tified and unnecessary workplace hazard). The rest of the department has moved to another records management system using approved plastic folders and hole punches. The area in which this injury occurred has chosen not to comply with new requirements resulting in an injury, the need for immediate medical attention and completely avoidable worker’s compensation costs?

Why? Why? Why?

The truth is that many Managers and staff do not accept the “no-blame” principle, which seeks to identify and deal with hazards rather than pin the blame on the worker for not being careful enough. In all of the above examples there

As a newly appointed Principal OHS Consultant for a Justice Department I receive a number of Incident and hazard Report forms from staff working in a variety of roles. What I find alarming is that the Manager comments on many of these reports from staff show a lack of commitment to a thorough risk assessment, which in turn leads to a lack of appropriate risk management.

Many comments are of a nature such as;

“There are no other contributing factors” (to a back injury sustained from getting out of an office chair). “The work environment is ergonomically appropriate”.

“There are no environmental issues” (contributing to a steam burn from reaching over a boiling kettle) “I have advised the staff member to be more careful in future”.

“This [ankle and knee] injury occurred because the staff member did not get the stepping platform” (in order to relace a number of files in a compactus). “The staff member has been told to use the steps in future”.

There is a lack of analysis about a whole range of factors in these kind of typical responses. For example, assumptions are made about the ergonomic suitability of a workstation, but my enquiries reveal that the workstation and the staff member have never had a professional assessment (made freely available by the agency!).

Questions are not asked about why there was a need to reach over a boiling kettle, and whether a different layout in the kitchen would remove the need for this action.

Why does someone feel compelled to climb on compactus shelving rather than get the approved stepping platform? Were workload and time constraints considered? Were the steps within a reasonable distance from where the filing task was being performed? Was the compactus room sufficiently clear of clutter to allow the convenient use of the stepping platform?

Managers cannot rely on the “human factor” as an excuse to tolerate proven risk in the workplace. Staff DO have a responsibility to work within the OHS policy framework, but the organisation should ensure that safety procedures and equipment are as practical and accessible as possible. It IS human nature to take risks for convenience and this risk in itself must be addressed in an overall approach to OHS.

I was further amazed to read about a staff injury sustained by use of a long, sharp bodkin (somewhat crudely known as a “pig-stabber”) in order to punch a hole in a sheaf of papers so that they could be collated with a “filing pin” (another frequently identified and unnecessary workplace hazard). The rest of the department has moved to another records management system using approved plastic folders and hole punches. The area in which this injury occurred has chosen not to comply with new requirements resulting in an injury, the need for immediate medical attention and completely avoidable worker’s compensation costs?

Why? Why? Why?

The truth is that many Managers and staff do not accept the “no-blame” principle, which seeks to identify and deal with hazards rather than pin the blame on the worker for not being careful enough. In all of the above examples there w

ributing to a steam burn from reaching over a boiling kettle) “I have advised the staff member to be more careful in future”.

“This [ankle and knee] injury occurred because the staff member did not get the stepping platform” (in order to relace a number of files in a compactus). “The staff member has been told to use the steps in future”.

There is a lack of analysis about a whole range of factors in these kind of typical responses. For example, assumptions are made about the ergonomic suitability of a workstation, but my enquiries reveal that the workstation and the staff member have never had a professional assessment (made freely available by the agency!).

Questions are not asked about why there was a need to reach over a boiling kettle, and whether a different layout in the kitchen would remove the need for this action.

Why does someone feel compelled to climb on compactus shelving rather than get the approved stepping platform? Were workload and time constraints considered? Were the steps within a reasonable distance from where the filing task was being performed? Was the compactus room sufficiently clear of clutter to allow the convenient use of the stepping platform?

Managers cannot rely on the “human factor” as an excuse to tolerate proven risk in the workplace. Staff DO have a responsibility to work within the OHS policy framework, but the organisation should ensure that safety procedures and equipment are as practical and accessible as possible. It IS human nature to take risks for convenience and this risk in itself must be addressed in an overall approach to OHS.

I was further amazed to read about a staff injury sustained by use of a long, sharp bodkin (somewhat crudely known as a “pig-stabber”) in order to punch a hole in a sheaf of papers so that they could be collated with a “filing pin” (another frequently identified and unnecessary workplace hazard). The rest of the department has moved to another records management system using approved plastic folders and hole punches. The area in which this injury occurred has chosen not to comply with new requirements resulting in an injury, the need for immediate medical attention and completely avoidable worker’s compensation costs?

Why? Why? Why?

The truth is that many Managers and staff do not accept the “no-blame” principle, which seeks to identify and deal with hazards rather than pin the blame on the worker for not being careful enough. In all of the above examples there

essment (made freely available by the agency!).

Questions are not asked about why there was a need to reach over a boiling kettle, and whether a different layout in the kitchen would remove the need for this action.

Why does someone feel compelled to climb on compactus shelving rather than get the approved stepping platform? Were workload and time constraints considered? Were the steps within a reasonable distance from where the filing task was being performed? Was the compactus room sufficiently clear of clutter to allow the convenient use of the stepping platform?

Managers cannot rely on the “human factor” as an excuse to tolerate proven risk in the workplace. Staff DO have a responsibility to work within the OHS policy framework, but the organisation should ensure that safety procedures and equipment are as practical and accessible as possible. It IS human nature to take risks for convenience and this risk in itself must be addressed in an overall approach to OHS.

I was further amazed to read about a staff injury sustained by use of a long, sharp bodkin (somewhat crudely known as a “pig-stabber”) in order to punch a hole in a sheaf of papers so that they could be collated with a “filing pin” (another frequently identified and unnecessary workplace hazard). The rest of the department has moved to another records management system using approved plastic folders and hole punches. The area in which this injury occurred has chosen not to comply with new requirements resulting in an injury, the need for immediate medical attention and completely avoidable worker’s compensation costs?

Why? Why? Why?

The truth is that many Managers and staff do not accept the “no-blame” principle, which seeks to identify and deal with hazards rather than pin the blame on the worker for not being careful enough. In all of the above examples there

r” as an excuse to tolerate proven risk in the workplace. Staff DO have a responsibility to work within the OHS policy framework, but the organisation should ensure that safety procedures and equipment are as practical and accessible as possible. It IS human nature to take risks for convenience and this risk in itself must be addressed in an overall approach to OHS.

I was further amazed to read about a staff injury sustained by use of a long, sharp bodkin (somewhat crudely known as a “pig-stabber”) in order to punch a hole in a sheaf of papers so that they could be collated with a “filing pin” (another frequently identified and unnecessary workplace hazard). The rest of the department has moved to another records management system using approved plastic folders and hole punches. The area in which this injury occurred has chosen not to comply with new requirements resulting in an injury, the need for immediate medical attention and completely avoidable worker’s compensation costs?

Why? Why? Why?

The truth is that many Managers and staff do not accept the “no-blame” principle, which seeks to identify and deal with hazards rather than pin the blame on the worker for not being careful enough. In all of the above examples there

tified and unnecessary workplace hazard). The rest of the department has moved to another records management system using approved plastic folders and hole punches. The area in which this injury occurred has chosen not to comply with new requirements resulting in an injury, the need for immediate medical attention and completely avoidable worker’s compensation costs?

Why? Why? Why?

The truth is that many Managers and staff do not accept the “no-blame” principle, which seeks to identify and deal with hazards rather than pin the blame on the worker for not being careful enough. In all of the above examples there were other options (workplace redesign, hazard elimination, alternate work practices etc) but they have chosen not to address these issues. It is much easier for management to subtly blame the worker, and to let the risk remain unaddressed. There are many examples of managers discouraging workers from submitting a Hazard Report as it is seen as “rocking the boat”. What can be done to improve the management response to workplace hazards and injury?

For a start, Executive and senior management need to make OHS a genuine priority. It needs to be “talked up”, resourced and integrated in all decision making.

Secondly, managers need to be trained in the use of the Risk Assessment framework (i.e. how likely is the risk to occur and how severe are the consequences). There is an Australian Standard for Risk Assessment training and implementing this training is an immediate priority for us.

Thirdly, management responses need to be monitored, especially via the Hazard Reports, and FOLLOWED UP by the OHS Coordinator (myself in this case). The resistance to change has been significant, and I have already had many conversations in which I have had to emphasis the responsibility of management to identify, assess and manage risk. The Australian legislation in all states is very clear that this responsibility lies with management and not workers. Workers are accountable for not following documented policies and procedures, providing the system allows this to occur.

Fourthly, Management and staff need to be trained in Hazard Management, with a strong focus on the highest level of intervention (which is the ELIMINATION of risk from the workplace). Training and work instructions run a very poor last when it comes to managing hazards and risks.

Our injury rates have been high for some time. There has been a little work in the areas mentioned above, but the culture of safety and accountability is not well developed across the organisation. The number of injuries has plateau’d but I am hopeful that with a concerted effort, we can see a measurable and significant decline over the next 12 - 18 months. The cost of work injuries is also rising disproportionately. This should be a motivating factor for management. Is it really justifiable to spend $20m each year as a result of the inattention and lack of commitment to safety?

I think not. I expect that the picture will have improved markedly by the time 2007 arrives on our doorstep!