New approaches on OHS fines and penalties
At the moment Australian OHS professionals, lawyers and businesses are preparing submissions to the Government on the harmonisation of OHS laws. One of the areas that the Government is seeking advice on is penalties. The Discussion Paper asks the following
Q17. Are the range and levels of penalties proposed above appropriate, taking account of the levels set for breaches of duties of care by the WRMC?
Q18. What should the maximum penalty be for a contravention of the model regulations?
Q19. The intention is that all contraventions of the model Act be criminal offences. Is this appropriate or should some non-duty of care offences be subject to civil sanctions e.g. failure to display a list of HSRs at the workplace, offences relating to right of entry?
The amount of any fixed financial penalty is not a big issue in my opinion. There is an assumption that the threat of a large financial penalty imposed on one company will encourage other companies to improve safety. Is anyone seriously saying that all of the financial penalties imposed over the decades are in some way responsible for an improving level of safety in workplaces? The motivation to improve safety comes from elsewhere.
The threat of large financial penalties send companies to seek ways of insuring against having to pay a fine. Often it is cheaper to pay an insurance premium on the slim chance of being prosecuted and fined. I acknowledge that this has been a corporate and risk management approach primarily but there are cases where such options are being offered to small business.
Large financial penalties, such as the then record fine to Esso over its Longford gas explosion, are easily paid with little OHS improvement resulting from the fine. It can be argued that the negative corporate exposure from the resulting Royal Commission, a reulting class action and the media coverage resulting from its unforgivable treatment of Jim Ward were stronger motivators for improvement.
In most Australian States, there is not a crime of industrial manslaughter. This issue has faded from the political agenda but it remains very much alive in England. On 27 October 2009, the Sentencing Guidelines Council wrote the following:
“Companies and organisations that cause death through gross breaches of care should face punitive and significant fines, a consultation guideline published by the Sentencing Guidelines Council proposes today.
Fines for organisations found guilty of the new offence of corporate manslaughter may be measured in millions of pounds and should seldom be below £500,000.
The new sanction of Publicity Orders forcing companies and organisations to make a statement about their conviction and fine introduced under the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act should be imposed in virtually all cases.
The consultation guideline proposes that the publicity should be designed to ensure that the conviction becomes known to shareholders and customers in the case of companies and to local people in the case of public bodies, such as local authorities, hospital trusts and police forces. Organisations may be made to put a statement on their websites.”
The Council recommends a minimum financial penalty and a publicity order that has teeth. More on the publicity order is below.
Council member Lord Justice Anthony Hughes clearly states the purpose of financial penalties and it is not preventative. He said in a media statement
“Fines cannot and do not attempt to value a human life – compensation will be payable separately in these cases. The fine is designed to punish and these are serious offences so the fines imposed should be punitive and significant to reflect that.”
Penalties as a Percentage of Turnover
Hughes says that the Council rejected a Sentencing Advisory Panel proposal that I believe should be floated in the current debate on penalties in Australia, even though it is likely to be similarly rejected.
The Panel recommended the following
“In order to achieve an equal economic impact on offending organisations of different sizes, the proposed starting points and ranges for offences of corporate manslaughter are expressed as percentages of the offending organisation’s average annual turnover during the three years prior to sentencing. The relevant turnover is that of the company convicted of the offence or, where the offending organisation is a holding company, the consolidated turnover of the group of companies of which it is the holding company.”
Here is the penalty table
Lawyers argue extensively about the use of manslaughter in relation to deaths in workplace but the public jumps across the legalese by repeatedly asking how the death of their loved one is not manslaughter when the actions of a director or company led directly to the death? No level of legal explanation is going to counter this need for accountability, some would say revenge.
Similarly the penalty rate listed in the table above is easier for the public to understand conceptually compared to a judge’s or lawyer’s explanation of why a financial penalty for a workplace death was less than the maximum.
Sentencing options are complex and SafetyAtWorkBlog has no legal contributors but on 30 October 2009 within a public discussion period on national OHS laws and at the end of Safe Work Australia Week, it seem thats penalties imposed from a percentage of turnover may be an attractive concept to many safety advocates and one that needs to be considered in the Australian context.
Publicity Orders
On the issue of publicity orders, many Australian jurisdictions have had this option for a while. Indeed, the issue of enforceable undertakings is getting a broader hearing after some of the recent actions by Comcare against John Holland Group and others.
It is always important to look at the most recent actions and decisions in OHS law and regulation from outside one’s own jurisdiction so that innovations are not overlooked. It seems that the Sentencing Advisory Panel has looked at lots of jurisdictions in making the following requirements.
The Sentencing Advisory Panel listed specific requirements of a publicity order to be applied within a specified timeframe:
- a quarter-page advertisement in a local or regional newspaper, in the case of an organisation operating in one area; or
- an eighth-page advertisement in three specified national daily newspapers, in the case of an organisation operating nationally; and
- an eighth-page notice in a relevant trade publication; and
- a prominent notice in the organisation’s annual report (also in electronic format where applicable); and
- where applicable, a notice on the homepage of the organisation’s website for a minimum period of three months.
The panel also closed a possible (out) for offending companies.
“ The making of a publicity order does not justify a reduction in the level of fine imposed on an organisation for an offence of corporate manslaughter.”
The ads on home pages, local newspapers and trade publications (if there are any) seems very reasonable but the media option that may be most influential is the inclusion in the company’s annual report. Acknowledging a workplace death and expressing regret in an annual report is admirable but “a prominent notice in the organisation’s annual report” goes straight to the shareholders who often have the ear of the corporation. Just look at the influence being applied by them at the moment on executive salaries.
Now is the right time for Australia to consider alternative OHS penalty options.
Combining safety and RTW awards
Finally, a State-based safety awards night that has both OHS and Return-to-Work awards. On 27 October 2009, Workplace Health & Safety Queensland held its annual safety awards night as part of Safe Work Australia Week. In a media release, the Minister for Industrial Relations, Cameron Dick, said
“The inaugural Return to Work Awards are run by Q-COMP – the statutory authority that oversees workers’ compensation in Queensland – to showcase the state’s top employers who understand the importance of helping injured workers make a successful return to work.”
It is curious that other States do not also have combined awards. The logic of the combination would, perhaps, be easiest for Victoria as the Victorian Workcover Authority handles rehabilitation through VWA as well prevention through WorkSafe Victoria. The combination may be simpler for those States that have a single insurer for workers compensation.
It is noted that one workers compensation insurer in Victoria, xchanging (formerly Cambridge), has conducted its own awards for several years. (The author was a judge of these awards several years ago) The judging process was tripartite with applicants from a pool of the insurer’s clients. Whether an insurer would relinquish such a role is unknown but the opportunity for State recognition of RTW performance should be attractive.
It should also be noted that winners of State OHS awards are also nominated for national OHS awards conducted by Safe Work Australia.
SafetyAtWorkBlog has questioned the plethora of OHS awards nights in the past as Australia has a fairly small industry and as OHS and workers compensation laws are becoming harmonised, it seems sensible for Safe Work Australia, or the Australian Government more generally, to start harmonising the award processes. Just imagine how many corporations would be champing at the bit to receive an award for safety that covers all aspects of their safety management. It would be an award for leadership that may just be warranted.
WorkSafe Victoria Awards winners
On 29 October 2009, WorkSafe Victoria held its WorkSafe Awards event at the Palladium Room at Melbourne’s Crown Casino. SafetyAtWorkBlog attended as a guest. All the winners were deserved and there are short profiles of some of the winners below.
The first award was for the Health & Safety Representative of the Year, won by Phyl Hilton. Hilton was clearly honoured by the award and in his acceptance speech acknowledged that good OHS laws are “socially progressive” – a position that is rarely heard outside of the union movement or from non-blue-collar workers. It is an element missing from many of the submission currently being received by Australian Government in its OHS law review.
Hilton presented as genuine and his commitment to the safety of his colleagues was undeniable. Significantly, he thanked several WorkSafe inspectors for their support and assistance. WorkSafe would have been chuffed but the comment which reinforced safety as a partnership.
The Best Solution to a Health and Safety Risk was given to Bendigo TAFE for a machine guarding solution. Guards have become an unfashionable hazard control solution and often now seem to rely on new technology. The chuck key guard was as hi-tech as an interlock device but one that the users of the lathes, almost all young workers, would not need any involvement with. If chuck key remains in the place, the guard is out of position and the machine cannot start. Simple is always the best.
The combination of beer and safety is a heady mix for Australians so the keg handler had a cultural edge on the other award finalists in the category, Best Solution to Prevent Musculoskeletal Injuries. The keg mover and the keg stacker seemed to be two different devices 
and it would have been great to have a single device but the stacking option was particularly interesting. Many pub cellars are cramped and being able to stack beer kegs in a stable fashion is attractive, and sensible. The cross-support that is placed on top of each keg was, perhaps, the standout feature. One can almost see the staring at the top of the keg by the designers and the creative cogs turning. The best solutions always seem to be those where one asks “why didn’t I think of that?”
WorkSafe has placed a lot of attention on safety in the horse racing industry, particularly, as injuries received by jockeys and the killing of injured racehorses are in public view and therefore are highly newsworthy.
The attraction of this winner of Best Design for Workplace Safety is that the inventor has looked beyond PPE for jockeys to what a jockey is likely to hit when falling of a racehorse at speed.
The OHS law drafters should take note that this innovation has come from looking at “eliminating a hazard, at the source”, an important terminology omitted from the last Australia OHS law draft. Would there have been the same level of innovation if the racing industry had done what was “reasonably practicable”? It is very doubtful.
This post has focussed on individual achievement and physical solutions to hazards. The awards for OHS committee and safety management systems are not detailed here as they are more difficult to quantify but for completeness, the Safety Committee of the Year went to RMIT – School of Aerospace, Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering, Bundoora East, the Best Strategy for Health and Safety Management went to the Youth Justice Custodial Services – Department of Human Services, Parkville for its program in Clinical Group Supervision.
Some of these solutions need to be viewed to fully understand their merit and it is hoped that SafetyAtWorkBlog will be able to post the videos of the winners and, more importantly, the other finalists, shortly. Certainly the other finalists in the solutions categories deserve almost as much recognition.
Health and Safety Representative of the Year
Recipient: Phyl Hilton – Toyota Motor Corporation, Altona
Phyl, who works as a toolmaker at Toyota’s Altona Plant, has been a health and safety representative for 10 years. Representing 27 members in the trades department within the Press shop, he takes a leading role in identifying opportunities for safety improvements in his workplace. Using a practical and collaborative approach, Phyl has played an integral part in many initiatives, including the design and construction of weld bay facilities, the procurement of portable fume extractors and the development of press plant policies in English and Japanese. Phyl was also part of the Traffic Management Control Working Party and the Working at Heights and Trades Hazard Mapping projects. He is committed to developing and driving safety knowledge among Toyota apprentices and actively mentors and coaches fellow health and safety representatives.
Best Design for Workplace Safety
Recipient: Bendigo Regional Institute of TAFE, Bendigo
Initiative: Lathe Chuck Guard
Bendigo Regional Institute of TAFE works with students and apprentices to prepare them for the workforce. An incident highlighted the risk of an operator forgetting to remove a key from the chuck on a lathe before turning it on. Working on lathes is a normal part of work in many businesses within the manufacturing industry. The chuck can spin at 1000rpm or more and this could cause the key to fly out from the machine with high force, creating a projectile that could result in serious injury to the operator or others close to the lathe. The Lathe Chuck Guard protects the operator by refusing to close if the key is left in the chuck. The guard is interlocked to ensure the lathe can only be started with the guard closed. Having a guard assists with providing a safe work environment within the TAFE workshop. The Lathe Chuck Guard is a simple, cheap, yet effective, way of reducing the risk of projectile keys. It is adaptable for a range of lathes across industries and will benefit other educational facilities and the wider manufacturing industry.
Best Solution for Preventing Musculoskeletal Injuries
Recipient: Cherry Constructions and Workright Safety Solutions, Seaford
Initiative: Keg Handling System
The Keg Handling System is a mechanical aid system to assist the hospitality industry. It consists of a keg lifter, trolley, ramp and stack safe crosses and is used for handling beer kegs. Keg handling has been a major issue in hospitality for several decades and is traditionally done by hand without the use of mechanical aids. The Keg Handling System seeks to improve the way kegs, which can weigh up to 67kg, are handled and reduce the risk of injury. The keg lifter can lift a keg, manoeuvre it into position and lower it to the floor or on top of another keg with minimal effort from the operator. The trolley can pick up a keg from any position so that it doesn’t have to be moved to meet the trolley. It has a locking device so the keg is fixed to the trolley. The stack safe crosses allow the kegs to ’nest‘ into each other, stopping them from toppling. The major risks associated with handling beer kegs are musculoskeletal injuries to the back, shoulders and arms, and crushing injuries. The automated and easy-to-manoeuvre system is readily used in small spaces and by a range of staff. This design can also be adapted for other industries to aid in lifting and transporting many items including gas bottles, oil drums and even large pot plants in nurseries.
Best Design for Workplace Safety
Recipient: Racing Victoria (Flemington), Dan Mawby and Delta-V Experts (North Fitzroy)
Initiative: Running Rails
Running rails have been a safety issue in the racing industry for many years, causing serious injuries to jockeys and horses involved in collisions. Track staff have also been hurt due to the manual handling required to set up and move rails. Designed and invented by Dan Mawby, tested by Delta-V Experts and used by Racing Victoria, this new lightweight durable UV-rated plastic running rail is a welcome replacement for the solid aluminium rails currently in use. The major improvement is that the horizontal rail doesn’t break from the impact of weight-bearing objects – instead, it elevates, springs and bends on impact. The design and flexibility of this rail system also has the ability to steer a horse back on track should light contact be made, therefore avoiding injury. The new Running Rail is in place at Flemington and Caulfield Racecourse and some training facilities.
Senator calls for Senate hearing on the safety of posties
Senator Steve Fielding is the head of the Family First Party, the smallest political party in Australia’s Parliament at the moment. Fielding is one of the handful of senators who hold the balance of power in the parliament and therefore has more political influence than a party of the size of Family First usually has.
On 19 October 2009, as a result of evidence given at a Senate inquiry by a representative of Australia Post, Senator Fielding said, in a media statement:
“There are serious allegations staff have been forced back to work simply to sit in a room to watch television so managers can get their bonus for having lower lost injury time figures,” Senator Fielding said. “This is outrageous and puts the health of workers at risk because of some greedy managers.
“No wonder Australia Post won an award last month for its rehabilitation of injured workers if it’s fudging the numbers. There’s an obvious conflict of interest between InjuryNET, which looks after the doctors that Australia Post sends its workers too, and Australia Post itself.
“Dr David Milecki, who is a consultant to Australia Post’s return-to-work program, also runs InjuryNET.
“Australia Post even admitted that this contract did not go through an independent process – there was not even a tender process.
“We need a senate inquiry urgently to make sure Australia Post employees are being looked after and that they’re aren’t being taken advantage of by dodgy managers who are more interested in their bonuses.”
SafetyAtWorkBlog contacted Australia Post to gauge some reaction. A spokesperson says that Australia Post will be cooperating fully with any Senate inquiry.
Every country has its fair share of eccentric politicians. The current feeling is that Steve Fielding is Australia’s. But regardless of character or competence, the Senator has authority and a responsibility to investigate the concerns listed above.
This is a developing story but one that may relate a little to issues raised in the recent SafetyAtWorkBlog about awards nights.
The demographic challenges facing OHS management
The best OHS advice, or rather innovative thinking, is frequently coming from those experts from outside the traditional OHS background.
A case in point could be a presentation made by prominent Australian demographer, Bernard Salt, at one of the many Safe Work Australia Week events in South Australia. Salt provided enough information about population changes that OHS professionals and regulators became uneasy about many of the challenges that they will face in the next few decades.
Consider yourself how the following facts provided by Bernard Salt will affect the way you manage safety in your workplace:
- A ‘demographic fault line’ occurs in Australia from 2011, when the baby boomers start retiring.
- More older workers will be in a position to retire than there will be younger workers to replace them.
- Older workers will stay at their jobs for longer rendering them susceptible to body stressing and similar injuries.
- Many older workers will scale down their work to a few days or one day a week, and as a result may not be fully attuned to the workplace safety risks.
- To top up the Australian workforce (and tax base) a substantial migrant intake will be required.
- These prospective workers (and entrepreneurs) will need to be educated in the Australian OHS culture.
If the OHS profession is to truly be “proactive”, it is these sorts of forecasts that should be anticipated.
Australian AGM’s mention workplace deaths
Australia’s corporations are busy releasing their annual reports in October 2009. The outgoing managing director and CEO of Boral Limited, Rod Pearse, provided his comments on the company’s safety performance to shareholders on 28 October 2009.
“Since demerger [January 2000], Boral’s safety outcomes have delivered steady year-on-year improvements and compare well with both ASX100 and industry benchmarks. Employee lost time injury frequency rate of 1.8 and percent hours lost of 0.06 have both improved by 80% since 2000 and are better than those of our competitors in like industries and in the top quartile of companies in the ASX100.”
Boral is, according to the executive statements, “a resource based manufacturing company with low cost manufacturing operations.”
The chairman, Dr Ken Moss mentioned the death of a worker in Indonesia in his address to shareholders:
“Boral’s lost time injury frequency rate (LTIFR) for employees per million hours worked was 1.8,which was a 28% improvement on the LTIFR of 2.5 delivered in the prior year. Contractor safety management also improved significantly with an LTIFR of 2.4, which was 58% better than the prior year.
This improved safety performance was better than our targeted performance improvement; however, it was tragically overshadowed by the death of an employee in Indonesia who was fatally injured in a heavy vehicle accident involving two concrete agitators in November 2008. This employee fatality was a tragic reminder of the risks we need to manage every single day and the importance of continuing to focus our efforts on ensuring a safe workplace for all of Boral’s people.
The Board received comprehensive reporting from the business and face-to-face discussions about the fatality including reporting on the follow-up actions to minimise the risk of a similar accident occurring anywhere else in the Company. The Board also reviews all divisional Health and Safety Plans. We approve safety improvement targets and we regularly monitor performance against target for all divisions.”
Whether you consider this lip-service or genuine regret is almost irrelevant. The fact remains that at the company’s annual general meeting, the event where shareholder and corporate analyst attention is very high, the chairman of the board acknowledged the death of a worker. It’s a small tick for corporate Australia but it should be noted.
The OHS bete-noir for many unionists, BHP Billiton, mentioned worker deaths in the 2009 Annual Report. Outgoing chairman, Don Argus, says the following in the report
“Despite producing strong operating and financial performance during a challenging year, our safety performance was simply unacceptable. This year, we had seven fatalities. The death of a family member at work has a devastating and long-lasting impact not only on the immediate family, but also on a wide community of relatives, friends and work colleagues. The Board has reinforced its emphasis on management creating a workplace free of injury.”
CEO Marius Kloppers says in the report:
“I am personally deeply saddened to report that this year seven deaths occurred at our operations. Any injury is unacceptable and these fatalities highlight the need to do more as an organisation to protect the health and safety of our people.”
He summarises his report:
“…. our Group remains in an enviable position in its industry. Our low gearing, strong cash flow and portfolio of investment options positions us well to create value from the long-term demand for our commodities.”
BHP Billiton Limited’s AGM is scheduled for Brisbane on 26 November 2009. For those shareholders attending the BHP AGM, and any others in this company report reason, it may be worth remembering the words of Dr Ian Woods on corporations and OHS:
“… there is more to investing than just the economic case for improving OH&S performance. As well as the economic costs, inequality of benefits, costs and suffering are key issues.”
Safe Work Australia Week podcast
Today, 1,500 union health and safety representatives attended a one-day seminar in Melbourne concerning occupational health and safety. The seminars were supported by a range of information booths on issues from support on workplace death, legal advice, superannuation and individual union services.
Kevin Jones, the editor of SafetyAtWorkBlog took the opportunity to chat with a couple of people on the booths about OHS generally and what their thoughts were on workplace safety.
The latest SafetyAtWork Podcast includes discussions with the Asbestos Information and Support Services, the AMWU and TWU.
The podcast can be downloaded HERE
OHS – time to grow up or get locked in the attic
In OHS law in Australia, the employer/employee relationship is dead or, at least, coughing up blood. OHS law is to be based on “people conducting a business or undertaking” (PCBUs have been discussed briefly elsewhere) and not a worker working in a workplace, even though the recently changed industrial law, the Fair Work Act, maintains this relationship.
This morning in a staff seminar at a large multinational business in Australia a regional CEO revealed a considerable level of financial detail to his employees, much more so than any of the staff had seen before. His reason for this was that he was talking with “adults”. He employs adults and expects his workers to act like adults. He also said that he cannot understand why, for so long, employees have been treated as children or act like children.
Past occupational health and safety law seems to reflect this relationship. Employees have expected someone else to fix a problem because the employer has the principal responsibility for everyone’s safety. The employee has had a legislative responsibility to look after their own safety and that of others for decades but it was rarely emphasised and only occasionally did it appear as a reason for a prosecution.
To be simplistic for a moment, parents set the house rules for when children are in the house. As children grow, the rules are amended and new rules are created as the child becomes more mobile, curious and intelligent. In many circumstances, the children are given a fair degree of flexibility in meeting the house rules but every so often the rules need to be enforced and children reminded of them. A penalty of some sort is applied.
At a WorkSafe seminar on 26 October 2009 in relation to the proposed Safe Work Bill, there was a tone to the panelists’ comments that seemed to be calling for a new “maturity” in OHS management. It was as if the last thirty years has been the learning phase where the house rules have been clearly established and the children have reached a point where the house rules are to be self-policed. It could also be put that the children are expected to extend these rules to any guests to the house. But the analogy of a house as a workplace and business should stop there before it becomes silly.
What the new/proposed OHS laws are looking for is a responsible approach to staying safe. The emphasis on “reasonably practicable” in the legislation is a plea and an expectation for people in a workplace to behave reasonably. The impression is that if the test in law is to be of a “reasonable person” then the OHS law should be encouraging people in a workplace, whatever their status, to act reasonably.
In short, the Australian Government is asking businesses and workers to “grow up”. The test will be who chooses to be sitting at the family meal table and who becomes the mad uncle locked in the attic that everyone feels embarrassed by.
Australian Standards and OHS harmonisation
This morning in Melbourne, WorkSafe Victoria conducted a three-hour seminar on the harmonisation of Australia’s OHS laws. The speakers and panelists were John Merritt of WorkSafe, Tracey Browne of the Australian Industry Group and Cathy Butcher of the Victorian Trades Hall. Tripartism at its best.
The large auditorium was filled with hundreds of attendees, very few were the familiar faces of the OHS professionals who can often dominate such events.
A question was asked to the panel about the application of the Australian Standard for Plant. The question was, basically, will the Australian Standards be referred to within the upcoming OHS regulations? The panel unanimously said no.
This was the clearest indication yet that the rumour about Australian Standards not being given legislative legitimacy through legislation is correct. Tracey Browne however provided the rationale. She said
“The important thing is that as soon as we incorporate an Australian Standard in a regulation, we create a whole different legislative status of something that was never designed to be a safety regulation….
This doesn’t change the fact, though, that it is the “state of knowledge” and when you look at what you are doing in relation to what is reasonably practicable, you need to take into account all the things you know or ought to know. So if you are [for instance] bringing plant into Australia, and that is your business, then you need to know what the Australian Standards are and make sure that’s part of your consideration.”
Standards Australia is undergoing a considerable rethink due to a big loss of funds and in response to the changing regulatory structure in all sorts of industry and financial sectors. The challenge is acknowledged by the CEO of Standards Australia, John Tucker ,when he discusses a “new way of operating“.
Using OHS images
“A picture is worth a thousand words” rings as true for OH&S material as anywhere else. But it’s also true that using images ineffectively or including bad quality ones can detract from the quality of what you’re trying to achieve.
I ain’t no graphic designer or expert photographer, but I’ve spent a bit of time trying to pay attention to what works when using images and how to improve the quality of photographs I use in reports and the like. This article is about the stuff I’ve learnt.
I use a few “rules” on image used in reports or any other OH&S documentation. Here are me main ones:
- An image has to do work. If it’s not informing the reader I don’t use one. That is, images just to make a report pretty isn’t much chop.
- Make the image as big as it needs to be to inform the reader. I’d rather have a page taken up with one image and a bit of supporting text vs. squeeze in an image that is so small the viewer has trouble working out what is depicted in the image.
- Use images to illustrate a piece of equipment that has a workplace-specific name. I always defer to finding out and using the name a bit of equipment is commonly known as in the workplace. But I recognise that it can be a mistake to assume that everyone in the workplace knows the commonly used name. A photo of it puts the identification beyond doubt.
- Don’t muck about with a paragraph to describe a location in the workplace. A photo of a location (with the shot including a readily identifiable reference point) is much more efficient that a written description.
- Photos of recommended PPE (with necessary explanatory text) is much better than just relying on a written description. One thing to be very aware of though is that if the PPE is also identified through colour coding (e.g. gas cartridges for respirators) be aware that colour rendition may vary with different computers. Always back up a shot with a clear written description if colour coding is part of the way to identify a recommended piece of PPE.
And here is some stuff on gear and techniques I use. I’m well short of being an expert photographer, but I do enjoy it as a hobby.
My two main bits of gear are a digital video camera (Sony handycam) and a digital SLR (a Canon 40D that I love to bits).
The video camera is obviously a useful tool when I want moving footage of a work process. Comes into it’s own when putting together a wee movie and playing it back to a client to go over risk control options. I run a Mac and iMovie is perfectly adequate for putting together movies. Whack in some subtitles over a few frames as a prompt for hazards or risks and Bob’s ya uncle. But the Sony has another handy use.
When the things I want to shoot don’t demand high quality images and I’m wanting to avoid stopping during an inspection to take notes, I use the vid camera to shoot and describe the issues or location via voice. That is, the camera is used to capture images and to take dictation on the issues. Trick with that is to keep camera movements slow. Next step is back at the desk. Download the movie to iMovie. Take any notes needed from the audio track and then take still grabs from the movie clips. The still grabs from the movie are what make it important to keep movement of the camera slow and steady. Too fast and still grabs will be blurred.
My Sony handycam is about 6 years old. It doesn’t have a still shot option. More modern ones do. That can be a substitute for lifting still grabs off the actual moving footage of course.
For high quality images, or in situations where I can’t expect good lighting I use the Canon 40D with a relatively small focal length range in the zoom lens fitted to it (24mm to 85mm). The “point and shoot” digital still cameras obviously can produce wonderful quality images. But it was a work gig that revealed their weaknesses.
I was at a workplace a few hours drive from home and the manager was accompanying me during the inspection and photo shoot. I had my partner’s very good “point and shoot”.
Every shot had to count. There were no options for a repeat visit. Plus I felt I had to shoot quickly, just by virtue of having the manager there; didn’t want him to be wasting time. The point-and-shoot was too slow to manually over-ride auto shots. And I often needed to do that to make sure lighting or details I needed were what I wanted.
The higher end digital still cameras are better designed and laid out to allow quick manual over-ride, or at very least allowing manual setting of critical settings like “film” speed and depth of field.
And here are some simple tips on how to improve the quality of photographs, particularly in the context of how to get good control over what information you’re trying to convey in the shot. I’ve included some “f’rinstances” to illustrate the tips.
In OH&S World we’re mainly shooting “documentary” images. We are after objective informative images. This is much harder to do well than it might seem. Our wonderful eyes and brains do a huge amount of work to make what we want to see clearer. It’s important to appreciate the camera doesn’t do that. What it sees you get. Practice shooting objectively. A good practice thing is to crawl around your car and shoot something you want to concentrate on. Check the shots and see how simply pointing and shooting will often miss the key bits of information. I try and constantly remind myself that a photo is like a good bit of writing. I ask myself, what is the critical bit of information in the scene I’m looking at, and how can I make sure that bit is a feature of the shot?
This is where the trend to make us camera buyers believe we can have a camera make a clever shot is a bit of a deception. It’s important to understand the core principles like depth of field, rules of composition and proper use of lighting to make sure a shot conveys the information you want it to. That is, all the traditional skills in photography are important.
Here are some examples of what I’m on about. The examples are hand-held shots of bits of me car. I used my Canon 40D to take the shots in various modes, including full auto.
“When you think you’re close enough, take a step forward”.
Can’t remember where I read this tip about how important it is to get close to the important feature of your shot; it’s a beauty to keep in mind every time you’re composing a shot. It’s also a tip that reminds us that our brains can trick us into thinking we have nailed the important feature. Our brains tell us, “Good, that looks clear”, and when we look at the shot later we often find the important feature is much less prominent than we originally thought when he pushed the shutter button. What’s in the frame is what really matters and bigger is better.
Let’s say we are interested in the type and quality of the top anchor point of a shock absorber. The shot on the left shows it’s still there, but not much more. Zooming in with control over focus point makes the key information bold. Notice how this also throws bits around the main feature go out of focus; a good way to make your main subject even more prominent. This business of what is or isn’t in focus in front and behind the focus point is called “depth of field”, it’s an important photographic principle to have a basic working knowledge about. Your camera manual will have stuff on depth of field and there are plenty of web sources on how depth of field works. (The manual is that wee book you got with your camera. You know, that thing you, like all of us, just scanned through when you first got your camera!) I also plonked the close-up shot in a basic photo editor program (in this instance the bog-simple iPhoto, and straightened the original shot up to make it easier to view). Having a basic digital photo editor and management program can be a real life-saver. Start with a simple one. Once you get the hang of it, it’s likely you’ll see all the benefits and will be tempted to use more advanced ones like Adobe Lightroom or Aperture. And be assured; even the pro quality ones are not that tricky to use.
Full auto shooting isn’t really that handy
It can be a temptation to have full auto shooting “rusted” in position on your camera photo mode dial. Fine for the happy-snaps of barbies and parties, not so good for documentary type photography. Full auto mode is not your friend: the “P” mode is. Lots of cameras have this priority mode as a selectable option; it allows you to manually adjust some of the most critical shooting controls like depth of field (via aperture control – also called “f-stops”) while leaving the camera to make it’s own decisions about other less important adjustments.
Here is an example of how full auto can be a real pain. I’m up close to the muffler. Let’s say our interest is in the general quality of the critical welds in front of the muffler. (PS: It’s a diesel, hence no catalytic converter.) The shot on the left is with all guns blazing – full auto. Notice how the flash creates distracting shadows and the auto selection of focus points mucks up the key information needed. The shot on the right was done in “P” mode. I had control over focus, depth of field and whether I wanted to use flash or not. (I’ll say more about use of flash in the next tip.) With only a very small amount of knowledge I was able to quickly decide what settings to use and the result is a sharper depiction of the 2 front welds. Many cameras have selectable spots in the viewfinder or viewing screen that locates the primary focus point or points. This can be handy, but like full auto, the convenience can be a bit of a trap. I find that at least half of the time when doing work shots (and even fun stuff) it’s better to focus manually. It allows me to compose the shot for maximum effect , a very important thing. I can put the key feature where I want it in the viewfinder frame and decide what other things I need in the shot to make the shot do all the work I need it to do. That is very tricky and time-consuming to do when the camera is making it’s best decision on what needs to be in focus. A good habit is to look at each part of the scene separately; that applies whether you are peering into a conventional viewfinder (which I tend to prefer over using my LCD viewing screen) or looking at your larger LCD viewing screen. By systematically looking all over the different bits of a framed scene we can be sure we don’t have irrelevant or distracting things in the frame before shooting.
Natural is best – flash with caution.
Natural light is always better than a light generated by a flash, unless you’re in a studio with total control over the light and colour effects. A flash will tend to flatten out shapes, distort colour reproduction and mostly just look awful. As a general rule, set your camera to flash off: it’s a good way to look to ways you can use other settings to make best use of naturally available light, and that includes shots in what may seem to be dark situations.
The top line of shots have the cable boot as the primary feature. The shot top left is the full disaster. Auto on, flashing blazing away, no real concern for composition. The flash has slammed a huge shadow on the top part of the image, the colour of the boot is not natural (and a bit of reinforcement wire has found it’s way into frame, distracting a viewer). The shot to it’s right was done in P mode. I used a high ISO setting (the higher the ISO the more light the camera sensor absorbs, with big shots that will come with a degradation in detail. For smaller sized shots that degradation is not very noticeable.) In the absence of flash the cable boot is seen in its more natural colour. No severe shadows also means the viewer is able to put the cable boot in context with the rest of the bits around it. As an aside, notice how the top right shot is up in the upper third of the frame? This exploits the weird principle of “thirds”. It was discovered a long time ago that by dividing an image into thirds, vertically and horizontally, we generate natural points of interest. Don’t ask me why, it just is. This is nice for arty-farty shots, but it’s also real good for documentary shots. It means we have multiple points in a frame where the viewers eye will want to go to naturally.
The bottom 2 shots are focusing on the universal joint in front of a differential. These are trying to show the “flattening” effect of a flash. Both shots are pretty much in focus. But see how the left one, by filling all shadows detracts from the form of the universal joint? If it’s important to depict the shape of something it will almost always be vital that you shoot without the flash. A simple tip when in dark situations, apart from cranking up your ISO speed to shoot, is to exploit the nice thing that light travels in straight lines. Depending on the size of the thing you’re trying to photograph of course, nothing more than a bit of reflector can direct some useful amount of light on your subject. With the car bits topics I’ve used here, an A4 white sheet of paper on a clipboard would be all I needed to almost double the amount of available light. None of the shots I’ve used were done using that technique but I think you get me drift. Experiment with it. Grab a clipboard with an A4 white sheet on it (even with print on it, it will be better than nothing). You’ll be surprised at how much extra light you can direct onto a subject with that simple reflector. Keep it as close to the subject as you can.
There is one less commonly known use of a flash that can be very handy. That’s when shooting outside in daylight. We can’t always control where we shoot from and that may mean that the thing we want to feature has the sun behind it. If the thing you want to shoot is in shadow and you can get within the effective range of your flash (usually only about 3 or 4 metres in daylight) turn your flash on and check the shot. This is called using “in-fill” flash. With a bit of experimenting you’ll see that by keeping a good distance away from your subject the harsh flash light will disperse a bit and you’ll get a nice bit of light to lessen harsh shadows.
Well, that’s it. To sum up the photography bit:
- Semi-pro digital cameras give you more control over your shot, but a “point and shoot” can be made to work well – if you learn it’s abilities and experiment.
- Closer and bigger is best with images.
- Take control over depth of field, focus points and ISO speed as a bare minimum. It lets you make the important features of your shot stick out, and that means your image works harder to inform the viewer.
- Your on-camera flash is more likely to ruin a shot when you are relatively close to your subject. However, using a flash outside in daylight can work in your favour when used as “in-fill” light.
1 comment