218 Business SA

South Australia

Model Work Health and Safety Codes of Practice - Public Comment Response Form

1)  Safe Design Of Building and Structures
Comments due by Friday, 16 December 2011
Comments: (Please include section/page numbers).
Business SA supports the position of the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (ACCI), as an active member and contributor to their submission we would like to see SafeWork Australia place significant value in the comments provided by ACCI.
Impacts: Do you anticipate any potential costs or safety benefits of complying with this code that are different to current requirements in your jurisdiction? If so what are they?
2)  Excavation Work
Comments due by Friday, 16 December 2011
Comments: (Please include section/page numbers).
Business SA supports the position of the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (ACCI), as an active member and contributor to their submission we would like to see SafeWork Australia place significant value in the comments provided by ACCI.
Impacts: Do you anticipate any potential costs or safety benefits of complying with this code that are different to current requirements in your jurisdiction? If so what are they?
3)  Demolition Work
Comments due by Friday, 16 December 2011
Comments: (Please include section/page numbers).
Business SA supports the position of the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (ACCI), as an active member and contributor to their submission we would like to see SafeWork Australia place significant value in the comments provided by ACCI.
Impacts: Do you anticipate any potential costs or safety benefits of complying with this code that are different to current requirements in your jurisdiction? If so what are they?
4)  Spray Painting and Powder Coating
Comments due by Friday, 16 December 2011
Comments: (Please include section/page numbers).
Business SA supports the position of the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (ACCI), as an active member and contributor to their submission we would like to see SafeWork Australia place significant value in the comments provided by ACCI.
Impacts: Do you anticipate any potential costs or safety benefits of complying with this code that are different to current requirements in your jurisdiction? If so what are they?
5)  Abrasive Blasting
Comments due by Friday, 16 December 2011
Comments: (Please include section/page numbers).
Business SA supports the position of the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (ACCI), as an active member and contributor to their submission we would like to see SafeWork Australia place significant value in the comments provided by ACCI.
Impacts: Do you anticipate any potential costs or safety benefits of complying with this code that are different to current requirements in your jurisdiction? If so what are they?
6)  Welding and Allied Processes
Comments due by Friday, 16 December 2011
Comments: (Please include section/page numbers).
Business SA supports the position of the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (ACCI), as an active member and contributor to their submission we would like to see SafeWork Australia place significant value in the comments provided by ACCI.
Impacts: Do you anticipate any potential costs or safety benefits of complying with this code that are different to current requirements in your jurisdiction? If so what are they?
7)  Safe Access in Tree Trimming and Arboriculture
Comments due by Friday, 16 December 2011
Comments: (Please include section/page numbers).
Business SA supports the position of the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (ACCI), as an active member and contributor to their submission we would like to see SafeWork Australia place significant value in the comments provided by ACCI.
Impacts: Do you anticipate any potential costs or safety benefits of complying with this code that are different to current requirements in your jurisdiction? If so what are they?
8)  Preventing and Managing Fatigue in the Workplace
Comments due by Friday, 16 December 2011
Comments: (Please include section/page numbers).
Business SA in coordinating this response has had unanimous comment that this is NOT appropriate as a Code of Practice but much better expressed as guidance material.
For this CoP in particular the whole document presumes a static workplace that is under direct oversight of the PCBU (Observing in passing that one of the bedrock objectives of the model laws was to move away from the old manufacturing-based notion of fixed workplaces). The fact is that fatigue is much more of a risk for mobile high-risk workplaces remote from direct control and risk management such as heavy trucks, remote drill rigs etc. where the individual makes high-risk unsupervised judgements about their fitness to work.
Greater reference could be made to established fatigue regimes, such as road transport.
Industrial issues could arise as a result of standing down a worker on the basis that management / supervisors suspect that the person is suffering from fatigue and needs to be stood down and sent home (and then there is the question of who pays for taxis to get the worker home, as if you suspect they are fatigued and send them home for this, you naturally wouldn't be exercising a duty of care if you let them drive a car home).
Aside from a person’s observations of another person’s behaviour/actions there is no way of testing if someone is fatigued or not (no dissimilar to drugs and alcohol).
FOREWORD 3
One comment received by Business SA reiterating the need for further review on this CoP was, that, the CoP reads more like a high school project than a document that is supposed to support WHS Regulations, without a clear process of application or focus.
It is to be noted that while Business SA has not (as in the case of Bullying) noted every line recommended for removal, removal of this entire CoP is requested.
SCOPE AND APPLICATION 3
The primary issue with the CoP is its practicality. There are a lot of factors that bear on fatigue that are completely outside the control (and usually the knowledge) of a PCBU. Further, the detection and management of fatigue before an incident is nigh on impossible without incurring IR problems associated with stand-downs etc.
Employees need to assume more responsibility for the management of this hazard, as the PCBU can only do what they can whilst the worker is in the workplace, what they do outside of working hours is up to the individual, however these decisions/actions can impact greatly on their fitness for work and fatigue.
1. INTRODUCTION 4
1.1 What is fatigue? 4
There is no definition of health and wellbeing is in the Act; as a result the introduction of new terms is open for broad interpretation. Is it the role of CoP to introduce new terminology?
What references (or research) are there for things being quoted as absolute? Linking fatigue to safety of critical tasks should be the primary aim of this document not listing all possible influencers on fatigue.
What is fatigue? thisThis is complex with the mitigating factors are quite often outside of the power of the PCBU.
Whilst there is a question - How can you tell someone is fatigued? The answer merely lists factors which is important as one size does not fit all applications.
Guidance in the form of a risk assessment chart specifying clear recommendations in relation to fatigue may be useful. Acknowledgement of key industry management of this issue is also required, for example, mining operations on shift duration, number of consecutive shifts and breaks is clearly meeting all relevant requirements for safety.
The Risk assessment chart and control measures in the appendix are partial solutions but they are very subjective and open to broader interpretation.
It is then up to the worker to go homeafter they finish their shift and get their 7-8 hour sleep before returning to the workplace, but it is not shocking to hear that people go out partying till all hours of the night. Nor is it the responsibility of the PCBU when workers finish a primary shift, sleep for a short period of time and proceed to a second job returning to work again the following day with minimal sleep.
This kind of behaviour though is well outside of the PCBU’s control, and unless they exhibit the signs of fatigue you may not pick it up.
If the desire is for CoP’s to be written with such a prescriptive level of detail, particulars surrounding a second (or third) job and the impacts on workers fatigue levels, along with, their primary duties at work and that of the PCBU must be balanced.
Sleep and fatigue
·  being awake for 17 hours is the equivalent of having a blood alcohol level of 0.05
·  being awake for 20 hours is the equivalent of having a blood alcohol level of 0.1
In researching the above “facts” it would seem there have been a number of studies to compare being awake to drinking, however there are no tests to prove it such as a BAC. Studies have involved a series of complex hand eye coordination drills. This is not a practical solution to test employees conclusively and as such provides another set of fuzzy interpretations for a PCBU to make.
1.2 Why is fatigue a problem? 5
1.3 Who has health and safety duties in relation to managing fatigue? 6
Workers responsibilities must be expanded in this section if a CoP is to be applied.
Inserted should be the responsibility to manage one’s own fatigue levels and provide assurance to PCBU’s when given adequate breaks and working conditions that personal fatigue is being managed.
Fatigue is such a difficult area to monitor and manage, and in large part relies on the workers being honest with themselves about their state/condition and taking action at the point where they identify that they are fatigued (i.e. seeing supervisors and either going home, resting/taking a break), this message must be clearer.
Equally there must be some duty on the employee to agree to medical assessment/work performance monitoring / random testing if the employer has concerns based on observed behaviour on the job which is considered risky to health safety or welfare. If small businesses do have policies in place to address these issues, there should be a responsibility on the employee to undertake such assessment and an obligation to comply.
1.4 What is involved in preventing and managing fatigue? 6
A lot of what the code provides appears 'good in theory' but 'difficult in reality'.
This is certainly not an easy area to manage, however when applying to the layperson (many SME’s) interpretation, if they the PCBU's ensure that there are, adequate breaks between shifts to allow workers the ability to have a reasonable period of rest, allow workers to take an adequate number of breaks (again, a pretty big question of what is and what is not adequate, dependant on the industry, climate, location, type of work etc) and ensure that the workplace is safe generally (which is a staple part of the overall objectives of the WHS Act) then there is little else that should be imposed on the PCBU to manage fatigue.
2. MANAGING RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH FATIGUE 8
2.1 Identifying the hazards 8
2.2 Assessing the risks 9
2.3 Controlling the risks 10
b) Work scheduling and planning
·  “Schedule safety critical work outside low body clock periods (for instance, not between 2am and 6am or 2pm and 4pm)”.
The above statement is nonsense and cannot be honestly adhered to.
How do you avoid this in a 24 hour environment?
Clarity as to where within the Act and Regulations there is limitations to the working times of employees cannot be found however CoP are introducing such restrictions.
Having such a statement within a CoP will initiate business and industries to apply for exemptions from the regulator t to ensure compliance.
Business SA believes most of the detail in this section could be removed there is little supportive material or practical information for providing a safer working environment, instead lists of impacts on fatigue making it virtually impossible for anyone not to be fatigued (by definition) in the workplace.
e) Individual and lifestyle factors
Section (e) in particular should be removed as there are no points in this section that can be managed by the PCBU.
2.4 Other hazards 13
All aspects of this section are covered in other CoP or Regulations it is not clear as to why it is in the fatigue CoP and should be removed.
2.5 Information, instruction, training and supervision 15
2.6 Monitor and reviewing control measures 15
APPENDIX A – FATIGUE HAZARD CHECKLIST 17
APPENDIX B – RISK ASSESSMENT CHART 18
APPENDIX C – INFORMATION FOR SHIFT WORKERS 23
APPENDIX D – CASE STUDIES 25
The case studies are less than helpful and Business SA supports them being deleted.
Impacts: Do you anticipate any potential costs or safety benefits of complying with this code that are different to current requirements in your jurisdiction? If so what are they?
This CoP is too broad in its approach ranging from organisational issues to how to get good nightsnight’s sleep. It would seem that the ambiguity within this CoP can do nothing but create tension between PCBU’s. HSR’s/ or Shop Steward and the Regulator when arguing the finer points of this document.
It is difficult to see how this can provide clarity in the workplace so the potential cost to business cannot accurately be factored.
9)  Preventing and Responding to Workplace Bullying