Safety (Issue 33)

What’s happening in the Industry? Incidents and Fatalities…

Most of you reading this would regularly check the fluid levels in your vehicles and most likely would know if your budget is being met. Most of you would probably also know how the budget went over the last few years and a fair idea on how the price of rock and fuel across the industry has changed.

Would you also know how we are travelling as an industry in terms of incidents and fatalities? In what area have most incidents occurred over the last few years? Have you considered any trends and taken action at your site?

Below is a table of the spread of incidents in our industry over the last seven years, broken down into separate areas including electrical; fall of ground; falls, slips and trips; fire; mobile plant; and fixed plant.

In addition to these statistics, consider recent fatalities:

• 2002 – A worker was killed when he was caught in a rotating drill steel
• 2005 – A worker was killed when a jaw liner from a mobile crusher dislodged and fell on him

By considering these incidents and fatalities; it is possible to draw a few conclusions.

Firstly, and most obviously, mobile plant is the industry’s biggest issue – be it falling off mobile plant, getting caught up in mobile plant, or running over things while operating mobile plant. In response to this issue, the CMPA conducted a Mobile Plant Hazard & Risk Identification Workshop on this issue in March 2005 and the DPI conducted blitzes at sites at around the same time.

Secondly, although the total number of incidents appears to have dipped slightly, there is still considerable work to go for the industry as a whole.

It is important that where possible, incidents are minimised across the industry, as this will:

• Increase the industry’s standing as a ‘safe’ workforce,
• Lower workers compensation premiums; and
• Reduce lost profits spent on incident management.

Finally, although focus is necessary on the state’s data, don’t forget to investigate your own site’s data. If your site has any ideas on how we, as an industry, can respond to these incidents, please contact the CMPA to let us know.

Electrocution Death from Working in Damp Clothing

The NSW IRC has fined an employer $220,000 over a worker’s death after he was electrocuted while welding in damp clothes. Despite having conducted a task specific risk assessment before starting work, the boiler/fitter and his supervisor did not identify the risk of working with a portable welder in damp clothes or damp conditions.

At the time of the incident, the victim was working in a relatively confined area and had to hold the welder close to his body while lying on a metal grill working platform.

“[The] deficiencies in the risk assessment were stark, particularly the failure to ensure the use of any insulating mat or sheet,” NSW IRC Justice Conrad Staff said. “A further matter warranting assessment was, in light of the weather conditions on that day, should the welding work have been undertaken?”

The victim had been working in the rain earlier in his shift and did not change out of his wet clothes. He was using PPE (welding visor and work gloves). Justice Staff said the risk was not unforeseeable because the Australian Standard for safety in welding contemplated electrocution ‘the wetter the person’s skin’.

“Occupational Health News Issue No 734, 16/05/2007.
Reprinted courtesy of Occupational Health News, published by Thomson Legal & Regulatory Ltd, phone: (02) 8587 7682 or email michelle.lam@thomson.com.”

Arm Trapped by Conveyor

An employee was pouring concrete into a mould when his left glove caught in the rollers of a conveyor belt and his arm became trapped. He was unable to reach the switch with, but a co-worker shut down the machine.

The conveyor had to be partially dismantled to free the employee, who sustained fractures and crush injuries to his arm. He was able to return to work on light duties after a few months but could not return to heavy machinery because of muscle atrophy in his arm.

The employer was prosecuted for a breach of the OH&S Act and pleaded guilty. The company was convicted and fined $200,000. The company appealed against the amount of the fine and the Supreme Court examined the evidence.

It showed that the casting process had been assessed and the risk of jamming of fingers in the belt identified. A further risk assessment had been carried out after the accident and extensive guarding was fitted.

The Court of Appeal confirmed the maximum penalty was $1,000,000 but said that was to be reserved for the most serious breach involving both recklessness and very serious harm. The court decided the employer’s “genuine efforts to remedy the wrong to its employee and its ongoing efforts to ensure future safety” had received inadequate recognition and reduced the penalty to $100,000.

Information supplied by National Safety Magazine

Victoria’s OHS Honeymoon Over

For the first time Victorian employers are likely to be prosecuted for failing to consult with their employees on OHS matters, and individuals can also expect to face prosecution if they act recklessly at a workplace.

Typically, employers are given an unofficial honeymoon period during which any breaches usually result in offenders receiving a warning and a ‘second chance’ to comply.

Prosecutions typically occur when WorkSafe is confident that employers have had enough time to learn of and become familiar with any changes in their statutory responsibilities. It is merely a matter of time before a successful prosecution occurs.

Prudent employers can confidently assume that they are now on notice in relation to consultation and reckless endangerment. An employer who breaches its duty to consult can face a penalty of up to $96, 687. An employer who breaches the reckless endangerment provisions can face up a penalty of up to $966,870 and a person may face a penalty of $193,374 and/or imprisonment not exceeding 5 years.

Article supplied by Adam Saunders, Workplace Relations & Safety, Lander & Rogers Lawyers

Indicators of OHS Systems Failure

Common system failures lie at the heart of workplace accidents. There are a number of ‘indicators’ of safety systems failure that are present in all catastrophic events. These indicators are objective, measurable and can be analysed before an accident, not just with the benefit of hindsight.

These include:

• Complex systems/initiative overload
• Inadequate training
• Lack of awareness of hazards and risks
• Policy and procedure breaches
• Failure to comply with internal standards and programs
• Poor investigations
• Ineffective incident reporting
• Poor quality audits, and
• A lack of follow-up in audit findings and investigation recommendations

Article supplied by Greg Smith , partner, Sparke Helmore Lawyers, visit www.sparke.com.au

You must be logged in to post a comment Login