists who used to work for the tobacco industry are now working for most major chemical companies.  They don’t have to show a chemical exposure is safe.  All they have to do is show that the other studies are in question somehow.  And by raising that level of uncertainty, they throw essentially a monkey wrench into the system.”

This statement could generate optimism for OSHA’s future but there are many examples of the views of environmentalists changing once they move into the corporate world.  Politicians like Australia’s Minister for the Environment, Peter Garrett, is an obvious recent Australian example.  Harry Butler in the 1970s was roundly criticised for “selling out” to the petrochemical industry.

However, the appointment of David Michaels pans out, it will be an interesting one to watch, particularly if the US Democrats can stay in power for more than Obama’s two terms.

Kevin Jones

© Workplace Safety Services P/L (ABN: 68091088621) and SafetyAtWorkBlog, 2008-2024. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Kevin Jones and SafetyAtWorkBlog with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Concatenate Web Development
© Designed and developed by Concatenate Aust Pty Ltd