Ha ha, well let me know when you start that thread, I'll put on a hard hat and join in on the debate!

Being true to my shop floor working past, I have found as a health and safety professional that the problem makers are those who don't accommodate for the fallible but predictable nature of workers (including policy writers). For every behaviour there is an antecedent.

As an aside we have changed all our Position/Job Descriptions so that they no longer list skills or tasks. The focus is now on required behaviors we expect to be able to observe in carrying out a job. The basic premise being skills we can teach - but its "behaviours" where the real problems lie.

Interesting comment Andrew, is this any different to saying that people are the problem?

I suppose it depends on the context of the rules.

Non-negotiables have there place for life threatening scenarios (Work at height, confined spaces etc), but maybe not so much for lesser scenarios such as parking, holding handrails etc).

As for the naming of these rules, well good luck with that, maybe this is something the workers can help with.

A couple of very quick, rambling and generic thoughts from me.

1. Near misses with high potential consequences deserve as much attention as an actual harm event, unfortunately they are seen as the poor relation to injuries and don't even prompt a review of a Risk Assessment.

2. The language around how the near miss has historically been communicated has caused a bit of bad press for this very important metric. Flip the language from measuring Days Since a Near Miss to Days Since A Lesson Learned and we start to get to the true reason for reporting these events. It soon becomes one of the more powerful (and meaningful) metrics in our armoury.

It's a difficult question to answer without knowing the following...

• When does someone not originally from NZ stop being an immigrant?
• What is the average % of "support roles" being filled by immigrants. Is 20% crazily out of kilter with the NZ norm? Is there a problem greater than H&S?
• Does the question consider the cultural diversity that some businesses are actively seeking?
• Are these roles solely H&S or are other responsibilities tagged on (Environmental, Quality, Security etc)
• Have we differentiated between coordinator, advisor and managerial roles?

I feel that this is a question best aimed at those responsible for hiring people rather than those carrying out the role.

The biggest barrier to a successful Zero Harm concept is how it is communicated and perceived by the workforce.

Is Zero Harm a target that only measures failure when actual harm does occur?
Is Zero Harm an ethos that everyone strives towards and resets after a setback?

Its not pessimistic / defeatist to accept a certain level of harm WILL occur when carrying out our business. Our Risk Matrix will reflect what level of harm is acceptable to the business before we stop treating a risk (e.g. Lost time < 3 days, 1st Aid). Its at this point where a Zero (level) Harm target should be set.

This allows us to still strive for perfection (I've seen Number Of Perfect Days This Month used as a measure!) but have enough slack in the metric to not throw the baby out with the bathwater when a minor injury/environmental event occurs.

In my experience, if there is any doubt then report it. I can't think of a single case where someone has got into trouble for reporting a non notifiable incident, but plenty of examples when they haven't.

In terms of planned vs unplanned, Worksafe explain further by including the following in their guidance....

Notifiable incidents do not include controlled activities that form part of the business or undertaking (eg the controlled release of water from a dam).

The crane example given earlier in the thread would, in my book, be notifiable ("the fall or release from height of any plant, substance, or thing").

With regards to the fuel spill, I guess it would depend on where these are occurring and whether they are mitigated, for example, small spills captured by bunds or drip trays being placed under decanting areas vs the failure of a fuel line/accessory.

Unfortunately our profession is one of the few where, on the face of it, nothing happens when we get it right, so the tangible results of our work isn't as visible as it is in other professions.

Having said that, I've never met a good health and safety professional yet who is only in it for the money.

Hi Michael, I came across the same issue last year when an occupational hygienist found the method of applying a chemical substance resulted in exposure levels reaching the WEL. The gentleman who carried out the task had a beard as old as I am so, due to no other methods of application being viable, we had no choice but go for option 1.

Option 2 is difficult to get over the line if it wasn't a prerequisite for the job, until my current role I have been lucky enough to work in industries that made this very clear at the job application/interview stage.

The obvious answer to option 3 would be to remove, substitute or treat the hazard, (or remove the hairy person from the task if that is an option). If not then you'll have to take the cost of RPE on the chin (pun intended). :smile:

Experience to pass on if you do go down the RPE hood route is to give the potential wearer a choice of hoods to trial prior to purchase in order to gauge the comfort and visibility. Include the wearing of the hose and battery/filter pack in this trial as they may get in the way or restrict movement when carrying out the task.

The cheaper option is the soft top type, but obviously this is only an option if you have no requirement to protect the head from any impact injuries.

This shows the importance of carrying out lung function testing (and any medical monitoring) of employees at the on-boarding stage. Without this baseline its difficult to argue that all the good work you have done has kept the individual safe (also, where RPE is concerned, it allows you to determine if the employee is able to cope with the physical demands of breathing through a tight fitting mask due to any pre existing lung conditions).

You could always carry out your own investigation into this information by having a conversation with the individual concerned to see if they feel they have been provided with the right level of training on the wearing and maintenance of PPE. I'll assume we are talking RPE and that the Face Fit tests have been carried out and the individual knows how to do their own Fit Checks and how to maintain a seal where the facepiece meets skin. Use any near miss reports, warnings, observations that show people are not always wearing the right level of PPE to inform you of any custom and practice that may have occurred to develop any learning points to share.

Lastly, and feel free to dismiss this point as I am making a lot of assumptions here that may be unfair, but asking individuals to wear PPE, especially RPE, well ahead of when it is needed can be counterproductive. Tight fitting facepieces are uncomfortable, and asking any individual to wear one that is negative pressure for longer than 30 minutes can be laborious on the lungs and cause sweating around the facepiece which may cause movement and compromise the seal.

Good luck.

Hi Matt,

I'll draw a line under this interaction after this post as I fear we are in danger of entering Twitter territory with these exchanges :smile:

Firstly I never said Section 5 was going to be used as case law (I've already said foreseeability is the biggest learning).

By mentioning section 5 becoming a whole lot clearer, I refer to the original case ruling on which this appeal was based (S36, reasonably practicable duty of care) which I rightly or wrongly interpret as effectively saying it was reasonably practicable for the PCBU/Risk Assessor to have identified and assessed the subjective mental wellbeing of the victim as being a consequence of a consequence. I'm not sure we would get many people volunteering to carry out this activity if we have to delve that far into the unknown (PTSD could also occur for a person witnessing a near miss).

I'm not so sure, I think section 5 of the General Risk and Workplace Management Regs just become a whole lot clearer.

5. Duty to identify hazards

A PCBU, in managing risks to health and safety, must identify hazards that could give rise to reasonably foreseeable risks to health and safety.

I think the PCBU is quite rightly admitted the criminal offence of failing to control the risk of the falling beam, but argue that the responder developing PTSD is not a criminal offence under the act (and recompense should be sought through ACC).

I'm not losing sight or being dismissive of the tragedy involved in this case, but going forward this will be an important bit of case law and will make things a lot clearer to H&S Professionals on where the law stands on the difference between probable and foreseeable risk.

Hopefully this is discussed in the upcoming LegalSafe Conference.

It looks like the PCBU has successfully argued that the PTSD harm was both secondary and unforeseeable.

The ACC route seems to be the right "legal" option in this instance, but morally the PCBU should also provide as much support as possible to the employee during their rehabilitation, although these court cases would not have helped that process!

Thanks for the reply Matt,

My intention is a whole lot simpler than what you allude to. This additional checklist is exclusive of pre-use checks but some "questions" will no doubt overlap. I think it is extremely important to get a level of independence when carrying machinery checks as the user may be a victim of risk creep that sees them normalising issues that have slowly but surely crept up, such as a loose (but present) guard, scratched transparent guard, stiff E Stop, faded signage, increasing noise levels etc.

The list I produce will prompt those conversations with the user and provide guidance on what standards need to be achieved.

Thank you both, very much appreciated.

Hi Michael,

We have an electronic sign in system on our reception that allows us to see who is on site at any one time. Unfortunately there are ways of getting on to site without passing through reception so we have recently introduced lanyards that are given out during site inductions and allow us to immediately recognise if a subbie has brought additional workers onto site without going through the induction process.

So far so good.

I'm not sure that being a large company with ample funds (that should have the resourcing to do H&S well) is seen as an aggravating factor. This is the Reasonably Practicable argument that all companies, regardless of size or turnover, have to meet and upon which both the NZ and UK acts are based.

What the article fails to cover is that the fines are now risk based and not actual outcome based. Merely being exposed to the risk, such as a loose guard rail at height, can bring fines as large as the fatality that may have occurred had someone fallen through it. Also worth noting is the aggravating factor of number of people potentially exposed to the risk, which, in in theory, is the number of people who would have walked past that loose handrail. The higher the number, the higher the fine (or likelihood of jail time).

I'd have to say no. The sentences given out may be harmful to the business but its the workers who suffer in an attempt to balance the books, either through redundancy or budget cuts.

The Alternative Sentences and EU options make sure that there is a great mix between penalties that are both punitive and progressive.

Hi Tanya,

It will come down to how effect the controls are to stop workers being struck by a moving forklift or its load, items falling from height,excessive levels of noise and any fumes being introduced into the containers.

Worksafe have some guidance on their website that you may find useful, such as;
Traffic Management in Manufacturing
and
Vehicle Movements

Hopefully there will be a Risk Assessment of some sort that has been put together for this job, it's worth taking a look at it to see if all the controls that have been identified are in fact being used.