Musgrave Centre
Annexure2: Musgrave challenges/frustrations employees and our sub-contractors
This job was very demanding in a sense that safety had to now cover the public, stefstocks employees as well as our sub- contractors. The size and many levels of this project made the safety aspect a daunting task, every corner and every level had to be constantly monitored. This mall was under renovation with another level of parking being added. The sub- contractors we had on this job did not work safely at all times, resulting in countless situations where work areas were not safe, leaving room for the public to enter or get injured. Height, wind, vehicles and pedestrian traffic through the mall had a big impact towards the safety of the site. There was also a double standard of safety rules from Musgrave Centre when it came to the contractors of Steffanutti Stocks and the contractors who were direct to Musgrave as we had to follow their safety rules or be kicked off site while sub-contractors direct to Musgrave did as they pleased. They did not even wear personal protective equipment and when the public complained it all came back to Stef Stocks. Certain lanes in the public roads had to be closed off due to the large loads of formwork being delivered to site and although we had permission from metro police to close off the lanes, metro they were of no help to us as they left within a half an hour after the deliveries of materials had started. We then had flags men in place to direct traffic but this annoyed the public as the closure of the lanes caused traffic build up and the public both pedestrian and motorists had to use alternative entrances to the mall. Concrete trucks also lined up outside the mall as the height restriction was too low for the trucks to enter the mall and we were not allowed to use any kind of cranes on this project, concrete had to be taken to various levels of the mall via dumpers. During the day we were not allowed to break or demolish any walls due to the high noise levels, this kind of work could only be done at night and only after the last movie had ended and the mall was clear of any patrons and public. During these late shifts many members of the public still entered the mall and most intoxified who walked through or removed our barricades putting both themselves and our work force at risk of injury and when we complained to Musgrave management about their security allowing these individuals to roam the mall at that hour, we were told it is not their job to protect or watch over our employees, We Stefstocks being a large company should hire private security to do that job.
1. Construction health and safety -Procurement Management
Is the key process before the commencement of any job, during this process appointments are made up, sub- contractors are allocated depending on cost and scope of work discussed?
2. Construction health and safety -Cost management
On the Musgrave project cost was not managed very well, it got to a stage in the duration of the project where stefstocks stopped work because the client had exceeded the planned project budget, leaving them unable to pay stefstocks for further works. This created a major delay in the project’s programme resulting in fines and penalties that will now have to be paid.
3. Construction health and safety -Hazard identification management
Hazard identification was taken to a whole other level on this job, because of various different aspects and situations that had to be looked at. Various different risk assessments had to be done on a daily basis to ensure all employees were covered; training registers were attached to all risk assessments as proof of training. Sub- contractors did not do any type of risk analysis, dsti’s and this put extra pressure on stefstocks as the principal contractor to cover all employees including our sub- contractors.
4. Construction health and safety -Risk management
On this project risk analysis and assessments were not taken very seriously at all, risk assessments are supposed to be conducted before doing any task on site, this was not being done. Many employees were not aware of dangers (risks/hazards) in the task being carried out or the risk factor to the public. This in turn made it very unsafe and a dangerous working environment, even if risk assessments were in place there was no communication with the employees or any training records signed, due to these poor risk management skills lots first aid incidents occurred and a few medical case too.
5. Construction health and safety-accident or incident investigation and management
Many first aid injuries were not reported and company procedures took a back seat as many employees and sub-contractors thought they would get into trouble for reporting any incidents or accidents, this also did not reflect well on the stats that we sent to the office on a monthly basis. The lack of training and communication with the employees aided to this bad reporting some incidents were only reported once the injury got worse or the employee refused to work due to the injury
6. Construction health and safety –legislation and regulations
Legislations and regulations are put in place to control the functions and activities on a construction site; we lawfully have to abide to those legislations and regulations. This was not being followed on this particular project, safety files were not up to the OHS ACT and Stef Stocks standard. Client safety audits were conducted and findings or deviations were half- heartedly or in some cases not sorted out by sub –contractors. This always meant bad audit results were sent to management about sub – contractors and Stef Stocks as the principal contractor. This also led to the Musgrave Centre site doing badly in both internal and external safety competition.
7. Construction health and safety –health, hygiene and environmental management
During the early stages of the project we were allowed to use the existing toilets in the mall but as the number of staff and sub – contractors increased we were stopped by Musgrave management from using the toilets, Stef Stocks management had to now provide toilet facilities for the construction force. These toilets became a safety, health and environmental hazard as they were not serviced on time and constantly over flowed and adding to the problem employees kept them in a bad condition, they would urinate all over the toilet besides in the pan, steal the toilet paper and result to using cement bags or paper, plastic this would block up the toilets leaving a very strong bad odor of urine and feces in the toilet area. Musgrave Centre management along with the public complained daily bout the strong stench and the portable toilets had to be moved from the basement area up to the roof which made it even harder for the sanitary services to service the toilets due to bad access
8. Construction health and safety- communication management
We did not have any internet access, meaning we were not capable of receiving emails or any other information forwarded to us via email, our only source of getting information was from our contracts manager, who was always busy or not on site to give us the information timelessly. Many a times this resulted in the wrong task being carried out and many setbacks to the program of the job. Toolbox talks did take place weekly carried out by Stef Stocks Foreman but employees did not take it serious neither did they pay attention or punctual at the least. They had their own private conversations and took phone calls during these talks, attendance and commitment from management was also very poor. This resulted in a complete melt down in communication between management and both Stef Stocks and sub- contractor labor force.
9. Construction health and safety- emergency preparedness management
Even though an emergency evacuation plan was in place, during the test/practice emergency drill Musgrave Centre management stopped the drill as it was not communicated with them as to when or how long the drill will take and the loud blasts from the air horns scared customers. A second attempt at the emergency evacuation drill had to be conducted two weeks later and very early in the morning before any of the shops opened or customers entered the mall. The evacuation drill procedures were not carried out; the employees took this drill as a joke and did not understand the importance of an emergency evacuation drill run. When the employees finally got to the emergency point, the fire marshals, the emergency coordinator and first aider could not to be found these people are very critical to the plan/procedure and have to be present to aid and assist any injured employees or members of the public in this case. After several attempts at the drill management called it off. However if that had been a real situation we would have totally malfunctioned and people would have died. Management did not communicate with center management about the practice of the emergency evacuation drill or allocate enough time to prepare and practice the drill. The emergency evacuation drill was communicated to all employees through a tool box talk a week later. There was no formal training done for the use of fire extinguishers for both Stefstocks and sub- contractors. None of the work areas had extinguishers in place because they were either damaged or removed/stolen from work areas. Emergency numbers were not posted up and none of the security had access to these numbers.