Maritime workers walked off docks shortly after the tragic death of a fellow worker on Wednesday at the Appleton dock in West Melbourne. The strike action was called quickly, and applied around the nation at all twenty-seven P&O Automotive and General Stevedoring (POAGS) ports, with work resuming yesterday afternoon. The press was quick to report on the accident, but in their haste remained unclear on a few facts.
The 41-year-old father of two was indeed struck by a beam during a lifting operation, which can be loosely termed as ‘rigging’. Conventional rigging involves the mechanical lifting of an object, using a crane or pulley system (such as a chain block) to suspend the object from above. Rigging can also include the lifting of objects by jacking from beneath, but only in the loosest sense of the term.
Most coverage of this story described the incident as a crane accident. The Age yesterday stated that “a 2.7-tonne steel beam fell from a crane”. Channel 9 also said a “steel drum…was being lifted by a crane when it suddenly collapsed”.
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYL46VoQ3pM[/youtube]
Any confusion about how the accident took place stems from a Worksafe press release, which inaccurately describes the lifting devices used as being “similar to a gantry crane”. The three-tonne weight is also referred to in this release.
Naturally, these details have been regurgitated and simplified, so that readers are led to believe that the incident was a crane accident. No cranes were involved in this incident. According to Kevin Bracken, branch secretary for the MUA in Victoria, the following took place:
A very large steel vessel was resting atop a rigging assembly of two rolled steel joist beams mounted on four hydraulic jacks. A low-loader truck was driven beneath the rig and the drum was to be lowered on to its trailer. While the jacks were being lowered one of them seized up, which caused the weight of the load to shift unevenly and tip off of its mounting position, which forced the beam to fall from its position on the other two jacks.
The most important question to be asked is about the positioning of the worker, a position that did not take into account the potential for accident. It is common policy in workplaces where rigging is performed to ensure that all workers are clear of any danger areas while a lift is in progress. Riggers will perform their duties while the load is at rest, and once all personnel are clear of the area then the machinery can be activated. Rigging is a high risk occupation, and riggers have to develop a keen sense for when and where they should perform their duties.
The tragedy of the worker’s death could not have been predicted by anyone at the time, nor perhaps the fact that one of the jacks would seize during a lift. Rigging equipment should be subjected to safety inspections before every lift, a protocol of the trade that is frequently ignored due to time constraints, or simple blind faith. However, it is the responsibility of all workers to be aware of their surroundings. The central question is whether the worker was required to be in that position during the lift, or if he had chosen to stand there. If he was required to be there, that would indicate a fault in the lift plan or an absence of a lift plan altogether.
The call for national regulation in the stevedoring industry by the MUA is now stronger than ever. Recent deaths in the industry indicate that something is amiss and centralisation of the law is long overdue. The mining industry has been quite effective at self-regulation in recent years, but it seems that the same has not happened in stevedoring.
The mining industry is largely driven by self-interest when it comes to worker safety. Deaths result in lawsuits, so companies that protect their workers protect themselves. Rigging operations in the mining and construction industries are complemented by reams of paperwork, which workers are expected to read and sign to indicate their understanding of the dangers of specific tasks (and possibly to disclaim their rights, or the rights of families and unions to claim compensation in the event of an accident).
The MUA allowed its workers to resume work yesterday afternoon, without any formal agreements with POAGS made. The purpose of the strike was not to force POAGS to comply with any demands, but to mark the death as significant and to highlight the issue nationally. This is part of the campaign for national regulation of the stevedoring industry. Representatives of the MUA are in discussion with Worksafe this morning.
Kevin Bracken attended the scene immediately after the accident. He says that all workers at the Appleton docks are extremely distressed about the death.
“We’ve said that we need regulation in the stevedoring industry, and Worksafe Victoria recognise that. They worked with us and the companies to develop industry guidance notes after we had two fatalities here in 2007,” Bracken told Crikey.
“Quite often we say to companies ‘that’s not following the industry guidance notes’ and they say that they don’t have to follow the industry guidance notes — so that’s not good and that’s why we believe we need regulation,” says Bracken. “There’s not a workplace in the country where they shouldn’t go and start working without a proper inspection to identify any hazards, and it should be done by an OH&S representative.”
“Another thing that’s gone by the wayside is vessel inspections: It’s in the industry guidance notes that there should be vessel inspections taking place, and you wouldn’t believe the opposition you get from management about this happening.” Bracken told Crikey. “They don’t want to roster people on, before the shift starts, to actually go and do the inspections. There’s two things affecting this- there’s a push for more productivity, and they’re trying to do it with less men.”
“So there’s problems in the stevedoring industry. We want make sure that at least our members are not facing death when they go to work. We’re not taking it lightly, we’re very resolved about making sure this doesn’t happen again.”
A spokesperson for POAGS made the following statement to Crikey:
“The development of national standards for the industry is something that’s ongoing – There are agreed national standards and unions have over time been involved in those discussions with operators like POAGS. There is state legislation in place that outlines workplace safety, and the workplace safety systems that are in place at POAGS are the national industry standard. They comply with the Worksafe laws, and as in any workplace they are under constant review. The union has for some time been running a campaign for federal legislation, rather than this being a sort of voluntary code. POAGS has sought representation on that federal committee, which should be introducing new OH&S legislation in 2012.”
Ben: This article is quite enlightening and I applaud you for giving a go.
There are two points which have crept in which deserve very careful critical scrutiny.
1. Bracken: “There’s not a workplace in the country where they shouldn’t go and start working without a proper inspection to identify any hazards, and it should be done by an OH&S representative.”
The case for these inspections being done by an OH&S representative is very weak to non-existent. Reliance on an additional step, which involves delay while bringing this person who has zero connection with the task is nonsense. The people involved in the task, including the supervisor but especially those closest to the hazard, are the ones who should be involved in review of or preparation of a risk assessment and work method statement which is agreed by all. The detail of the RA and WMS only needs to be that which is necessary for the job. Once an adequate WMS has been signed off by all at risk, the job proceeds safely and effectively. Any “outsider” exercising power of veto over this process effectively steals all moral ownership of the safety outcome, thus losing the commitment of the team.
2. “… There should be vessel inspections taking place, and you wouldn’t believe the opposition you get from management about this happening.”
There is no attempt to link this amazing statement from the cause and effect guts of the accident. It appears to me to be simply a ploy by the union to re-open an old wound, either real or imagined. Goodness knows why it gets a run here.
Any system which demands mandatory signoff by an OH&S representative alerts my BS antenna immediately. It is almost certainly a tool for the exercise of arbitrary union power, which is entirely different from workplace safety systems.
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
I have extensive experience in heavy construction, especially relating to planning and carrying out difficult operations such as multi-crane lifts or very high rigging involving chimneys, 90-metre steel structures, demolition of large structures, etc.
It has consistently been my experience that time spent with the crew, listening and behaving as a group of patient individuals, is time very well spent. It has also been consistently my experience that the presence of outsiders (OH&S reps, Union Delegates, Senior Management, etc) does not help the speed of the process or the safety of the job.
Perhaps my experience is irrelevant to you, but I come from a position of being at the same time (a) part of the management group and (b) a union member of 40+ years and proud to remain one.
Your experience is entirely relevant, John, and I thank you for your feedback. My rigging experience is not nearly as extensive as yours, comprising only a few years in the mining construction and maintenance industry. I am very familiar with the attitudes regarding OH&S inspections, and you will note that the comments to which you refer are those of an MUA rep, not my own. I did hint at cynicism about the business motives behind JSAs and related paperwork, which does have an effect on the attitudes down the line, but nevertheless they do have a place in high risk work analysis (although the system could be a lot better than it is).
As to why the comment about vessel inspections got a run here: it highlights the attitudes being resounded in the MUA, and the various reasons behind the strike action last week, which do not stem from Wednesday’s death alone. The accident was a tragic yet timely trigger which hopefully will bring about safer working conditions in the stevedoring industry, and others.
My question remains, why was the rigger beneath the load while the lift was in progress? The coronial enquiry will determine whether the death was a result of lax safety standards, or other human error.
I do think that unless the OH&S rep is highly experienced in rigging safety, they will not be able to enhance the inspection that will be performed by the rigging crew (regardless of whether some safety bod has been along for a look in the morning). In fact, they are more likely to hamper the ability of the crew to properly conduct the lift. An inexperienced OH&S rep has no business influencing a lift plan or the lift itself. But a properly experienced and trained safety rep CAN sometimes point out things that might have been overlooked. There are a lot of young crews out there (I’ve worked on a few) that don’t always have someone of your experience to guide them, and there are serious dangers involved with that kind of lack of experience.
Maybe you should sit through the OH&S cert, and get out there and help protect some of the young fellers. I’m sure you could be a valuable asset as an inspector.
OH&S certificate – done it.
I am always leery about adding issues to a grievance. The issue very quickly spreads into a log of claims and list of old battles and grievances. Let’s not forget that a man has died and this is supposed to be primarily about respect for him and his family first and everything else later.
If rigging is being done, where is the rigger? Is he in charge of the lift or just another dog having a go at the bone? I come from the old school, where whoever is in charge of a lift is in charge of the zone around the lift. This is the person who must be listened to during preparation of the risk assessment and conversion of that into the work method statement. He is then the one who is listened to on the job.
I have often stood beside such a man quietly, supporting and reassuring him in his role. During the actual lift, it is this person who I expect to clear the area and remind people of their safety zones and escape routes – especially when the unexpected happens. Did the crew gravitate to the stuck jack? If so, whose task was it to remind all non-essential people that they have no role in that location? By the time that the jack becomes jammed, the OH&S Rep will have left the site with a clear conscince – all boxes ticked and papers filed. It’s not his job any more and never was. If the crew need a more senior/experienced person in charge of the lift, so be it – but preferably as one of the crew.
For truly large lifts I have sometimes used a double cordon around the job, with the lift in charge of a cranes supervisor inside the inner perimeter. Everybody who is within the outer perimeter receives a briefing and signs onto the JSA or whatever, and the outer perimeter is guarded to prevent entry by the great unwashed. In this way, a crew of 35 or more can work safely “on site”, but while the lift is on and until the load is stable in its new location, only absolutely essential staff are close by and each of these is monitored by the lift supervisor to ensure that they are safe. He is the one with the 2-way and whistle who will freeze operations for a jiffy if anybody or anything is not according to plan.
As Engineer/Site Manager or whatever, I am at that stage only a visitor. I’m outside the inner cordon, along with the OH&S Rep, if such is present.
You will gather from the above that I have been lucky not to have the union delegates usurp the role of Manager or act as gatekeeper on my work.
If the Union Delegate or OH&S Rep do become involved in the process, I welcome them to the team and still proceed as above. The boss of the lift is still the boss of the lift – rigger, crane driver or (for 2 or more cranes) crane supervisor.
There is a legal right in some jurisdictions for the workers to be consulted about matters relevant to their safety at work. If management or other outsiders, not part of the work crew, become dominant in this process, I believe that it fails to win the confidence of the team. Persuasion, not mandatory direction, is the way to go. In extreme cases, this may take a week or more of formal and informal meetings, circulation of draft lift plans and so forth. I have engaged the structural designer in a couple, as well as external crane consultants. The workers on the job will then confidently volunteer to proceed, even on the most delicate of tasks and they will stick to the plan because it is THEIR plan.
Sorry to rave, but this is close to my heart and I know that this approach works well every time.