Archive for the ‘WorkSafe’ Category
Gas leaks at Esso’s Longford plant
WorkSafe Victoria is investigating two gas leaks that occurred on 6 November 2009 at the Longford gas plant owned by Esso. This plant was subject to a fatal explosion in 1998 and was recently written about on SafetyAtWorkBlog.
According to an ABC news report on 11 November 2009, repairing one leak led to a consequent leak and a “plant operator suffered minor injuries when he fell during the incident.”
A WorkSafe Victoria spokesperson told SafetyAtWorkBlog that inspectors have been on site for several days, the area of the incident is still not operational and that any restitution work in the area will need WorkSafe’s approval.
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.
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“.
Safe Work Australia Week 2009 begins
The last week of October 2009 is Safe Work Australia Week. The federal OHS authority sets an overall framework for the States’ OHS promotional activities.
A media statement in support of the week, reiterated the statistics -
“More than 260 Australians die as a result of work related injuries and over 135,000 are seriously injured every year.”
Below is a list of the links for each Australian State’s acitivities.
- Victoria
- New South Wales
- South Australia
- Western Australia
- Tasmania
- Queensland
- Australian Capital Territory
Dusty switchboard safety alert
The Northern Territory’s WorkSafe authority issues safety alerts infrequently so each new one is worth considering. The alert released on 20 October 2009 concerns dust in exposed switchboard installed in remote locations.
The alert is worthy of attention for several reasons but one is that electrical work in isolated locations can often be less safe than similar tasks closer to urban areas. Some tradespeople in remote locations do only what they deem is necessary which is not always safe.
The other issue is identified in the alert itself. Dust in electrical circuits can be a hazard in many circumstances and should be considered when installing switchboards. The environment in which the electrical work is to be undertaken is an important consideration not only for the worker or tradesperson but also for the occupant of the house or the user of the article of plant, in the longer term.
Sometimes real bulldust is a greater hazard than political “bulldust”.
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
Road worker seriously injured at worksite
The Ambulance Service of Victoria, Australia reported the injury to a roadside worker on 19 October 2009. Below is part of their report:
A road worker is in a serious condition after being hit by a car in a road works area this morning.
Advanced life support paramedics from Jackson’s Creek were called to Derby Street in Pascoe Vale at 11.40am. Paramedic Chris Collard said they arrived within six minutes to find the man lying on the road being helped by an off duty nurse.
‘It appeared the car had been driven into the road works area and hit the man,’ he said. ‘The 33-year-old man suffered a head injury, deep cut to the back of his head and some leg pain…. We encourage drivers to slow down while driving through road works, obey the signs and be wary of the workers on the road.’
Working only a metre or two from traffic, even in a domestic area, like the case above, presents well-known hazards, at least well-known to the workers.
WorkSafe Victoria undertook an education campaign on the issue several years ago. The remaining website continues some good information although it is a little out-of-date.
In 2005, the Roads and Traffic Authority in New South Wales reported
“… there were 603 crashes at roadwork sites in NSW. Ten people were killed and 356 were injured. Injuries to road workers in NSW cost more than $100 million a year, but the financial and human toll could be much lower if drivers slowed down and observed road work speed limits.”
In around 2006, the Highways Agency in the UK began a short campaign on improving the safety of roadworkers, Some background and the action plan is available online. As with many government campaigns and plans, it is difficult to quantify the success.
Comments from a spokesperson for the Minister for WorkSafe, Tim Holding, in 2005 illustrate the dominant political position on anything related to road safety be it level crossings or roadworker safety – change behaviour and save the world – and yet behaviour is probably the hardest (and costliest) element in this equation to change :
“…people should stay within posted speed limits. “. . . people should concentrate at driving at or below the speed limit and . . . spend less time worrying about how many kilometres they can drive over the speed limit without getting fined…,”
In 2005 there was a minor political kerfuffle when it was revealed that speed cameras could not be recalibrated to lower speeds for application in roadwork sites.
From experience, Australia is yet to use the portable traffic light systems widely that have been applied in the UK for decades and yet the advantages are that it formally establishes buffer zones, removes flagmen from the role of frontline control and builds on a cognitive language that almost everyone has retained from early childhood – the red, amber, green signage.
Who is advising John Holland?
The person, Sir John Holland, died in May 2009. The company, John Holland Group (JHG), is in danger of a shortened life if it continues to make bizarre decisions.
John Holland Group has been widely criticized by the union movement, principally for its decision to jump out of State OHS jurisdictions to the Commonwealth (Comcare) structure. This was seen as a purely financial response to a politically sensitive opportunity that was presented by the Liberal government of then-Prime Minister John Howard. Comcare was seen as the insurer of the defence forces and public servants and, unions claimed, enforcement of OHS to an acceptable level was beyond the skills and resources of the administrative agency.
Due to union pressure, John Holland Rail was dropped from the finalists for a national safety award in early 2009. JHG probably came in for more criticism than other companies who also jumped because it is in the highly-unionised construction sector and their construction work is so public.
One of the advantages of moving to the Federal OHS scheme was that any prosecutions would occur in that jurisdiction and JHG has been prosecuted there. JHG had several OHS breaches in 2005 and 2006. It came under the Federal OHS law in March 2007. In September 2008, Worksafe Victoria charged the company over one of the 2006 breaches.
According to a report in The Age on 14 October 2009, JHG
“issued a High Court challenge, claiming the charges were ”incompetent” because it was not liable for conviction under Victorian workplace law for offences committed before it came under the Commonwealth jurisdiction.”
High Court challenges are not cheap and the wisdom of the decision to contest the State actions was always questionable, doubly so now the High Court unanimously decided against JHG’s arguments.
The High Court challenge confirmed for many the impression that John Holland Group will try to avoid safety obligations, if possible, and that the move to a “softer” regulatory scheme was one of the reasons behind the move to the Comcare scheme. The legal action undermines all of the positive safety culture messages that the corporation has issued.
JHG is involved with many new infrastructure and construction projects. Harmonised OHS laws are set for 2011 which include the federal OHS laws under which Comcare operates. Within a decade of taking up an opportunity for a “softer” regulatory regime, the advantage may be gone and the John Holland Group Board should ask themselves “was it worth it?”
HWCA could be influential in Australia’s workers’ compensation reforms
Australia and New Zealand have a small strategic organisation called the Heads of Workers’ Compensation Authorities (HWCA, pronounced “howca” by those in the know). It is a regular meeting (some say “love-in”, others say “coven”) of the CEOs of the various workers’ compensation bodies in Australia and New Zealand. Over the next five years, as the Australian Government begins to harmonise/reform the workers’ compensation system, HWCA will be important to watch.
In early October 2009, HWCA met and endorsed a coordination strategy, that has yet to be publicly released. The main objectives of the strategy were noted in a media release (also not yet publicly available) to mark the latest meeting.
- “To deliver best practice services to injured workers and employers to assist recovery: and
- to build sustainable workers’ compensation schemes.”
The terminology of the first objective may provide a good indication of the type of organisation HWCA seems to be. ”Best practice services”??? ”Best practice” is one of the worst corporate jargons being used at the moment. This article at Wikipedia outlines the context of the phrase well.
“As the term has become more popular, some organizations have begun using the term “best practices” to refer to what are in fact merely ‘rules’….”
In other words, HWCA has a strategy to do what its member organisations should have been doing all along – enforcing the rules of good customer service and providing the best level of service to injured workers.
Perhaps it is the second strategic objective that best illustrates the aims of HWCA – to make sure that the workers’ compensation schemes do not lose money.
According to the communique that is released after every meeting (top points for open communication)
“HWCA agreed the Bio-psychosocial Rehabilitation Working Group would develop a national action plan regarding prevention of long-term disability and work loss, which will support the strategy.”
Prevention is the role of the OHS authorities in Australia and the Department of Labour in New Zealand. Clearly HWCA will be discussing these strategic aims with those in charge of preventing injuries and illnesses. But can the various WorkCovers and WorkSafes cope with biopsychosocial hazards? Surely HWCA will also be talking with all the NGOs who lobby on depression, anxiety, fatigue, stress, wellness, happiness ………….. (Get ready for even more influence for BeyondBlue)
Consultation will also be needed with the various government departments involved with health promotion, public and occupational. Not to mention the unions, employer associations and health professional bodies.
A strategy of such magnitude would require considerable resources and horse-trading through government ranks in all jurisdictions. It is hard to see this being achieved through a meeting of Chief Executive Officers, and should such a strategy be pushed through individual workers’ compensation bodies anyway?
To achieve true reform of workers’ compensation and to resist the substantial pressure that is likely to come from the Australian and international insurance companies, the Australian government is going to need considerable negotiating skills. Because of the involvement with the financially influential insurance companies, it is doubtful the intended reforms will be achieved. (HWCA already has discussions with the “Heads of Compulsory Third Party Insurers” according to the communique)
Almost as a post-script, it is noted that Greg Tweedly, CEO of WorkSafe Victoria, takes over the chairmanship of HWCA from the CEO of WorkCover NSW, Jon Blackwell. Tweedly is a very busy CEO and will become more so, if the rumour proves true that he will be joining the National Board of the Safety Institute of Australia.
As the chairmanship moves from New South Wales, so will HWCA’s administrative support. The next HWCA meeting is scheduled for 5 February 2010 and will be coordinated through the Victorian Workcover Authority or Comcare.
