Last night SafetyAtWorkBlog interviewed Rex Hoy, Group Manager with Safe Work Australia, the national safety awards night in Canberra. A podcast of an exclusive interview with Rex is available now.
Safe Work Australia Awards – Interview with Rex Hoy
Category: Leadership
Safe Work Australia Awards 2008
Safe Work Australia is a fairly new configuration for Australia’s OHS department but it’s awards have been going for some years. On 28 April 2009 the awards were held in Canberra. The timings don’t seem quite right but that is the scheduling of these sorts of things in Australia.
The award winners from the State events are nominated for national awards, usually, conducted six months later. SafetytWorkBlog has written elsewhere about the need to review this system.
The winners this evening were congratulated by the Workplace Relations Minister and Deputy Prime Minister, Julie Gillard and were
- ETSA Utilities(SA) for best OHS managemetn system
- The Dorsal Boutique Hotel(NSW) for best OHS solution
- WP Projects(NSW) for best OHS practice in small business
- Eraring Energy(NSW) for a leadership in injury management
- Viki Coad (SA) for best individual OHS contribution
The obvious peculiarity in the award winners is the absence of winners from Victoria, Western Australia and Queensland, states with large populations and/or large mining sectors.
The Dorsal Boutique Hotel gained considerable kudos in New South Wales’s awards in October 2008 with its bed elevator that reduces the need for housekeepers to bend when making the beds. It is a good example of thinking further into the problem and asking why beds are designed the way they are and why can’t we change it. It has a limited use but considerable appeal to the millions of hotels around the world. More information can be found on the solution at the NSW WorkCover Awards site.
It is always more gratifying to see successful things rather than successful programs as the things are often transferable to many workplaces and are visual solutions to problems, sometimes problems we weren’t aware of. Leadership and management awards are more a recognition that a company has taken safety seriously which has been a legislative requirement on business for decades. There is little innovation to show in these areas. More the award is for the fact that known techniques have been applied in difficult work situations or industry sectors or company configurations.
This is not to say the effort of the award winners is less valuable than tangible solutions but often these changes come from a changed management structure or a traumatic event or new focus from the board. It is easier to understand the significance of these OHS “agents for change” when focusing on an individual achievement. The award for Viki Coad is a great example of the difference one person can make. It is these achievements that should be more widely applauded.
Indeed readers could benefit greatly from looking at the State winners in this individual category for that is where inspiration can be found.
(Kevin was invited to attend the awards event by Safe Work Australia)
The tenuousness of safety culture
Only a few days ago, SafetyAtWorkBlog questioned the usefulness of vision statements. A leaked internal memorandum from the structural mechanical process division of John Holland reported in the Australian media on 27 April 2009 shows just how tenuous such statements can be.
According to an article in the Australian Financial Review (not available online, page 3), the divisional general manager, Brendan Petersen, listed 81 injuries to subcontractors and employees and 51 near-misses in 2008. The memo acknowledges that the situation is “unsatisfactory and unacceptable” and Petersen makes a commitment to “do something about it”.
The trade unions have jumped on this memo as an indication that John Holland is not living up to its principles, although there is a lot of irrelevant and mischievous industrial relations baggage behind any of the current union statements about John Holland’s operations.
Petersen’s memo admits that, as well as his division’s performance being unacceptable
“we also have sites that consistently allow work activities to be undertaken in an uncontrolled or unsafe manner, sites that don’t take employee concerns about unsafe workplace conditions seriously and sites that don’t report near misses so as to learn from them and ensure the situations never re-occur again.”
That such an established company with such an active program of safety management acknowledges these deficiencies is of great concern.
On being asked about the memo, Stephen Sasse, John Holland’s general manager for HR, spoke of optimism and the safety efforts introduced since the 6 April memo however, behind his words is an acknowledgement that the safety culture has not been supported.
“To an extent [the memo] is an exhortation to middle management and supervision, and to an extent it is a warning that we cannot tolerate staff who do not share the John Holland values around safety…”
The John Holland values are listed on their website as
- “Commit to the successful completion of a wide variety of construction, mining, services and engineering projects through our specialist and regional construction businesses
- Commit to continuous improvement in all we do
- Understand our clients’ businesses
- Achieve our vision of “No Harm” through safe and responsible work practices
- Build and maintain open lines of communication with our people’ our partners and our clients
- Provide excellent returns to our stakeholders
- Create an environment where our people are challenged, motivated and satisfied
- Conduct business ethically, honestly and with diligence at all times”
The No Harm value is expanded upon through it’s “Passport to Safety” program.
In the AFR article, it is noted that Comcare currently has four federal court prosecutions occurring against members of the John Holland Group.
It seems trendy to broadcast the values of a company’s safety management system as if they are new and unique to their companies when, in fact, many of the values reflect legislative obligations under OHS law. The trap that many companies are facing is that reality does not match the ideal, and may never do so.
A strong argument can be made to be a quiet achiever on workplace safety – to just get down and get managing – without trumpeting the values that can become an embarrassment when the real world pierces the academic fog of the MBA. Perhaps true safety leadership comes from those who do it on the shop floor rather than than those who advocate it in the boardroom.
Engagement is Consultation re-badged
Recently an international business established an intranet discussion forum concerning “employee engagement”. By and large, this is another example of business management twaddle.
Essentially, when one engages with another, there is discussion, a conversation and the sharing of ideas in a cooperative, positive manner. In OHS circles this is called “consultation”. By discussing issues, people learn the basics, they refine their understandings and, often, come to a consensus or a resolution.
“Engagement” is another word for what happens on a daily basis in workplaces everywhere. What is bothersome is when a new management term is generated in order to, primarily, sell a new management book, and in a much lower priority, to provide a new perspective.
In the current edition of Australia’s business magazine, BRW, there is a discussion on engagement, (not available online). Through an OHS perspective, interpret the following quotes about “employee engagement scores):
“About 40 per cent of employees were failing at the most basic level, saying they either didn’t know what was expected of them or didn’t have the tools to do it.”
OHS = consultation, job description, induction, supervision.
“Those in a leadership position now are taking advantage and redoubling their efforts around employee engagement.”
OHS = leadership, safety culture
The article makes a useful distinction that an “engaged employee” does not equal a “happy employee”.
The BRW article does not, however, discuss the possible downsides of engagement. There is a risk that benchmarking of engagement may applied inappropriately and, according to the CIPD:
“Research confirms however that there is a significant gap between levels of engagement found among UK employees and those that would produce optimum performance. HR professionals need to recognise that engagement is a strategic issue that cannot simply be left to manage itself.”
Engagement is another tool for management but just how many tools are needed?
In short, a management system needs to talk with employees, listen to employees, and support employees. Wow, how radical. It can be that simple.
WorkSafe Victoria’s plans for the future
At the Safety In Action Conference in Melbourne last week the CEO Of WorkSafe Victoria, John Merritt, told the delegates that over the coming weeks and months we will see the following:
- The “Homecomings” series of workplace safety ads have been purchased by Washington State and will be broadcast shortly. Merritt expects the campaign to spread across the United States and, maybe, into Canada;
- WorkSafe has developed fake vending machines for use at exhibitions and trade displays which display replacement body parts, fingers as USB sticks (pictured below);
- WorkSafe will be introducing an advisory support scheme for the medium-sized businesses, modelled on the Small Business scheme;
- A team of advisers is targeting poor-performing large employers. Merritt said that “50 large employers account for 11% of all injuries WorkSafe sees”;
- A major street art campaign will be launched by the end of April 2009
- A new series of ads to be run on regional and rural television based on local sporting legends as part of the country football and netball sponsorship;
- The graphic young worker advertisements will be re-run at appropriate times. Merritt acknowledged that the ads have generated many complaints but are transmitting the right message to the target audience.
WorkSafe will also maintain their focus on the “jugglers” those business people or administrative staff that are essential to each organisation because they are in charge of dozens of business processes. WorkSafe surveys of the jugglers have shown that less than 10% of their time is spent on OHS matters, around 30% of them are trained in their tasks and most operate without support.
Why won’t the Tasmanian government release the OHS report into the Beaconsfield mine collapse?
Since the 2006 rockfall at Beaconsfield Mine in Tasmania, the public has received limited information. There have been books about the rescue of two workers and the Coroner’s inquest into the death of Larry Knight. Greg Mellick undertook an investigation into the rockfall and found that noone was to blame for the rockfall.
Many workplace disasters have generated royal commissions in Australia. The rockfall did not. However, industry specialists, OHS professionals and others have established an expectation that investigations and reports into industrial disasters are publicly accessible.
The expectation is not unreasonable given that the OHS profession, legal profession, engineers and others operate within a belief that the analysis of disasters can provide ways of avoiding a recurrence. Apparently the Tasmanian Government does not understand the significance of information in improving the safety of workers and the public in its State, even though its OHS and mine safety legislation is structured around prevention.
The Tasmanian Coroner released his findings into the death of Larry Knight. The findings quoted extensively from the 400+ page OHS report from Professor Michael Quinlan that was part of Greg Mellick’s investigation process. But the report itself is yet to be released. Nor has the larger report undertaken by Greg Mellick.
The Director of Public Prosecutions has chosen not to lay charges over the rockfall.
The mine is back at full operation.
The survivors of the rockfall are rebuilding their lives.
Only a couple of weeks ago, the Legislative Council Select Committee on Mining Industry Regulation released its report into the State’s mining legislation. The terms of reference have evolved from the findings of various investigations including Quinlan’s. The committee was required to investigate
- Regulation and workplace standards within the mining and related industries in Tasmania.
- Safety performance of the Tasmanian mining industry compared to other primary industries in the State and the mining industry nationally.
- The role of Workplace Standards Tasmania in the regulation of the mining and associated industries.
- The efficacy and limitations of the co-regulatory model within the mining industry in Tasmania; and
- Any other matters incidental thereto.
On 2 April 2009 at the Safety In Action Conference in Melbourne, Professor Michael Quinlan expressed bewilderment at the decision to not release his investigation report.
SafetyAtWorkBlog contacted the OHS regulator in Tasmania asking for the Quinlan report. We were advised that it was likely that the only way to obtain a copy was through Freedom of Information with the Department of Premier & Cabinet. (DPAC) A representative of DPAC will contact us about the report’s status.
DPAC has a copy of the Mellick report. The Australian Workers Union has a copy of the Mellick report. SafetyAtWorkBlog believes there are leaked copies of the report in existence but for some reason, unknown at this time, the public is not permitted to see the report.
The Queensland government has available four reports into mining disasters in the Moura area with one report going back to 1972!!
In the years after the ESSO-Longford gas explosion, Professor Andrew Hopkins published “Lessons From Longford“. It was for a long time the publisher’s best-selling book. It is quoted extensively in the OHS and management professions. Some of Andrew’s terminologies and concepts of safety culture have become ingrained in the psyche of OHS professionals in Australia.
It is hard to see any reason in April 2009 for the Mellick and Quinlan reports not be be publicly available. Indeed there are many important professional and community reasons for the reports to be seen.
What is the professional legacy of the Tasmanian government’s investigations into the Beaconsfield Mine rockfall in 2004?
What will the government say when the next rockfall occurs in an underground mine? What will the Premier or the Minister say to the next generation of widows or to the carers of the crippled miners? Certainly David Bartlett or David Llewellyn cannot say that they did all they could to make workplaces safe.
Impressions of Australian safety
At the Safety In Action conference in Melbourne Australia, SafetyAtWorkBlog was able to catchup with John Lacey, a past President of the Institute of Occupational Safety and Health in England. John has attended ten of the conferences and has some interesting comments on the conference, how Australian safety differs from the UK and who he would nominate as an example of safety leadership.
The short interview is available at delegate-day-1-02