Tasmania's workers compensations changes pass

It is easy to forget that workers compensation is clicking along during this intense period of analysis of OHS laws. Workers compensation legislation passed through Tasmania's House of Assembly this week (it still needs to get through the Legislative Council). The Minister for Workplace relations, Lisa Singh, highlighted the following components of the changes in a media release on 6 November 2009.

"The key reforms will:

• Improve access to common law damages for compensation by reducing the whole of person impairment threshold from 30% to 20%;
• Amend the first step-down to 90% of normal weekly earnings rather than 85% of normal weekly earnings;
• Delay the operation of the first step-down, so that it comes into effect at 26 weeks of incapacity rather than 13 weeks;
• Streamline the management of injury and illness to deliver better health and return to work outcomes for injured workers and lower costs to employers;
• Foster and reinforce a return to work culture among employers, workers and other stakeholders;
• Provide greater income security for injured workers by increasing the duration and reducing the “step-down” of weekly compensation payments for injured workers;
• Increase lump sum compensation up to $250,000 for permanent impairment or death to levels more comparable to those provided in other states and territories;
• Provide additional financial incentives for workers and employers to participate in rehabilitation."

The reforms are based on the Government’s response to the recommendations of Victorian consultant Alan Clayton and the Return to Work and Injury Management Model developed by the WorkCover Tasmania Board.

Alan has been a prominent advisor on workers compensation to governments around Australia for some time. His Tasmanian review and recommendations were in 2007 and are available online. The Government's response is also available.

The Minister has said

"With the range of views that were put forward during consultation I am confident that this legislation strikes the right balance of fairness for workers and their families and support for employers and business."

Simon Cocker, of Unions Tasmania, said in response to the Bill:

“The Workplace Relations Minister is to be congratulated for pursuing these improvements which will ensure that injured workers are better supported when they return to work and are paid more appropriate rates of compensation while off work.”

“The step-down provisions that currently operate have been shown to be unfair and place injured workers and their families under financial stress at a time when they are often struggling to cope with the impact of a serious injury.”

“Delaying the step down and softening its financial impact is an improvement.”

The Australian Government paid considerable attention to the Victorian OHS Act because it was the most recent review of that legislation. If the government continues this trend, the Tasmanian changes may be very significant for the rest of the country.

Kevin Jones

OHS must raise its profile in the debate of directors' liability and accountability

The global financial crisis has highlighted many business management issues. Probably one of the most contentious is executive remuneration which is based on the question "should executives receive performance bonuses when the company is not performing well, ie. not returning profits to shareholders?" But underpinning even this question is one of accountability.

Business leaders, commentators, lawyers and politicians are comfortable in discussing financial and corporate accountability but extend that discussion to other areas of business and they respond with a confused stare or outright dismissal of the proposal.

This week, the Australian Financial Review newspaper ran a page one story: "Revealed: directors face harsher liability penalties." [None of the AFR articles are freely accessible online] The article revolved around Australian Government plans to "break an impasse between state governments over proposals to harmonise conflicting commonwealth and state directors' liability laws."

As should not be surprising from a business paper, the discussion centred on financial and corporate governance issues but OHS obligations were floating behind all of the business-speak. This was particularly obvious with this paragraph:

"Federal ministers have expressed concerns that onerous directors' liability rules increase the cost of directors' insurance and discourage them from taking board seats."

This paragraph shows that the first response to any corporate trouble is insurance. This cowardly response is short-sighted and contributes to the unnecessary growth in litigation which the directors regularly complain and which increases the cost of liability insurance premiums.

It is also an acknowledgement that the introduction of new rules does not address the behaviour intended, it leads to investigating ways of avoiding accountability for one's actions.

The second point of that paragraph is that people are more likely to refuse to participate than to undertake sufficient education that would allow them to perform the job better and with less risk. The response should not be "it's too risky so I won't do it" but "let's get better informed so that my decisions are more valid and the risk is reduced".

It is clear that lawyers are running the agenda when semantics enter the argument. The AFR article goes one to say "there are fears about confusion over the distinction between executive and non-executive directors". This confusion comes from the main concern of directors being to cover one's arse rather than focusing on the job at hand and the corporate purpose.

The AFR article makes no mention of OHS but the accompanying article "Duty weighs heavily" by reporters James Eyers and Annabel Hepworth does. Eyers and Hepworth look back through several decades of law reform investigations and reviews to show the history of similar director concerns.

But it is a more recent statistic that is the nub of the article. A Treasury survey of directors from top Australian listed companies, in conjunction with the Australian Institute of Company Directors, found that

"...71 per cent of those surveyed had declined taking board seats mainly because of their fears of personal liability, while 46 per cent had resigned from a board position because of the issue."

These concerns largely deal with false market rumours, manipulating securities prices, criminal cartels, consumer protection laws and others. It is this company that the importance of taking responsibility for OHS should be pushed by the safety advocates but it seems that the business and corporate contexts of OHS are only ever discussed by the corporate lawyers. And yet, OHS professionals complain about not getting heard at Board level. Perhaps what is needed is one of these OHS professionals to take a business degree so that OHS can be described in terms business understand.

Of course the risk is that OHS may be found to be contrary to all the basic capitalist concepts and that the only way it can be applied in a business is for the application of legal "wriggle room" from the concept of reasonably practicable.

On 6 November 2009, Bob Baxt (a partners with law firm Freehills and the chair of the law committee with AICD) responded to the Eyers and Hepworth article with a personal opinion describing directors and senior managers already in the "firing line" from the corporate regulators. He seems to see this as unfair but those executives are in the "firing line" because they are suspected of doing the wrong thing.

Baxt describes the "reverse onus of proof" as an "obnoxious device" and he may be right but he needs to consider why such a provision was introduced in the first place - business managers were not complying with their legislative obligations, they were avoiding responsibility, taking short cuts for personal wealth, having workers die and then winding up the company to avoid prosecution.

Too many business professionals focus on "cause and effect" and see injustice. Yet if they looked a little further back and analysed the "causes" a bit more carefully they may just see that in many cases the regulatory changes have come about as a result of their own misdeeds.

The analysis of capitalism that resulted from the global financial crisis has faded very quickly as the markets rebound. Companies are applying the same behaviours that led to that crisis. Most business analysts and executives talk about leadership as the be-all and end-all but we should not be lead in the same direction as in the past as we are likely to end up in the same place. True leadership is about accepting mistakes and heading in a fresh direction where such mistakes cannot be repeated.

Those who are bleating about how corporate executives are being bludgeoned by regulation and accountability need to get out of the leafy middle-class suburbs and the office buildings with bayside views and take some time to reflect on how we came to be in such an economic mess and why workers continue to get injured, maimed and killed. It may just be that accepting responsibility is the new foundation required to build a humaneand profitable future.

Kevin Jones

Asbestos is an example of immoral economic growth

The financial newspapers often refere to a BRIC group of countries or, rather, economies. This stands for Brazil, Russia, India and China and is used to describe the forecasted economic powerhouses for this century. But there is also the risk of economic growth without morality. India is a case in point and asbestos can be an example.

The health hazards of asbestos have been established for decades but only officially acknowledged more recently. One would expect that when some countries ban the import, export and manufacture of a product that other countries may suspect that something may be amiss.

In the introduction to the September 2008 book "India's Asbestos Time Bomb" Laurie Kazan-Allen writes

"Historically the burden of industrial pollution has reached the developing world much faster than the fruits of industrial growth" writes Dr. Sanjay Chaturvedi. This statement is well illustrated by the evolution of the asbestos industry in India. In the frantic rush for economic development, there has been a pervasive lack of concern for the health of workers and the contamination of the environment. Sacrificing the lives of the few for the "good" of the many, the Indian Government has knowingly colluded in this sad state of affairs."

Kazan-Allen is a longtime campaigner on asbestos. In 2001 she put this question to the Canadian Medical Association Journal.

"Chrysotile has caused and is continuing to cause disease and death worldwide. It is hypocritical for Canada to continue to produce chrysotile when it is not prepared to use it domestically. If chrysotile is unsuitable for Canadian lungs, how does it become suitable for Korean, Indian and Japanese lungs?"

A foundation of public health and workplace safety management is that bad practices, immoral practices, are corrected, not accommodated. At some point the exploitation of others for the financial betterment of a few must end. Could that lead to a "compassionate capitalism" or is that just another term for "socialism"? These semantics are being argued at the moment in the United States over health care but the question needs to be asked globally, just as it is on climate change and on the financial markets.

The global implications of poor OHS management and practices needs to be placed on the policy agenda not only of the ILO, United Nations and trade union movement, but the business groups, and professional associations who need to develop their social charters. If those voices are not added to the debate, safety will also be a fringe issue and it is too important for that.

Kevin Jones

New Safety Institute magazine is (mostly) a winner

Finally, the Safety Institute of Australia has got its act together and has contracted someone who has produced an OHS magazine that, mostly, satisfies the needs of its members and the aims of the Institute.

The first edition of OHS Professional landed in the SafetyAtWorkBlog letter box this morning and, it is fair to say that the involvement of an international publishing company, LexisNexis, is all over this magazine. The format clearly owes itself to other publications in the LexisNexis Australia stable, such as Lawyers Weekly, HR Leader and Risk Manager.

By and large, the magazine seems better for not having an OHS professional as the editor. Mark Phillips places the magazine in the publishing context rather than in the past where such magazines were squeezed into the OHS context or, even worse, made to fit into some agenda of a professional association. OHS Professional is devoid of the institutional baggage and infighting that has occurred in the past in the Institute. However, this is the first edition and the Letters page is yet to be operational.

There are some tweaks that could improve the magazine or address some bugbears. There is a book review on the latest Andrew Hopkins book. The name of the reviewer is not specified and described only as "an SIA member". Clearly identifying the author is important to establishing the independence of any review.

This is particularly relevant in this case as the retail outlet of the Hopkins book is listed as Futuremedia. The founder of Futuremedia is Kerry Wonka. The Futuremedia website lists a professional membership with the SIA and Kerry Wonka is identified as a committee member of the SIA New South Wales Division. The absence of a reviewer's name allows for speculation that the review could be an advertorial. The simple inclusion of a name would establish additional credibility to the very good review of an important book.

Several articles would seem to be familiar to readers as similar content has appeared in other Australian safety publications such as Safety Solutions, a free trade publication that is widely circulated, and various online OHS websites. If any magazine is to survive in the modern knowledge industry it must differentiate itself from not only other magazines but other information sources. OHS Professional has the basic structure right and it would be great to see its content develop into an independent source of important OHS information that does not rely on the cycle of SIA conferences and events.

As a for instance, National Safety magazine (pictured right) has established itself as an independent source of authoritative OHS information under the editorship of Helen Borger. National Safety reduced its reliance on being a magazine for members of the National Safety Council of Australia and this has helped broaden its readership and to survive where many other OHS magazines, such as CCH's OHS Magazine (pictured below) and Niche Publishing's Complete Safety, folded.

As with other SIA publications, the enthusiasm that comes from a new source of OHS information continues to be let down by an unfriendly website. There seems to have been no coordination between the SIA's website developer and the hard copy publishers. Anyone visiting the SIA website would be unaware that it publishes much at all. More prominence is given to its partner organisations than to the important and tangible benefits of becoming a member, such as high quality publications.

When one finally finds the link in the drop down list for SIA magazines, the only article relates to the SIA's relationship to its previous publisher who cancelled the contract at very short notice!!

The relationship with LexisNexis Australia is crucial to building a contemporary relevance for the Safety Institute of Australia, an aim that the SIA has regularly stated publicly but the Institute is hampering these good efforts with poor online support and inadequate promotional coordination.

In this first week of November 2009, SafetyAtWorkBlog has received two SIA publications that have great potential. The sad part is that this has occurred in the week after Safe Work Australia Week, the most active OHS week in Australia. This seems a major missed opportunity for the Safety Institute and it is suggested that their promotional coordinator, whoever it may be, should be sat down and had a long talking to.

Having said this, the next edition of OHS Professional will be keenly anticipated. If it is as good as the first edition, it will be a shame it is not published more frequently.

Kevin Jones

Disclaimer: an article by Kevin Jones is in this edition of OHS Professional. Kevin also works part-time as a content provider for LexisNexis but has no involvement with the publications. Kevin has written for National Safety magazine a couple of times over the last ten years and he is a Fellow of the Safety Institute.

New coronial approach should lead to greater safety information

The Australian State of Victoria has been in a fortuitous position with a Coroner, Graeme Johnstone, who was a staunch advocate of safety in the public and workplace spheres. Johnstone was a strong and physical presence at many conferences and in the media. Indeed, it would be difficult to find a more obvious and influential safety advocate in Australia over the last twenty years.

Johnstone retired recently due to ill-health. From 4 November 2009, his successor, Jennifer Coate, will be sitting in an official Coroners Court and the supportive legislation should provide even greater support to safety advocates.

Ruby Haouchar, Hon.Rob Hulls MP, Judge Jennifer Coates (State Coroner), James Heywood, Christine Nixon, Murray Hall (IT @ VIFM)

According to a media release issued in support of the Court, there are several important legislative changes.

• The power of the court to make recommendations to any Minister, public statutory body or entity relating to public health and safety and the administration of justice. Previously recommendations could only be made to Ministers.
• Importantly, any Minister, public statutory body or entity either receiving or [sic] the [sic]of a recommendation must now respond in writing within three months stating what action will be taken (if any) as a result of the recommendations. This has never been required before and is an Australian first.
• All inquest findings, coronial recommendations and responses to recommendations will be published on the internet, unless otherwise ordered by a coroner. This is the first time in Victorian coronial history that a requirement to publish inquest findings has been enshrined in legislation.
• A new power for coroners to compel witnesses to testify without the risk of self incrimination. The court will now be able to issue a certificate excusing evidence heard by the court from being used to incriminate witnesses in other court proceedings."

On the first point, how much different would have been the approach to level crossing safety with this authority? Would the faulty design of some level crossings have been changed more quickly? Of course, recommendations are still only recommendations but by referring to statutory authorities and others, there is likely to be less direct political spin and, perhaps, greater accountability.

This leads to the second point, timelines. Any meeting, action item, control measure or even correspondence, should have a timeline for response. This will allow the families of victims a hook on which they can hang their dissatisfaction with government inaction. Of course, there is usually no guarantee that correspondence is publicly accessible but to bullet point three.

Not only will inquest findings now be easily accessible to the public, the government responses mentioned above will be made available on the Coroner's website.

Around ten years ago I was writing a book on occupational health and safety in the sex industry in Australia. I requested details form the Coroner's office of deaths in this industry. I received many pages of decisions which helped considerably in determining whether deaths occurred at work or in relation to work.

Several years later, I put in a similar request for information on dairy-related deaths in support of a WorkSafe Victoria guidance with which I was assisting. The level of detail provided then was a line or two on each incident. It was enough to prepare a rough data table but was woefully unhelpful in the preparation of case studies of work-related fatalities. The accessibility allowed under the new laws will allow for a greater, and more public, understanding of the contributing factors to death which should lead to greater options for elimination or control.

The Coroner is clearly enthusiastic about her new powers. In the media release Coates says

“This new legislation will better enable the court to thoroughly examine and investigate the different types of deaths reported to us so we can help prevent similar deaths from occurring. Of real significance is the requirement that any body or entity receiving a recommendation must respond to us. This will be a real mechanism for change to public safety and we expect enormous benefits for the Victorian community to follow,” she said.

Judge Coate said publishing inquest findings, recommendations and responses on the internet would make public statutory authorities and entities more aware of their responsibility to respond to coronial findings.

“The new response requirement means the recommendations of a coroner cannot be selectively pursued or ignored. This is an important gain for the public safety and administration of justice for our community”

She said the publication of inquest findings, recommendations and responses on the internet would also make the coronial process more accessible to families who experience the death of a loved one investigated by the court.

“We have gone to great lengths to ensure our new practices under the Act recognise and have regard for the families and friends of a loved one who has died. That includes acknowledging the distress of families and their need for support and a recognition that different cultures have different beliefs and practices surrounding death.”

SafetyAtWorkBlog wishes Coroner Coates all the best and will be keenly watching the progress.

Kevin Jones

Australian Safety Ambassadors

Safe Work Australia introduced a program of safety ambassadors in the lead-up to Safe Work Australia Week 2009. The editor of SafetyAtWorkBlog was chosen as one of this year's ambassadors. Kevin Jones was also featured in the authority's newsletter, the Safe Work Australian, that is available for download.

There were no formal requirements of the title other than promoting Safe Work Australia Week. From the list of ambassadors on the Safe Work Australia website, most already have a strong record of advocating safe work practices. Being an ambassador seems to have simply provided a topical focus, or additional motivation, for promoting the week.

EHS workshop report and Australian nanoparticles reports

In October 2009 a workshop was held on worker safety by the Worker Education and Training Program (WETP), a part of the US National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. Many of the topics raised in the workshop - REACH, Globally Harmonized System (GHS) of Classification and Labeling of Chemicals, and nanotechnology would be issues or hazards familiar to most SafetyAtWorkBlog readers.

The report on the workshop, released in November 2009, is highlighted here because it is a very good example of a basic report on a workshop that makes the reader regret that they couldn't be there. This respond encourages readers to make the extra effort for the next set of workshops - a major benefit of such reports and, sometimes, the main reason.

The mention of nanotechnology is a good link to two new reports on the issue released by Safe Work Australia on 4 November 2009.

Engineered nanomaterials: Evidence on the effectiveness of workplace controls "explores the effectiveness of workplace controls to prevent exposure to engineered nanomaterials." According to a media release on the reports this report found:

• "current control and risk management methods can protect workers from exposure to engineered nanomaterials
• enclosure of processes involving nanomaterials and correctly designed and installed extraction ventilation can both significantly reduce worker exposure to nanomaterials, and
• a precautionary approach is recommended for handling nanomaterials in the workplace."

The lack of available health effects data has directly led to the precautionary position in recommendations but it is good to see that the hierarchy of controls (old technology) is being applied to new technology. The report gets to a point of recommending a combination of

"...controls [that] should provide a robust regime through which nanomaterials exposure to workers will be reduced to very low levels."

The bibliography in this report is also excellent and includes a comparative table of the research reports and papers analysed.

Engineered nanomaterials: A review of toxicology and health hazards was a literature review that reports:

"there is no conclusive evidence to suggest that engineered nanomaterials have a unique toxicity. However, sufficient toxicity tests have not yet been conducted for most engineered nanomaterials

nanoparticles tend to be more bio-reactive, and hence potentially more toxic, than larger particles of the same material, and

carbon nanotubes are potentially hazardous to health if inhaled in sufficient quantity."

Nanotechnology is a difficult area of OHS study as there is so much research material coming through that it is (probably more than) a full-time job just to stay current. The literature review into toxicology makes a point that it is important to remember in this field.

"A wide variety of in vitro and in vivo experimental protocols have been used to assess biological responses to NPs, some of these yield more useful data for occupational risk assessment than others. Some are potentially misleading." [emphasis added]

The second of these reports was a good introduction to the general issues of health risks but must be stressed that these reports deal with engineered nanoparticle(s) (ENPs) which are defined as

"A nanoparticle with at least one dimensions between approximately 1 nm and 100 nm and manufactured to have specific properties or composition. "

Increasing research into any issue almost always leads to a fragmentation of the discipline into subsets. That research into engineered nanoparticles is different from regular nanoparticles needs to be remembered. As the report itself says

"...the major thrust of the research is in relation to identifying potential hazards for assessment of occupational safety since working with ENPs is likely to be where most exposure occurs. In contrast to ambient particulate air pollution, where health effects have been observed and research has been aimed at discovering the causative agents and mechanisms, the reverse is true for ENPs."

Tom Phillips AM, chair of the Safe Work Australia Council said, in a media statement,

“Safe Work Australia has requested that the National Industrial Chemicals Notification and Assessment Scheme undertake a formal assessment of carbon nanotubes for hazard classification to clarify regulation of these nanomaterials.

“We have also requested that CSIRO develop guidance for the safe handling and disposal of carbon nanotubes, which will be a useful resource for OHS managers.”

It is good to see Safe Work Australia (now an independent statutory body) take one of the ACTU recommendations from its 2009 factsheet.

Kevin Jones

Summer heat, fatigue and UV - a speculative solution

Let's pull together several workplace hazards and suggest one control measure that may address all of them at once. Of course, the control may generate other work hazards or management challenges.

In Summer, work occurs throughout daylight hours. The long days, and possibly daylight savings, maximise the window of productivity for workers, particularly those who work outside - building construction, housing, rail maintenance, roadworks..... Such work can lead to the workplace hazards of excessive exposure to ultraviolet radiation (UV), fatigue, and heat stress.

Each of these hazards has its own separate advocates for safe practices, as well as the OHS regulator that provides guidance on all hazards. This complicates the management of OHS because sometimes there are conflicting control measures or at least measures that are incompatible with the needs and desires of the workforce. If we think of this combination of hazards as a Gordian Knot, we could solve the problem by splitting the working day into two sessions on either side of a sleep break or, as the November 2009 edition of the Harvard Health Letter calls it, a nap.

The Harvard article, "Napping may not be such a no-no", discusses the good and bad of napping and the tone of the article seems to look at this control measure mainly for office-based or administrative tasks.

"[Robert Stickgold, a Harvard sleep researcher] says his and others' findings argue for employer policies that actively encourage napping, especially in today's knowledge-based economy. Some companies have set up nap rooms, and Google has "nap pods" that block out light and sound."

The article suggest a couple of suggestions

"Keep it short. A 20- to 30-minute nap may be ideal. Even just napping for a few minutes has benefits. Longer naps can lead to grogginess.

Find a dark, quiet, cool place. Reducing light and noise helps most people get to sleep faster. Cool temperatures are helpful, too.

Plan on it. Waiting till sleepiness gets so bad that you have to take a nap can be dangerous if you’re driving. A regular nap time may also help you get to sleep faster and wake up quicker.

Don’t feel guilty! A nap can make you more productive at work and at home."

But sometimes SafetyAtWorkBlog likes to extend a solution to the bigger picture.

In Australia, the peak period for extreme levels of UV is between the daylight savings hours of 10.00am and 1.00pm, or 3.00pm in some instances. If an outside work site suspended work for three hours, the employees could have lunch and rest, or sleep, in the shade. Depending on the location of the work site, some could even go home for that period.

The work day could still be as productive by starting early and finishing late, basically inserting a rest break of several hours into the middle of the daytime shift. There is evidence in the Harvard article that productivity could be increased as a result of the rest break.

On quick reflection, this scenario is a fantasy because the ramifications of such a change are huge, and OHS is unlikely to achieve any structural cultural change of this magnitude, but it remains an attractive fantasy. The attraction is the logical simplicity but, of course, logic is often bashed around by reality and below are some of those realities:

• Expanded work hours for a construction adjacent to a residential area working on the 9 to 5
• Deliveries of supplies to be rescheduled to the two work periods
• Would the split shift continue on cloudy and cool days or during Winter?
• Would the portable/temporary lunch sheds now need to include a bunk room for all employees on a work site?
• In a bunk room, would one person's snoring becoming an occupational hazard for everyone?
• Can plant be "paused" for the lunch break?
• Can a concrete pour be interrupted for a lunch?

Lists of other problems or challenges are welcome through the blog's comments field below.

Such a structural or societal control option (or fantasy) should be discussed, debated or workshopped as what may not work in the grand scheme may allow for changes, or tweaks, on a smaller scale. Often the best OHS solutions come from speculation which can lead to the epiphany of "why do we do it that way?"

Of course, some countries are way ahead of the rest of the world in managing these workplace hazards by already having a culture that embraces the "siesta".

Kevin Jones

ng may not be such a no-no

Good corporate advice tainted by poisonous product

In Matt Peacock's book, "Killer Company", an entire chapter is devoted to the legacy of the James Hardie chairman, John B Reid. In Peacock's talk at Trades Hall in October 2009, he mentioned that Reid had once published a book called "Commonsense Corporate Governance". The apparent hypocrisy of an executive of a company that knowingly sells toxic material while advising others on how to manage their corporation responsibly generated chuckles of disbelief in the Trade Hall audience.

SafetyAtWorkBlog obtained a copy of John Reid's book to see first-hand that someone could do such a thing. A sad part of all this is that the advice in the book is sensible but Reid's "legacy" now taints all he does and all he says.

One random example of the advice he provides concerns dealing with consultants:

"Where, as with solicitors and auditors, it is imperative for the company to retain them, company staff need to be reminded that the professional advisers are paid for on the basis of the time that they spend on the company's business. This is not predetermined by the nature of the task. In large measure it is affected by the decisions made and by the homework done within the company. What does this mean?

First, the imposition of new and more demanding, and frequently less precise, legislation on all manner of subjects has made management and, as a result, directors, nervous about things that directors 50 years ago would have dealt with very quickly-and inexpensively. Further, the increasing number of specialists necessary within a company's own payroll is a result of this legislative epidemic, and has produced a reinforcement of this culture of caution and, occasionally, of fear."

Safety professionals may want to take particular note of this corporate imperative.

Peacock points to the strict confidentiality clauses that Hardie included in any settlements in the 1970s. Peacock writes (p 156)

"Secrecy indeed was Hardie's byword, one endorsed by the chairman, who would later advise aspiring directors to 'remain silent where there is criticism'."

Reid recommended this in a bulleted list of ways to handle the media.

John B Reid, whose personal wealth was estimated at $A181 million in 2004, is not unique in advising companies while also having a tarnished corporate reputation. Some argue that the adjective "good businessman" is a tautology.

There is no doubt that Reid was an active philanthropist and corporate citizen. He was awarded an Order of Australia for "service to industry" - no citation is available to explain the decision. In 2006, he received the Goldman Sachs JBWere Philanthropy Leadership Award.

Greek tragedies were full of hubris and examples of the single flaw that made good men do bad things. If the plays of Euripides, Aeschylus and Sophocles have yet to be analysed for their advice to corporate executives, they should be, for not only do they show human flaws but human corporate flaws.

John B Reid's book on corporate governance is an easy read and has valuable lessons but it is now a book that makes the reader feel dirty.

Kevin Jones

New Australian academic OHS journal

On 4 November 2009, the first edition of the Journal of Health & Safety Research & Practice began appearing in some Australian letter boxes. This is the long-awaited, and long-promised, journal produced for members of the Safety Institute of Australia. The three articles in this inaugural edition are very good but the format and the marketing is very odd.

The journal says that "[SIA] members may also access electronic copies of articles via www.sia.org.au." Go to the page on the Safety Institute's website for the Peer Review Journal and the page is blank.

SafetyAtWorkBlog contacted the SIA for information about any launch of the publication or media release. There is nothing currently available.

The Editor-In-Chief, Dr Stephen Cowley rightly points to the importance of communication.

"Scholarly publication is central to the communication of new work and ideas...and a fundamental tenet of scientific work is that it is subject to critical appraisal."

But the SafetyAtWorkBlog contention is that "new work and ideas" need to be circulated much more broadly than solely in a scholarly publication limited to the members of the Safety Institute. The SIA says the content is planned to be "released" online after six months but there is a huge difference between publishing ideas and promoting ideas. One element of the SIA's mission statement is to "promote health and safety awareness" and this means actively promote, not just publish something and see what happens.

If the SIA really wants to compete with the only other OHS journal in Australia, The Journal of Occupational Health and Safety - Australia and New Zealand published by CCH Australia, it will really need a strong promotional strategy that makes the SIA journal as indispensible as CCH's.

The justification for another peer review journal in such a small academic pool as Australia remains unclear but there is speculation that the SIA journal has come about as a result of dissatisfaction with the CCH journal.

The test for the validity of the SIA journal will be to see contributions coming from tertiary institutions from around Australia and not just from VIOSH, a school associated with the University of Ballarat, the employer of both the Editor-In-Chief and one of the two Executive Editors.

In terms of format, it is accepted that this is a first edition and that it is a work-in-progress. However this first edition has had a gestation of several years and to have only three articles, even though they are very good, seems a little thin. In the CCH journal, which has existed for decades, there is also the following

• Notes for Contributors,
• Index,
• Book Reviews,
• Obituaries,
• Court Cases, and
• a Noticeboard

Some of this content may be in a sister publication for SIA members that is also currently going to members but, as this journal is dedicated to Dr Eric Wigglesworth, at least an obituary could have been expected.

Being the first edition, the omission of an index is understandable.

The journal is published with the assistance of LexisNexis Media, a major source of legal and court reports. Surely some relevant content could have been accessed through LexisNexis although, again, maybe the SIA member publication will carry this.

If the CCH journal is used as the yardstick for OHS journals in Australia, the SIA journal is a good start. But the CCH journal should not be the benchmark being aimed at. In the 21st century, the SIA should be looking well beyond its competitors and embracing the new internet and publishing technologies to establish its own benchmark and to lead the pack, rather than follow.

The SIA is well aware of the Cochrane Collaboration and the Cochrane Library which offer a number of extra information and media services on its public health research. The SIA is not in any way the equivalent of the Cochrane sites but some of the features could be applied to enhance the value of the SIA journal and to establish a greater prominence.

Kevin Jones

The articles in the Journal of Health & Safety Research & Practice are

"Breaking the Barriers of Insider Research in Occupational Health and Safety" by Annabel Galea

"Are health and safety representatives more effective at representing their designated work group having completed a Certificate IV course in OHS?" by Gavin Merriman and Stephen P Cowley

"The fifth age of safety: the adaptive age" by David Borys, Dennis Else & Susan Leggett.

Management - the importance of what comes before

A special guest for the Safe Work Australia events in Queensland was Matthew Gill, former Beaconsfield Gold mine manager. According to a media statement from the Government

“Matthew Gill who was the public face of the Beaconsfield mine rescue will speak about how he immediately took control of the emergency and then implemented rescue operations for the three missing miners,” [Workplace Health and Safety Queensland Executive Director, Dr Simon Blackwood] said. “Mr Gill maintained an unwavering commitment to the safety of the people conducting the rescue and to the trapped miners.

“He oversaw the rescue teams which battled 24 hours a day for 14 days to release the two miners trapped almost 1km underground. Mr Gill will relive the emotional story of finding Larry Knight’s body and having to talk to his family afterwards.

“Previously he has been involved with mine rescue at rock falls at Mt Lyell in Tasmania and in Papua New Guinea, but Beaconsfield was the first time that he had such ‘hands on’ involvement.”

Matthew Gill has a lot of skills to share on disaster management and media handling but a lot of that skill seems to come about after the rockfall in 2006 that killed Larry Knight.

Prior to that time, in 1995 to 1997, Matthew Gill was the Responsible Officer for the mine. From 1997, Gill appointed other people to undertake the role that is required by legislation. Sometimes there were three people in the role at the same time. Professor Michael Quinlan was quoted in the Coroner's report saying that

“……….the very notion of appointing a Responsible Officer would have little meaning unless that person so appointed exercised overall control of the workplace and could therefore make critical decisions in relation to OHS not simply recommend them, be part of them, or make decisions but not others than might affect safety. For example, as Responsible Officer Mr Ball was a participant in decisions on mine design and mining methods - decisions that have a critical effect on the safety of underground workings - but he was not the only or final decision maker.”

The Tasmanian coroner Rod Chandler,agreed that there should be only one Responsible Officer and that the legislation be amended to reflect this.

Media reports of the inquest into Larry Knight's death reported that after rockfalls in October 2005 and various risk consultants' reports Matthew Gill undertook some remedial work on the mine and in February 2006, Gill declared the mine safe to restart mining. The decisions made on the basis of those consultants' reports came under close scrutiny in the coronial inquest.

On 10 November 2008, AAP's Paul Carter reported the following:

Lawyer Kamal Faroque [representing the Knight family and the Australian Workers' Union] told Coroner Rod Chandler in Launceston that Allstate’s management failures contributed to Mr Knight’s death.... Mr Faroque said mine manager Matthew Gill was ultimately responsible for deficiencies in the mine’s ground supports. “It is submitted that deficiencies in ground support contributed to the Anzac Day rockfall which killed Mr Knight,” he said.

He also said there was no reasonable basis for Allstate to conclude that it was safe for workers to return to the area after two earlier rockfalls.

“Mr Gill accepted responsibility for the decision to recommence stoping in the western zone following the October (2005) rockfalls,” Mr Faroque said. Stoping is a mining method in which underground chambers are opened up deep beneath the surface.

Mr Faroque said the risk management process conducted following the October 2005 rockfalls was inadequate. “It is submitted that these failures are a sound foundation for a finding that Allstate contributed to the death of Larry Knight,” Mr Faroque told the court.

There is no doubt that Matthew Gill was integral to the successful rescue of Brant Webb and Todd Russell but Gill had been employed at the mine for over a decade before the fatal rockfall and therefore was also involved with the decision-making leading up to the rockfall. The decisions made by the company over many years should be analysed to see the combination of bad, poor, or short-term decisions that ultimately led to Larry Knight's death and the entrapment of his colleagues.

The rescue of Webb and Russell is an exciting tale with a happy ending and at least one book and several long articles (even a school lesson plan) have been written about this. The most lasting lessons for safety professionals, mine managers and business operators would be what contributed to the bad decisions leading to Larry Knight, Brant Webb and Todd Russell being in an unsafe working environment during a rockfall.

This is a more complex story that requires knowledge of geology, the stock markets, corporate accountability, OHS and mine safety regulations. If this story had been Matthew Gill's presentation during Safe Work Australia Week, it would have been worth travelling to Queensland to hear.

Kevin Jones

Workplace falls continue even during a safety week

Several years ago while visiting a local council with an OHS mentor, a call came through that a worker had fallen over 10 metres through a skylight into a plant room at a commercial swimming pool. It was the first time I had been on site shortly after a workplace incident and was party to the negotiations and advice between OHS advisers, health & safety representatives and quickly after the event, the CEO.

I am reminded of that day too often when reports come through of workplace falls and deaths. Workplace incidents do not take a holiday even during Safe Work Australia Week and this year was no different. Below are a couple of short reports of incidents from last week. As they did not result in a death, they were unlikely to be reported in the mainstream press.

"A man has fallen through a warehouse roof, dropping eight metres onto concrete at Brunswick [on 30 October 2009].

‘The 24 year old man landed on the concrete and some bicycles that were on the floor,’ according to Intensive care paramedic Kate Cantwell. ‘Even though he had fallen about eight metres, he is extremely lucky that he landed on his arm and side, and not on his head. He has quite a severe fracture to his arm, and possibly a fractured pelvis."

"A 62-year-old man fell nearly three metres to the ground when he slipped off a ladder in Heidelberg Heights [on 26 October 2009]. Advanced life support paramedics from Oak Park and Epping were called to the residential building site at 11.05am.

Paramedic Haley McCartin said they arrived within eight minutes to find the man lying on the ground in a significant amount of pain. ‘He suffered a suspected fractured hip and wrist,’ she said."

Both these cases were posted by the Ambulance Service in Victoria and reinforce that falls in workplaces continue to occur. Not all falls cause death but falls invariably result in serious injuries.

It is fair to say that gravity continues to be the number one contributory factor to workplace falls.

Kevin Jones

Amputations, shocks and burns - court cases

In late October 2009, there were several OHS court cases in Australia that raise issues that need to be kept at the forefront of the thoughts of safety managers, safety professionals, workers and business owners.

Amputation

One case in South Australia identified the need to have sufficient detail in policies and procedures for workers to be safe. The comment of Industrial Magistrate Michael Ardlie is particularly important.

Beerenberg Pty Ltd was fined $A9,000 dollars for breaching OHS law

"The incident happened in May 2007 at the company’s Hahndorf premises. A female employee was operating a mincer as part of the process of producing green tomato chutney.

The court was told that at the conclusion of the task, the employee switched off the machine but noticed a piece of tomato hanging from the mincer plate. She went to flick the piece off, but in doing so lost the tip of her index finger.

SafeWork SA’s investigation concluded that the woman’s finger had gone through one of the holes in the mincer plate and come into contact with the cutting blade behind, which was still winding down after the machine was switched off.

The fingertip could not be reattached, but the woman returned to work with the business after five weeks. Aside from the cosmetic appearance, there remains some numbness in the finger.

In his penalty decision today, Industrial Magistrate Michael Ardlie acknowledged that while there was a safe operating procedure written and a warning sign in place, these measures alone were insufficient.

“(The measures) did not specifically warn employees of the dangers presented by the moving parts of the mincer after the mincer had been turned off... the procedures in place did not go far enough.”

Since the incident, the company has fitted a purpose-built distance guard as well as an interlock that shuts the machine down once the guard is removed."

Magistrate Ardlie fined the defendant $9,000 this being its first offence.

Crushed Fingers and Guarding

The same Industrial Magistrate as above, McArdlie, had to deal with a very different case. Whereas Beerenberg was facing its first offence, OE & DR Pope are on their fifth.

"SafeWork SA prosecuted OE & DR Pope Pty Ltd after investigating an incident at its Wingfield printing plant in March 2007.

A 34-year-old male employed as a machine operator, suffered crush injuries to three fingers of his right hand, which were caught between moving rollers. While he returned to work after three weeks, he suffered residual sensitivity problems, and left the business in December 2007 for unrelated reasons.

The court was told that the operator had attempted to clean dry spots from a roller without stopping the machine, and was able to gain access to the moving parts through a 70mm gap in the guarding. Furthermore, the employee’s usual assistant was not available leaving him to perform two roles on the machine. The supervisor who also should have been present was elsewhere on the premises at the time.

In his decision on penalty handed down today, Industrial Magistrate Michael Ardlie noted that the machine involved had replaced another involved in a previous injury, but that a risk assessment failed to identify the problem which ultimately occurred:

“Whilst the defendant prior to the incident did assess the machine, installed a guard and introduced a Standard Operating Procedure, the steps it took were inadequate.”

The court was told that this was the company’s fifth offence dating back to 1998, and all previous incidents resulted in similar injuries from similar circumstances.

Therefore, being a subsequent offence under the Occupational Health Safety and Welfare Act 1986, the defendant faced a maximum fine of $A200,000. Magistrate Ardlie fined the company $A40,000."

Fifth incident in just over ten years - "similar injuries from similar circumstances". The reduced fine of $A40,000 seems a little odd in this context.

There are several elements that are disturbing in this case - ineffective guarding, excessive or conflicting workload and absent work supervisor.

Overhead Hazards

Just as falling in some workplaces is as "easy as falling of a log", so it is that many people forget to look up. A court case in Western Australia has fined Shrigley Drilling Contractors $A40,000 after one worker was shocked and another burnt when their drilling rig tilted into high-voltage overhead powerlines in 2006.

"Laurence Victor Shrigley - trading as Shrigley Drilling Contractors - pleaded guilty to failing to ensure that the workplace was safe and, by that failure, causing serious harm to another person and was fined in the Perth Magistrates Court this week.

In May 2006, Western Power had contracted Outback Power Services to perform works and construct a voltage regulator at Eneabba. Outback Power had contracted Mr Shrigley to perform drilling works.

On May 17, Mr Shrigley and an electrical contractor were engaged in drilling holes with a drilling rig underneath power lines. The position in which the drilling contractor chose to place the rig required him to raise the mast very close to the power lines.

In repositioning the rig, the left-hand outrigger was raised and the mast tilted towards the power lines. The mast touched the power lines and Mr Shrigley received an electric shock and was thrown backwards from the drilling rig.

Another man, who was driving the truck that carried the drilling rig and was working with Mr Shrigley on a voluntary basis, also received an electric shock serious enough to set his clothing on fire. He sustained burns to around 60 per cent of his body.

The court heard that no formal pre-start meeting had been held before the work commenced, and no directions were given for the work, with the exception of where the holes were required to be placed.

Mr Shrigley had not checked whether the power lines were live, or attempted to make any arrangements for the power in the area to be isolated."

The features in this case include contractor management, using a volunteer, inadequate preparation, and inadequate number of workers (apparently, no spotter).

It is understandable that cynicism is rampant in the safety profession when the same work practices lead to injuries in the 21st century just as they did in the 20th and sometimes in the 19th.

Kevin Jones

Gov't responds to insulation installer's death

Recently SafetyAtWorkBlog reported of the death of a worker installing insulation in a domestic home. A staple for the foil insulation apparently pierced an electrical cable and electrocuted the worker.

The Queensland Government has introduced mandatory provisions to avoid the hazard in the future. In a media release on 1 November 2009, the Industrial Relation Minister, Cameron Dick,

"... issued a ministerial notice under the Electrical Safety Act 2002 to prohibit the use of metal fastenings for ceiling insulation."

The ban is effective from 1 November 2009.

It may already be the case, elsewhere in the world, that non-conductive fasteners are used fro installing metallic insulation. If not, the rules introduced by the government should prove useful references.

"The ministerial notice means that installers will have to use nylon or plastic fasteners (which are already in use within the industry), glue or tape to fix foil insulation in ceilings.

As well as banning metal fasteners, the notice also:

• forces insulation installers to comply with the Wiring Rules with respect to the placement of any type of insulation near recessed downlights
• makes electrical safety risk assessment training mandatory for all installers
• forces installers to document their on-site electrical safety risk assessments and keep a record f or five years."

Such a mandatory rule is clearly a necessary short-term fix but it does little to address the concerns of the Master Electricians Association. Training and enforcement are the long-term solutions but policymakers must also anticipate the applications of their policies more closely. New policies should not be announced in an industry that does not have the resources to meet the policy's aims.

Kevin Jones

Grandad's disease

Almost as a follow-on from the Matt Peacock podcast the UK's Health and Safety Executive has given asbestos the feature slot in its October 2009 podcast that has just been released.

The podcast and accompanying campaign is aimed at the recent tradespeople who may be under the impression that, as asbestos was banned in the UK in 2000, that the hazard no longer exists. This is not the case and the podcast pushes this point.

The podcast also mentions how people panic when there is any risk of exposure to asbestos. Strangely, the speakers say that harm from asbestos is more likely to come from prolonged exposure than from a single fibre. This seems to contrast with the asbestos campaigns of the past and given that symptoms of asbestos-related diseases can appear "out-of-the-blue" decades later, the statement sounds odd.

The HSE podcast can be downloaded HERE.

Kevin Jones

Revealing podcast on asbestos in Australia

On 15 October 2009, Matt Peacock, a journalist with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and author of a new book on asbestos and the James Hardie company, "Killer Company: James Hardie Exposed" spoke publicly at Trades Hall in Victoria.

Peacock has allowed an edited version of his presentation to be used as a SafetyAtWork podcast which can be downloaded. In the podcast he discusses the conduct of the James Hardie boss of several decades, John B Reid; the pervasive nature of asbestos throughout the Australian community; the surveillance of opponents by the company; the immoral public relations campaigns and, generally, the conduct of a corporation that knowingly sold a product that was toxic and harmful.

One blogger reviewed the book and said

“Killer Company” clearly shows that JH directors were criminally negligent and showed no humanity or compassion for their victims and no remorse for their crimes.

Peacock produced several reports on asbestos recently. Video and transcripts of his reports can be accessed HERE.

Peacock has also been interviewed extensively about his book. A video interview is available HERE

Kevin Jones

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.

Kevin Jones

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.

Kevin Jones

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.

Kevin Jones

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.

Kevin Jones