Safety Emergency Management

uh_oh.pdf Download this file

Safety and 'Tripping' by Marines

Hmmm, first step in personal safety - be aware of your environment.

ACC Safety at Work Update

The ACC released an update on the new and old programs in place, including the experience rating, DPI program and support for the World Day for Health and Safety at Work.

“Because ACC sees first-hand the impact that workplace injury has on individuals, their families and businesses, we’re right behind World Day for Health and Safety at Work,” says Dr Keith McLea, ACC’s General Manager Insurance and Prevention Services.”

 

 http://www.acc.co.nz/news/WPC092099

 

 What is also clear is that premiums in general are on track to progressively rise over the decade; now is the time to put preventative safety measures in place.

 

The 3 Reasons Not To Follow Safety Rules

There are 3 times when we are less likely to follow safety rules. These are:

1. When we see other people break the rules and getting away with it. (Monkey see, Monkey do.)

2. When our managers hold employees accountable and then break the rules themselves. (Do as I say, Not as I do.)

3. When we don't understand why we are following certain rules. (Why should I listen to you?)

 

The worst example of number 1 is when an employee arrives from another workplace which has a higher standard of safety. The poor safety culture will stand out like dogs-balls to them, yet they will arrive with a mind set to fit-in. And yes, this may mean dropping their own standards in order to fit in.

The classic example of the second point is when managers are separated from factory workers, but have to occasionally transit through the factory to get some work done, and don't wear the necessary safety equipment or PPE required of workers in the building. If this is the case then 2 things jump out. 1. the poor example set but also 2.a poor safety system. The system should capture managers equally well as visitors to the plant, and should all go through an appropriate level of induction and issuing of safety equipment. What a manager DOES says a lot more than any pretty words.

 

For point three, remember that most people do not want to break rules, but need to be instructed into the benefits and reasons to follow the safety rules. Ways to do this include:

1. Make the safety policies clear and understandable

2. Make OHS part of your employments competencies and set the benchmark expected within the workplace

3. Make performance appraisals include safety measures and performance. What you measure becomes important to the employees!

4. Train people how to recognise hazards and risks and make assessment i.e. deal with the issue at a local level in an informal way. Stop, think, talk, deal with the issue.

5. Train people how to formally raise the safety issue with management

Of course, rules may still be broken but this should be the exception rather than the rule. (sorry, bad pun I know). When a mistake is made which is not intentional this is the opportunity to improve the system. Some guidance, teaching and reminding is important in the first instance. Don't go barking at them like a Militant prison guard, unless of course the mistake is happening frequently. Check your instructions are working - If the person is not learning, and your methods and system are right then maybe the work is the wrong type for some people. When I was learning to fly with the Air Force we called it 'Getting Chopped'. However, we knew the rules going in and the standards expected so while disappointed, no one as to blame. The trick then is to allow people to be able to put up their hand and seek instruction when a safety mistake is made, but do not allow mistakes to go unchecked.

Improving Safety In Your Workplace

I wrote earlier about reward bonuses as a means for improving and motivating leadership in safety. Leadership is often used as the example on how to improve safety – because it is. Without the support of the boss, or senior managers, you are pushing the proverbial uphill. However, the first stage to improve safety is to acknowledge you have a problem: ‘Hi, my name is Joe’s Business and I have a safety problem.’ Or the positive spin is to recognising the potential to improve.

Honestly, however that motivation is derived does not matter –whether a legal shake up, want to get a reduced ACC levy, concern over morale or a head office dictate etc is to my mind almost irrelevant because it’s the DOING that counts. I liken it to my Dad learning how to put on his seatbelt. For years he used to always just drape the shoulder strap over his shoulder, because to a following cop it would like the seat belt was on. To us <10 year old kids this seemed like madness and we couldn’t understand why he didn’t just click in the belt. So we started working on him. There were questions about why he did what he did, why we have to wear belts and he doesn’t, what would happen in a crash. Then we just started reaching over and doing up the belt and eventually he started wearing his seatbelt. I never forgot this growing up and it was my first lesson in people. He didn’t want to click his seatbelt because of some nanny-state law telling him he had to – it was his way of giving the bird. But the coaching method did work; finding out what was important to him, and then making it unacceptable in our eyes not to wear a seatbelt.

The lessons apply equally today for people in a workplace safety situation. If you are the person trying to get your business to acknowledge ‘they have a safety problem’, you do not know which angle will work. A business is made up of people who are all different – so you need to find different means to encourage and teach the people within the company. Maybe they need the blunt approach – the law says this, you do it. Wear this safety equipment or you won’t be employed here. May be for managers the dollar incentives will appeal. Maybe the emotions of looking after your people and getting them home safely will motivate people.

At Safety Hub we have a series of newsletters you can sign up to as well as the website to help determine ways to motivate. Improving safety can only happen by acknowledging you have a problem and then having the urgency to take action.

Health and Safety Act

As an employer, you are responsible for the inactions or actions of your employees that cause harm to anyone. This includes fellow workers, visitors to the workplace or members of the public going about their business. Specifically, section 15 of the Health and Safety Act states: 

Duties of employers to people who are not employees.

·         Every employer shall take all practicable steps to ensure that no action or inaction of any employee while at work harms any other person.

A simple statement but with huge reach. A recent case in New Zealand highlights the significance of this section of the Health and Safety Act. A truck company was carrying out its own internal maintenance on a truck, and an employee did not fit the wheel correctly. The wheel detached from the truck and flew into a bus heading in the other direction, eventually killing a man due to the brain injuries sustained. Under investigation it was found that the employee was untrained and not skilled to be able to service the truck. Having performed the servicing, the Judge determined, the company should have scheduled a basic procedure to recheck the nuts after say 150km, and confirm the job had been performed correctly. The company was fined $5000 and ordered to pay $68 000 in reparations.

 

What does this mean to you? We have talked often about the need for proper hazard identification and looking at your equipment. Basic maintenance is not only smart in terms of keeping machinery operating efficiently, but in terms of safety. However, if cost savings are made using internal labour then additional systems need to be in place to ensure workmanship is up to speed. Would you allow an untrained mechanic to work on your family car? Going forward for your business then the key is to have all plant on some kind of ‘warrant –of-fitness’ programme that will ensure checks are made. The warrant of fitness or maintenance schedule can then be pegged back to the type of work required, and then details on what sort of skills are needed.  This will help ensure the person carrying out the work trained accordingly. Of course, it may be cheaper to outsource the work and ensure you employ a reputable maintainer to ensure the intent of Section 15 of the Health and Safety Act is met.

Health and Safety Act and Corporate Manslaughter

In 2007 the UK bought in the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 which that allows them to prosecute an organisation for killing employers. This was introduced because of difficulties in holding a company accountable for actions of senior managers, in particular their decisions which results in a gross breach of duty of care. The first sentencing occurred in Feb 2011 against an engineering company for allowing a engineer to work in a dangerous and unsupported trench. The fine of 385 000 pounds is significant but could have been more far biting.

‘Revised guidelines were issued which stated that “fines should rarely be below £500,000 and may be in the many millions”. Although below the range suggested by the Council, the fine imposed on CGH is far larger than the average fine for a work related death (usually around £100,000). This may be a sign that more substantial fines can be expected in the future.’

In New Zealand the position is that a company can be held accountable under the Crimes Act 1961in theory, but because of the definition of ‘Homicide’, a company is not a human being so cannot be held accountable under the Act! What about the individuals within a company?

Any Health and Safety breach falls under the Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992.  The Act was amended in 2002 and sections added which could fine up to $500,000 and/or imprison for 2 years. As it stands, a company can be charged under the HSE Act and in addition an individual, say the CEO, can also be charged with manslaughter relating to the same event. The thinking is that double-jeopardy does not apply because a situation could arise where the company is found guilty under HSE Act however the employee within the company could not be prosecuted for his actions. Furthermore, a CEO is more likely to be enthusiastic to improving H&S if both the company and he personally could be held accountable for poor decisions and company safety standards.

In New Zealand we need some kind of means to hold corporations accountable for health and safety standards. Of course, this goes against the grain for the corporations themselves and could be another factor in the decision making cycle for a company on whether to remain or set up operations in New Zealand. Which means someone in politics has to set the benchmark here – how much does safety cost? How much is improving New Zealand’s poor safety performance really worth chasing?