Hazard registers are necessary — Mike Massaar
What other engagement "touch points" do you have with your drivers? Do they have weekly/monthly/quarterly reviews with their team leaders or managers? in the non-H&S space how are work issues identified and handled? Find what existing processes you can leverage rather than creating entirely new ones specifically for H&S.Engagement is a real problem — Carol Tucker
Your comment, though, on 11:55pm and 12:05 am potential timing for inspections is valid, although, as you say, absurd. Having inspections exactly seven days apart is ideal, but things like public holidays, pandemics, higher priority work etc. mean that it may not be feasible. Also, the day may not always be suitable for the client. — Dave McBeth
I get the feeling we're basically on the same line of thought but just coming from different directions - essentially "don't take the piss", or more (or less) elegantly put "comply with the intent of the requirement, not just the wording".If the intention for weekly inspections was to be so prescriptive in the inspections of scaffolds, it should have been determined to occur 'every seven days' as opposed to weekly. I believe weekly is an indication of frequency, not an arbitrary measure. That way it allows for the vagaries of the workplace without putting undue pressure on those involved. — Dave McBeth
My point was that phrase "generally reckoned" implies there are also other accepted start/end days - e.g. the typical Mon-Sun week, but also that a week could be defined in a contract as beginning on the day the contract is signed and reoccurring on every 7 day after that, e.g. Wed-Tue.Good points Matt. You mention that the second part of the definition of a week is an 'additional qualifier' and that the definition of a week should be "a period of seven days". I'm not sure that cherry picking parts of a dictionary definition is great practice. If I was standing in front of a magistrate my sphincter might be giving me trouble at that point. — Dave McBeth
My opinion is the first part of that definition is the important part - a period of seven days. The second part is just an additional qualifier that actually reinforces that the "start day" is arbitrary as it is only "generally reckoned", even more so when the other typical convention is a Mon-Sun week.Oxford defines a week as "a period of seven days generally reckoned from and to midnight on Saturday night". — Dave McBeth
Which could literally be done the next day to "tick the box" for the next week. Take this to the extreme and you could (based on a Sun-Sat week) inspect the scaffold at 11:55pm Saturday night for one week, go have a 10 minute smoko break and come back at 12:05am Sunday morning to complete the next weeks inspection. I know that is an absurd conclusion, but it is also a logical conclusion.Other things to consider are that a 13-day gap between inspections would mean a shorter gap for the next inspection — Dave McBeth
This is a key point for me too, and what I think is most important the main contractors (and any subcontractor that uses the scaffold) to understand - the weekly inspections (regardless of how you actually define the time-frames) are actually the back-up measure for a "more" competent person to regularly check that no issues with the scaffold are being missed in the daily checks.he scaffolding company is only one of the PCBUs responsible for scaffolds being 'safe'. — Dave McBeth
but also want to explore temporary suspension of smoke detectors. — Brendon Ward
I can imagine that this would be even worse if the toolboxes had any sort of actual discussions rather than just the standard "supervisor's spiel and sign the page please" - being hearing impaired and keeping track of what is being said in a group discussion would be a nightmare, let alone being able to effectively be able to input into the conversation themselves.They could lip read to a certain extent but were in no way good enough to do a whole meeting. — Jono Johnson
I agree with you @Wayne Nicholl, and from @Venessa other threads/comments I am pretty confident that they will have the general risks/controls identified for the work, so it might be as simple as reviewing if the current controls are effective for someone who is hearing impaired, e.g. if the only warning signal is an audible alarm then additional controls will be needed.This needs to be risk based. Ie: what are the risks if he is behind the tractor? I would break down each part of his expected duties - identify any risks and put controls in place. — Wayne Nicholl
In my experience it is far cheaper to replace nylon web slings than to have them re-certified — Stephen Small
I think the main point of the post has been missed - as I understood it wasn't concerned for the cost, rather they were concern for the environmental impacts of using these web slings in a non-sustainable way (i.e. disposal of the slings after only one use when they are possibly still "good")The cost of testing small slings is greater than purchasing new certified slings — Don Ramsay
but the manufacture and disposal has an impact on the environment and sustainability. — Lee C
Is this a reasonable compromise? Without great knowledge of the process I would assume it is hard to cut the hand the you are holding the knife with, are the majority of cut injuries to the non-dominant hand holding the produce?They only wear the one glove on the non dominant hand. — Venessa
This shows that you have also been considering the other factors leading to this risk, and implemented other measures to reduce the risk (rather than just reaching for the PPE). Have you seen a reduction in cut injuries from this increase in employees / slowing down individual productivity requirements? It may be hard if the gloves were introduced at the same time, but this could be from a discussion with the workers with them providing details on how often they consider the gloves prevented a cut injury, or how quickly the gloves are being damaged or need to be replaced (or a increase in knife sharping frequency if chain-mail gloves are being used). To work with the remaining workers hesitant on the gloves, and to show continual improvement in H&S too, can they work with you to propose alternatives measures to reduce the risk of cut injuries from the task - and if they are feasible and eliminate the need to rely on PPE then you can start looking to remove the requirement for the gloves.It is a fast paced environment and that is one of the issues. To slow down the process for individuals, more staff have been employed . — Venessa
Non-compliance with a reasonable safety practice can often be not due to the requirement itself but because of a perceived lack of autonomy, input into the requirements or control over the workplace practices. I understand you have worker engagement procedures in place, but are those procedures practical and effective? (both regarding the cut-resistant glove issues, but also possibly unrelated issues).There are 2 or 3 employees who refuse to wear the cut resistant gloves. The employees have been educated in the use of PPE given and discussions held in the toolbox meetings, health and safety meetings as well as speaking to the individuals separately. They are still not wearing the gloves. — Venessa
My understanding is when the openings are larger than those allowed for in the tables, etc. for reaching through either; close guarding can be installed with the appropriate sized mesh or similar, or distance guards installed to prevent a person from being able to reach into the "danger zone" from behind the guard.Taking that clause to mean we are to apply ISO 13857(equivalent to AS/NZS4024.1801), Table 3 states the 550mm distance referenced is only applicable for openings <120mm (square, round, or slot). From Table 5, openings larger than 180mm slot or 240x240 square or round will allow whole-body access. — James
....company vehicles and trailers — Roger Claessens
I would guess one of the main points is that there is no assessment of competency for towing trailers or any other "work related" uses of vehicles in the NZ Driver Licence testing scheme......especially one that is being towed — Roger Claessens
Regarding your review, consider what the vehicle-related tasks your employees are required to do. If it is literally just driving to/from locations then the steps you list above, ensuring they have a current licence and monitoring of poor driving (with additional training where necessary), is a likely proportional response to the risk.I am just about to go through an annual review of our SOP and Policy for work vehicles use and am wondering if I am missing something here. — Roger Claessens
I probably could have articulated it better too (or just not been so facetious) :wink:Maybe I could have articulated that better. I would like to see a definition that also considers how we store/stack items at height. — Chris Hyndman
Is that such a bad thing though?although it could provoke more focus on things falling and not just people — Chris Hyndman
Even though section 190 is specifically related to what other regulatory agencies functions can be, rather than WorkSafe's functions (which the Act S189 effectively just says your function are this Act), I completely agree with you that section is a better guide for WorkSafe to gauge itself against.Every person would get a copy of S190 of the Act. — Andrew
If they are assessing against NZQA Unit Standard 25045 (which any of the height safety course I look up are) then they should be instrcuting and assessing more than just harness safety systems, as it is pretty clear in the assessment criteria that the course is to cover the common types of height safety equipment employed on height work in the workplace (which to your point specifically includes ladders) - Outcome 1 & 2 > https://www.nzqa.govt.nz/nqfdocs/units/pdf/25045.pdfUnfortunately working at height courses tend to only deliver training around harness safety systems, which then somewhat implies that all work at height requires a harness. You can buy a 15m extension ladder and a 9m fixed portable ladder - that's a long way to fall! - but when does a course actually discuss, train or assess ladder safety. Should that be covered on a course, or is that up to the employer to train in house? — Alex P
That is kind of my point, but a bit wider scope - enable workers to be able to assess their workplace task for risks and controls. This will more the likely include needing to consult with them on the common risks and controls for the type of work they are employed to do, but also how to assess and adapt to unusual/uncommon situations, and when/how to defer to others for more guidance.I believe if you interpret it in the way of the hierarchy of controls, then it starts to make sense to people. Offering 'controls' for various at height activities could be a good place to start. — Alex P
This illustrates what I think the issue most have with the broad definition of "work at height", the implication that it is all the same risk and therefore can be manage similarly. But from the examples you see that there are many different scenarios all requiring different risk management approaches.From my experience, giving examples alongside the definition is the best way for people to understand what it means in an everyday work context. E.g.
- using a ladder, podium, and temporary work platform
- working on scaffolding
- using an EWP
- standing on a chair/desk to change a light bulb
- working on a flat deck - trailer, ute, etc
- standing at the top/edge of a bluff/cliff/pit — Alex P
This is the crux of the matter though - if you are concerned that workers are not spending adequate time to assess the risks of their work because they are motivated to get the job done, then succinct definitions / controls for specific risks is likely to only manage those risk to a limited point. Classic example is workers following the company rules/policies to wear a harnesses when working at height, only to find that on the job that harnesses are either attached to unsuitable anchor points (or not at all) or that the workers would hit the ground before the harness stopped them falling.(who are motivated to get the job done) — Matthew Bennett
That's the contradiction though - asking workers to think for themselves, but only in the confined scope that has been defined as actual "work of height" so they don't have to think to much.looking for something that people can read / hear, that then gets them directly to thinking about the influencing factors and options to resolve - I'm just struggling to be it succinctly. — Matthew Bennett
I don't know if it even really works for the safety geeks - as in; is it actually that useful to have a set definition of "work at height". As it either is going to be too broad and be ridiculed/ignored because it's interpreted in the extreme - that fall restraint has to be worn to use a step stool; or too limited to not include all cases that it really should - you've set it as work over 3m, but what about working at 2.9m... what about 2.8m... ad absurdumIt works for us safety geeks, however I find it fails to engage the thinking of a lot of workers (who are motivated to get the job done), I suspect because it does expose all the nuance that you identified in the latter part of your response. — Matthew Bennett
This is why simplified "beliefs" / mantras can be more of a hindrance than a help - if you have to spend the majority of your effort explaining what "belief" actually means, rather than how that "belief" actually makes the situation better - then it likely needs to be either; articulated better (and likely no longer simplified) or just abandoned.Ironically it's a natural human interpretation to interchange the words incident, accident and injury so a LOT of time is spent explaining what we actually mean by the 'belief'. — Rachael
"We believe all injuries are preventable" — Rachael
Even with the "corrected" belief the premise of the OP's question still exists.I was 25yo and dislocated my knee just bending down to pick up a shuttlecock during a badminton tournament. — Courtney
to be fair your original reply on face value was only related to the ACC implications for employers, and did not refer to any other post or detail in this thread, or to it being a secondary consideration to be aware of. In fact the post starts with a statement that the ACC cost implications are an important and significant fact.I was somewhat dismayed at MattD2's narrow analysis of the implications my comments alluded to, but conversely encouraged by the insight and understanding evinced by Andrew's responses. He displayed an excellent grasp of the subject matter. Experience certainly aids our understanding. — Rowly Brown