Well, at the risk of upsetting a few people, IMHO inductions only have a value when contractors either arrive on site for the first time or after an extended absence. The duration of extended depends on individual interpretation.

Contractors who regularly attend site with minimal absence between visits should have updated information passed on in conversations during contractor monitoring as outlined by WorkSafe NZ. SiteSafe NZ also have a booklet.

Incidently, SiteSafe released their booklet in April 2018 and the WorkSafe publication is dated June 2019. Both have remarkable similarities.

Just my 2 cents worth.

Hi ,
Since New Zealand has had issues with drinking predating the Declaration of Independence 1835, I'm still amazed management in many areas still condone the activity with full knowledge of the outcomes.

@Catherine van der Vyver
Another option is outlined here

Hi Sandra
I too work where there are a number of emergency showers and eyewash stations.
There's no easy way of testing the operation of these when they are permanent fixtures.

The flow rate you mentioned is metric conversion from the American standard - ANSI/ISEA Z358.1 - as will be all measurements. See page 4 here

This publication contains check sheets on pages 8, 9 and 10 depending on what you require.

Page 8 and 10 show the water pattern at 1524mm as well as the spread and distance from walls. Like you, I currently have no tidy method of testing this.
So far as delivery for 1 minute goes, calculating the quantity over a set time may be one option (and IMHO) for testing it is practical, as storing 300 gallons of water over a 15 minute period may prove to be logistically challenging.

While the mechanical aspects are easy enough to measure, chat with your plumber regarding the size and type of pipes feeding the shower or eyewash plus the actual pressure so calculations are accurate.

Some of our showers are not hands free stay open. There is a balance for us to meet between available funding and ensuring compliance.
One option we are considering is portable showers along the lines of outside decontamination units. There are certain advantages such as when relocating when rooms are redesignated, privacy when disrobing and easier maintenance and testing.

Testing.
Did you know maintenance or inspections are at least weekly? I recall - though cannot remember from where - one reason for this is so any rubber washers don't dry out and attach themselves to the pipe wall. It's a pain when the shower drips after testing or worse still, jambs and doesn't work.

Annual certification
Yes, a pain but effectively it's only to ensure the shower or eyewash work and any audible alarms sound. Nothing else. This is (IMHO) definitely just a tick box exercise.

While dismantling our old Covid systems, I looked at going back to the legacy sign in sheet at the front office desk. But I began to wonder why we had one? The old sheet listed 'health and safety reasons' for making everyone sign in.
But it's not needed for fire safety - the wardens make sure the building is clear.
I can't find any other regulation that requires it.
Visitors are visiting someone, and so are supervised.
We induct any contractors on a separate form. — Garth Forsberg

If the "legacy sign in sheet" was part of your "old Covid systems" then the original purpose was contact tracing during the early days of the pandemic in NZ. It may be that the sign in sheet could have been not well designed. Usually due to the person not having sufficient knowledge or information to design the form. Also the construction industry benchmark SiteSafe has muddied the waters using the terminology Sign-in Register
No doubt others can/will provide the specific legislation requiring paper based forms for contact tracing. I'm comfortable listening to how tracing people who were close to a Covid positive person has relevance to "making everyone sign in" for "'health and safety reasons'".

I'm interested how using only "fire safety" as the sole indicator of ensuring a building is evacuated is relevant to all the reasons for ensuring a building is evacuated. Some other reasons include tsunamis, building collapses, volcanic eruptions. How would your "wardens make sure the building is clear"? What if it is not possible for wardens to access some areas? Do wardens know who is in the building? What if wardens do not want to put their lives at risk?

"I can't find any other regulation that requires it." I can't find any legislation that requires wardens to "make sure the building is clear".

"Visitors are visiting someone, and so are supervised." Really! Even when they go to the toilet?

"We induct any contractors on a separate form." Inductions have little relevance to physical presence in a building. Generally the PCBU providing the form has a perception that somehow a signature will provide some form of protection.

And secondly, why have a sign in sheet for a construction site and make the crew and contractors sign in every day? Visitors to the site should sign in, as part of their induction. But should workers who have been inducted and are there all the time sign in? I've seen some sites that do this, but want to find out if there's a valid reason for the requirement. — Garth Forsberg

"why have a sign in sheet for a construction site and make the crew and contractors sign in every day?" Try this from Health & Safety Documents:
'Your signing in book should be used to identify whether all persons have safely evacuated the site in the event of an emergency, for example if there’s a fire.' Remember, a fire is only one reason to evacuate a site.

"Visitors to the site should sign in, as part of their induction." An induction is usually only done once. When does a visitor need to sign in? What happens if a visitor returns on another occasion? Does this require another induction?

"But should workers who have been inducted and are there all the time sign in?" As above:
'Your signing in book should be used to identify whether all persons have safely evacuated the site in the event of an emergency, for example if there’s a fire.'

Garth, you raise some good discussion points.
Generally I've found H&S has a reputation based on poor knowledge, the wants of people divorced from the activity, non existent worker engagement, lackadaisical planning methods and an over inflated perception of roles.

Just my 20 cents worth this time.

@rebecca telfer
OSH Online have this coming up - Safety Incentives: The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly
https://1105tech.com/portal/wts/ucmcmQejrvmbcyobczq-2d2R%5E9vfbE4m~rrTr3m4d

Afernoon
Tried it. Dropped it. Never doing it that way again.
Workers - regardless of the role or position - started to focus on the prize rather than the activity. Lost the plot.

If - and it's a big if - I was asked to consider it again, my suggestion would be donating whatever to a charity or not-for-profit organisation selected by the worker/workers with points given or removed when activities are achieved or missed. That way the eye is still on the activity with the prize a helping bonus for others.

Just my 2 cents.

Metrics are "measures of quantitative assessment commonly used for comparing, and tracking performance or production" (https://www.investopedia.com)

To determine what metrics are necessary, an organisation should first decide the reasons for the metrics. The basic fundamentals here include what is the relevance of the metrics, how will the metrics be used, who are the metrics required by, who will collect the metrics and what are the metrics based upon. All these will vary from business to to business and industry to industry and are usually unique to each organisation.

Sources for metrics can be KPIs, inspections, existing information, scientific research, and such like.

So to set metrics, first decide what metrics are required after discussing with all affected stakeholders to determine where, when, why, who and how the metrics are related to each parties needs.

Steve H
265
Because our current economics system drives businesss to continously "improve" efficiency of work using financial profit maximisation as its main KPI.
— MattD2

And would that change if company officers potentially could face Corporate Manslaughter charges?

It could be that improvements may be implementation of existing clauses of legislation or regulations. It could also be that improvements may require changes to existing or creation of new legislation or regulations.

I don't take a punitive approach since experience has shown me it achieves little - generally it creates a negative effect.
— KeithH

The problem with not taking a punitive approach Keith is evident in the appalling driving standards you'll witness daily on our roads, quite apart from speeding, sit and watch an intersection controlled by stop signs and see how many fail to come to a complete stop and check the intersecting road is clear in both directions, or the number of folk yapping on cell phones or updating their social media. — Steve H

No disrespect @Steve H and @MattD2 but I believe you are heading on tangents.
Matt, I see the why but not the how. I see solutions to undefined causes. As I said before, once I know how, I can identify the why to realise solutions.
Steve, I read risk homeostasis theory by Gerald Wilde some time ago. It comes the closet (for me) to explain why people do what they do and thus (for me) offers a possible and effective long term solution.

Just my thoughts

@Steve H I acknowledge your points but I'm going to ask you two slightly different questions.

How are the workers being killed? and
Why are workers being killed?

For me, until I know how the workers are being killed, I cannot establish details about why they were killed. Once both have been established, the contributing factors can be identified with unemotive recommendations for improvements.
It could be that improvements may be implementation of existing clauses of legislation or regulations. It could also be that improvements may require changes to existing or creation of new legislation or regulations.

I don't take a punitive approach since experience has shown me it achieves little - generally it creates a negative effect.
So for me, until I how the factors that contributed to an incident, I can't begin to identify what needs to change (if anything) to improve the business practices.

I leave alone what I cannot change and focus on what I can utilise. I would like to see changes but I have to work in the here and now.
Currently, all I do is use the cards I have been dealt, review other countries (primarily the US, UK and Canada) activities and interpretations, and use overseas ideas and NZ legislation and methods to place H&S alongside Environmental Management and Quality Control as integrated policies, processes and procedures for businesses to incorporate into their practices.

Why are we still killing our workers — Steve H

Define "we" Steve. Who is "we"? Once the "we" is identified, then each how may be more apparent so solutions to each why can be explored.

@Janet Mary Houston
Consider using excerpts of NZTAs Minimum Standard Safety in Design for Road Projects here

Suggest you look at the project life cycle on page 12 first to establish context.
Then page 18 for what to look for in a H&S review. While this is a generic method, it leads to the next step.
This step is on LinkedIn here. While the article makes good reading, scroll down to the Design Workflow at Different Stages near the bottom.

HTH

Incidently, I don't believe there is a tried and tested procedure here in NZ. I think what you really need is a clear process.

what if HSR-A did inform all involved re their representation of work group B, did raise the views of work group B with management, did request that the control measures be reviewed and following all this, was formally directed to stop assisting. — Benjamin Basevi

Benjamin, HSR(A) is not eligible to represent work group B or make submissions on the work group's behalf unless HSR(A) is a member of work group B and has been elected by work group B.
Please explain what part of this you do not understand.

How are the workers acting outside the HSWA which will be the relevant legal guidelines? — Benjamin Basevi

From earlier:
"The trained HSR (A) is not eligible to act as a HSR for work group (B). See WEPR Regs S9(1) and 10(a) and (c). These explain that a HSR must be a member of and elected by the work group."

and

"Members of work group B cannot 'select' an alternative representative without HSR B first resigning and new elections taking place as described in WEPR Regs S6 to S17 inclusive."

So HSR(A) is attempting to represent workers that they are not elected to do.
And members of work group B must elect a representative from their work group, not merely select from outside the work group.

In Schedule 2, Part 1, Section 6 the hypothetical situation meets the criteria of 2(a), 3(b)(i) and (ii). — Benjamin Basevi

I don't know what you are referring to.

This appears to cover the situation I have described i.e. an HSR acting in the capacity of another HSR in another workgroup. — Benjamin Basevi

As before:
"The trained HSR (A) is not eligible to act as a HSR for work group (B). See WEPR Regs S9(1) and 10(a) and (c). These explain that a HSR must be a member of and elected by the work group."

There also a number of "other" valid reasons an HSR may be unavailable e.g. fear of PCBU retribution being one of them. — Benjamin Basevi

HSWA S88 and S89 apply protection for HSRs.



Benjamin, these questions go back to the last paragraph of my first post in this thread - ". . . for me, the initial question is a red flag indicating a lack of training and knowledge. . . . .trained HSRs are aware of their function and powers . . ."

Trained HSR (A) is conducting an investigation into a serious health and safety matter for another work group (B) where HSR-A is acting in the capacity of HSR under same PCBU but different workgroup. HSR B is unavailable and they and workers of workgroup B have requested HSR-A to assist resolving a serious H&S matter. — Benjamin Basevi

The trained HSR (A) is not eligible to act as a HSR for work group (B). See WEPR Regs S9(1) and 10(a) and (c). These explain that a HSR must be a member of and elected by the work group.

In the scenario you have presented, the trained HSR (A) cannot represent work group B as the person is not a member of the workgroup. Therefore all activities by HSR (A) for work group B are invalid.

The only worker who can represent work group B is a member of the work group who has been elected. Depending on the size of the work group, it may be eligible for more than one HSR.as detailed in WEPR Regs S6.

Members of work group B cannot 'select' an alternative representative without HSR B first resigning and new elections taking place as described in WEPR Regs S6 to S17 inclusive.

Officer of the PCBU issues a cease and desist instruction to HSR-A in relation to assisting work group B. — Benjamin Basevi

In this scenario and for the reasons above, this is a valid request by the PCBU.

The processes prior to issue of a PIN have been complied with. HSR PIN training does not cover this situation. — Benjamin Basevi

Not relevant in this scenario for the reasons above.

Continuing this hypothetical situation, HSR-A has submitted a section 99 request to the particular regulator concerned. The regulator is informed of this new development and does not intervene in any way or form. — Benjamin Basevi

It is not possible to answer this since the criteria for the request to the regulator is not stated and the details of the efforts for resolution (see HSWA S98) are not included.
Also with the trained HSR (A) not eligible to represent work group B, involvement by the regulator may not occur.

Would HSR-A be acting appropriately and in line with the HSWA if a PIN was issued to the PCBU for prohibited adverse conduct? — Benjamin Basevi

As for the reasons first detailed above, no.



Benjamin, the way I see it is this scenario appears to have started within the realms of health and safety, been moved to potentially being an employment issue by workers acting outside legal guidelines and soured the relationship between workers and an officer of the PCBU.

A possible solution is for HSR(A) to stop all involvement, work group B to elect a trained HSR from within the members and HSR(A) to allow HSR B to be the contact for members of work group B. To re-sweeten relationships, HSR(A) and members of work group B may consider having some humble pie with the PCBU.

Although a worker has the option of taking a personal grievance, does the HSWA allow an HSR to issue a PIN for contravention of the applicable clauses? — Benjamin Basevi

HSWA S69(2) describes who a HSR may issue a PIN to. That is, a person or PCBU. See here WorksafeNZ trained HSR PINs for the description.
HSWA S70 describes the general qualifications for a trained HSR to attain in order to be able to issue a PIN. That is, the worker must have completed training in accordance with regulations.
WEPR Regs S21 describes the training required for S70(a) and S85(a) of HSWA. That is, the HSR must have passed NZ Unit Standard 29315.

It seems strange if you cannot i.e. you can issue a PIN to an employer for not providing update HSR training but not for action taken to prevent/interfere with a legitimate HSR investigation, which is a way more serious thing. — Benjamin Basevi

Your statement here is confusing and needs to be clarified.
WEPR Regs S24 and S26 specify HSR annual training entitlements including the response time from the PCBU.
Please describe your interpretation of "a legitimate HSR investigation" given trained HSRs do not have duties, only functions and powers. See WEPR Regs S10(c) and HSWA S19(1)(d). Note that HSWA S19(1)(d) applies to mining operations.



Benjamin, you may not agree, but for me, the initial question is a red flag indicating a lack of training and knowledge. I have referred here to HSRs as being trained because trained HSRs are aware of their function and powers as well as the process prior to issuing a PIN.

@rebecca telfer don't take offence but just looking for clarification.
Are you after a policy that will outline the objective such as "Covid infections will be tracked in a clear and consistent way". These are usually a page in length.
Or a process that will describe the outcomes such as "Complete the number of Covid infections", "Report the total infections for each period" - about a page or two long.
Or a response plan that is a framework to achieve the process such as a flow chart. Also can be a page or two long.
Or a procedure that will detail a specific activity such as "The Covid infection spreadsheet can be found in the H&S folder of the network drive. Populate the employee name, test type and date of test in columns C, D and E". Individual procedures can be single or multiple pages and the total number dependent on the complexity of the response plan.

If you identify what you require, it will make assistance easier.

@Sarah Becker you may not agree, but this is how I see your post.

RATs do not sit in the hierarchy of controls.
As @Sheri Greenwell states, both RATs and PCR tests are monitoring activities. Further, monitoring links to either the contingency plan and/or the emergency response plan for the hazard. The contingency plan are actions to take if the risk assessment controls are not followed or are unsuitable - that is, the safety fence at the top of the cliff. An emergency response plan is what to do after something has gone pear-shaped - the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff.
Once Covid is detected in a location, the risk assessment should be set to one side and focus move to the emergency response plan.

Vaccinations are an isolation control as the aim is to isolate the worker from the hazard.
Engineering controls are physical in nature or are changes to work systems. Depending on the long term effects, vaccinations could be designated as substitution.


Traditional risk assessments focus on internal hazards with safety taking prominence over health.
As Covid is an external health threat to business, consider doing a pandemic or epidemic risk assessment using a PESTLE analysis while still using the hierarchy of controls for each factor.

Try here for general info - https://www.passrite.co.nz/our-courses/car-lessons/towing-car-trailers/
Or here for horse floats - https://www.drivingtests.co.nz/resources/towing-a-horse-float/

You may not agree with me but this is how I see it.
The Clive Lloyd @Peter Bateman refers to is not the West Indian cricketer. Clive F Lloyd is an Australian-based Psychologist specialising in Safety Leadership and Culture development. And he is particularly talented.

Looking at Clive's website here, there is an article "Reducing Incidents by Managing Unconscious Drift". I can relate to the methods Clive suggests will create a learning environment both before and after incidents.
However, if Safety 2 is not palatable, you may wish to skip the article but Clive makes the statement (in the middle of the article and in bold letters) We can blame or we can learn!.

Regarding blame, the best I have read and still use is by George Robotham here. In HSWA, there is an entire regulation that is devoted to penalties that looms over everything else. What a way to conduct an activity where trust and respect can generate improvements - in fear of making an error.

George wrote Guidance for the beginning OHS professional in 2013. I personally believe it should be compulsory reading for anyone who utters the words health and safety.

As I said at the being,
You may not agree with me but this is how I see it.
I would appreciate if you will trust this is what I believe and show respect for my beliefs.