"Blinded by the Light" - Health & Safety Muffle the Boss and Sir Paul

The sound was unplugged toward the end of a London Bruce Springsteen concert last week. Just as Bruce and his surprise guest Paul McCartney were about to close the sound was unplugged and the reason given?
The blanket statement of "...for health and safety."
The first question is what health & safety risks existed:

• At 70 odd years old it was past Sir Paul's bedtime or just protecting his vocal chords.
• The sound was so loud that nearby residents risked hearing loss.
• The audience (probably mostly over 50) were at risk of over excitement and its consequence (being happy, heart rate up and loving being in a crowd enjoying itself.)
• The sight of two of R&R's great stars was too bright and the audience would be "blinded by the light" (sorry couldn't resist that one)

It is such a common blanket statement that tells you absolutely nothing. It also gives those trying to promote Work Health & Safety a bad name.
There were no health & safety issues, the organisers or council authorities decided a curfew had been broken and the concert shut down. Instead of showing some courage or even independent thought they hid behind the blanket statement of "..for health & safety reasons". A rubbish statement joining "..in commercial confidence" as a great irritant of an excuse.

Using the term Health & Safety as blanket excuse in everyday activities (without giving any indications of  what the risks are) is an insult to the ability of people being able to make their own judgements.
 In the Australian workplace it is a requirement to identify workplace hazards and risks, assess and either eliminate them or control them. This risk management process also requires consultation with the people who may be at risk. A sensible and reasonable approach. An employee or an employer cannot make a "health & safety" call without it going through an assessment process. Blanket statements detract from the good work, health safety achieves in the workplace.

PCBU means what?

Person Conducting a Business or Undertaking (under the WHS Act 2011) known as PCBU, is posing interesting dilemma's for some organisations.

We asked a few Work Risk Solutions clients what the term  PCBU means for them. Here are the 3 most common interpretations they came up with:
1. It's no different to being an employer under the old legislation.
2. I have more means to insist on higher OHS standards from contractors (who are now considered  PCBU's).
3. My managers who operate at different sites will be considered a PCBU. Thus I can expect a higher standard from them.

PCBU may sound like a new analgesic but it is causing some pain as organisations try to figure out if it is so different to being an employer under the old legislation.
It may take the first few prosecution cases to gain a full understanding of what PCBU means.

In the mean time review and where possible improve your risk management approach to managing work health & safety. Including monitoring and holding all people accountable for the efficient management of WHS.

This is the first in a series of looking at the new legislation, now that it has been in operation for a few months. As Work Risk Solutions assists its clients working through the legislation we will post blogs on the various interpretations and strategies used to meet legislative requirements.

2012 the year of electronic OHS Systems

With 2012 just around the corner it may be a good time to have a quick think about making your OHS Systems more efficient. The introduction of the new Work Health & Safety Act is an ideal opportunity for a systems review.
OHS efficiency can be greatly improved by moving from paper based to electronic/web based systems.
Electronic systems are also great for quickly measuring the use of the system and promoting positive performance indicators.
Negative indicators need not be at the front line of  measuring an organisations OHS performance.
As technology expands at a rapid rate (just look at the impact of the I Pad) it provides more opportunities for improving the management of an OHS System.
Using an ipad or any mobile platform for conducting site risk assessments, audits or any type of review means that the results can be viewed instantly by anyone you choose.
So when you unwrap that ipad and become engrossed in any of the thousands of applications just imagine how it would help make your life easier at work.
Work Risk Solutions wishes everyone a great xmas break even in the gloom of the current east coast rain. 

Reasonably Practicable

Two words that create such a mouthful. Just don't try to say it quickly at the end of the xmas party!

Reasonably Practicable is the most visible phrase of the Work Health & Safety Act 2011.

Risk Management principles form the basis for determining Reasonably Practicable (see Section 18) :

• Assessing the likelihood & the degree of harm of the hazard/risk .
• Evaluating what the employee knows or ought to know about the risk and ways to elimante or minimise the risk.
• Availability & suitability of methods to eliminate or minimise the risk
• Assessing if the cost of risk elimination or control is proportionate to the risk.

The assessment of elimination of risk before assessing other forms of risk control is strongly emphasised.

Now is the time to evaluate the appropriateness of an organisation's OHS risk matrix to ensure it takes into account the above points. A structured and recordable method for deciding what is Reasonably Practicable will be a vital component of any OHS Management System.

The new legislation rightly removes the "reverse onus of proof" and replaces it with what is basically "innocent until proven guilty". If an organisations OHS system isn't able to demonstrate a process for assessing Reasonably Practicable it may find itself exposed.

Managing the risk of theft when travelling

Unfortunately this is an incident investigation rather than a pre-activity risk assessment.
Scenario:
2 adults & 2 children disembark at Madrid after an overnight train trip from Paris. To get to Toledo the family have to get from Chamartin station to Putra Atocha station.

The information officer says it's only a 20 minute walk or if we must we can catch a bus from over there (with a general wave of the hand that could indicate anywhere within 270 degrees). He then terminates the conversation by having one with another person.
Out the family trudge to a bus waiting area. Are there signs indicating which bus to catch or what part of the waiting area to catch one from? No.
Male returns inside the station area to find a better informed information officer. Wo and behold we can catch the metro from station 2!
Containing his temper admirably he returns to the family. To find them in a great state of distress. A bag had been snatched.
Three men had walked close to the mother and children (who were the only people waiting for a bus). One man drops a bunch of cards, another encourages the young girl to help pick up the cards. During the distraction the third man pushed the young boy out of the way and snatched a handbag.
The incident is distressing on a number of levels: 3 men against a woman and two children, pushing one of the children to get to the bag. The loneliness of the event no one around to help or witness.

 What risk factors can we control in some way to reduce our risk exposure again:

• Travelling in unfamiliar places would eliminate the risk. Hardly an acceptable or even reasonably practical action (from this families point of view anyway)
• Being isolated - this risk is usually avoidable - the thieves obviously had the family under some sort of surveillance. While not palatable at the time due to fatigue and some fraying at the edges, it is a reasonably practicable risk control for the whole family to move back inside so no one is isolated.
• If for some reason one parent has to make an enquiry etc it may be better if the male stays with the children and luggage. Not meaning to be sexist the thieves may have had second thoughts if a male was present.
• Hand luggage put on the ground. It may seem tiring to hang on to hand luggage but putting hand luggage down makes it easier to thieve.
• Not being fully informed or fully planned. The Family had an idea there was a bus to the other station but didn't know the stations had a metro connection. Being better informed would have avoided the isolation scenario.
• Electronic aids not fully functional. The itinerary with street map overlays had been programmed into the iphone. But the roaming sim was not data activated and all the info wasn't available.

So future risk controls will be:

• Avoid isolating situations (though there is also the risk of the hit and run bag snatcher in crowded situations.
• Avoid leaving all the luggage and children with one parent esp the mother.
• Being a bit better organised about connections etc.
• Trial the electronics before leaving. This would have helped greatly as so much detail is easily stored and accessed when done properly.
• Put it behind you as quick as you can. Do something fun.
• The holiday had been a spectacular success up till then and is continuing to be so. Keep a perspective.
• Have a partner who is good at doing the last two points is also a great risk control and no you can't have mine.

Will corrective actions ever get the girl?

Considering the positive words of "correct" and "action" why are corrective actions viewed so negatively?

Corrective actions are often viewed as identifying failures. The world of auditing has something to answer for here. The audit report arrives and people flick straight to the corrective actions to see what extra work they have been burdened with.

The great advantage corrective actions have is as a record of improvement on one page. It is concise, no long narrative is required. By adopting the corrective action as a record of continuous improvement it provides a great reporting mechanism.  A number of small improvements are recorded as corrective actions and a cumulative picture of positive actions can be seen.

It can be quite suprising how many positive actions are taking place throughout a workplace. It makes a welcome balance to the reporting of negative indicators such as LTI's.

The corrective action format doesn't negate the need to assess risks. Often the risk assessment may identify the risk as low. This can easily lead to the hazard or risk not being addressed at all. Recording the action required onto a one page format complete with date due and completion sign off  can lead to such risks being addressed and boosting your positive indicators.

So next time an incident report (minor or major) or an issue  lands on your desk think about recording the actions required in a corrective action format. On one page is a summary of the issue, action required to improve and record of when it was completed.

Provide a regular report on number of corrective actions developed (don't use negative words such as "issued") and number closed. The corrective action may not get the girl but it can be a lot more sexy than it currently is.

Is OHS blanketing Process Risk Management

An interesting article in the April 2001 edition of Risk Magazine highlights how siloing of the various areas of risk management may lead to serious incidents.

The article states that the Deep Horizon rig had undergone a site inspection that concentrated on OHS and thus failed to "notice the warning signs (of process safety)."

Further "...the senior health and safety manager for drilling operations in the Gulf of Mexico said that occupational safety was their prerogative, while process safety was a matter for engineering authorities."

It would appear that never the twain shall meet. The incident does highlight the need for some form of communication and sharing of information between various risk areas to ensure an effective risk management system.

At the very least its worthwhile reviewing your systems to make sure they are not isolating themselves. The isolation may occur slowly without it been noticed until to late. There is no reason to say it couldn't happen in smaller business either especially if they are experiencing a growth phase or even if they are reorganising as a result of business turn down.

If you have consultative committees or groups for various areas of  risks  when was the last time they invited each other to a meeting?