Comments

  • Fatigue and second jobs
    I was originally responding to Rowly's post warning people that you are liable for covering 80% of all of the injured worker's income. My comment was to clarify that you cannot restrict your employees taking a second job for that reason alone, and you have to have a genuine reason for restricting secondary employment, and you cannot restrict secondary employment greater than necessary regarding that genuine reason.

    No one is arguing that you can't / shouldn't have a policy in place (and clauses in your employment contracts) to restrict workers from taking on additional employment. This is reasonable to manage the risks associated with workplace fatigue, especially regarding secondary employment.

    Rowly's post was not referring to the risk of losing any discounts to ACC levies if a worker is injured in your workplace due to being fatigues from another job. You are making good points - but effectively those points are regarding the business managing the risk of fatigue in their workplace and minimising the likelihood those risks cause a worker to be injured/killed. With the loss in ACC levy discount is just secondary to this, as those discounts were always an incentive for businesses to take active steps to manage risks.
  • Fatigue and second jobs
    How does the salary/wages of a second job factor into your ACC experience rating calculation? It doesn't.
    The only way it could factors in is if you claim that having a second job before the injury slows the recover of the injury that your company caused (i.e. increasing the number of compensation days). But that would be hard to prove. And even harder to justify as a genuine reason to restrict employees' rights as a blanket policy.
  • Fatigue and second jobs
    all good points.
    But I would still argue that a concern about paying additional ACC cover for one week would not be a genuine reason. Even if the other employment was a $200k annual salary, you would knly be kn the hook for about $3000. And from what I understand from the ACC information the experience rating doesn't take into account the dollar value of compensation payments (only the cost of treatment (over $500) and days of compensation paid, and fatalities).
  • Fatigue and second jobs
    yeah that is what I said - in the OP's case it would be pretty reasonably to restrict that kind of additional/secondary employment.

    What I was clarifying is you can't stop an employee from taking a second job just because you don't want to have to cover the wages of that other job for a week if you injure them (replying to Rowly's warning)
  • What cool tools / solutions are out there?
    The CellAED might be something worthwhile to promote in your trade show https://smartfirstaed.co.nz/product/cellaed/
    While still "just an AED" the innovative part is they have reduced the cost of each unit significantly to the typical AEDs on the market - $600 vs >$2000
    This reduces the cost barrier to be able to supply an AED on most construction sites in NZ, so that if one is needed it is immediately available.
  • Fatigue and second jobs
    Maybe some employers might want to consider a "policy" on secondary employment for their workers, particularly if their worker's other employment was higher paid.
    Check ACC Act 2001, S.98; & Schedule 1 cl.33(2).
    Rowly Brown
    Just be careful as an employer can not prevent an employee from taking a second job unless it has genuine reasons. The increase risks identified in the OP's case would likely suffice but the restrictions can only be so far as necessary to manage the genuine reason(s).
    I would not expect the courts to consider "we don't want to pay our employee more money if we hurt that employee" as a genuine reason for preventing a worker from taking a second job.
    Emplyment Relations Act 2000 - S67H
  • Workers who blame themselves
    I would have to take your money because from my discussions with them there was no apparent H&S strategy or system at all.Chris Alderson
    damn didn't anticipate that loophole... although that is none that was explicit, I would counter that this type of messaging was likely still in place implicitly that "you should have told us if it was so dangerous" / "how are we supposed to know that was a risk if you didn't say anything"

    I would expect thats how the conversation went with WorkSafe as well - "well we have never had any issues like this regarding that job in the past, and none of the workers including the one that got injured said that it was dangerous, so it was an unforeseen risk but now we know we'll do something about it ok".
  • Workers who blame themselves
    I wuld bet a large sum of money that a large part of your son's previous employer's H&S management strategey was some sort of "look after your workmates" and/or "see something / say something" program / messaging.
    It is no surprise that when these types of programs are in place (as they are with a lot of companies both large and small) that workers blame themselves when they or a workmate gets injured. And my pessimistic side goes further to say this is a feature of the system and not a bug...
  • Fit Testing of Powered Respirators and Clean Space Masks
    I can see why you want to take this path, it would be awesome to have a tight fitting half face PAPR that you can wear with facial hair. it would be a great marketing point of difference. Strange that no other major RPE manufacturer make the same claim especially any that have a product with certification under EN12942 as a TM.RPE Fit tester
    There always has to be someone that is first to market with an innovative product. I would expect that most of the other RPE manufactures have been caught resting on their laurels regarding R&D of truly innovative RPE. CleanSpace's "story" webpage calls this out.
    Personally I would only fit test tight fitting face pieces when the wearer is clean shaven and if it is a PAPR or supplied air that it is under negative conditions.RPE Fit tester
    And that is your opinion, but can you point to anywhere in the AS/NZS Standards or WorkSafe guidance that specifically states that a PAPR that uses a close fitting face-piece must designed and tested with the assumption that the respirator is a negative-pressure type respirator and must rely on the facial seal to prevent inward leakage. Clause 6.4.3 in AS/NZS 1715 (1994 version is all i have on hand) does include that:
    Respirators incorporating close fitting facepieces rely on facial fit to prevent inward leakage of contaminants. Such respirators employing a full facepiece or half facepiece must not be used by males who are not clean shaven about the cheeks, neck and jaw. Half facepiece respirators of this type must not be used by those with moustaches where there is any chance of hair coming between the facepiece and the skin.
    But also goes on to say in the same clause:
    Respirators which maintain a positive pressure in the facepiece at all times provide a higher degree of protection than can be achieved with negative pressure types. Positive pressure respirators may diminish the effect of poor facial fit but will not obviate the effect of leakage caused by facial hair (see Clause 7.5). Where conservation of the air supply is important, e.g. self-contained breathing apparatus, it should be recognized that any leakage, e.g. from the facial seal, increases air consumption and decreases service time.
    Given "facepiece" is only used in reference to close fitting half or full face masks (hood or head covering do not get referred to as "facepieces") The second part of the clause would somewhat clarify that the first part is referring to negative-pressure type half/full masks.
    The testing regimes in App D (which are informative only) also do no specify that testing should be done so that the facepiece is worn in a "negative-pressure way", and it would be assumed that when testing the RPE is effective it would be used in the same way that it would be used "in the field" (i.e. powered on for a CleanSpace PAPR).
    You also have to consider that CleanSpace released their first model in 2010 (a year after the company was founded). This is one year after AS/NZS 1715 was last revised and only 2 years before AS/NZS 1716 was revised - although nothing in the latest standard would prevent CleanSpace's RPE getting certified under AS/NZS 1716 as a PAPR without the need to rely on a facial seal. The claims made in the standards need to be considered with the knowledge and information available at the time they were written, since then CleanSpace's own studies/research has shown that their PAPR provide an adequate level of protection even when worn by those with facial hair - remember that this is research that was completed more than 10 years after the AS/NZS standards were last revised.

    Irrespective of all this and what I have said before, and taking into account that legislation / Standards always lag behind innovation - the ultimate question that needs to be answered is "does the selected RPE manage the risk of working in a contaminated atmosphere so far as reasonably practicable?"
    Which is why fit testing (qualitative or quantitative) is recommended to establish if the provided RPE provided the required level of protection. It is also why it should be tested as close as practical to how it will be used in the actual work environment, e.g. moving, heavy breathing from heavy workloads, talking, etc.
    If the CleanSpace PAPR can be shown to answer that question then you have discharged your duty, i.e. by following CleanSpace's recommended selection and assessment process, and by having a Respiratory risk management process that ensures RPE where used is selected/used/maintained correctly.
  • Fit Testing of Powered Respirators and Clean Space Masks
    Also AS/NZS1716 does not have a provision for the certification of half face loose fitting PAPR only tight fitting half face. Loose fitting under this standard requires a complete hood or helmet.RPE Fit tester
    AS/NZS 1716 doesn't use the term "tight fitting", hence they also do not use the term loose fitting. The AS/NZS standard defines the terms "half facepiece" and "full facepiece" as "a close fitting device to cover the nose, mouth and chin / eyes, nose and mouth [respectively] and be secured in position by suitable means." Close fitting would be considered as resting against the face, but the standard does not specify these have to be "tight fitting" and rely on a seal between the mask and skin to function correctly. Section 3.2.1 specifies that "the assembled respirator shall provide adequate protection either by means of a facial seal or by the provision of positive pressure in the space enclosed by the respirator, or by both, to minimize the entry of ambient atmosphere."
    And the facial fit tests (App. D Total Inward Leakage tests) are separated into either "non-powered filtering respirators" or "powered filtering or supplied-air respirators" - the tests are not determined on the facepiece style but the operation of the respirator. It would be expected that the CleanSpace respirators would be tested under the D4.3 test for powered filtering respirators.

    Unless I have missed something in the standard that says you cannot have a PAPR with a half mask, or a half mask must minimise the entry of ambient atmosphere by means of a facial seal alone. If I have missed where it says either of these I am keen to know?

    From Cleanspace's website: https://cleanspacetechnology.com/faqs/
    How do I know if the mask is fitted correctly?
    Cleanspace is a tight fitting respirator and should be fitted so that the mask fits to the face.
    RPE Fit tester
    I would consider the manufacture's statements to be a more authoritative source than a single question/answer on their FAQ page:
    Use of CleanSpace PAPRs by workers with Facial Hair - Manufacture's Statement
    While the user manual also instructs to complete a seal check where donning the masks, the above statement indicates this isn't primarily for safety but more likely for usability given elsewhere in the manual they state that battery life / filter life are dependent on a adequate seal (i.e. with a loose seal the fan will be constantly running on/near full power to maintain the set pressure within the facepiece).
  • Fit Testing of Powered Respirators and Clean Space Masks
    Thanks for the reply MattD2,
    You may want to check with WorkSafe about their position on this as I understand they require Cleanspace to be fit tested in negative mode for it to be a valid fit test.
    RPE Fit tester
    Do you have a source for that claim on WorkSafe's requirements specific to CleanSpace respirators?

    I find whenever asking WorkSafe for clarification on a question like this they give the standard "you have to manage the risks" response (not to blame them as their is so much variability between individual situations that a blanket claim could be never cover them all).

    Or a source that the CleanSpace RPE are certified as a tight fitting facepiece under AS/NZS1716?
    I am going off the information on the CleanSpace website - which they clearly say that the facepieces do not rely on a tight seal to work properly, and that they should be fit tested with the power on.
    https://cleanspacetechnology.com/documents/product-resources/Respiratory-Protection-for-Workers.pdf
  • Fit Testing of Powered Respirators and Clean Space Masks
    Cleanspace is certified as a tight fitting facepiece under AS/NZS1716.RPE Fit tester
    CleanSpace state that their masks are not designed as tight-fitting / close-fitting RPE as they do not rely on a tight seal between the mask and the users face.
    CleanSpace PAPR protection performance is not reliant on achieving a good mask seal. Annual fit testing and being clean shaven will improve a wearer’s mask fit. However, these are not required to ensure a high level of wearer respiratory protection.Use of CleanSpace PAPRs by workers with Facial Hair - Manufacture's Statement
    The CleanSpace would be considered a loose-fitting facepiece under the OSHA regulations, with an assigned protection factor of 25. This is compared with an APF of 10 for a negative pressure tight-fitting half-mask respirator, or 50 for a PAPR tight-fitting half-mask respirator. Given most will be moving from the typical negative-pressure half-mask respirators this is still a significant increase in the APF, with CleanSpaces studies showing that the actual realworld workplace protection factor will likely be even greater (at least 100 if not in the thousands).

    Also it seems like the links I added above aren't working, but I'm too late to edit those posts - hopefully these links work:
    Edit: Supporting info relevant to the CleanSpace respirators:MattD2
    https://cleanspacetechnology.com/documents/product-resources/STATEMENT-MANUF-MAY082023REV2.pdf
    Respiratory Protection for Workers with Facial Hair - AustraliaMattD2
    https://cleanspacetechnology.com/documents/product-resources/Respiratory-Protection-for-Workers.pdf
  • The boundaries - a professional perspective
    This is the whole problem with certification - eg "OSH Forklift Licenses".Andrew
    Coincidentally this just popped up in my feed...
    https://youtube.com/shorts/ZGSl5nbR5Ro?feature=share
  • The boundaries - a professional perspective
    There is no end to doing "all we can".Andrew
    Yes there is - and I clarified this in my reply, but did miss to mention that there will also be actions which don't actually minimise the risk an appreciable extent (especially when considered agajnst the cost/effort required or opportunity cost of other actions). If you are at the point if diminishing returns then you will have minimised the risk so far as reasonably practicable, i.e. done all you can to minimise the risk.

    This is the whole problem with certification - eg "OSH Forklift Licenses". People think they only have to prove their competence once every few years - when it should be assessed/monitored much more regularly. Despite NZ Land transport thinking you only ever need to be assessed once and you are good to go virtually forever from that point on.Andrew
    This is exactly what I meant though. Companies taking the bare minimum statutory requirement (or minimum ACoP guidance) and calling it a day because they have decided it is now an acceptable risk.
    While it is a nice sounding catch-phrase "acceptable risk" is not the same as "reasonably practicable", one is a business decision and the other a legal term. If WorkSafe are coming after you because they deem you have not minimised a risk so far as reasonably practicable they will not give a damn that you consider it an "acceptable risk".
  • The boundaries - a professional perspective
    Give much more attention to any credible likelihood of death from exposure to a hazard (an eruption - yes; an elevator - no)robert parton
    To expand on that - Give much more attention to any credible likelihood of death (or serious injuries) from exposure to a hazard associated with your business (or undertaking)
    an eruption on the island you're running tours on - yes
    an eruption on a island of the coast of the city you work in - no
    riding in an elevator (claustrophobia or not) - no
    supplying elevators - yes
  • The boundaries - a professional perspective
    The Act says the controls-test is reducing risk to "as low as reasonably practicable".PaulReyneke
    Going right back into the purpose of the act is "to provide for a balanced framework to secure the health and safety of workers and workplaces".
    Essentially the act is in place to limit true free-market / Laissez-Faire capitalism by putting in place additional duties that will not typically develop in a pure profit-motive based self regulated market (specifically regarding HSWA the additional duties relate to worker and workplace safety).
    ↪Aaron Marshall I like the idea of "acceptable risk" and your distinciton between hazard maangement and risk management.Andrew
    I personally hate the use of "acceptable risk", or at least how it is generally used in business. The main reason that I hate it is that those that are deciding on what is considered an "acceptable risk" are not normally the ones that are exposed to that "acceptable risk" - e.g. it is the company directors / boards / CEOs / MDs / etc. and that decision is usually one of "we have done enough" rather than "we have done all we can".
    And doing "all we can" isn't having to do everything possible - there will still be actions that are not practical to do immediately, but what can be done is to plan for ways to action these in the future (i.e. continuous improvement).
    Conversely "doing enough" sets a hard stop to managing the risk - nothing more needs to be done because we have already done enough.
    Take the Taxi driver / courier example - doing enough is making sure that their vehicle has a current WOF and rego (and unsafe items will be picked up annually), doing all we can is making sure that their vehicle has a current WOF and rego but also periodically inspecting the vehicles (e.g. monthly) to pick up on unsafe items between inspections. This literally happened in a number of companies when NZTA changed the WOF rules from 6 monthly to annual for "newer" cars, where some companies that had previously accepted that the bare minimum legal requirement of a current WOF was adequate risk management had to question the basis for that decision, and if statutory compliance was the same as managing risk so far as reasonably practicable.
  • Fit Testing of Powered Respirators and Clean Space Masks
    A PAPR has air provided to the wearer via a mechanically filtered pump or an external air supply, so how when these items are switched off, can the wearer inhale air either when fit-testing or when ensuring an airtight face seal.KeithH
    Most (if not all) PAPR supply air via a fan and not a positive displacement pump. When the fan is not operating air can easily bypass it and still be drawn through the filters and into the mask.
  • Fit Testing of Powered Respirators and Clean Space Masks
    A question here. How can a tight fitting respirator based on PAPR become a negative pressure respirator and have an adequate face seal for a person with a beard?KeithH
    It will not have an adequate seal.. Tight fitting respirators require a seal to work. So no beards. Refer to the CDC document below, that stipulates tight fitting PAPR respirators require fit testing. If you have a beard on a tight fitting powered air purifying respirator. (PAPR) you are not expected to pass a fit test.Stuart Keer-Keer
    I think it was a bit of a trick question - the actual answer is a PAPR can never become a negative pressure respirator, as it was not designed as a negative pressure respirator. So not matter how much a PAPR kind of looks like a negative pressure respirator, it should never be considered a negative pressure respirator and if it has stopped operating as a PAPR it should be removed from use and repaired/discarded.
    Edit: Supporting info relevant to the CleanSpace respirators:
    Use of CleanSpace PAPRs by workers with Facial Hair - Manufacture's Statement
  • Fit Testing of Powered Respirators and Clean Space Masks
    We have recently come across Clean space masks which are powered masks that resemble the fittings on the close fitting powered respirators.Stuart Keer-Keer
    I think the key detail that is getting confused here is that the CleanSpace RPE "resembles" a close/tight fitting negative pressure RPE.
    The CleanSpace RPE are being supplied as a Powered Air Purifying Respirator (PAPR), not a negative pressure respirator. Treat it as such when developing your RPE procedures.

    All respirators (PAPR and NP) are required to fit the user, e.g. selecting the correct size (and sometimes brand/model), and confirming it fits as per the manufacturers instructions/requirements.
    Negative Pressure RPE are also required to check that the seal between the face and mask is not leaking to confirm that incoming air is passing through the filters and not bypassing through a leak in the seal. PAPR do no require this as their design ensures that air is drawn through the filters (and will blow out through any gaps between the RPE and the users face/body).

    However critical for PAPR is to ensure that the are working correctly when in use, such as making sure that;
    • Masks / hoods fit as per the manufacturers requirements - the initial (and periodic) fit-check above
    • Fans operate continuously (batteries, breakdowns) - periodic maintenance and incident reporting
    • Filters are changed out when required - filter replacement program.

    So to answer your question of "The question is has anyone any views on testing the Clean Space masks, if so do they do it in the powered on mode or power off mode?"
    They are designed as PAPR, so issue them as PAPR.
    Asking if you should test them powered on or off is somewhat illogical because this has no bearing on if the mask (i.e. the shape/size) fits the users face - so I guess my answer is both, do a general fit with the power off to make sure the mask is comfortable, but also power on to check for any large leaks or disruptive leaks (such as around the bridge of the nose directing a flow of air into the eyes). Make sure they fit as per the manufacturers instructions/requirements.
    But critically if you are using PAPR make sure your RPE procedures manage the risks associated with PAPR. And finally don't assume that just because they look like a negative pressure respirator that they can continue to be used as a negative pressure respirator if the batteries die or the fans break down.
    Edit: Added references:
    Respiratory Protection for Workers with Facial Hair - Australia
    Note: CleanSpace actually recommends in the (Australian specific) guidance for demonstrating compliance with employer’s legal obligations a "protection factor" test following the US OSHA regulations (rather than the AS/NZS standard) in power-on mode. This conflicts with OSHA 1910:134 as the fit testing requirements specifically states to test in power off mode, however the testing is only required for tight fitting masks (negative or positive pressure). Therefore the way I would interpret CleanSpace's guidelines is that while OSHA 1910:134 fit testing is not legally required for the CleanSpace respirators (as they are not consider to be tight-fitting masks that rely on the seal between the mask and face to function properly), a fit test should be completed to confirm the respirator does provide the employee with the required level of protection (i.e. Protection Factor / required reduction in airborne contamination)... i.e. ass-covering if I am being facetious.
    PAPR typically are assigned a Protection Factor of 50, while cleanSpaces studies have resulted in an average Workplace Protection Factor of over 8000, with the lowest ever result of 105 (i.e. the worst ever result was still twice as good as the assigned protection factor). Given the operation and CleanSpace studies data I would be comfortable forgoing the recomended "protection factor" test as long as the general fitting was being monitored for effectiveness.
  • Prescription cannabis - how to deal with it?
    All D&A policies should have a clause for employee disclosure of the use of prescribed drugs which have the potential to affect the employee's ability to perform their assigned tasks safely / effectively, and therefore "the issue of people taking prescribed cannabis" is really a moot point as it should already be accounted for, the same as someone taking strong painkillers would be.