What is it that makes one organisation safer than another? What is it about employees that are genuinely focused on their’s and their workmate’s safety? What is it that they do or think that set them apart? Well, from an organisational perspective, those organisations that manage to consistently perform safely, where their employees feel safe at work, work in a safe manner and are solid ambassadors for the safety process have developed a superior safe work culture. Furthermore, and although the results of a safe work culture are reflected at an organisational level, those responsible for culture development are more often than not the employees (aptly supported by quality leadership; the bottom up and top down approach working in conjunction with each other).

Although industries worldwide have been discussing the importance of culture to workplace safety for many years, its importance was further highlighted with the release of the Guide to Best Practice for Safer Construction by Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, the Hon Joe Hockey MP (release date was September 12). The critical focus of the Guide was to “improve the ability of the industry as a whole to deliver safer construction projects” Minister Hockey said. “This guide is a further step to move the industry closer to a culture of safer workplaces through the integration of occupational health and safety into strategic and operational decision making at all stages of construction.”

Given that the development of a safer workplace culture is being supported at such high levels, what is safety culture, and how is it developed in organisations? Culture can be defined as “the attitudes and behaviors that are characteristic of a particular social group or organisation” (Wordweb definition). Culture refers to what employees believe, how they think, how they act and what they perceive is important, amongst other things.

The Bradley Model is a journey model that demonstrates how, over time, organisations can grow through different culture types, where the organisation’s ability to achieve a workplace free of injuries goes from being totally unachievable to very sustainable. The stages of the journey include the dependent stage (where employees are told how to act and how to work – leading to a culture of employee dependence on the employer for safe work processes and initiatives). With effort, the dependent culture can become an independent one, where employees take all the initiative, and focus totally on their own safety, sometimes to the exclusion of their leadership and fellow workers.

The ideal workplace safety culture is one of interdependence, where employees and organisational leaders work collaboratively to both implement and engender an organisational belief system that is built on the premise that ‘no-one gets hurt’ and that ‘injuries and incidents can be prevented’. When an interdependent culture has been created, employees view safety as a critical part of their role, not an adjunct to it, and they see themselves as the driving force behind the safety process. They adopt safe work systems because they want to, not because they have to, or because they are told to.

The question remains then, how can an interdependent culture be created? Put simply, employee engagement, ownership and autonomy (EOA) must be achieved at all organisational levels. Employee engagement starts when organisations and their leaders are involving employees in the safety process, and genuinely invite their feedback, ideas and opinions. Then, not only are opinions and views encouraged, but they are acted upon and implemented into the systems and procedures of the organisation.

Employee ownership is the next stage of culture development, and is achieved when employees are given responsibility for the performance of not only the safety processes and procedures that they have had input into, but also for the performance of the organisation. Employees are given responsibility and accountability for outcomes. With this level of responsibility, employees should be given the autonomy to decide not only how to improve all aspects of their own safety and their own roles, but also how to further improve the organisation’s performance.

Obviously, employee EOA will improve every aspect of any business, but when it comes to safety, it is all about culture.

Thank you Anton.

Les has worked in OHS across many industries including commerce/finance, forestry, heavy and light manufacturing, transport and logistics and aged care.

Les submits this attached article, not with a view to criticising OHS professionals, but with a view to encouraging employers to refocus on how they manage their OHS obligations and use the services of OHS professionals…

Having been a consultant, trainer and practitioner in OHS for over 15 years, and having previously worked both in middle management and as a tradesperson, I wonder if we haven’t lost sight of what it means to ‘manage workplace safety’ efficiently and effectively.

In NSW in 1983 (and at various times in other states) we saw a new paradigm introduced, in respect of legislative change, requiring employers to consult with employees on what constituted workplace safety. This was a radical change from the previous prescriptive legislation that had been carried over from British law with settlement of this great land. The primary thrust of this new approach was recognition that no two workplaces are identical and so a set of prescriptive laws would not fit every employer’s workplace and also could not keep up with the rate of technological and industrial change.

We (NSW) saw a revision of that new approach in 2000 and, with the introduction of a consolidated regulation in 2001, everything was supposed to get so much easier. But did it really?

A quick review of businesses selling OHS services on the WWW reveals that many organisations are offering OHS management systems (OHSMS) that are essentially generic, though intended to be tailored to specific worksites, which flies in the face of the intent of the new legislation which recognised the vast variations from worksite to worksite.

Many other businesses on the WWW are selling consulting services to support other businesses that find the whole OHS concept a puzzling maze. And it suits these consulting organisations to maintain the puzzle – often contributing to the problem by use of language and jargon that baffles the average manager, supervisor and employee who are supposed to consult together on matters affecting the health and safety of employees and others.

A third group of organisations are those selling auditing services aimed at making sure that an employer’s OHSMS complies with a raft of Australian and New Zealand standards to ensure that the documentation actually meets certain generic criteria established by yet a fourth group – Standards Australia – whose primary income is based in making these AS/NZ standards integral to doing business in Australia and around the world.

Let’s take a step back – 1983 and 2000 saw the introduction of laws that made it imperative for employers to resolve health and safety risks at the workplace level.

OHS related businesses have apparently been striving to make it seem as if one size (prescription) OHSMS fits all.

It doesn’t make sense!

Yes, the laws require employers to take a systematic approach to identifying, assessing and managing risks in the workplace.

And yes, the laws require some record keeping – as a means to demonstrate that employers have fulfilled their legal obligations.

But that doesn’t mean employers need to adopt and adapt generic OHSMS that are far more complex than most employers need.

My personal observation over the past 15 years leads me to believe that it has apparently been easier for employers to throw bankloads of money at consultants to assist them to ‘get it right’ than it was to take some time to understand the legislation and apply it according to its intent for their workplace. And yet we still kill and injure significant numbers of people in workplaces every year.

This observation is further supported by the number of middle and frontline managers that still struggle to ‘do OHS’ as an integral part of their job.

True, I’m seeing more and more CEOs and MDs focussing on OHS as a significant area of cost/benefit to the business – especially with the alternate rising cost of workers compensation and/or the threat or reality of significant penalties to provide impetus.

But even then I don’t see too much understanding of the real issues associated with implementing OHS at the coalface.

To put it simply – every employee is employed to add value to the business by earning income and/or reducing costs. But the ever increasing burdens of super complex OHSMS result in so much time being consumed in ‘doing OHS by the system’ that actual productivity is crippled.

Please don’t get me wrong – I’m in the business of OHS because I have lost workmates in fatal accidents and have even experienced a major injury myself back in the days when I was a tradesperson.

I strongly believe that it makes good business sense to ‘do OHS efficiently and effectively’. But if the primary focus of the complex OHSMS is essentially a means to ‘covering my butt’ in case something goes wrong then I think we need to refocus.

I also believe that if we (employers) spend a little more time on identifying, assessing and controlling the risks – and simply documenting that process in each application – we will achieve both a safer workplace and ‘cover our butts’ at the same time.

So where do we start to simplify this risk management process?

First we need to recognise the 4 key groups of risks. These are easily remembered by the “4 Ps” of:

1. PLACE: the workplace and its environment – the buildings, boundaries and contents of the employer’s premises at any given time. Every person coming onto the site is exposed to various combinations of these risks.

2. PLANT and substances – the machinery, tools, equipment, materials and substances that are used in the performance of work activities. Employees and others who are in the proximity of the work are directly exposed to these risks.

3. PROCESS – the step-by-step work methods, procedures, processes that employees follow to perform their work tasks. Employees are exposed to these.

4. PEOPLE – the behaviours of all people who may be at the workplace from time to time may present work related risks. This can be further broken down into the “3 Cs” of:

a. Competence – employees need the right combination of knowledge, skill and experience in order to be competent to perform work tasks safely. Qualifications and licenses provide limited evidence of competence.
b. Capability – employees need to be physically, emotionally and psychologically capable of performing work tasks safely. Issues such as physique, (shape, size, strength, etc), relational circumstances (marriage, inter-social connections, etc) and self-concept (phobias, egos, etc) along with issues such as fatigue all go to affecting any given employee’s capability to perform work safely.
c. Compliance – a person’s willingness (or not) to comply with established workplace standards and processes. People need to know what the standards and processes are before they can comply with them.

These concepts are embodied in the employers’ primary responsibilities as set out in the OHS Act (NSW) 2000 at section 8(1) and 8(2). Every other part of the legislation and subordinate regulation goes to provide direction for employers and others to manage the risks associated with these “4 P’s” and “3 C’s”.

Now we need to acknowledge that every workplace is more or less complex than every other workplace. Because every site is different, every set of plant and substances is different, every set of work processes are different and every set of employees is different.

BUT every employer needs to understand and manage the risks associated with their own workplace.

Buying and implementing an OHSMS and maintaining it to a set of generic criteria is not evidence that the risks associated with the “4 P’s and “3 C’s” have been identified, assessed and controlled at the workplace. And OHSMSs, whether paper based or electronic have never, in and of themselves, prevented an injury.

However, if an employer was to:

1. establish a consultative process with their employees, and 
2. consult them on identifying, assessing and controlling risks associated with the “4P’s” and 
3. document and implement the outcomes of that consultation

… such an employer would have gone a long way to fulfilling their legal obligations under the OHS Act (NSW) 2000.

There may be a need for some expert assistance in interpreting the OHS Regulation, various codes of practice and some Australian Standards with regard to some specific risk issues, but these should be done on a needs basis rather than as a matter of course in the implementation of a full-blown generic OHSMS.

The cost of this approach? The same cost in employee, supervisor and manager time as if a consultant were engaged to lead the process.

The benefits of this approach? Make significant savings in consulting fees, gain a better understanding of the workplace and all the risks that it encompasses and build a better relationship between managers, supervisors and employees. AND gain ownership of the process by all persons involved and affected.

Thank you Les.

Recently, a government campaign has been launched, as part of an attempt to reduce the tragic impact that workplace injuries have on the community, to encourage people to stay safe at work. The aim of the campaign has been to highlight that the main reason for workplace safety is not at work, but it is at home. It is your husband or wife, it is your children and all of those people that love you and that would miss you horribly if, god forbid, you were to be hurt at work. One of the billboards that has been posted includes a photo of a father cuddling his young daughter, who has a look of absolute admiration and joy on her face.

This article is going to focus on the importance of staying safe at work, and it will consider the impact that workplace incidents have on the family of the seriously (or fatally) injured. I can speak from experience on this topic, as being a survivor who has experienced not only the impacts of a serious incident, but also the impacts on family and friends, I can relate to the pain and suffering caused by what are generally avoidable incidents that occur at work.

There are many people affected by every workplace incident. At the scene of the incident, the injured worker’s fellow employees may be the people that find their colleague after he or she has been injured. These workers may or may not be able to render assistance, and may just have to provide reassurance and comfort (which may be difficult, depending on the severity of the incident). The ambulance or emergency response team will be the next on the scene. Now, contrary to popular belief, these people are only human, too, and are affected by every incident or accident scene that they attend. There may be something that the ambulance personnel can do, especially to reduce some of the pain being suffered, but it will generally be off to the hospital or an emergency department for the injured worker.

From this point, and again depending on the severity of the incident, the injured employee’s supervisor may be required to go his or her home and inform their family that mum or dad will not be coming home tonight. They are currently in hospital, intensive care or worse. The job of passing on this news may be left to police officers, again depending on severity (who again are only human, and struggle to deliver such sad news to a family). It might just be a phone call to the family, if this is appropriate, but someone has to make the call.

Then, at home, mum or dad and the children of the injured worker have to start to comet to grips with what has just happened. Their lives may have just been changed for ever. The injured worker may never walk again, may be broken, may have hurt both of his or her hands (which means a significant amount of assistance will be required for a period) or they might have second or third degree burns. The first trip to the hospital can be a shock for loved ones, as the sight of someone close to you in a hospital bed following a serious injury is terrible. Then, of course, there may be a funeral to organise.

In the case of my particular incident, the above process occurred in varying degrees. The first person to see me after the incident was my girlfriend Julie’s (now my wife) brother. He saw me stumble out of the switchroom with severe burns and he rang Julie to let her know what had happened. Of course in the moment, he was not able to ‘put it to her lightly’. His explanation was something like “Julie, Anton has been badly hurt, I can’t see his fingers and his face is falling off”. My dad then got a phone call that was to shatter him, as the caller said that I had been electrocuted (an incorrect explanation of the incident). The word electrocution means to be fatally injured. Dad will say to this day that he was heading to the hospital to identify his dead 21 year old son. I never ever understood the enormity of that call until I had children of my own, and I cannot begin to imagine how bad a call like that would be.

On visiting me in the hospital, my brother wept.

I had hurt both of my hands, and could not do anything for myself (include attending to my hygiene needs), so I was very reliant on family (and nurses) for assistance.

In conclusion, there are two key messages that can be taken from this article. The first is that not only will you be badly injured if you make unsafe choices at work, but your family will suffer horribly. Secondly, and in a similar vein, if you are at work and trying to decide whether to work safely or rush, always remember that even if you don’t ‘do’ safety for you, make sure you do it for your loved ones. They need you.

To contact Anton please phone 0418 686 522 or email anton [at] antonguinea [dot] com [dot] au or visit Anton Guinea.

Anton has just released his latest book titled: ‘Let’s Talk About Safety: 19 ways you can work safely’.  You can download more details on Anton’s book here at Let’s Talk About Safety.

Thank you Anton! 

This article has been supplied by Brad Matthews of Winning Safety.  Winning Safety uses a process that goes beyond simply observing behaviour. It is designed to encourage “active listening” and promote safety leadership especially by managers in the workplace. Brad believes that with the proper framework, an organisation can use safety as a mechanism to meet production and profitability objectives and develop a culture of openness and trust.

Manual tasks contribute to injuries affecting all parts of the body, particularly the back, shoulder and wrist. These are commonly called musculoskeletal disorders and account for more than half of the following:

• cost of workers’ compensation claims
• number of days lost from work
• work absences over six months.

According to data collected by the Australian Safety and Compensation Council (ASCC), performing some manual tasks can cause musculoskeletal disorders (MSD’s) which can lead to death, injury or disease.

Between July 1997 and June 2003, injuries caused by manual tasks at work resulted in;

• 437,852 compensation claims in Australia, or 
• 41.6 % of all compensation claims during that period, 
• a direct cost not counting indirect impacts (including long-term impacts on the quality of life of the injured worker) of $11.965 billion.
• an estimated 11.6 million lost working days a year.

A staggering 38% of musculoskeletal disorders relate to back injury and an additional 27% of MSD’s relate to shoulder, hand, wrist and finger injury through carrying out manual tasks.

As an employer, you are responsible for preventing work related injuries or disorders (MSD’s) caused by manual tasks.

MSD’s are a priority risk to your business costs;

• they affect large numbers of people across most job roles
• they have the potential to ruin people’s lives 
• they impose heavy costs on your business and on society.

Key points to remember about MSDs :

• you can do things to prevent or minimise MSDs
• prevention measures are cost effective 
• you cannot prevent all MSDs, so early reporting of symptoms, proper treatment and suitable rehabilitation is essential. 

What are the Risk Factors?

Risk factors causing MSDs can be found in virtually every workplace from commerce to construction.

Areas that can create a risk:

• repetitive and heavy lifting
• bending and twisting
• repeating an action too frequently
• uncomfortable working position
• exerting too much force
• working too long without breaks
• adverse working environment (e.g. hot, cold)
• psychosocial factors (e.g. high job demands, time pressures and lack of control)
• not receiving and acting upon reports of symptoms quick enough

Remember that the greater the number of risk factors you are exposed to, the higher your risk of developing musculoskeletal disorders.

The longer your exposure, the higher your risk.

Managing the Risk

Risk management for manual tasks involves a 3 step process aimed at preventing work-related musculoskeletal disorders. Major stages in the risk management process include:

1. Risk identification: Identify the problem jobs/tasks which are likely to, or have caused injury.

2. Risk assessment: Investigate the problem jobs/tasks, determine the risk factors and evaluate them, assess their importance, and look for their causes.

3. Risk control: Decide on solutions, trial and implement them, and check later to see the changes are working.

Key Points:

• You can do things to prevent or minimise MSDs
• Prevention measures are cost effective
• Early Reporting is essential

Developing a Risk Management Strategy

Planning is critical to make sure controls for reducing risks in the workplace are implemented.

Successful programs aimed at reducing musculoskeletal disorders have five essential elements.

1. Safety Leadership.
2. Training.
3. Risk Management.
4. Rehabilitation.
5. Evaluation.
 
1. Safety Leadership
The most effective solution to reducing safety and health hazards is a combination of Management leadership and worker involvement.

In order to control and reduce work-related musculoskeletal disorders, the management of the organisation must be committed to the program both financially and personally. The commitment includes listening to and acting on feedback given by the workers.

Employees take their cue and motivation from the management’s actions and responses to their feedback. Without employee commitment the return on a program investment will not be fully realised.

2. Training
Training provides the basis for consistent awareness, identification, analysis, targeting and control of musculoskeletal disorders hazards.

3. Risk Management
Management and workers must be aware of risk factors and hazards of their jobs and in their work environment that lead to musculoskeletal disorders.

Careful evaluation of the workplace identifies risk factors and hazards; including the use of checklists and registers to help document all observations.

Once the risk factors, hazards and injuries are identified and recorded, the OHS personnel, in collaboration with management, contractors and workers, have the facts to assess the risks and develop solutions, e.g., improve site housekeeping through the alteration of material delivery schedule, use self-raising platforms or buddy system for lifting, etc.

4. Rehabilitation
Effective injury management relies on the cooperative efforts of all participants – employers, workers, insurers, doctors and other health practitioners.

The longer a worker is away from work the less likely they will return. Replacement of a skilled person is expensive or, at times, difficult to impossible.

It is a benefit to the individual and employer to bring the injured worker back to alternate or reassigned duties as soon as medically appropriate. This may mean re-skilling or providing additional training.

Your Risk management strategy should outline how this is going to be addressed.

5. Program Evaluation
Evaluating the effectiveness of a program is just as important as implementing the program.

• Is your program reducing musculoskeletal disorders, hazards and risks? 
• Does an initial upsurge in musculoskeletal disorders reporting mean your workplace became less safe because of the program?
• Does this upsurge mean that a hidden population of injured workers has received treatment and will be returned to a healthier level of productivity and lifestyle?
• Have you successfully identified and targeted your MSD hazards?

Program evaluation is vital to validating your required outcomes and obligations.

For more information regarding this article or Workplace Health & Safety advice or training, please contact Brad Matthews on 0423 902 477, via email at brad [at] winningsafety [dot] com or visit Winning Safety

Thank you Brad.

If you are a do-it-yourself kind of person, or you’re in a workplace where you need to use power tools, one of the things you probably regularly come in contact with is a portable saw.

Many people don’t appreciate the dangers in using these types of tools. A portable saw is a very powerful device with the purpose of cutting things. Whether that means a piece of wood or a body part, it can’t tell the difference and will just do what it is designed for. For this reason, safety must be your main priority. Here are some tips to follow:

Before Picking Up the Saw

Take note of what you are wearing before you use a portable saw. Do you have long hair? Are you wearing clothing that is loose? How about dangling jewelry? Any of these things can get caught in the mechanism of the saw and cause you injury. Remove jewelry and reign in baggy clothing. If you have long hair, tie it back securely before you get to work.

The Plug

You should never leave a portable saw plugged in when you are not using it. Indeed, don’t plug it in until it’s time to use it. If there is any damage to the lead or plug, do not use the equipment! Follow your work’s safety procedures and have the equipment checked or replaced as soon as possible. Electricity is not something to play with.

Saw Blade

Before you plug in the saw, check to see if you have the right blade in the saw. Different blades are made for cutting different materials. If you use the wrong one you could cause damage to the saw or worse, break the blade and create a metal projectile.

Cutting Area

What are you cutting? Is the cutting table secure and the item to cut securely held in place? Any of these things being less than secure are sure to cause an accident.

Cover Your Eyes

Even a properly working saw can kick up debris that can get in your eyes. You should always wear some form of eye protection when using a portable saw.

Cutting

Before you cut with a saw you need to make sure the cord is not in the area you are going to cut. This will keep you from cutting through the cord. This may seem like common sense, but there have been a number of close calls when workers have only become aware of how close they were to cutting the electrical lead after another worker pointed it out, or they stopped for a breather…. pure luck was on their side.

Make sure you place both hands on the saw so you can control it well as you use it.

Remember, as you begin to use a saw, and hit the material to be cut, it will most likely kick back towards you. Anticipate this and make sure you have a good hold on the saw before you start cutting.

Housekeeping

Once finished – be sure to switch off the saw immediately, unplug it, put the saw away safely, store leads, and remove any debris that could be a hazard.

One of the most serious threats in driving long distances is drowsy driving, where a driver is more tired than they may think they are, and simply drift off. Have you ever sat in front of the TV, feeling a little worn and the next thing your spouse or kids are nudging you to wake up and you’re surprised to find that you had unintentionally dozed off.

The other danger behind the wheel with fatigue is not being able to react as quickly as necessary in traffic conditions.

Before any driver is allowed to hit the road, they must be sure they know how to identify sleepy driving. Sometimes drivers think they are “a little tired, but I can drive through it”. 

Safety sessions about driving should include learning about:

The Signs of Fatigue – How to notice them and how important it is to respond to those signs. The strategies include getting to a safe location and resting until it is safe to drive again. It is important for drivers to understand it is all right to make a stop for safety purposes – no deadline is as important as a person’s life! And an employee that does not enforce this idea is in breach of Duty of Care for their workers.

The Dangers of Drowsy Driving – Drowsy Driving can be just as dangerous as drink driving. Drunk drivers can at least respond (albeit more slowly) to a traffic situation. Drowsy drivers who fall asleep at the wheel are unable to correct their driving, meaning accidents can happen at a higher speed and without any attempt to avoid them. So much time and money (rightly so) has been put into the campaigns to create a stigma against drunk drivers and their irresponsibility with theirs and other’s lives. The same stigma should be applied to any work schedule that forces a driver to continue to drive despite feeling drowsy or concerned for their safety.

Situations that Lead to Drowsy Driving – It is important that drivers get a good night’s sleep before they start driving. This means may mean they need to cut back on ‘off-duty’ activities that might cut into their sleep time.

Awareness of the Sleepy Hours – If drivers are travelling at night, or during hours where sleepiness is more likely, they need to be aware of this and realize they need to be more observant of their state of alertness during that time.

Employers can implement strategies to help their drivers, including:

Lessen the Drives – If possible, shorten the legs of your long distance drivers so they have a chance to take a break and rest more often.

Require Breaks – There should be set limits for how far a driver can go at one time, as well as per day, week and month. Driving limits are to help keep your people safe on the roads.

Network Driver’s Experiences – Drivers can share their experiences on the roads – such as what’s the best B&B to stay at, good rest stops (with good food and clean rest stop facilities), where road conditions are challenging and to take extra care, etc.

Keep in Contact with Drivers – Speaking regularly with your drivers during their shift (obviously hands free for the driver) is a way of checking up on how they’re feeling, and to find out if there is anything you need to know.

Safe driving and take care of yourselves!

The playground is a place where there are a number of hazards and where hundreds of thousands of children around the world are injured every year. Here’s a look at common injuries and what you can do to help reduce them:

Playground Equipment

The most common way children are injured on playground equipment is by falling.
There are a couple of reasons a fall could happen. One obvious possibility is that there is a problem with the equipment. Always make sure the playground equipment is in good shape before letting children play on it.

In the vast number of schools, the ‘groundsman’, ‘janitor’, or an allocated grounds safety person often checks the school equipment and runs an experienced eye over the playground before school each day. If for some reason the person who performs this task has missed some hazard, be quick to report it to them.

Yes, it is possible that this person could become a little ‘antsy’ (and I’ve heard a few stories!) at you drawing their attention to the situation, but think upon it as an exercise on communicating with style! (sorry, I couldn’t put it any other positive way!) After all, it’s better that something is done about the hazard before someone gets hurt. Imagine the problems for that other staff member (not to mention the school) when it’s found they didn’t perform their job properly and it led to an incident.

Each form class teacher should be notified to tell their students to keep away from that particular piece of equipment or area. And steps to rectify the hazard should be taken as soon as possible. In the meantime, the equipment could either be put away, or made inoperable, ie. a swing could be chained and padlocked to the side of the swing bars to stop it from being used.

Another reason children may fall from playground equipment is that they are mis-using it. If this is the case, a little instruction could go a long way to avoiding injuries.

The surface beneath playground equipment should be considered too. If you have a hard and unforgiving surface, there is more chance that a child will be injured when falling. Consider a far softer surface such as sand.

Another common problem with playground equipment is children being cut or scraped. Again ensure the equipment is regularly inspected to see that all parts are in good working condition and look for any rust or areas where the metal may soon start breaking. For wood playground equipment, have it regularly checked for areas where the wood is splitting or cracking, as this is a threat of splinters.

No matter what type of playground equipment is being used at your campus, you should regularly have someone check over the set-up to make sure all the equipment is secure and the supports are stable. Keep records of these inspections and add a note to your diary when to organise the next one.

Shade

While everyone thinks it’s great for kids to get out in the fresh air and sunshine to play, we need to be aware of the impact that sunshine has on the children. Sun can be intense, and children can become sunburned in the shortest time, and ill from the heat without warning – being so focused on playing they ignore the warning signs (a fuzzy head, thirst or stomach cramps). It is best to make sure that playground areas are shaded and that children have access to water – either through a cooler nearby or by suggesting they keep their water bottles handy.

Of course, follow the Slip, Slop, Slap guidelines as well. There are a good number of schools who make sunscreen readily available to the students, and most school rules dictate that a child must wear a hat or sun protection when outside.

Another important reason for shading the playground is that the equipment itself can become hot and burn the children playing on it. Consider how hot the sun can make a metal slide or other pieces of equipment.

Falling when running

Corridors, concrete paths and walkways are often places where children – against the rules – still continue to run.

Having signs ups ‘Walk’ rather than ‘Don’t Run’ are much more effective, as we all know about the mind being unable to process a negative. ie. ‘don’t run’ becomes to the child ‘run’. So offer instead the simple direction ‘walk’.

Enforce the same message when a child is running using the simple instruction “Walk!” or “Walk in the corridor” rather than “Don’t run in the corridor!”.

Many employers are now using contractors for non-core work tasks. Some larger organisations are even ‘contracting out’ their facilities maintenance and management processes.

This raises significant issues in terms of where the boundaries fall for the responsibility for safety of people in workplaces.

A couple of case studies:

An academic institution has contracted out their facilities maintenance. The Principle Contractor manages both direct employees and sub-contractors in the delivery of the maintenance services.

Case 1:

A task was allocated by the principle contractor to a sub-contractor. That sub-contractor then sub-sub-contracted another organisation to deliver the service. (Complicated? Wait for it…).

An employee of the sub-sub-subcontractor was found by an officer of the academic institution to be sanding the joints of a patch in a gyprock ceiling panel. He was working on a step ladder and was not wearing any PPE to protect his eyes or respiratory system from the dust. When challenged, and it was pointed out that his eyes were red, he shrugged off the suggestion to use PPE and claimed his eyes were ‘red from beer not dust’.

A subsequent investigation identified that:

• The work was being performed off a 3.6 metre step ladder under a 3.9 meter ceiling in a hallway surrounded by offices opening into the hallway. No effort had been made to protect anyone from falls/falling objects – NEITHER the worker on the step ladder OR the surrounding office workers passing underneath in the hallway.
• There was no adequate job safety analysis (JSA), no safe work method statement (SWMS) and no MSDS on hand. (Gyprock contains a hazardous substance).
• The JSA, such as it was, DID require the use of eye and respiratory protection.

Case 2:

A bundle of similar tasks in various plant rooms was allocated by the principle contractor to a sub-contractor. The sub-contractor had provided a proposed work method stepping out how they would perform the work and developed a Safe Work Method Statement from this. After the job had commenced the employees of the sub-contractor decided to change from a manual process using a wire brush to using a powered grinder with a rotary wire brush attachment.

One employee commenced using the grinder with attachment in a certain plant room and generated sufficient dust to set off a smoke detector (not a local area smoke alarm). This resulted in an evacuation of the building and the fire brigade responded.

A fire brigade officer eventually found the sub-contractor employee still diligently working in the plant room.

A subsequent investigation found:

•  the smoke detector was not clearly defined on the fire control panel and hence the fire wardens could not locate the source of the alarm and so evacuated the building.
• Added to this, there was no audible or visual fire/evacuation alarm indicator in the plant room, hence the employee was not aware that an alarm had gone off or that an evacuation of the building had been initiated.

What makes this second case even more interesting is that the plant room in question is a confined space and the access route to get into it is a utilities tunnel that also is a confined space.

None of these safety issues had been identified in the job safety risk assessment. Neither were these spaces listed in what otherwise is a very comprehensive confined spaces register.

Who’s responsible?

Under section 8(1) of the NSW OHS Act (the relevant jurisdiction) the academic institution has primary responsibility to ensure the safety of ALL people on their site. This extends to ensuring that any work performed by contractors does not affect the safety of others on the work site.

They MUST implement a safety management system that ensures all risks are identified and controlled BEFORE work begins. This responsibility CANNOT be contracted out. They CANNOT rely on someone else to do it.

Under section 8(1) of the NSW OHS Act the principle contractor is responsible to ensure that its operations do not adversely affect the health and safety of its own employees.

Under section 8(2) of the NSW OHS Act the principle contractor is responsible to ensure that its operations do not adversely affect the health and safety of any other person in the workplace.

They MUST implement a safety management system that ensures all risks are identified and controlled BEFORE work begins. This responsibility CANNOT be sub-contracted out. They CANNOT rely on someone else to do it.

Under section 8(1) of the NSW OHS Act the sub-contractor is responsible to ensure that its operations do not adversely affect the health and safety of its own employees.

Under section 8(2) of the NSW OHS Act the sub-contractor is responsible to ensure that its operations do not adversely affect the health and safety of any other person in the workplace.

They MUST implement a safety management system that ensures all risks are identified and controlled BEFORE work begins. This responsibility CANNOT be sub-sub-contracted out. They CANNOT rely on someone else to do it.

Under section 8(1) of the NSW OHS Act the sub-sub-contractor is responsible to ensure that its operations do not adversely affect the health and safety of its own employees.

Under section 8(2) of the NSW OHS Act the sub-sub-contractor is responsible to ensure that its operations do not adversely affect the health and safety of any other person in the workplace.

They MUST implement a safety management system that ensures all risks are identified and controlled BEFORE work begins. They CANNOT rely on someone else to do it. They CANNOT rely on someone else to do it.

Under section 20 of the NSW OHS Act EVERY employee MUST ensure they do not place themselves at risk and do not expose any other person to risk arising from their actions or omissions. This means EVERY employee MUST be satisfied that ALL risks, to themselves and to others, have been identified, assessed and controlled BEFORE starting work.

How well does your workplace do?

Les Henley
OHS and Compliance Manager
Organisation Name withheld to protect the guilty

Thank you Phil, your message in the following article is a true reflection of Annecto’s focus on helping people.

——————————————————————–
Why do we view occupational health and safety as a problem at work and trying to get people enthused to take up the cause is almost impossible? Is it because our policies and procedures dictate what we have to do to the extent that we become robots and are not given the chance to discuss other options?

Look at it this way, take the word occupational out of the equation and replace it with the word wellbeing so that you have health, safety and wellbeing and it immediately changes the focus from occupational to something a bit more personal.

When you use the word occupational it is related to the occupation, something you collect when you start work and leave behind when you finish work. If you are unfortunate to be injured at work it is not something that only relates to your occupational time, it is something that is with you 24/7.

So let’s focus on the 24/7 approach of health safety and wellbeing. When you are at home there are unwritten ground rules like you spill something you clean it up, but when at work you do not do it. Is it because rigid policies and procedures dictate what we do, and it is not included in your job description? Or is that there is a blame policy within the organisation? At home we look out for each other, but get to work and we don’t give a rats.

To give you an example, someone spilled coffee on the floor and didn’t clean it up. Another person slipped on the spilt coffee and ended up fracturing her back and has been in agony for the last 10 months. When you speak to this person and listen to how it has affected them and their family it is heartbreaking. The injury is 24/7 not just restricted to work hours, and in hindsight the person who spilled the coffee wished they had cleaned it up.

My induction for new employees focuses on this story (not policies or procedures) and the importance of looking out for each other because if we don’t one day it may be you that is on the receiving end. I ask them how it would affect their life if they were seriously injured, or how they would cope, physically, mentally and financially if a family member was seriously injured.

In changing the focus, people are beginning to see the importance of health and safety and it certainly makes it easier to get them involved. Health, safety and wellbeing is discussed at all levels, not so much through committees but through every meeting that is held throughout the organisation as health, safety and wellbeing is a standard agenda item.

Health, safety and wellbeing has become part of our work, and our theme of looking out for each other is changing the approach in the organisation, and as it is a case of continuous improvement, we still have a long way to go.

The new Australian Standard for Design and Construction of Buildings in Bushfire Prone Areas (AS 3959-2009) was actually due to be adopted by all Australian States and Territories by May 2010, but Victoria has brought their compliance forward by adopting the standard from the 11 of March.

Every new building built in Victoria will undergo a BAL (Bushfire Attack Level) assessment as part of the application for a building permit. This assessment will then determine the method of construction so as to protect the property from a potential bushfire.

In the most extreme fire risk areas, new buildings will be required to have the following: 

• A concrete slab
• Exterior walls to be constructed of non-combustible material, eg. brick veneer or concrete
• Non-combustible material on the roof, veranda or deck
• Sealed wall and roof joints to guard against ember attacks
• Shutters made from aluminium or other non-combustible material, or toughened glass for windows
• Door frames made from fire resistant timber, with a weather strip at the base
• Metal (rather than plastic) external trimmings such as vents, guttering and down pipes.

For more information on shutters that conform to fire safety standards please contact Con Antoniadis on 1300 748 883 or visit Your Roller Shutters.