Comments

  • 'Single use' Reinforcing nylon lifting slings
    In my experience it is far cheaper to replace nylon web slings than to have them re-certifiedStephen Small
    The cost of testing small slings is greater than purchasing new certified slingsDon Ramsay
    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")
    but the manufacture and disposal has an impact on the environment and sustainability.Lee C

    I have seen some companies (well not so much as a company policy but some workers) keep these slings and use them for non-load bearing uses - e.g. securing materials together. However the main issue is them getting accidentally mixed in with the lifting gear.

    Sustainability wise - I see this more as a supply chain issue rather than a "re-use" issue, as there will likely be a finite limit to how many slings you can re-use before you just end up collecting a large pile of slings that don't get used but still need to be "maintained". Even those workers that I knew that would keep some slings only had a handful at a time and would still bin those frequently to be replaced when the next load of materials was delivered (so not really solving the actual sustainability issue).
    From the suppliers' position, as these slings are normally left on site with the load until it is unpacked/split, accepting returned slings they would take on a fair bit of risk as they have no control of how the slings have been stored (or used) when the slings are "out-of-their-hands", which they would then be using to secure more materials during transport. Maybe your suppliers would be on-board with reducing this waste and the associated environmental impact - but I would expect them to not be keen as safety will likely trump environment in this case.

    That really leaves you with the "re-use for other purposes" like 's suggestion, or if someone is making up-cycled kids swing sets.
  • Employee refusing to wear PPE
    They only wear the one glove on the non dominant hand.Venessa
    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?

    The option to have them sign a waiver is not a viable one as you cannot contract out of your H&S duties (S28 of the Act). However also under the act (S45) an employee has the duty [paraphrasing] to comply with any reasonable instruction from the employer, and to co-operate with any reasonable policy or procedure with regards to H&S. I would assume that the 2-3 employees would be a very small percentage of the total workforce required to wear gloves, and that would be some evidence that the "glove policy" is reasonable - but as says the HR route should be considered as the last resort (and it sounds like you want to avoid going that way too).

    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
    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.

    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
    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).
  • Machine Safety: Automatic Bandsaw
    I would caution about applying the AS4024.3410 standard to a band saw as you would be outside of the scope of that standard.

    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
    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.

    But without having more of an understanding of the exact setup and operation of the band saw (and copies of the standards) it is difficult to provide any other advice. As the others have said engaging a guarding design expert is likely the best bet. From memory this is usually a TÜV NORD CMSE certification, commonly through Pilz in NZ. Typically the first step would be a machinery guarding risk assessment which should identify the actual hazards/risks associated with the equipment and the level of safeguards required.
  • Driver competency in work vehicles
    ....company vehicles and trailersRoger Claessens
    .....especially one that is being towedRoger 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.
    As the WorkSafe article says, the trailer's locking handle was not engaged and the safety chain was not attached - two simple safety features that many would consider just "common sense" but unless someone has been taught about these things (either from their company or their parents/family/etc.) they can be completely unknown to someone who has never hitched a trailer.

    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
    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.
    However if they are doing other vehicle-related tasks, those outside of what the standard NZ Driving Licence Test assesses competency for, then a separate method of assessing competency for these tasks would be reasonably practicable. For example if towing a trailer is required for work, assessing competency for both the hitching of the trailer and for driving a vehicle towing a trailer (e.g. knowing the speed limit is reduced to 90 km/h for light vehicles towing trailers). Having procedures for these additional vehicle-related tasks would be useful to ensure what is assessed and who is deemed competent is consistent.
  • Working at Height
    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
    I probably could have articulated it better too (or just not been so facetious) :wink:
    I agree with you that there isn't enough focus of "work at heights" regarding things other than humans falling.
  • Working at Height
    although it could provoke more focus on things falling and not just peopleChris Hyndman
    Is that such a bad thing though?
  • You are the new CE of WorkSafe. What would you do first?
    Every person would get a copy of S190 of the Act.Andrew
    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.

    I would add to your list to take another look at the Health and Safety at Work Strategy (required under S195) with MBIE (currently for 2019-2028, so we're half way through this period already). The current strategy is baiscally just a list of aspirations rather than a strategic plan, and where there are any actual "strategic" aspects they focus on how the strategy should be developed rather than what the strategy actually is (making the current Health and Safety at Work Strategy effectively pointless).

    And get rid of the stupid we're going to cut fatalities/injuries/ill health/etc. by ??% by year 20XX "goals" - create an actual strategy, set specific actions that need to happen to implement that strategy, and then make sure WorkSafe are hitting those actions. They can then look at the data to make sure the actions they expected to improve H&S (in NZ as a whole or under a specific scope) are actually improving H&S - and then review and revise the stragety...
  • Working at Height
    Unfortunately 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
    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.pdf

    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
    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.

    However that will be less effective if there are other factors in play that is shifting the workers focus from adequately planning work to just getting stuck in and getting it done. These could be direct instructions from the company - e.g. expectations that if you they should be working from the time the clock in to the time they clock out, or indirect instructions - e.g. production schedules that are based on best-case scenarios with no allowance for delays or other issues, or unintended consequences - e.g. incentives for hitting/exceeding production targets / schedules.
  • Working at Height
    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 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.
    The working on ladders / scaffold is a classic example - these are commonly listed as examples of working at heights but they are also actually controls for working at heights, confusing the workers even more.

    (who are motivated to get the job done)Matthew Bennett
    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.

    So what are those motivations to get started with the physical work ASAP even if that means insufficient planning is being done? Would stepping back to assess and manage these be more beneficial? And not the reinforcement of the "expectations that workers take time for safety", but actually investigating what is driving workers to not spend time really considering the risk of their work?
  • Working at Height
    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
    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.

    It 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
    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 absurdum
  • Working at Height
    "Work where there is the potential to fall from one level to another which increase the risk of injury."
    Curious though of the actual question behind your question...
    My definition above is very broad and would even apply to walking up/down stairs, but the point is how you manage the risk should be proportional to the risk;
    Just walking up down stairs, the stairs being well maintained and a handrail is fine - but carrying heavy boxes down the stairs needs more consideration,
    Working in the middle of a flat roof 10m away from any edge, no additional controls required - accessing the roof from an unprotected edge, how will that be managed?
  • HOP vs all incidents are preventable.
    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
    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.

    Plus corporate beliefs such as this do not provide any real actionable intent - just because you believe in something doesn't make that so (plenty of examples of this). Plus it doesn't actually ensure that the company takes accountability of their contribution towards an incident - it allows them to continue to pass the buck to others, e.g. the injured worker not following their procedures or more commonly these days the subcontractor.

    "We believe all injuries are preventable"Rachael
    I was 25yo and dislocated my knee just bending down to pick up a shuttlecock during a badminton tournament.Courtney
    Even with the "corrected" belief the premise of the OP's question still exists.

    There is no real need for corporate safety beliefs or mantras like these, as the only one that would really matter is that the company will provide the workers with the resources (equipment, workers, time, knowledge, practice, etc.) to not be put at unreasonable risk when working... but then all they are really doing is restated their duties under HSWA.

    Pessimistically I (and a lot of workers) see these types of statements as a way for a company to look like they are doing something about workplace safety / care about workers' safety, without them having to actually do anything about workplace safety or actually care about workers' safety.
  • Fatigue and second jobs
    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
    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 agree that misunderstandings/misinterpretations are easy to occur when context is missing.

    The intent of my original reply was just to widen the scope of your comment - and to put it into context that while it is reasonable to have policies in place to limit secondary employment to manage the H&S risks that secondary employment may create for an organisation, that to be cautious if you are only considering the cost implications from ACC when determining if secondary employment should be limited.

    After all, the ACC cost implications of workplace accidents are a carrot (or stick) to encourage organisations to manage H&S risks in their workplaces - and therefore the focus should be on managing the H&S risks (i.e. manage the fatigue risks), rather than a direct focus on managing the ACC cost risk (i.e. blanket policies limiting secondary employment without individual consideration).

    I know that for some owners / boards / executives seeing the (potential) financial shock of what a workplace injury could mean for their ACC liability can be a driving force for change/improvement - you just have got to be cautious that those changes/improvements are focused in the appropriate direction and not towards unintended consequences.
  • Worksafe In The Proverbial
    I'll give you that... but the offence is to actually knowingly or recklessly use, or let someone else use, an electrically unsafe appliance (R15.3), not the stuff the WorkSafe warnings were really advising for (fire risks from electric heating appliances, rather than electrocution risks from electricity).
  • Weedspray wash into Effluent Pond
    Some interesting information in there. Especially the research on the half-life of Glyphosate breaking down in the enviroment (mean half-life of 30 days). That's key in considering how much and how often you can wash out into an effluent pond without an issue.
  • Weedspray wash into Effluent Pond
    10ml of herbicide coming out of the container = 100mgs.Andrew
    This is where you are making an error. 1ml (of water) = 1g (=1000mg). So your calculations are out by a factor of 100 (10ml = 10,000mg not 100mg).
  • Weedspray wash into Effluent Pond
    are you sure those calcs are correct?

    Round-Up (and the other glyphosates) all seem to be around 360g/L (36% so close enough to your rough 33%) - and the dilution ratio for use is typically 10ml per 1 L (or 1:100), this is simialr to your double dilution example of 1 L weed killer to 10L water, and then diluting that again with 1L in a 12L napsack sprayer, but this would give a diluted concentration of 3.6g per liter (not 0.33mg per 11 litres).
    I would expect minimum residue to be left in the sprayers when washing out, lets say no more than 100 mL so 0.36g of residual glyphosate to go to the effluent pond (or 360mg) - to get under the 0.1mg/L concentration you mentioned the pond would need to have 3,600L for each sprayer being washed out.

    So it is likely not an issue, however I'm not sure about how and how quickly it would break down in the effluent pond - so the concentration might increase over time if it is a regular occurrence.

    to further mitigate the risk you could ensure that the sprayers are fully empty before washing and the first wash water (rinsate) is used to manage any weeds/grass in the proximity of the wash-down pad.
  • Worksafe In The Proverbial
    The safe supply and use of electricity, components, appliances, work practices in homes,businesses, work sites, mines etc etc means there is a safety education component to their workload,that has to reach the average domestic consumer, small business owner/manager, appliance retailer/wholesalers, mining etc etc,Steve H
    The only thing in the Electrical Safety regulations that needs to reach domestic consumers is the notion of prescribed electrical work which is regulated and required to be completed by a licenced individual. And even that is more suitably communicated to households by MBIE under:
    • Building Performance through the building code / building consent process for electrical work in the home,
    • ACC for the safe use and repair of electrical appliances, and
    • Consumer Protection for the purchase of electrical appliances (new or used) or engaging someone to repair electrical appliances.
    The rest of the regulations covers how electrical work is required to be undertaken and verified (and other administrative points).

    To put the question a different way - where in the electrical safety regulations requires a domestic consumers to check an electric blanket for hot spots or keep electric heaters a meter away from things / not cover them / not plug them into multi-boards (and therefor the need for WorkSafe to communicate those requirements to domestic consumers as part of their )? It's not in there. And so it is not in WorkSafe's area of responsibility to provide guidance over this, and therefore going back to the OP - WorkSafe should not be spending its budget on this.

    This is a big problem in the Workplace Safety industry - how often are we at a social event and someone is doing something stupid and we get called upon as "H&S" to stop them, where really as long as they are not being exploited for another person benefit it has nothing to do with us as a workplace H&S expert. And yes there is an argument that we should be stepping in if we have real concern for their safety as a friend, family member or even random member of the public - but that goes equally for everyone at that event and it is based on not wanting to see someone get hurt (rather than any legal duties).
  • Worksafe In The Proverbial
    Just another example that [to paraphrase the MBIE report done last year] "...WorkSafe’s description of what it does is unclear, and a description of how its core activities are linked to its outcomes can not be located."
    The "Switch on your Smarts" campaign contains information more relevant to households rather than businesses, and (while there could be some good advise in there) your right to ask why this is coming from WorkSafe rather than ACC or another more relevant agency.
    I was thinking maybe it's overdue for a shake up of the leadership at WorkSafe, but then realised that they only changed their CEO in 2020... although I don't think there really has been much fresh thinking in WorkSafe since 2016. I originally had some hopes that with the new legislation and messaging from WorkSafe at the time focusing on "who creates the risk, needs to manage the risk" we were heading in the right direction, only for that to be cut short at the final hurdle to revert back to a simplistic "manage your significant hazards [sorry I mean] critical risks".
    I wonder what WorkSafe would be like now if the transition in 2016+ had not reversed direction like it did?
  • Fatigue and second jobs
    Sorry if the above ACC talk has taken this a bit off-topic.
    Regarding the employment contract - does it include any general clause regarding the employee's obligations under HSWA's duties of workers? e.g. that they take reasonable care for their own H&S at work and that no actions or inaction of theirs adversely affects the H&S of another person.
    From what you describe in the OP, it could be reasonable to conclude that this worker was putting their own or another persons safety at risk if they are working 80+ hours a week at two full time jobs, with physically demanding workloads. Even needing to take into account if they are driving to/from work - there was a case a few years back where a company was prosecuted for a fatal accident when a worker crashed a tractor he was driving home after a nearly 17 hour work day.
    First steps would need to be a discussion with this employee about their current role, and overall workload (from both/all jobs and other commitments). With talking through the risks they are putting themselves and others at, and why they have taken on the secondary employment, you can hopefully come to an agreement with the best way forward.
    Also the horse may have bolted on this one employment contract wise, but it is definitely something that your HR should be closing the gap on in future employment contracts.