EDITH COWAN UNIVERSITY...2012/09/28 · the work of Tsutsumi et al (2009) who used participatory research techniques to improve the mental health of Japanese manufacturing workers

Draft

Workplace hazard identification: What do people

in mining know?

Final Report

School of Management Centre for Innovative Practice

Faculty of Business and Law

EDITH COWAN UNIVERSITY

WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Dr Susanne Bahn

October 2012

Centre for Innovative Practice – Faculty of Business and Law

i

© Copyright Release This work has been produced through a research study funded by the Faculty of Business and Law, ECU.

All rights reserved. No parts of this document may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical,

including photocopying, recording, or any information storage, display or retrieval devices, without the permission of the authors.

This report is published by ECU FB&L. Apart from any use permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, no part of this publication may be

reported by any process without the written permission of S. Bahn. Requests should be made in writing through ECU or directly to

[email protected]

Published by Edith Cowan University School of Management Faculty of Business and Law Joondalup Drive – Joondalup

Western Australia 6027 Australia.


ii

Report contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................... 1

1.0 BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................................................. 2

2.0 WORKPLACE HAZARD IDENTIFICATION ........................................................................................... 2

3.0 METHODOLOGY .......................................................................................................................................... 3

3.1 RESEARCH PLAN ............................................................................................................................................ 3 3.2 SAMPLE .......................................................................................................................................................... 4

4.0 SURVEY RESULTS ........................................................................................................................................ 5

4.1 NUMBER OF HAZARDS BY JOB ROLE ............................................................................................................... 6 4.2 NUMBER OF HAZARDS BY YEARS WORKED .................................................................................................... 7 4.3 NUMBER OF HAZARDS BY AGE ....................................................................................................................... 7 4.4 NUMBER OF HAZARDS BY YEARS WORKED AND AGE ..................................................................................... 8 4.5 NUMBER OF HAZARDS BY SUPERVISORY ROLE ............................................................................................. 10 4.6 NUMBER OF HAZARDS BY ROLE AND AGE .................................................................................................... 10 4.7 SUMMARY OF SURVEY RESULTS ................................................................................................................... 12

5.0 INTERVIEW RESULTS .............................................................................................................................. 13

5.1 WORKERS ABILITY TO IDENTIFY HAZARDS .................................................................................................. 14 5.2 WORKERS DON’T RECOGNISE THE SEVERITY OF THE HAZARD ..................................................................... 15 5.3 WORKERS RECOGNISE THE HAZARD BUT FAIL TO MAKE ANY CHANGES ....................................................... 17 5.4 DIFFICULTIES IN ACCESSING LABOUR .......................................................................................................... 18 5.5 MECHANISMS TO IMPROVE HAZARD IDENTIFICATION SKILLS ...................................................................... 19

5.5.1 Hazard reporting as KPI’s .................................................................................................................. 20 5.5.2 The role of inductions .......................................................................................................................... 20 5.5.3 The importance of Roles ...................................................................................................................... 21 5.5.4 Safety culture ....................................................................................................................................... 23 5.5.5 Safety systems ...................................................................................................................................... 25 5.5.6 Training in hazard identification ........................................................................................................ 26 5.5.7 Workplace walk throughs .................................................................................................................... 28

6.0 DISCUSSION AND SUMMARY ............................................................................................................. 28

6.1 LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY ........................................................................................................................ 30

7.0 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................... 31


1

Executive Summary This study investigated the hazard identification skills of new entrants to the mining industry and collected ideas of strategies to improve this process from Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Managers. The study collected data in two phases. In the first phase data was collected from 54 newly hired managers and employees at an underground mining contractor’s operations. Phase two of the data collection included in-depth, semi-structured interviews with 21 purposively selected Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) managers in the mining industry. For new entrants to the industry, phase one of the study showed that safety-induction training had little influence on the participant’s ability to identify hazards within the pictures provided of their new workplace. Some of the new entrants were only able to identify a small number of the hazards out of a possible 10 within each picture. In addition, phase one of the study indicated that for the new entrants, the younger and older workers and those entering supervisory roles, that specific training in workplace hazard identification is required. This was supported by the greater ability of those with 6-10 years experience and aged 34-45 years to identify the hazards in the pictures. Phase two of the study revealed that most of the OHS managers noted that their staff had the skills to identify workplace hazards; however they were not actively identifying them. This was particularly the case with new entrants and those with many years experience who were either unable to identify hazards or had grown complacent in their assessment of the level of risk. The OHS managers also noted that some staff that identified hazards were unaware of the processes to address them. There was a noted difference in risk perception between workers which was coupled with the view that the individual would not be harmed by hazards in their workplace; rather it would happen to someone else. In addition, a false sense of security pervaded some workplaces in that workers felt that they were fully protected by their organisation’s safety systems. Overall, the OHS managers identified training, communication and documentation as important to improve hazard identification skills. Other strategies suggested included incorporating hazard identification as part of performance management strategies, specific training in hazard identification and the use of walkthrough workplace training to identify hazards. The role of safety inductions for new entrants, the importance of roles in improving organisational safety culture and the use of safety systems also emerged from the data. In terms of specific hazard identification training the OHS Managers argued that this needed to be trained as a separate course from induction training and repeated regularly to reinforce the learning, supported by continued coaching and mentoring by experienced staff in the workplace and walk throughs in their work areas. Furthermore, a number of the OHS managers suggested a need to move hazard awareness training and induction training out of the classroom directly into the work areas to determine the appropriate mechanisms to manage and control risk. Mining has a high-risk working environment and more needs to be done to improve the safety culture. This study shows that one mechanism to reduce work-related injury and disease in the mining industry is training; and specifically training in hazard identification. However, training alone will not be successful unless it is supported by mentoring and coaching by senior managers, supervisors and experienced workers. This is particularly important for the new entrant in that there is evidence that these workers come to the mining industry unprepared for the hazardous environment in which they are placed.


2

1.0 Background The ethical conduct and profitability of organisations relies in part on occupational hazards being identified and managed within competent risk assessment processes. These occupational hazards can be physical, chemical or physiological and can cause workplace accidents and impact on firms’ productivity and profitability (Hollmann et al, 2001; Lees, 1996; Ramsay et al, 2006). But not all hazards are known and risk management is also about dealing with the unknown. Indeed, the revised Risk Management Principles and Guidelines for Australia and New Zealand ISO 31000:2009 defines risk in terms of “the effect of uncertainty on objectives” (Standards Australia, 2009:ii). Risk assessment processes and practices are used to identify hazards and manage risks. Harms-Ringdahl (2003:1) argues risk assessment is “a systematic procedure for analysing systems to identify and evaluate hazards and safety characteristics”. Risk management within organisations is underpinned by managers and employees being proficient in identifying hazards in their workplaces. But are they? Hazard identification requires the individual to recognise obvious hazards, but also emerging hazards. In short, if managers and employees are not skilled at hazard identification, then the risk assessment process will be incomplete and workplace safety cannot be guaranteed. Documenting the knowledge of, and process to identify, workplace hazards is important research that will underpin future safety training needs.

2.0 Workplace hazard identification Australia strives to be a world leader in OHS practice (ILO, 2005) but this relies on proactive management of risk. The identification and management of risks is critical for safety (Bohle & Quinlan, 2000). It is the skills in identifying workplace hazards that contribute to managing risk that form the topic of this innovative research study and is fundamental to recommended OHS practice (Biggs et al, 2006). There has been limited research nationally and internationally that has documented the hazard identification skills of managers and employees to improve practice, rather research has traditionally focussed on reporting of hazards and risk management (Biggs et al, 2006).

Health and safety legislation in Australia (detailed in a number of state and the national WHS Act) is underpinned by the ‘duty of care’ concept that requires employers to identify and implement appropriate measures to ensure a safe system of work and requires employees to follow that system. Legislation permits workers to stop work if they consider themselves exposed to a serious risk and OHS representatives are authorised to stop work if workers are exposed to a potential risk. Employers are required to exhibit due diligence in all activities including: identifying the risks and hazards in the nature of their operations; examining their resources and processes to ensure that a safe system of work is in place; have a knowledge of OHS matters; have practices and support systems in place that facilitate a timely response to incidents and a process that enables full legal compliance (SafeWork Australia, 2011). However the legislation assumes that managers and employees have the appropriate knowledge to effectively identify hazards. A hazard is “the potential for harm” and they exist in “all aspects of technology and activity that produces risk” (Manuele, 2010:33). Hazards contribute to workplace risk and include the actions of people and the characteristics of equipment, dust, and chemicals, for example. However, how risks are perceived affects how they are managed and the effect on the organisation (Fung et al, 2010). Herein lies the problem, different people see the same risk situation in quite different ways (Kahneman et al, 1982; March & Shapira, 1987; Tolbert 2005). This means there is generally “a lack of awareness of the nature of risk” (Manuele, 2010:30). For example, Carter and


3

Smith (2006) conducted a hazard identification study on three United Kingdom construction projects and found workers were able to identify 89.9% of all possible hazards for a construction project within the nuclear industry, 72.8% for a railway project, and 66.5% for a project that encompassed both construction and the railway. They concluded that “hazard identification levels are considerably lower than ‘ideal’ for three construction projects within separate industry sectors” (Carter & Smith, 2006:205). They proposed that there are two types of barriers to improving hazard identification: knowledge and process. Similarly a project conducted in the construction industry in NSW revealed significant weakness in the formal process of hazard identification by contractors (Trethewy, 2000). Harms-Ringdahl (2001) developed an organisational Safety Function Analysis with six stages. The analysis requires users to select a set of hazards and identify the existing safety functions for these hazards. This is an example of a hazard identification process that firms could use to improve hazard identification knowledge in managers and employees. Another example of process is the work of Tsutsumi et al (2009) who used participatory research techniques to improve the mental health of Japanese manufacturing workers and asked them to identify hazards based on the surveillance of stress using self administered questionnaires. Further examples of process include the work of Cromie et al (2001) and Mattila (1985) in the health sector who suggests the use of checklists, workplace inspections, injury records and consultation with workers will assist with hazard identification. These research studies assume that the participants have the skills and knowledge to successfully identify hazards. However, Rouhiainen (1992) asked how well the analysis has identified hazards as one of four questions in relation to the quality of a safety analysis. Ramsay et al (2006) investigated hazard analysis in the USA nursing profession and found that although nurses are exposed to a number of hazards on a daily basis the core competencies within their accreditation and training failed to mention a requirement to demonstrate competence in hazard identification or control. Industries and professions such as nursing, dental health, mail deliveries, nano-technology, manufacturing, construction and mining are identified in the literature raising the importance of hazard identification in the workplace as a preventative injury mechanism (Bentley & Haslam, 2001; Biggs et al, 2006; Ramsay et al, 2006; Reinhold & Tint, 2009; Schulte & Salamanca-Buentello, 2007). However, training in Australia for hazard identification is limited and predominantly the work of consultants. Work in the mining sector is often hazardous and this industry has a large number of workplace injuries and deaths (Devine et al, 2008).

3.0 Methodology

3.1 Research plan Individuals’ perceptions of risk and ability to identify workplace hazards, was the focus of this study. An interpretive, critical realist perspective (Sayer, 1992) informed the approach. Sayer (1992) defines the organisational structures as sets of internally-related objects and mechanisms as ‘ways of acting’. Objects are internally linked to the structure and their identity depends on their relationship with the other components of the structure. Risk management policies are structures (process) within organisations; hazard identification is the mechanism and action (knowledge) of managers and employees. This qualitative study will had two data collection phases. At Phase 1 the focus was on knowledge of hazards. Data was collected from 54 new employees within an underground mining contractor’s operations between November 2011 and February 2012, who agreed to participate in the project and provide access to new recruits. With the growth in mining sector


4

jobs and the current skills shortage in Australia, new recruits may not have worked in the industry prior to starting work. Using a technique that Bahn has successfully employed in a 2005 study with carpentry apprentices (Bahn & Barratt-Pugh, 2011); a series of 6 pictures of underground scenarios was supplied by the mining contractor. These pictures displayed examples of their underground worksites and were issued to the participants at the end of their one day safety induction training. Participation was voluntary for the study however the mining contractor is now using the picture survey as an assessment tool requirement to be completed by all inductees after their safety induction training. Demographic information such as job position and tenure in the industry was also collected. Their responses were analysed against a master list of all the hazards within the pictures to determine their level of competence in identifying hazards. At Phase 2 the focus was on the processes employed to identify hazards. In-depth, semi-structured interviews with 21 purposively selected OHS managers between May and July 2012, currently working within the mining industry were conducted to determine successful strategies to identify hazards based on the findings in Phase 1. OHS managers in the mining industry are at the forefront of safety practice as workers are exposed to hazardous working conditions requiring extensive hazard identification skills. The mining sector is significantly hazardous (Devine et al, 2008): 6 work related deaths, 386 injuries requiring 60 days or more off work, and 877 injuries requiring 5 days off work were provisionally recorded in 2008-09 (WorkSafe WA, 2011). The mining sector is actively working to improve its safety performance and therefore it currentlyprovides rich data about workplace hazard identification. OHS managers in large and medium sized organisations were included in the sample as the resources available and processes used in different sized firms may differ. Although it could be argued that smaller firms may have less knowledge of hazard identification processes, smaller firms do not ordinarily have dedicated safety professionals. In general, smaller firms are contracted under larger suppliers and are inducted within the larger organisation’s framework and answerable to the main contractor or mine owner. In this phase of the research safety professionals were best suited to provide the information required to make recommendations to improve hazard identification skills. The interviews were audio recorded with permission, fully transcribed and checked for errors and paralinguistic information. The data was analysed using a template approach in NVivo, which entails analysing the text through the use of a ‘guide’ made up of relevant themes. Qualitative research has considerable strengths (Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007). In particular it overcomes the “high altitude” perspective of “discover[ing] some of the common properties and general patterns of a population as a whole” (Sayer, 1992:242). The intensive research design (Sayer, 1992) enabled an understanding of how human actors identify risks and any generalisation from this analysis was on the basis of causal mechanisms, not empirical characteristics. The key research questions for this study were: 1. Do managers and employees have the knowledge to identify workplace hazards correctly? 2. What processes can be used to increase managers and employees hazard identification

skills?

3.2 Sample New employees (54) and Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) managers (21) in the mining sector made up the sample used in this project to determine knowledge about and the process of identifying workplace hazards. Pictures of workplace scenarios were shown to 54 new


5

employees and the hazards they identified were measured against the 10 known hazards in each picture (Phase 1). Table 1 shows examples of the types of hazards the study participants identified in the six pictures. This assessment was used to determine their knowledge of hazards and is used to inform the processes to develop more efficient hazard identification strategies. Table 1: Examples of hazards identified in the pictures by study participants Picture 1 “Items left on ground present a trip hazard”, “No mandatory pre-signage”, and “drums

of hydrocarbon materials not bunded”.

Picture 2 “Insufficient bolts holding mesh”, “Uneven surface – trip hazard” and “Back wall not meshed”.

Picture 3 “Ladder not secure”, “ Ladder too far from wall”, and “Unsupported ground”

Picture 4 “Rock fall risk”, “Insufficient mesh on wall”, and “No signage to indicate any hazard”.

Picture 5 “Vent not active”, “Electrical cable inadequately secured”, and “No warning signs”.

Picture 6 “Trailing cable”, “Not enough mesh on walls”, and “Pipe work on ground”.

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 21 OHS managers in the mining sector to determine their perception of the ability of their staff to identify hazards in their workplaces and the supporting strategies they use to encourage increased skills in their people (Phase 2). Seventeen were completed as telephone interviews while three were face-to-face (predominantly because many of the participants were working in regional and remote sites). The dominant themes of these interviews are presented in Section 5 of this report supported by verbatim quotes that are examples of what the participants reported.

4.0 Survey results All participants who completed the picture survey had received a full day’s safety induction prior to beginning work in an underground mine the next day. The survey contained 6 pictures of underground work areas supplied by the mining contractor that were examples of their current worksites. For each of the six pictures it was determined there was a possible 10 hazards within. Hazards were explained to be those that were obvious or hidden. The limitation of 10 possible hazards was set as it was deemed by the mining contractor that if the participants could identify this number in each picture that they had a comprehensive knowledge of their work areas and would be deemed competent in their hazard identification skills. It could be argued that the pictures may have contained more than 10 hazards, however in order to provide some boundaries, this was the agreed number of hazards in each picture that were we seeking for the analysis. The numbers of hazards in each picture identified by the sample ranged from a total of 4 out of a possible 60 to 60 out of a possible 60. In both these extreme cases the participants were new entrants to the industry having not worked in mining before. The average number of hazards identified by the participants over all pictures was 26 out of a possible 60 (43%). However, five of the participants were unable to identify any hazards in at least one of the pictures. Of the 54 participants who completed the survey 6 were female and 48 male. This is a typical gender distribution for the mining sector in that overall only 10% of employees are female. Because of the low representation of females in the sample, gender has not been included as a variable in the analysis. The participants were from four working sectors: Administration,


6

Production, Maintenance and Exploration. Table 2 shows the job roles for each of these four sectors and the numbers of each specific role in brackets besides the job titles. The sample contained 29 Production, 9 Maintenance, 14 Exploration and 2 Administration workers. Three of the sample held supervisory roles, 2 in production and 1 in Exploration. The Exploration workers are typically not viewed as ‘real miners’ by the remainder of the underground workforce as they drill small core holes in the tunnels underground to determine the extent of the ore content prior to the large scale removal by the production workers. However, the Exploration workers have their own specific site safety induction that they train other workers in, prior to entering their work areas. It could be argued that experienced Exploration workers should be better able to identify workplace hazards. However, for this study all participants had completed the safety induction training immediately before completing the picture survey and so particularly for those entering the industry for the first time job role should have no bearing on the results. Table 2: Job roles within the working sectors

Production (29) Maintenance (9) Exploration (14) Administration (2) Truck Operator (4) Fitter (3) Diamond Driller (4) Site Administration (2) Serviceman (1) Electrician (3) Drill Supervisor (1) Nipper Service Crew (12) Auto Electrician (2) Drillers Offsider (9) Paste Crew (1) Maintenance (1) Offsider (1) Bogger Operator (6) Supervisor (2) Charge Up (1) Long Hole Driller (1)

4.1 Number of hazards by job role Table 3 shows the number of hazards for each of the six pictures that were identified by the participants according to the role that they were employed for. For the 29 workers in Production roles the average number of hazards they could identify over all 6 pictures was 4.28 (SD1.68) out of a possible 10. The Maintenance staff had an average of 3.96 (SD2.17). However, for Exploration staff this number increased to 5.21 (SD2.21). The Administration staff were only able to identify 1.67 (SD1.41) hazards out of a possible 10 hazards. Given that the Administration staff were two female employees who performed office duties, their inability to identify hazards underground is not unexpected, given they do not work in an underground environment. Table 3: Number of hazards by role

Role Administration Production Maintenance Exploration

N Mean SD N Mean SD N Mean SD N Mean SD Picture1 2 4.00 2.83 29 5.59 2.24 9 5.56 3.47 14 6.64 2.50 Picture2 2 .50 .71 29 4.38 2.19 9 3.67 2.24 14 5.43 2.44 Picture3 2 1.50 2.12 29 3.62 2.13 9 3.11 1.69 14 4.43 2.56 Picture4 2 2.50 2.12 29 4.10 2.11 9 4.22 1.48 14 4.93 2.40 Picture5 2 1.00 .00 29 3.97 1.80 9 3.44 2.70 14 5.07 2.64 Picture6 2 .50 .71 29 4.00 2.36 9 3.78 2.73 14 4.79 2.36

Total Mean

2 1.67 1.41 29 4.28 1.68 9 3.96 2.17 14 5.21 2.21


7

4.2 Number of hazards by years worked Table 4 analyses the previous data to determine the ability of the participants to identify hazards according to the number of year’s experience they had working in the mining industry prior to participating in the study. The number of new entrants to the industry was 18 (33% of the sample), with a further 11 (20%) of participants who had worked in the industry for less than two years. Therefore the sample contained 53% of participants with less than two years experience working in an underground mine. The table shows that the ability to identify hazards from the pictures increased according to length of experience with ability, with those with 6-10 years experience identifying 5.61 (SD2.01) hazards out of the possible 10. However, once a participant had over 11 years experience their ability to identify the hazards within the pictures dropped back to equal those with 3-5 years experience, 4.65 (SD1.15) hazards. The new entrants identified 3.57 (SD2.26) hazards and those with 1-2 years experience were able to identify 4.27 (SD2.10) hazards. Table 4: Number of hazards by years worked

Years worked in mining

New entrant 1-2 years 3-5 years 6-10 years 11 years and over N Mean SD N Mean SD N Mean SD N Mean SD N Mean SD

Picture1 18 5.22 2.98 11 5.55 2.54 13 6.46 2.40 9 6.67 2.12 3 4.67 .58 Picture2 18 3.44 2.68 11 4.27 2.10 13 4.62 1.98 9 5.78 2.22 3 5.33 2.52 Picture3 18 2.83 2.31 11 3.45 2.21 13 3.92 1.26 9 4.89 2.71 3 4.67 2.52 Picture4 18 3.61 2.00 11 4.09 1.76 13 4.38 1.76 9 5.44 2.96 3 5.00 1.73 Picture5 18 3.22 2.39 11 4.09 2.59 13 4.15 1.63 9 5.67 2.29 3 3.67 1.15 Picture6 18 3.11 2.49 11 4.18 3.25 13 4.38 1.26 9 5.22 2.73 3 4.00 1.00 Total Mean

18 3.57 2.26 11 4.27 2.10 13 4.65 1.15 9 5.61 2.01 3 4.56 1.26

4.3 Number of hazards by age Table 5 shows the number of hazards that were identified according to the participants’ age. Those aged between 35 and 44 years were able to identify 5.55 (SD2.44) hazards compared to 55-64 year olds who identified 2.33 (SD1.89) hazards and 18-24 year olds who identified 3.52 (SD1.45) hazards out of a possible 10 in each picture. In order to understand what is occurring for workers according to age and length of experience tables 6-9 following analyse the data further.

Table 5: Number of hazards by age

Age 18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 N Mean SD N Mean SD N Mean SD N Mean SD N Mean SD Picture1 14 5.00 2.48 25 5.88 2.35 10 7.60 2.59 3 4.67 1.15 2 3.00 2.83 Picture2 14 3.50 1.83 25 4.56 2.36 10 5.60 2.84 3 4.00 2.65 2 3.00 2.83 Picture3 14 2.64 1.55 25 3.72 2.01 10 5.10 2.96 3 4.67 1.53 2 1.50 .71 Picture4 14 3.50 1.40 25 4.32 2.08 10 4.90 2.42 3 6.33 3.51 2 3.00 .00 Picture5 14 3.29 1.64 25 4.40 2.25 10 5.00 2.91 3 3.33 1.53 2 1.50 2.12 Picture6 14 3.21 1.93 25 4.20 2.29 10 5.10 3.31 3 4.33 2.31 2 2.00 2.83 Total Mean

14 3.52 1.45 25 4.51 1.85 10 5.55 2.44 3 4.56 2.06 2 2.33 1.89


8

4.4 Number of hazards by years worked and age Table 6 shows the number of new entrants according to age. There were large numbers of young, inexperienced new entrants being employed in the mining industry in 2010 due to the increased production for the Chinese and Indian markets. There were 18 new entrants to the mining industry in the sample. This table has been reduced as there was only one new entrant in the sample aged 54-64 years and no new entrants aged 45-54 years. Nine new entrants were aged between 18-24 years (50%), five between 25-34 years (27%) and three between 35-44 years (16%). The 18-24 year olds as a group of new entrants were only able to identify an average of 3.13 (SD1.47) hazards in the pictures, the 25-34 year olds tested slightly worse than the younger inductees in that they identified 3.03 (SD1.74) hazards. However, new entrants aged 35-44 years were considerably more skilled in identifying the hazards in the pictures with an average of 6.67 (SD3.06) hazards identified out of a possible 10. Although this older group was new to the industry, previous work experience may have had an influence on their skills to identify workplace hazards. Table 6: Number of hazards by new entrant and age

New entrant 18-24 25-34 35-44

N Mean SD N Mean SD N Mean SD

Picture1 9 4.78 2.39 5 4.20 2.28 3 9.67 .58 Picture2 9 3.22 2.11 5 2.60 2.19 3 6.33 4.04 Picture3 9 2.33 1.50 5 2.60 1.82 3 5.33 4.16 Picture4 9 3.11 1.27 5 2.80 1.10 3 6.67 2.89 Picture5 9 3.00 1.58 5 2.80 2.17 3 5.67 3.79 Picture6 9 2.33 1.41 5 3.20 2.17 3 6.33 3.51 Total Mean

9 3.13 1.47 5 3.03 1.74 3 6.67 3.06

Table 7 shows that eleven participants had 1-2 years experience in mining. These were evenly distributed between the ages of 18 and 44 years. Once again as in the previous table, the older group aged 35-44 years was more proficient in identifying the hazards in the pictures with an average of 4.88 (SD2.90) hazards recorded. Table 7: Number of hazards by 1 - 2 years working in mining and age

1-2 years 18-24 25-34 35-44 N Mean SD N Mean SD N Mean SD Picture1 3 5.00 2.65 4 5.00 2.45 4 6.50 3.00 Picture2 3 3.67 1.53 4 4.50 1.73 4 4.50 3.11 Picture3 3 2.33 .58 4 3.00 2.16 4 4.75 2.75 Picture4 3 4.00 2.00 4 4.00 .82 4 4.25 2.63 Picture5 3 4.33 2.08 4 3.50 2.52 4 4.50 3.51 Picture6 3 4.33 2.31 4 3.50 4.36 4 4.75 3.40 Total Mean

3 3.94 1.44 4 3.92 2.03 4 4.88 2.90


9

Table 8 shows that twelve of the sample had 3-5 years experience and the number of hazards that were identified according to the age of the participant. For this group those aged 25-34 years were able to identify more hazards than the other age groups. This group identified an average of 4.89 (SD1.14) hazards out of a possible 10 for each picture. This age group was the least proficient in table 7 when they had only 1-2 years mining experience. Table 8: Number of hazards by 3 - 5 years working in mining and age

3-5 years 18-24 25-34 35-44 N Mean SD N Mean SD N Mean SD Picture1 2 6.00 4.24 9 7.11 2.09 1 4.00 . Picture2 2 4.50 .71 9 4.67 2.06 1 7.00 . Picture3 2 4.50 2.12 9 4.00 1.22 1 3.00 . Picture4 2 4.50 .71 9 4.56 2.07 1 4.00 . Picture5 2 3.00 1.41 9 4.78 1.48 1 3.00 . Picture6 2 5.50 .71 9 4.22 1.30 1 5.00 . Total Mean

2 4.67 1.18 9 4.89 1.14 1 4.33 .

Table 9 shows that nine of the sample had 6-10 years experience in mining and depicts the age spread of this group. Six of the participants were in the 18-24 age group which would indicate that these participants began at a very young age in the industry and have remained. This group had significantly improved hazard identification skills, an average of 5.33 (SD2.35) hazards identified, which also improved for those in the 25-34 age group with this length of experience, with an average of 5.83 (SD1.65) hazards identified out of a possible 10. There was only one participant in the sample aged 35-44 years with 6-10 years experience as well as only one participant with over eleven years experience (this has not been included in the table). Tables 8 and 9 support the notion that with increased experience participants’ hazard identification skills improve.

Table 9: Number of hazards by 6 - 10 years working in mining and age

6-10 years 18-24 25-34 35-44 N Mean SD N Mean SD N Mean SD Picture1 6 6.17 2.32 2 8.50 .71 1 6.00 . Picture2 6 5.50 2.66 2 6.00 1.41 1 7.00 . Picture3 6 4.17 2.71 2 6.50 3.54 1 6.00 . Picture4 6 5.17 2.93 2 4.00 1.41 1 10.00 . Picture5 6 5.67 2.80 2 6.00 1.41 1 5.00 . Picture6 6 5.33 2.07 2 4.00 5.66 1 7.00 . Total Mean

6 5.33 2.35 2 5.83 1.65 1 6.83 .


10

4.5 Number of hazards by supervisory role The sample had only three participants in Supervisory roles, two in Production and one in Exploration. This limits the analysis as the sample is too low to make substantive claims. However, it is interesting to note the average number of hazards this group could identify from the pictures. Although the average for the three supervisors is higher than the average for the total group not in supervisory roles, the Supervisors only averaged 4.06 (SD.25) hazards out of a possible 10 for each picture as shown in table 10. Given the specialised skills and management expertise and responsibility for safety on site that Supervisors are expected to have this is a significant finding. In reality Supervisors should be scoring almost a perfect score by identifying close to ten hazards in each picture. Table 10: Number of hazards by Supervisory role

Supervisory Role

yes no N Mean SD N Mean SD

Picture1 3 5.33 1.15 51 5.82 2.61 Picture2 3 4.00 1.00 51 4.41 2.45 Picture3 3 4.33 .58 51 3.63 2.27 Picture4 3 5.00 1.00 51 4.24 2.15 Picture5 3 2.67 .58 51 4.14 2.32 Picture6 3 3.00 .00 51 4.10 2.52 Total Mean

3 4.06 .25 51 4.39 2.04

4.6 Number of hazards by role and age Table 11 shows the number of hazards that Production workers could identify analysed by their age. Proficiency in hazard identification is lowest in the young and older workers. Those aged 35-44 years were the most skilled and were able to identify an average of 5.33 (SD1.39) hazards out a possible 10. As age decreases and increases from this midpoint proficiency decreases. However it is the younger production worker who had the least skills when identifying the hazards within the pictures.

Table 11: Number of hazards by working in Production and age

Production 18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64

N Mean (SD) N Mean (SD) N Mean (SD) N Mean (SD) N Mean

(SD) Picture1 6 4.83 (3.25) 14 5.43 (1.79) 5 7.60 (2.07) 3 4.67 (1.15) 1 5.00 (.)

Picture2 6 3.33 (1.97) 14 4.50 (2.35) 5 5.40 (2.07) 3 4.00 (2.65) 1 5.00 (.)

Picture3 6 2.67 (2.34) 14 3.50 (1.87) 5 4.80 (2.77) 3 4.67 (1.53) 1 2.00 (.)

Picture4 6 3.17 (1.72) 14 4.07 (2.16) 5 4.20 (.84) 3 6.33 (3.51) 1 3.00 (.)

Picture5 6 3.33 (1.51) 14 4.07 (1.94) 5 5.00 (2.00) 3 3.33 (1.53) 1 3.00 (.)

Picture6 6 2.83 (1.47) 14 4.07 (2.27) 5 5.00 (3.67) 3 4.33 (2.31) 1 4.00 (.)

Total Mean 6 3.36 (1.88) 14 4.27 (1.60) 5 5.33 (1.39) 3 4.56 (2.06) 1 3.67 (.)


11

However, as shown in table 12, for Maintenance workers those aged between 25-34 years had better hazard identification skills than those both younger and older than them. Although this group is more skilled in hazard identification than their younger and older counterparts, Maintenance workers were less skilled in identifying the hazards in the pictures than those working in Production as can be seen when Tables 11 and 12 are compared. Also, once again it was the younger worker who had the least skills when identifying the hazards within the pictures.

Table 12: Number of hazards by working in Maintenance and age Maintenance 18-24 25-34 35-44 N Mean (SD) N Mean (SD) N Mean (SD) Picture1 3 5.33 (3.06) 3 6.33 (4.04) 2 7.00 (4.24) Picture2 3 2.67 (1.53) 3 4.67 (2.31) 2 5.00 (2.83) Picture3 3 2.00 (1.00) 3 4.67 (1.53) 2 3.50 (.71) Picture4 3 4.33 (1.53) 3 4.67 (2.08) 2 4.00 (1.41) Picture5 3 3.33 (2.31) 3 5.33 (3.06) 2 2.50 (2.12) Picture6 3 3.33 (3.21) 3 5.33 (2.08) 2 4.00 (2.83) Total Mean

3 3.50 (1.86) 3 5.17 (2.35) 2 4.33 (2.36)

Table 13 shows the number of hazards that Exploration workers could identify analysed by their age. These workers exhibited a similar pattern to that of the Production workers in that those aged 35-44 years had the highest skills in identifying the hazards in the pictures. In fact Exploration workers were generally more skilled over their counterparts with even the youngest workers achieving an almost equal average number of hazards identified to those in Supervisory roles. In addition those in the Exploration workers, 35-44 years age group showed the highest skills overall all other workers by identifying an average of 6.72 (SD4.07) hazards from a possible 10. Table 13: Number of hazards by working in Exploration and age

Exploration 18-24 25-34 35-44 N Mean (SD) N Mean (SD) N Mean (SD) Picture1 4 4.75 (1.50) 7 7.14 (2.19) 3 8.00 (3.46) Picture2 4 5.00 (.82) 7 5.29 (2.14) 3 6.33 (4.73) Picture3 4 3.00 (.00) 7 4.29 (2.14) 3 6.67 (4.16) Picture4 4 3.25 (.96) 7 5.14 (1.68) 3 6.67 (4.16) Picture5 4 3.75 (1.50) 7 5.14 (2.41) 3 6.67 (4.16) Picture6 4 4.25 (1.50) 7 4.57 (2.15) 3 6.00 (4.00) Total Mean

4 4.00 (.56) 7 5.26 (1.68) 3 6.72 (4.07)


12

4.7 Summary of survey results For this phase of the study 54 participants were asked to identify as many hazards as they could out of a possible 10 in the 6 pictures after they had completed their full day’s safety induction training. The numbers of hazards in each picture identified by the sample ranged from a total of 4 out of a possible 60 to 60 out of a possible 60. In both these extreme cases the participants were new entrants to the industry having not worked in mining before. The average number of hazards identified by the participants over all pictures was 26 out of a possible 60 (43%). However, five of the participants were unable to identify any hazards in at least one of the pictures. The participants were from four working sectors: Administration, Production, Maintenance and Exploration. For the 29 workers in Production roles the average number of hazards they could identify over all 6 pictures was 4.28 (SD1.68) out of a possible 10. The Maintenance staff had an average of 3.96 (SD2.17). However, for Exploration staff this number increased to 5.21 (SD2.21). Whereas, the Administration staff were only able to identify 1.67 (SD1.41) hazards out of a possible 10 hazards. The ability to identify hazards from the pictures increased according to length of experience, with those with 6-10 years experience identifying 5.61 (SD2.01) hazards out of the possible 10. However, once a participant had over 11 years experience their ability to identify the hazards within the pictures dropped back to equal those with 3-5 years experience, 4.65 (SD1.15) hazards. The new entrants identified 3.57 (SD2.26) hazards and those with 1-2 years experience were able to identify 4.27 (SD2.10) hazards. The sample contained 53% of participants with less than two years experience working in mining. The participant’s age had a bearing on their ability to identify the hazards in the pictures. Those aged between 35 and 44 years were able to identify 5.55 (SD2.44) hazards compared to 55-64 year olds who identified 2.33 (SD1.89) hazards and 18-24 year olds who identified 3.52 (SD1.45) hazards out of a possible 10 in each picture. The participants experience together with their age also had a bearing on their ability to identify the hazards in the pictures. There were 18 new entrants to the mining industry in the sample. Nine new entrants were aged between 18-24 years (50%), five between 25-34 years (27%) and three between 35-44 years (16%). The 18-24 year olds as a group of new entrants were only able to identify an average of 3.13 (SD1.47) hazards in the pictures, the 25-34 year olds faired slightly worse than their younger cohorts in that they identified 3.03 (SD1.74) hazards. However, new entrants aged 35-44 years were considerably more skilled in identifying the hazards in the pictures with an average of 6.67 (SD3.06) hazards identified out of a possible 10. Although this older group was new to the industry, previous work experience in other sectors may have had an influence on their skills to identify workplace hazards. A similar finding occurred with those participants who had 1-2 years mining experience.

Twelve of the sample had 3-5 years experience. For this group those aged 25-34 years were able to identify more hazards than the other age groups. This group identified an average of 4.89 (SD1.14) hazards out of a possible 10 for each picture. Interestingly, this age group was the least proficient when they had only 1-2 years mining experience. Nine of the sample had 6-10 years experience. Six of these participants were in the 18-24 age and had significantly improved hazard identification skills, an average of 5.33 (SD2.35)


13

hazards identified. In addition, there was improvement for those in the 25-34 age group with this length of experience, with an average of 5.83 (SD1.65) hazards identified out of a possible 10. The study shows that with increased experience, participants’ hazard identification skills improve. The sample had only three participants in Supervisory roles, two in Production and one in Exploration. It is interesting to note that although the average number of hazards the three supervisors identified is higher than the average for the total group not in supervisory roles, the Supervisors only averaged 4.06 (SD.25) hazards out of a possible 10 for each picture. Given the specialised skills and management expertise and responsibility for safety on site that Supervisors are expected to have this is a significant finding. In reality Supervisors should be achieving almost a perfect score by identifying close to ten hazards in each picture.

Role had a bearing on the ability of participants to identify the hazards in the pictures. Exploration workers were generally more skilled over their counterparts with even the youngest workers achieving an almost equal average number of hazards identified to those in Supervisory roles. Exploration workers aged 35-44 years showed the highest skills overall all other workers by identifying an average of 6.72 (SD4.07) hazards from a possible 10. Production workers aged 35-44 years were the most skilled compared to others working in this role and were able to identify an average of 5.33 (SD1.39) hazards out a possible 10. Maintenance workers were less skilled in identifying the hazards in the pictures than those working in Production. Maintenance workers aged 25-34 years showed the highest skills overall all other workers by identifying an average of 5.17 (SD2.35) hazards from a possible 10. Overall, it was the younger worker who had the least skills when identifying the hazards within the pictures.

5.0 Interview results Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 21 OHS managers in the mining industry to determine whether they thought their staff could identify hazards and proactively manage them. Following on from this discussion the interviews looked at strategies to improve hazard management within the mining sector. At the time of the interview the findings of the picture survey results were provided to the participating OHS manager to gather feedback from them to confirm the significance of these findings. Many of those interviewed confirmed that the survey findings mirrored the analysis that they had conducted within the companies for which they worked. Most agreed that new entrants and those with many years experience were either unable to identify hazards in their workplace or had grown complacent in their assessment of the level of risk. However, there was not a consensus among the group regarding the link between age and the ability to identify hazards. Some indicated that younger workers were unable to perform this task; others disagreed and noted their high performance. Some noted older workers were less able to identify hazards where others noted that it was length of experience not age that determined levels of complacency. The data indicated that 17 (80%) managers agreed that their staff can identify hazards with four (20%) stating they did not believe their staff could perform this task. In addition, only five (23%) managers stated that their staff actively identified hazards in their workplace with 16 (77%) managers suggesting that their staff do not. In summary although most of the managers noted that while their staff have the skills to successfully identify workplace hazards, the majority are not actively performing this task.


14

5.1 Workers ability to identify hazards Four of the OHS managers interviewed suggested that their staff had problems identifying workplace hazards. Some noted that this is especially the case for new entrants into the mining industry, particularly those working in underground mining, because they don’t have a point of reference to determine what constitutes a hazard. Others indicated that hazard training might be in place in their organisation however they noted that the personalising of hazards and their possible impact is problematic for their staff.

[Staff] can’t tell you what a hazard actually is. I think generally we train poorly so they really understand what a hazard is poorly.

They’re not going to be able to identify hazards unless they’ve been given a point of reference to work from.

The trainer obviously tells them what a hazard is, they can tell you there’s all these different hazard types that can cause harm but being able to actually see what one is and how it could become a hazard to them is where… I think that’s where that falls apart.

However, the majority of our sample (80%) of managers reported that they believed that their staff can identify workplace hazards and have sufficient training to complete this task.

I’m quite confident they do know how to identify hazards in the work place.

They are taught about what hazards are and what a hazard is and what a risk is and how the two link together and they know that hazards are out there all the time.

The OHS managers were quick to point out that training was not the only reason their staff can identify workplace hazards. A number of them expressed that past experience with near misses or workers involved in incidents that lead to injury or damage to machinery was a large determinant of future identification of hazards. This experience enables the worker to have a point of reference in that they can personalise the hazard and its effects. However, personal experience with hazards can have dire consequence in that serious injuries and fatalities can occur particularly when working in the mining sector due to the extreme working environment.

They can go out; they can see something that is wrong because nine times out of ten they’ve probably done it themselves.

Hazard perception’s pretty much driven by past experience and background training and risk tolerance.

I think some of it is based on the lack of experience so they’ve never been exposed to certain environments within which these hazards exist. Whilst we try and teach them these are the things that can go wrong… unless they actually experience it…. and unfortunately the experience sometimes results in an accident.

Although the data collected for phase one of this study indicated that the younger, inexperienced new entrant to the mining sector were unable to identify a substantial number of hazards in the picture survey the OHS Managers interviewed argued that this group were keen to learn and participate. The more experienced worker was noted as often complacent inactive hazard identification in their workplaces.

Working with such different age groups you can really see the younger ones and they’re the ones that pick up hazards and only because the people in the later age groups they actually know how to work around those things, they actually know how to


15

use those things that we call hazards and actually make them a working tool so they … they are quite complacent to it all.

I find that the young ones are not hesitant to bring things up. The only time that they are hesitant to bring those things up is normally when they’re put in the environment with the older generation, which is quite experienced and they build the expectation of that younger person that they need to come into this industry and get their feet placed pretty quickly with less complaining and more working. I think those that are experienced and more familiar with a particular role take some of the hazards for granted or they do it subconsciously or they are lazy and don’t take it as seriously as perhaps a younger person who comes into the role for the first time and is a bit more switched on and has a bit more of a safety culture perhaps.

However, the OHS managers interviewed for the study noted that the new entrant in the industry is often under prepared for the working environment.

They simply just don’t know what underground looks like and most times when you take new underground inductees underground you drive into the portal they go “oh this is not what I expected it to be”. You hear that comment so many times.

Finally, the OHS managers stated that some new entrants to the industry (particularly the younger workers) view the high wages they are paid as ‘danger’ money and had expectations that workplace injury was inherent with their job.

They [younger workers] have almost an acceptance that at some stage they’ll get

injured.

5.2 Workers don’t recognise the severity of the hazard Manuele (2010) argued that people perceive hazards differently in that the severity may be perceived as more or less depending on experience and previous exposure. The difference in risk perception of workplace hazards clearly emerged as a theme in the interviews with the OHS Managers.

People see a hose line on the floor some people see it as a hazard, some people see it as a necessity, it’s easy access for me, I always do it, you know, it’s just, you know, it’s just one of those things; that’s an untidy workshop you know?

When they first come into the mining industry it’s not until they see someone get trapped by a runaway machine or put themselves in a position where they lose a limb or they have a rock fall on them and break a leg or fall off a set of steps leading into a piece of high equipment then it becomes a reality to them.

What one person sees as being a hazard and a threat and another person doesn’t necessarily see that.

Coupled with the differing perception of risk was the view that the individual would not be harmed by hazards in their workplace (it would happen to someone else).

I think hazard ID is good what we lack is the power to understand the “it won’t happen to me” attitude.

You get this I’m bullet proof or everybody talks about this. It becomes just background noise to them.


16

Blasé to the extreme and you couple that with a lack of awareness of what are the risks and hazards.

They either believe it’s not going to happen to them or it’s okay if I do it quickly.

Research by Coleman (1978) indicated that younger male workers are larger risk takers, but it appears that in this study that those with extensive experience become complacent with the risks of performing their work.

I’ve worked with people that are a thirty year people and I’ve still got to stop them and say ‘you’re going to get hurt doing that the way you’re doing it’ or they haven’t recognised an obvious hazard such as a rock about to fall off the wall or the roof on top of them.

Complacency is ‘I don’t give a shit’ but these people just don’t see it. Like white line fever, you know, you’d be driving five hundred kilometres and only see the road ahead of you. I just think that they just become automatic. It’s this blindness comes from experience in the particular game that they’re in be it construction, mining, electrical.

The complacency of the more experienced worker in mining may be due to a lack of personal injury and this ability to remain unhurt can breed a false sense of security and encourage further risk taking.

What I find a lot in the older guy or the more mature in the industry in the particular job that he’s doing they tend to what I call roll the dice and they’ve said look I’ve done it this way for ten years. Always done this particular trick and it’s never gone wrong and they teach the young guy that. They say look, you know, I’ve still got all my ten fingers and I’ve done it this way for the last years so it must be the right way but it isn’t. It’s like rolling a dice...

They know what the hazards are, twenty years underground they go ‘it’s never happened to me; it never will’.

You’ve done it so many other times before you knew the hazard was present but because you weren’t affected by how far you pushed the boundary then you assumed you could push it further.

Long-term employees with extensive experience in mining have come through periods of time that were less regulated and may have worked in organisations with a less robust safety culture and are resistant to change. Improved safety in mining has occurred in the last 15 years supported by legislation that specifically regulates the industry.

Older people might have also escaped the scrutiny on safety within the mining industry itself, which is only really been, you know, a big push in the last decade. We’ve done it this way for a hundred years and I’ve never been injured sort of attitude. They resist a lot of risk assessment and safe work procedures and hazard identification. So there is a level of resistance still in the work force of I would say older, more mature operators or workers in the industry. They know it’s a hazard, they know that if they do that it’s going to have severe consequences. They could probably even get the sack but it’s not enough to change the drive in that behaviour to make them do that task in a different way.

Some OHS managers questioned the level of their staff’s understanding of hidden or inherent


17

hazards and the potential for these hazards to create considerable harm. When you sit up there and say this has the potential to cause harm you’ve got no real idea whether the people themselves understand that. And really you’ll find that those that give it a cursory view will just find the simple ones, the hole in the ground, the oil spill, the wire, loose wire whatever. [They] will find those but there are more inherent hazards in things. You know things that have got potential energy, things that have got gravitation… their view is: I only need to know enough information to do what I have to do.

Others indicated that a false sense of safety pervades some mining workplaces in that workers feel they are fully protected by the safety systems that are in operation. Many leave hazard identification and risk assessment processes to others to complete. In some cases workers feel that safety in the workplace is the sole role/responsibility of the health and safety professional.

My impression is that they believe they are safe because the company’s already identified all the hazards and put things in place so therefore I won’t get hurt because they’re good at safety. You then just become blasé, because, oh well someone else should have done the risk assessment prior, someone else should have identified the hazards, it’s the supervisor’s role to provide me a safe place of work, the company’s responsibility, so you know we just carry on thinking everything’s fine. It’s the Supervisor’s role to get the production out and if they see something unsafe happening then have a quiet word in the person’s ear but the safety seen in some as a separate role for the Safety Officer, the Safety Consultant, the Safety Manager on site and they’re there to get the job done.

5.3 Workers recognise the hazard but fail to make any changes There was evidence from the interviews that the OHS managers believed that their staff could identify workplace hazards; however 77% of those interviewed stated that they did not address hazards of which they were aware.

Some of them can recognise a hazard but will do absolutely nothing about it because it doesn’t relate to them, it’s not in their work area or they just can’t be bothered.

We see people walking past hazards every day and I’ve walked around with safety advisors with years of experience and they’ve walked past the most obvious hazards.

I have actually stood there watching contractors doing their job in an exceedingly risky manner and I’ve stood there with supervisors and superintendents who watch them and aren’t interested in saying anything about what they’re observing.

There was evidence that younger inexperienced workers were less likely to address hazards that they encountered.

Despite being grumpy [older workers] they’ll identify things that a lot of the younger ones miss who’ll gladly drive past a big sharp rock in the middle of the haul road rather than just calling it up to get the dozer to move it out, things like that.

The OHS Managers noted that there were cases of staff that identified hazards but were unaware of the process to address them.

People wanting to do the right thing; but not necessarily knowing how to do it.


18

I ask them and say well what do you do at that instant that you saw the hazard? What did you take upon yourself? Did you make it safe? You know, did you mitigate the hazard? Did you remove the hazard all together and then they seem to fall into an area of not knowing. They don’t have the skills to sort of assess the risks involved.

They’ve spotted the hazard but they haven’t been able to mitigate it or assess the actual risk that it poses.

The lack of ability to address hazards in the workplace could be improved by training to understand the steps in controlling and eliminating them.

So the older more experienced guys are totally aware of the hazards but are they trained to be able to control those hazards, prevent them, eliminate them?

I’ve been in mines where people have overridden those controls [hazard controls]. Finally, the OHS managers argued that there needs to be a culture of workers that have a focus on hazard identification at the forefront of their everyday activities.

Either you go into an area looking for a hazard or do you go into an area thinking about something else and just want to get the job done and go home? Can people identify? Yes but it takes a trigger to make them stop and think about it.

5.4 Difficulties in accessing labour Western Australia is experiencing a shortage of skilled labour that is placing pressure on the supply of workers to the mining sector. Quality labour with experience and skills in hazard identification is limited with workers moving from company to company in search of improved salaries and conditions. Companies with high staff turnover have noted the difficulties in maintaining a robust safety culture.

The whole employment situation, you know everyone’s under resource... human resource pressure. Unless you’re a hundred percent manned up and with a little bit of fat it’s very difficult to do things. It is difficult to get people with… skills and quality of skills absolutely. There’s a huge market out there that does affect the quality. In high-turnover sites it’s very challenging to try and develop a safety culture when you don’t have the regular faces placed in the leadership groups in the safety teams so it’s almost to a degree like a construction environment with very much dependent safety culture. Where these are the rules, this is how you follow them…

The pressure to supply workers to the industry with the skills required in this time of increased production has encouraged fast-tracking in training. Although these new entrants may have the certificates they require to work in the industry they lack the experience that comes with training over a long period of time. This has an effect on hazard awareness and general understanding of the working environment in mining.

I think one of the biggest problems that you’ve got is fast-tracking. New people coming into an industry that’s booming and what happens is as you induct them one day you do some preliminary training but not in depth. With the fast-tracking it’s let’s get bums in seats to do the jobs that’s required to give us production. You’re gonna get new mines opening up, new people coming in from other industries that have never being exposed to mining before with no experience, no family support and like dad... no longer dad or uncles teaching you what to do while watching out for you or talking about it at the dinner table.


19

It’s [the boom] bringing with it a lack of skills. So if you’re asking about if these guys recognise hazards…. a lot of guys that are in engineering are green engineers.

Not all of them are necessarily highly-qualified people. A lot of them are new to the industry, they’re new to mining, they’re new to construction.

Not only is fast-track training occurring to skill workers quickly, promotion to management and supervisory roles are occurring in record times. There is a lack of training for supervisors who may be part of the labouring team one day and promoted to the role of Supervisor the next (Bahn, forthcoming).

I think part of it is to do with the shortage of skilled people. They’ve been very good at saying well we think you’ll be good as a supervisor so here’s some keys when you arrive at the airport you’ll cross over with your counterpart who you’re on a roster with and he’ll let you know what’s going on and away you go.

5.5 Mechanisms to improve hazard identification skills A key outcome for this study was to determine strategies to increase hazard identification skills in the mining sector. The OHS managers interviewed for the study have recognised a need to improve the hazard identification skills of their staff. Several companies are engaged in company-wide processes such as Take Five programmes, safety systems that document the level of risks for each hazardous task, hazard awareness programmes, and hazard reporting processes. Overall, the managers identified training, communication and documentation as important to improve hazard identification skills.

Some of the larger organisations have hazard awareness programs and they try and do the old hazard hunt and they’re reasonable strategies for getting everybody out in the field and doing stuff from a management point of view, but there’s a challenge aligning your twenty-two year old with your forty-year old about hazard perception and reacting to it. The important points are making sure the language is common, everyone understands and that there’s a connection between your registers and that you understand your client base and that we probably need to be using technology a hell of a lot smarter and better than we are now. Making sure that we involve and communicate to teams lessons learnt from incidents whether it be internally or external to the business. Better education; better follow up by the safety advisors saying I’ve had a hazard report from you.

In addition, some companies move staff into other staff work areas to critically review the site to determine and rectify hazards.

You get an opportunity for someone else to come in and scrutinise your work area. The idea is if you pick hazards on someone else’s site; you help them to rectify the hazards. Hazard teams that revolve every six months so everyone can have a bit of go.

The following sub-sections of this report present some detailed strategies to improve hazard identification including incorporating hazard identification as part of performance-management strategies, the role of safety inductions for new entrants, the importance of roles in safety culture, the use of safety systems, specific training in hazard identification and the use of walkthrough workplace training to identify hazards.


20

5.5.1 HAZARD REPORTING AS KPI’S Linking hazard reporting to key performance indicators (KPIs) and incentives was reported as a strategy a number of companies use.

We introduced last year a short-term incentive program and part of the KPIs for that is…it’s a combined KPI. They need to report hazards - right? And then they also need to have those hazards closed out. We’re providing an incentive for them to do it but they are also scrutinised and they had to be hazards of value.

The participation in the programme is backed up by a KPI process... that they can fill in and that involves picking up a hazard that they’ve identified and also how they’ve rectified the hazard.

However as some OHS manager’s noted linking incentives to hazard reporting processes is complicated and has led to high risk tasks outsourced to external providers such as contractors as well as the emphasis on numbers blurs the focus of injury prevention by removing hazards.

So the problem is, you know, what incentives make an impact and then as for either docking in money or docking in time or demoting then there’s a huge fuss….I’ve also seen the situation where they tend to now contract out the high-risk activities and so you have contractors coming in with high-risk activities and the contractors get paid by job not by hour.

At the moment they actually have quotas on hazard identification. A manager’s performance bonus is related to the number of hazards identified. The process has taken over from the real task of trying to get the hazards and prevent injury.

A proactive view to managing hazards was supported by a number of the OHS managers interviewed. Lead indicators, such as recording the number of staff in training, provision of breaks to combat fatigue and creating a no-blame environment were three strategies identified in the data collected.

In terms of lead indicators that’s a proactive approach to hedging hazards.

Well how many supervisors get credit or monitored against how many fatigue breaks they allow or do they get managed on how many runs a truck does?

We very much encourage our junior leaders and our site safety teams to take it from a non-blame approach and more of a learning experience.

Furthermore, the data revealed that high risk activities may be outsourced to contractors rather than performed in-house, thereby placing the duty to perform these tasks in a safe manner squarely as the contractor’s responsibility to remove these tasks from managers’ KPIs.

5.5.2 THE ROLE OF INDUCTIONS The OHS Managers interviewed discussed the role of workplace inductions questioning how much was actually absorbed by new entrants to their organisations.

Millions of bits of paper and fifteen days of bloody inductions and how to do all these things. Most of them don’t care and to be honest they’re just not learning.

You spend a lot of time taking people through inductions but you don’t necessarily get them retaining all that you’ve covered. Sometimes well most of the time it’s information


21

overload and you’re really reliant on the more experienced people in the work force looking after them.

The data showed that in a number of cases the induction to site for new entrants may be the only training they receive in safety before commencing work and that there is little in place to evaluate the learning that has occurred or retained.

I’m a believer that we probably don’t do enough training of people. We sort of in the mining industry just go “look as long as you’ve done an induction...” Let’s get rid of the term induction and just call them introduction to sites because that’s all it is. Not fill their head full of crap in three days and expect them to go to work then. Have you ever seen anyone fail an induction? Have you heard of anyone failing? We don’t go out three months later and interview someone and see what their perception of risk is, you know, what they thought it was like and what’s the reality now.

In terms of how much of the content in an induction is related specifically to hazard identification and rectification, the OHS managers indicated that very little information was delivered.

I mean you can sit them in a classroom and you can put a definition up on the board. What does that mean? A hazard is actually defined as something that has the potential to cause harm. The focus is more on about compliance; from an organisational perspective we’re more worried about getting people through and making sure they pass and got tick in the box. In our inductions we spend a bit of time, not very much time on hazard identification and risk perception. You know again the focus is on trying to squeeze… there’s so much information we’ve got share with people that unfortunately that gets pushed down in the order.

Some of the OHS managers explained that the safety induction is supported by ongoing mentoring by senior staff of their new entrants. The importance of supervisor and manager roles in promoting safety in the workplace is discussed in detail in the following section.

We put a lot of emphasis on people being mentored when they’re coming into the industry and part of that mentoring is obviously trying to pass on good experience, good work ethic, safe working.

5.5.3 THE IMPORTANCE OF ROLES Managers, supervisors and experienced workers have an important part to play in driving safety in the workplace. These key people have considerable influence over the new entrant and the practices in which they engage.

Well and I relate this to a couple of mining projects that we’ve got at the moment it all boils down to being the senior person on the site. We’ve got one really, really good Project Manager and he’s right on board with it all and his site is absolutely spotless.


22

We’ve got another guy and he’s a little bit more softly spoken and doesn’t keep chasing up on things and you can see the deterioration on the site and the increase in incidences and we’ve got to keep jumping on them or else it’ll start snowballing. The young inexperienced trades people are telling this guy no we must stop, I don’t feel comfortable, something is wrong and the Supervisor goes nah, done this a hundred times it can’t go wrong - don’t you understand it?

Safe work practice needs the support of senior managers through their endorsement and engagement that flows down the hierarchy. Without senior management support (top down approach) safety can become a compliance ‘tick and flick’ exercise with little effect on the safety culture of the organisation.

The top is more responsible for continuing the process and pushing the culture whereas actually making sure there’s that engagement with people. If you don’t have that engagement it’s going to be a wallpaper issue and you really aren’t going to achieve what you want to set out to achieve. I think the other factor you want to consider is the input of supervisors and management here. If they have a strong safety culture or they’re very keen, they walk the walk, talk the talk, then that promotes. That floats through to the minions below. So I think management example is a very important aspect of this. You know your managers have got to be supervising their superintendents, their superintendents have got to be supervising their supervisors but we don’t seem to do that. We seem to manage our workers and supervise our workers but we don’t supervise our supervisors. Who’s supervising the General Manager?

The role of the supervisor as the front line manager to the workers is crucial in the maintenance of a safe workplace culture (Bahn, forthcoming). However, supervisors are production driven with promoting their staff to work safely as only a part of what is required in their role.

The majority of supervisors will say they do but the reality is they don’t see safety as their primary focus, production is. I think it’s almost time we’ve got to try and change the whole role of the supervisor so to speak. Yes they’re there, they make sure and plan the work, deliver on these things but how much of all of those things are done safely? I’m not sure.

Several of the OHS managers interviewed for the study questioned the priority of safety by the Supervisors working in their organisation.

When we pick our supervisor we’re picking the guy that traditionally has got the job done quickly and effectively and all that but from a safety point of view are we picking a wrong trait? A lot of supervisors are there because they have the right work ethic not necessarily a focus on safety.


23

Furthermore, the OHS managers related the process of moving from general worker to that of a supervisory role was often conducted in an informal manner.

I mean you’ve got guys with twelve month’s experience all of a sudden called ‘Supervisor’. I’m always fascinated because on a Friday they’re part of the crew and on the Monday you’re leading that crew and I’m telling you now there must be a lot of leadership qualities in VB and steak because in two days I had a barbeque and drunk some beers and thought woo-hoo I got a promotion and you’re a leader. That’s brilliant. I’m going to drink VB and steak for the rest of my life!

I call it battle field promotions where you’re the last one left standing so you’re the new supervisor.

They noted a severe lack of training provided to teach management skills, particularly around safe work practices.

Well what a lot of your supervisors do is they become ticketed into being supervisors because they can sit and answer the questions on the legalities of the job. A lot of them don’t know how to supervise. They don’t know how to manage people.

I think an area we can improve on is training our supervisors.

Lots of the supervisors are made supervisors from [working on] the tools because they’ve done a good job. There’s no proper training between that. It’s only recently now people are starting to ask for proper supervisory - packaged training.

The data showed that several companies use the ‘buddy’ system of placing new entrants with more senior experienced workers who act as mentors. However, the OHS managers interviewed noted the importance of choosing the best mentor in that experienced workers are not necessarily the safest. The survey completed in phase one of this study supported this notion in that workers with more than 10 years experience were only able to identify an average of 30% of the hazards within the pictures provided.

Now we’re implementing a programme at the moment where you ‘buddy up’. New guys come in and you’ve got someone that’s senior in the role and they mentor them, they show them the right way because we’re the safety team. So we actually stringently check the mentor.

The buddy system was found to be false years ago under a training sense because all it really does is have somebody teach somebody else bad habits.

The more experienced people aren’t always the best teachers and they aren’t that safe themselves.

5.5.4 SAFETY CULTURE Developing and maintaining a robust safety culture that encouraged active hazard identification and reaction emerged as a key strategy in the data. Some OHS managers interviewed reported positive views of their organisation’s approach to safety.

You can really tell by the culture and I think culture plays a huge role in hazard identification and proactive OHS systems full stop.


24

There’s a genuine interest in improving safety, there’s a genuine interest in people not killing themselves and co-workers so in terms of the culture there’s a foundation there.

However, other OHS managers described an ongoing battle to improve safety on their worksites.

We have a small amount that sit on the end and are actively seeking a good safety culture and we have others, which were (I guess) dragging, kicking and screaming. We are just really battling with the fact that maybe we’ve got to actually really look at the whole way in which we try and instil this thinking about how to work safely. It’s always difficult to try to get to change that whole culture and the way people do things.

The older, more experienced worker once again emerged as the most difficult to change in terms of improving their safe work practices. Training which targets this cohort may need to be considered.

Some of the older generation don’t have a safety culture and like to do things the old way and it’s harder for them to adjust to a more formalised safety system or they don’t want too. I think it’s also the [training] courses too. It depends what roles you’re in. What hazards you’re exposed to and what the culture of the organisation is. I think that has a big influence on how people will perform. If they’re in an older organisation that perhaps is run by older people who aren’t as switched on that will be an issue and some organisations just perform better than others.

A number of OHS managers interviewed noted that legislation had a huge impact on safety culture in organisations. Some argue that the industry is overregulated.

Legislation, Government control or whatever Government are factors (or are factors) that have to be considered. Legislation and penalties do have a big impact on how people think and work. I think that if you put safety ownership back on the people who are actually doing the work rather than imposing, you know, five hundred documents on top of safety rules and regulations... you’re going to get a lot more success.

I think that’s partly the problem as well is now is we’re so overregulated, we take on that much that the guys that handle the tools are all basically being mothered and they’re just not safety thinking for themselves.

Once again the role of senior leaders in the organisation was noted as influential on the organisational safety culture.

Everything my view is any good safety programme within an organisation is underpinned by sound leadership.


25

You’ve got that culture, sub-culture mental attitude towards the company in regards to why they’ve got the systems in place in the first place so the other thing then is how often do you from a management perspective commit to safety in regards to having meetings, getting out there in the work place and showing if you like true passion for safety or do they just see it as blah, blah, blah? If we have a disconnect between [the] senior management group [and] middle management have in terms of the vision and the way it’s communicated - how can we expect our people on the shop floor to understand?

Where the safety culture of the organisation is tested is on the tasks that are completed on the night shifts. A number of OHS managers interviewed described breaches of safe work practice that occurs when completing tasks that require substantial ticketing and risk strategies.

You look at your production capability of night shift compared to day shift why is it we get so much more done in night shift than day shift? One of the things is I’ve asked is when does the high risk the one that requires all the permits and all those standards and work practices to be followed where you need full risk gear and proper lifting techniques and you need spotters and I said when do those high risk task, when do they predominantly get done? Ninety-nine percent of the time people will tell me weekends or night shift. If you want to see the safety culture of an operation - go look at it on night shift.

Furthermore, a number of companies in the mining industry employ contractors and sub-contractors to work alongside their in-house staff. Some OHS managers noted that the contracted staff may have differing levels of understanding of safety culture and may be reluctant to adopt the company’s culture. This is often exacerbated in that the contractor may be managed under their own safety regime (Bahn & Rainnie, forthcoming).

The other issue you’ve got to consider is a company that employs a lot of contractors or subcontractors is going to have issues perhaps getting those outsiders or those blow-ins to adopt the company’s culture.

Finally, as one OHS manager interviewed for the study recounted, they rely on the training of their people to instil safe work practice.

They’ll always take risks irrespective of what you’ve taught them is wrong. When you turn your back some will or some won’t but you don’t have the control of that once you do turn around. You just hope that you’ve educated them enough and taught them enough for them to not make those same mistakes for themselves.

5.5.5 SAFETY SYSTEMS The use of formal safety systems to manage organisational safe work practices emerged as a strategy to improve hazard identification skills.


26

If people don’t live, breathe and believe in the system or believe in hazard identification then they won’t, they won’t take it. It will be wallpaper. I suppose it’s up to managers and staff and everyone on site to honestly believe in the system and continually push it. The other issue is the type of safety systems that you have in place. If you can get people involved at the early stage and do assessing safety and the risks you’re probably going to have a lot more success than being beaten over the head with a whole series of high-level company policies.

However, several OHS managers reported that their safety systems may be too complicated and onerous to use and therefore have little impact on the safety culture or importantly for this study as a mechanism to record and track hazard identification processes.

Most companies seem to have a great systems, policies, procedures but then no one knows how to use them and therefore then they’re taking shortcuts or finding ways to avoid having to do all these prolonged safety things and are more concerned about getting the job done. We’ve got all these great websites and you can go on the internet and all our safety stuff’s on there and you know we’ve got all this and we’ve won awards but no one uses them.

Provide them with a system and a system’s only as good as the people that use it. The hazard tables that organisations tend to use don’t align with the risk profile and they never find their way back in a connected way to incidents and to the risk register.

There were numerous calls from the OHS managers to simplify systems that recognise the ability of their people to manage and understand the documentation that they produce. In addition, one OHS manager explained that in the case of smaller mining operations a lack of resources prohibits their use of a complex safety system that in turn may impact on the safety culture of that organisation.

I think probably where the industry falls down is it fails to understand the people better. A small green-fields explorer perhaps hasn’t got the time and manpower, resources and money to commit to an extensive safety system and get their people, you know, fully switched on to safety.

5.5.6 TRAINING IN HAZARD IDENTIFICATION

Research conducted by some of the OHS managers interviewed revealed a lack of knowledge of their staff to identify or manage the hazards within their work areas.

I did some experimental learning. Put them through an activity where they were in a hazardous environment etcetera and I said what you’ve got to do is utilise the tools that we use in the activity and out of twenty-four pit supervisors, superintendents, none of them knew the correct way to use and implement and manage our risk tools.

A key theme to emerge from the interviews was that of a need to do more training and specifically training in hazard identification skills.


27

One is the framework with which we provide our training, our resourcing and identifying the skills required to assist in hazard identification risk assessments. I think the work we’re doing in the pre-task hazard assessment process at level one is definitely going to improve those hidden and emerging hazards. I think broadly though, as an industry, we need to spend more time understanding individual’s propensity to take risk in a team setting and so individuals maturity levels and background and then tailor make some kind of a hazard perception, hazard awareness, intervention program and you might have three or four different approaches depending on your different, you know, team structures.

Furthermore, this training needs to be revisited and repeated regularly as it appears that limited learning occurs through the process. Delivery strategies require further examination to promote increased retention of the learning to promote increased application. One OHS manager suggested increased evaluation of the training they deliver in this area to analyse together with their staff gaps in their hazard identification processes.

One is where we are what we are finding is that there’s a number of people that go through the process, go through the training, we teach them about hazards, we teach them about identification, but three or four weeks later they walk out and it’s just not in the front of their mind. It’s just gone. Now we provide training, we provide JHA training and we provide hazard ID training. We put a few sheets of paper together asking what hazards can they identify and then collect all of that, go back later and show them where the hazards are and where they went wrong and do an evaluation. But I don’t think we make enough time for that.

There was an argument put forward by the OHS managers to separate training in hazard identification from the safety induction to provide dedicated training. In addition, they recommended supporting dedicated hazard identification training with continued coaching and mentoring by experienced staff in the workplace.

If you want someone to do hazard identification don’t put it into the introduction. Come back the following day or two days later and do hazard identification training as a training course.

Really we should be coaching and mentoring people on hazard identification once they get into the workplace but it’s just such a burden.

However, many interviewed noted that specialised training and continual mentoring is costly in time and money, particularly when the industry is plagued by high staff turnover and limited skilled labour supplies.

They’re not willing to spend the money on doing that [training] because they know as soon as that job’s finished them guys are going to go off somewhere else to another job and they’ll be hiring someone else and they haven’t got the time and the money.

People just don’t have the time to mentor and, you know, I think the mentoring stage has got to be done. We have to provide time and people to be able to do it.


28

5.5.7 WORKPLACE WALK THROUGHS A further strategy to specifically target hazard identification skill improvement is to conduct walk-throughs in the work areas. A number of the OHS managers interviewed suggested a need to move hazard awareness training and induction training out of the classroom into the work areas.

I think one of the things we’re triggering off next month as part and parcel with the tool box meetings is take the guy for a walk around and do hazard identifications and start building that into them. It only takes ten minutes to walk around an area and have a look and throw that on to the end of a tool box meeting and as we’re going around you can explain things. What you need to do is you need to actually get off your butt and take these guys out in groups. What you need to do is actually go into an area of a plant and actually go in and have these guys find them out. They need to do it not in a classroom sense but they’ve got to do it in a 3D sense.

When we do our induction training on site we don’t actually take them out into the field and do that hazard and risk perception.

Further reinforcement of the hazard identification process can be achieved by coaching and mentoring workers at the site of the hazard to determine the appropriate mechanism to manage and control the risk.

What I’m doing is I take the guys out there and coach them through it. I say to them right let’s have a look at this hazard that you’ve found this hole in the ground or a sharp edge or something like that. You see this as a hazard and I agree with you, there is a hazard there but what are the risks involved here? What do I have to do to actually get my hand to this sharp edge? What is the chance of that ever happening?

6.0 Discussion and summary This study set out to answer two research questions to determine the ability of workers in the mining sector to successfully identify hazards and to seek some strategies for improvement in this activity from OHS managers. In terms of the first research question: Do managers and employees have the knowledge to identify workplace hazards correctly? The findings are two-fold. First, for new entrants to the industry phase one of the study showed that safety induction training had little influence on the participant’s ability to identify hazards in pictures of their workplace. Some of the new entrants were only able to identify a small number of the hazards out of a possible 10. It could be argued that the purpose of a safety induction is not to train in identifying workplace hazards. However, given these new staff were being prepared to work underground the following day and 50% of them had little or no experience in this work environment it would be fair to suggest that better preparation is needed. In fact, the phase one of the study indicates that for new entrants, younger and older workers and even those entering supervisory roles, specific training in workplace hazard identification is required. This is supported by the greater ability to identify the hazards in the pictures by those with more experience and aged between 34 and 45 years. It is likely that these workers have picked up these skills as they learned on the job by observing others, but how many have learned through experiencing a near-miss? An additional concern is the poor performance of the three participants going into a supervisory role. The role of these staff


29

members is to manage their current workers including the new entrants. Why did they perform so badly on the hazard identification survey? Are they simply blasé about their working environment considering everything they do is highly hazardous? More research is required to tease out the reasons why their performance was so low. Second, phase two of the study revealed that 80% of the OHS managers interviewed agreed that their staff can identify hazards, however only 23% managers stated that their staff actively carried out this task in their workplace. In short, although most of the managers noted that their staff had the skills, the majority are not actively identifying hazards in their workplace. Most agreed that new entrants and those with many years experience were either unable to identify hazards in their workplace or had grown complacent in their assessment of the level of risk. However, there was not a consensus among the group regarding the link between age and the ability to identify hazards. Some indicated that younger workers were unable to perform this task; others disagreed and noted their high performance. The OHS managers interviewed for the study noted that in general the new entrant to the industry is often under prepared for the working environment. The managers argued that older workers were less able to identify hazards where others noted that it was length of experience not age that determined levels of complacency. The complacency of more experienced workers may be due to a lack of personal injury and this ability to remain unhurt can breed a false sense of security and encourage further risk-taking. A difference in risk perception was coupled with the view that the individual would not be harmed by hazards in their workplace (it would happen to someone else). Others indicated that a false sense of safety pervades some mining workplaces in that workers feel they are fully protected by the safety systems that are in operation. Many leave hazard identification and risk assessment processes to others to complete believing this to be the role of the health and safety professional. There was also evidence from the interviews that staff did not address hazards of which they were aware; particularly from younger inexperienced workers. The OHS managers noted that there were cases of staff that identified hazards but were unaware of the processes to address them. They argued that there needs to be a safety culture in their organisations that their workers that have a focus on hazard identification at the forefront of their everyday activities. Given that the findings of the study that address the first research question show a lack of active hazard identification practices in some mining organisations, the second research question sought to determine the processes that can be used to increase managers and employees hazard identification skills. The OHS managers interviewed for the study recognised a need to improve the hazard identification skills of their staff. Overall, the managers identified training, communication and documentation as important to improve hazard identification skills. Strategies that they suggested to improve hazard identification included incorporating hazard identification as part of performance management strategies, the role of safety inductions for new entrants, the importance of roles in improving organisational safety culture, the use of safety systems, specific training in hazard identification and the use of walkthrough workplace training to identify hazards. Linking hazard reporting to key performance indicators (KPIs) and incentives was reported as a strategy a number of companies use. However as some OHS manager’s noted that linking incentives to hazard-reporting processes, complicated payments of incentives and documentation, and has led to high risk tasks outsourced to external providers such as contractors. In linking hazard reporting numbers to performance there was a focus on numbers of hazards rather than on injury prevention by removing or controlling the hazards. The OHS managers interviewed discussed the role of workplace inductions questioning how


30

much was actually absorbed by new entrants to their organisations and that there is little in place to evaluate the learning that has occurred or retained. The OHS managers indicated that very little of the content in the induction was related specifically to hazard identification. Managers, supervisors and experienced workers have considerable influence over the new entrant and the practices in which they engage. Safe work practice needs the support of senior managers through their endorsement and engagement that flows down the hierarchy. The role of the supervisor as the front line manager to the workers is crucial; however supervisors are predominantly production driven. Several of the OHS managers interviewed for the study questioned the priority of safety by the supervisors working in their organisation noting a severe lack of training provided to teach them management skills, particularly around safe work practices. Developing and maintaining a robust safety culture that encouraged active hazard identification and reaction emerged as a key strategy to support active hazard identification and rectification. Some OHS managers interviewed reported positive views of their organisations approach to safety. However, other OHS managers described an ongoing battle to improve safety on their worksites. Finally, as one OHS manager interviewed for the study recounted, they rely on the training of their people to instil safe work practice. The use of formal safety systems to manage organisational safe work practices emerged as a further strategy to improve hazard identification skills. However, several OHS managers reported that their safety systems may be too complicated and onerous to use and therefore have little impact on the safety culture or importantly for this study as a mechanism to record and track hazard identification processes.

A key strategy to emerge from the interviews was that of a need to do more training and specifically training in hazard identification that is repeated regularly to reinforce the learning. However, delivery strategies require further examination to promote increased retention of the learning and to analyse together with their staff gaps in their hazard identification processes. The OHS managers argued a need provide dedicated training in hazard identification that is separated from the safety induction. In addition, they recommended supporting hazard identification training with continued coaching and mentoring by experienced staff in the workplace and walk throughs in the work areas. In addition, a number of the OHS managers interviewed suggested a need to move hazard awareness training and induction training out of the classroom directly into the work areas that is reinforced by coaching and mentoring of workers at the site of the hazard to determine the appropriate mechanism to manage and control the risk. This study shows that in order to reduce work-related injury and disease in the mining industry more needs to be done to train in, and emphasise the importance of, identifying hazards in the workplace.

6.1 Limitations of the study This study is limited in that the picture survey was conducted with workers from only one mining contracting organisation and could be tested more thoroughly over a number of organisations and across other industry sectors using industry specific photographs. In addition, the interviews with the OHS managers occurred once again within the one industry sector. In order to make some generalisations about hazard identification skills of workers additional interviews could be conducted with OHS managers in other industry sectors.


31

7.0 References Bahn, S. (forthcoming). Transformational leaders? The pivotal role that supervisors play in

safety culture, International Journal of Training Research, accepted June 2012. Bahn, S. & Barratt-Pugh, LGB. (forthcoming). Getting reticent young male participants to

talk: using artefact-mediated interviews to promote discursive interaction. Qualitative Social Work, published online 29th December 2011.

Bahn, S. & Rainnie, A. (forthcoming). Restructuring supply chains and OHS management in the Western Australian resources sector, Employee Relations, accepted August 2012.

Bentley, TA & Haslam, RA (2001) Identification of risk factors and countermeasures for slip, trip and fall accidents during the delivery of mail, Applied Ergonomics, 32(2): 127-134.

Biggs, HC, Sheahan, VL & Dingsdag, DP (2006) Improving industry safety culture: The tasks in which safety critical positions holders must be competent. In Proceedings CIB99 International Conference on Global Unity for Safety and Health in Construction, 181-187, Beijing, China.

Bohle, P & Quinlan, M (2000) Managing Occupational Health and Safety: A Multidisciplinary Approach, 2e, Melbourne: Macmillan.

Carter, G & Smith, SD (2006) Safety hazard identification on construction projects, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 132(2): 197-205.

Coleman, J.S (1978) Current contradictions in adolescent theory, Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 7: 1-11.

Cromie, JE, Robertson, VJ & Best, MO (2001) Occupational health and safety in physiotherapy: Guidelines for practice, Australian Journal of Physiotherapy, 47: 43-51.

Devine, SG, Muller, R & Carter, A (2008). Using the Framework for Health Promotion Action to address staff perceptions of occupational health and safety at a fly-in/fly-out mine in north-west Queensland. Health Promotion Journal of Australia, 19(3), 196-202.

Eisenhardt, KM & Graebner, ME (2007) Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges, Academy of Management J, 50, 25-32.

Fung, IWH, Tam, VWY, Lo, TY & Lu, LLH (2010) Developing a risk assessment model for construction safety, International Journal of Project Management, 28: 593-600.

Harms-Ringdahl, L (2001) Safety analysis – principles and practices in occupational safety (2e). Taylor & Francis, London.

Hollmann, S, Heuer, H & Schmidt, KH (2001) Control at work: A generalized resource factor for the prevention of musculoskeletal symptoms, Work & Stress, 15: 29-39.

International Labour Organisation (2005) Report on the Regional Tripartite Workshop on National Occupational Safety and Health Programmes, Proceedings of Regional Tripartite Workshop on National Occupational Safety, Thailand.

Kahneman, D, Slovik, P & Tversky, A (1982) Judgement under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Lees, F (1996) Loss prevention in the process industries (2nd edition). Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.

Manuele, FA (2010) Acceptable risk: Time for SH&E professionals to adopt the concept, Professional Safety, May.

March, JG & Shapira, Z. (1987) Managerial perspectives on risk and risk taking, Management Science, 33(11): 1404-1418.

Mattila, M (1985) Job load and hazard analysis: A method for the analysis of workplace conditions for occupational health care, British Journal of Industrial Medicine, 42: 656-666.

Ramsay, J, Denny, F, Szivotnyak, K, Thomas, J, Corneliuson, E & Paxton, KL (2006) Identifying nursing hazards in the emergency department: A new approach to nursing job hazard analysis, Journal of Safety Research, 37(1): 63-74.


32

Reinhold, K & Tint, P (2009) hazard profile in manufacturing: Determination of risk levels towards enhancing the workplace safety, Journal of Environmental Engineering and Landscape Management, 17(2): 69-78.

Rouhiainen, V (1992) QUASA: A method for assessing the quality of safety analysis, Safety Science, 15: 155-172.

Safe Work Australia (2011) National Work Health and Safety Strategy 2012-2022. www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au

Sayer, A (1992) Method in social science, 2nd Ed., Routledge, London. Schulte, PA (2007) Ethical and scientific issues on nanotechnology in the workplace,

Environmental Health Perspectives, 115: 5-12. Standards Australia (2009). Risk management: principles and guidelines, AS/NZS ISO

31000:2009. Tolbert, GD (2005) Residual risk reduction, Professional Safety, 50(11):25-33. Trethewy, RW (2000) Construction industry safe work 2000 report, WorkCover NSW,

Sydney. Tsutsumi, A, Nagami, M, Yoshikawa, T, Kogi, K & Kawakami, N (2009) Participatory

intervention for workplace improvements on mental health and job performance among blue-collared workers: A cluster randomized controlled trial, Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 51(5): 554-563.

WorkSafe WA (2011) Work Related Lost Time Injuries and Diseases in WA 2004-05 to 2008-09p http://www.commerce.wa.gov.au/WorkSafe/PDF/Statistics-industry/Industry%20profiles/Mining_profile.pdf

Documents

EDITH COWAN UNIVERSITY...2012/09/28 · the work of Tsutsumi et al (2009) who used participatory research techniques to improve the mental health of Japanese manufacturing workers