Smoke-free workplaces have gained considerable attention over the last few years but many countries allow exemptions for casinos. This makes no health sense but considerable political and revenue sense. The American Lung Association has released a video story about one non-smoking casino worker who has suffered lung cancer, Vinnie Rennich. (The 16meg flash video is available for download)
Tag: Corporate responsibility
The tenuousness of safety culture
Only a few days ago, SafetyAtWorkBlog questioned the usefulness of vision statements. A leaked internal memorandum from the structural mechanical process division of John Holland reported in the Australian media on 27 April 2009 shows just how tenuous such statements can be.
According to an article in the Australian Financial Review (not available online, page 3), the divisional general manager, Brendan Petersen, listed 81 injuries to subcontractors and employees and 51 near-misses in 2008. The memo acknowledges that the situation is “unsatisfactory and unacceptable” and Petersen makes a commitment to “do something about it”.
The trade unions have jumped on this memo as an indication that John Holland is not living up to its principles, although there is a lot of irrelevant and mischievous industrial relations baggage behind any of the current union statements about John Holland’s operations.
Petersen’s memo admits that, as well as his division’s performance being unacceptable
“we also have sites that consistently allow work activities to be undertaken in an uncontrolled or unsafe manner, sites that don’t take employee concerns about unsafe workplace conditions seriously and sites that don’t report near misses so as to learn from them and ensure the situations never re-occur again.”
That such an established company with such an active program of safety management acknowledges these deficiencies is of great concern.
On being asked about the memo, Stephen Sasse, John Holland’s general manager for HR, spoke of optimism and the safety efforts introduced since the 6 April memo however, behind his words is an acknowledgement that the safety culture has not been supported.
“To an extent [the memo] is an exhortation to middle management and supervision, and to an extent it is a warning that we cannot tolerate staff who do not share the John Holland values around safety…”
The John Holland values are listed on their website as
- “Commit to the successful completion of a wide variety of construction, mining, services and engineering projects through our specialist and regional construction businesses
- Commit to continuous improvement in all we do
- Understand our clients’ businesses
- Achieve our vision of “No Harm” through safe and responsible work practices
- Build and maintain open lines of communication with our people’ our partners and our clients
- Provide excellent returns to our stakeholders
- Create an environment where our people are challenged, motivated and satisfied
- Conduct business ethically, honestly and with diligence at all times”
The No Harm value is expanded upon through it’s “Passport to Safety” program.
In the AFR article, it is noted that Comcare currently has four federal court prosecutions occurring against members of the John Holland Group.
It seems trendy to broadcast the values of a company’s safety management system as if they are new and unique to their companies when, in fact, many of the values reflect legislative obligations under OHS law. The trap that many companies are facing is that reality does not match the ideal, and may never do so.
A strong argument can be made to be a quiet achiever on workplace safety – to just get down and get managing – without trumpeting the values that can become an embarrassment when the real world pierces the academic fog of the MBA. Perhaps true safety leadership comes from those who do it on the shop floor rather than than those who advocate it in the boardroom.
BHP Billiton deaths – government intervention
The West Australian government has taken the extraordinary step of talking directly to the senior management of Australian mining corporation BHP Billiton about the recent spate of fatalities at BHP’s worksites. The cynic would say that we now know the number of workplace fatalities that it takes to gain a Minister’s attention however, the fact that this high-level meeting is occurring is a clear indication of the severity of the issue. It may also indicate just how effective a union safety campaign can be. It is just regrettable the campaign is generated from multiple fatalities rather than preventive issues.
According to the Minister, Nick Moore
“Mines inspectors will now issue prohibition notices to BHP under the Mines Safety and Inspection Act 1994 – basically a stop work notice – for any breach of work practices or work place conditions that may constitute a hazard to workers.”
Mr Moore went on to say, according to one media article, “…the policy would remain in force until he had seen the report of a Section 45 review currently under way into safety management systems at all of BHP Billiton’s Pilbara iron ore mine sites.”
The article noted that
“The review, requiring independent engineering studies of BHP worksites to be carried out, is expected to be completed by April 30.”
BHP, meanwhile, has given guarantees of the following safety improvements:
- Reduce site access;
- Improve contractor management;
- Enhance existing strategies to prevent excess working hours;
- Move rail operations from the Mine Safety and Inspection Act to the Rail Safety Act;
- Enhance traffic management standards, and;
- Suspend all non-essential work outside daylight hours
Safety conference protest
On 31 March 2009, Australian trade unionists (pictured below) protested outside the Safety In Action Conference. The crowd was objecting to the presence of Ms Janet Holmes a Court, the chair of John Holland, as a keynote speaker. As Dave Noonan, CFMEU Construction Division national secretary, put it
“It is an outrage that a company with a dismal safety record is the key note speaker at a major safety conference,” Mr Noonan said. “John Holland needs to stop talking about safety and start working with the unions to make their worksites safe.”
Many of the conference delegates who were attended a breakfast seminar were oblivious of the protest outside. According to a media statement from the Safety Institute of Australia national president, Barry Silburn
“We share the same goal as the unions – to bring safety failures into the public arena and work towards preventing more deaths – so we wholeheartedly support their efforts and were pleased to see them at the conference today,” Mr Silburn said. “We certainly don’t condone the systems failures at John Holland. Janet Holmes a Court’s presentation was an opportunity to hear what went wrong and of her plans to improve those systems. She acknowledged that John Holland had made mistakes and gave delegates the opportunity to learn from them.”
Recently, the trade union movement has become more strident in its protests about John Holland’s move to the national workers compensation scheme, the only construction contractor to choose this option. The union argues that safety on John Holland sites has deteriorated since the move. They also complain over John Holland restricting union access to their worksites.
Many workplace deaths for BHP Billiton
The Australian Workers Union are justifiably angry at the latest workplace death associated with BHP Billiton. According to the company’s media statement on 19 march 2009
“We regret to inform that we have been advised by Mines and Port Development (a Joint Venture of Fluor and SKM), who manage our major construction activities, that there has been a fatal accident involving a John Holland employee at the construction site in Newman.”
The company’s own website provides the background to the union’s concern.
It is with regret that BHP Billiton Iron Ore advises that an employee, Bob Blake, a track machine operator, aged 56, was fatally injured in a rail accident approximately 74km south of Port Hedland at 3.30am on Tuesday 24 February.
It is with sadness that BHP Billiton Mitsubishi Alliance (BMA) advises that John Barker, an employee of Nixon Communications working at Blackwater Mine, was fatally injured in a motor vehicle accident at the mine late this morning.
We regret to advise that a fatality has occurred at BHP Billiton’s Yandi mining operations involving a HWE Mining employee.
BHP Billiton Iron Ore regrets to advise that an incident occurred during the night at its Yandi mine site, which resulted in the death of an HWE Mining employee.
BHP Billiton Iron Ore regrets to advise that an incident occurred at approximately 11.00am today at its Nelson Point operations in Port Hedland, which has resulted in the death of an employee.
It is with deep regret that BHP Billiton reports that a fatality has occurred today at the Cannington silver, lead and zinc operation in north-west Queensland.
In the “Chairman’s Review” for 2008, Don Argus wrote about the growth in demand for its products from the Asian region:
Our response has been to streamline our business to enable us to produce as much product as fast as possible within the non-negotiable framework of the highest safety and environmental standards.
The CEO, Marius Kloppers, states that even though the company has achieved its seventh consecutive year of “record attributable profit”
While we can report financial success, I regret to report we have not performed well on safety. In FY2008, 11 of our employees died at work. Many more lives will have been impacted, some forever, by these tragic and avoidable events. We have reflected deeply on what more we must do to reach our goal of Zero Harm. In FY2009, we are making even greater efforts to improve our safety performance.
As shown above, the FY2009 performance statistics are not looking too good.
In the 2008 Corporate Governance Summary, the Directors are lauded.
The non-executive Directors contribute international and operational experience; understanding of the sectors in which we operate; knowledge of world capital markets; and an understanding of the health, safety, environmental and community challenges that we face.
In its 2008 Annual Report under Risk Factors, safety is listed within assets. It reads like an acceptance that contractors are not living up to their OHS obligations or BHP Billiton standards. This rings hollow as contractor management should be an area that a company of such size, resources, longevity and experience, manages in an exemplary fashion.
Some of our assets are controlled and managed by joint venture partners or by other companies. Some joint venture partners may have divergent business objectives which may impact business and financial results. Management of our non-controlled assets may not comply with our management and operating standards, controls and procedures (including health, safety, environment). Failure to adopt equivalent standards, controls and procedures at these assets could lead to higher costs and reduced production and adversely impact our results and reputation.
Later in the Risk Factor chapter:
Despite our best efforts and best intentions, there remains a risk that health, safety and/or environmental incidents or accidents may occur that may negatively impact our reputation or licence to operate.
The company is active though. It has a Code of Conduct that applies to everyone, including contractors. In it there is a quick test:
If you are in doubt about what to do or whether to speak up, it may help to do the Business Conduct Quick Test by asking yourself some simple questions:
- The values test: Does it fit with the values in our Charter?
- The safety test: Could it directly or indirectly endanger someone or cause them injury?
- The law test: Is it legal and in line with our policies and standards?
- The conscience test: Does it fit with my personal values?
- The newspaper test: If the story appeared in the paper, would I feel comfortable with the decision?
- The family test: What would I tell my partner, parent or child to do?
- The ‘feel test’: What’s my intuition or ‘gut feel’? If it ‘feels’ bad, then it probably is bad!
Failing any of the above ‘tests’ indicates that you need to talk with someone about the concern you have.
It’s not that BHP Billiton seems to have fallen into a heap in the last couple of years. Following a major explosion in 2004 at its remote Boodarie Hot Briquette Iron (HBI) plant in Western Australia, it was fined $200,000 plus costs for “failing to provide and maintain a working environment in which employees were not exposed to hazards.” The explosion killed one worker and injured several others.
The court case revolved around the May 2004 explosion at the Port Hedland Boodarie HBI plant where one man died, and others received severe burns.
The prosecution case was that BHP Billiton undertook two activities, with the potential to cause an explosion, together without a proper risk assessment. This was considered to be a serious and substantial breach of the obligation to provide and maintain a safe working environment.
There is much more OHS performance information available at the BHP Billiton website but it is worth ending this post with the OHS statement included in the Code of Conduct:
BHP Billiton is committed to achieving leading industry practice in health and safety.
In all cases, we will aim to meet or exceed applicable legal and other requirements, as we believe that all accidents and occupational illnesses and injuries are preventable.
Our priority is to ensure that all our people – regardless of where they work or what they do – return home safely.
OHS and Corporate Responsibility in Asia
In 2000, Melody Kemp was interviewed for Safety At Work magazine about her experience monitoring Western corporations’ workplace safety in Asia. Below is an extract of that interview.
In 2000, Melody Kemp was interviewed for Safety At Work magazine about her experience monitoring Western corporations’ workplace safety in Asia. Below is an extract of that interview.
The full interview is available by clicking the HERE.
Recently you were part of an international OHS inspection team in Indonesia. Can you tell us about that?
I guess the reason I became part of the team was that I was known to the social research group that we were working with. First, Reebok, who we were working for, put the job out for tender, which was actually quite unusual. Normally the other shoe companies tend to elect an international consulting accounting firm like Price Waterhouse or Ernst Young.
The woman who took over the human rights job used to work for the Asian Foundation and she had a totally different set of beliefs. She had a background in social activism and human rights, so she was interested in a different approach. Being as independent as they could be they decided to take this opportunity. They subcontracted to a prominent social research group who have worked for World Bank and have a lot of status.
Also, they were all Indonesians while I was the only foreigner on the team but I also speak Indonesian. A major factor was that we were all familiar with the language and culture. They needed an OHS person, they preferred to work with a woman, and I was the only woman they could find in Indonesia with that mix of skills.
Air Safety Culture – Turkish Style
SafetyAtWorkBlog would not purport to be knowledgeable about airlines, Turkish or Australia but there was a fascinating article published in Europe on 12 March 2009 that discusses the safety culture in Turkish Airlines. The article is entitled “Islam and the art of aircraft maintenance” by Claire Berlinski
SafetyAtWorkBlog would not purport to be knowledgeable about airlines, Turkish or Australia but there was a fascinating article published in Europe on 12 March 2009 that discusses the safety culture in Turkish Airlines. The article is entitled “Islam and the art of aircraft maintenance” by Claire Berlinski (Thanks to Melody Kemp for bringing this to our attention)
There are some similarities to the current issues running in Australian media and industrial circles over the maintenance services of Qantas aircraft.
The crash of a Turkish Airline flight in Amsterdam on 25 February 2009 gained worldwide attention. According to Berlinski’s article this crash
“…was caused by mechanical failure, exacerbated by severe pilot error: The aircraft’s altimeter – which had malfunctioned twice in the past eight landings – was faulty, and the pilots failed to note this or respond appropriately.”
A spokesperson for the airline insisted that the quality of servicing was the equal of European airlines. (God help, airline passengers in Europe.)
Berlinski reported that
“Technicians were given maintenance tasks after two or three hours of training”
and that according to a reputable Turkish publication “Tempo Dergisi”, a technician was interviewed who
“..claimed to be responsible for engine maintenance: he admitted that he was not licensed to do this job.”
Lastly she reports that
“And in December, 2006, it was widely reported that Turkish Airlines workers had sacrificed a camel on an Istanbul airport ramp as a gesture of thanks for having at last got rid of a batch of troublesome planes.”
There is much more in Berlinski’s article of concern and the full article is recommended but the relevance to SafetyAtWorkBlog is its example of a dysfunctional safety culture in an industry that is used as a positive example throughout the world, principally, as a result of James Reason’s work.
There will be good and bad in every industry and one will always be able to find a poor example of safety management in some country somewhere but the airline industry is different. It projects itself as well-regulated and operates to international benchmarks of efficiency and safety. It promotes its maintenance industry as “world’s best practice” but the generalisation is as empty as all generalisations.
OHS professionals are taught to manage safety in a way that includes the lowest common denominator in the workplace. Safety is built around the highest risk or the stupidest act.
It is useful to read the Berlinski as an article that reflects the infamous Darwin Awards except that the victim is not only the pilot but hundreds of innocent passengers.