Journal of Health & Safety Research, & Practice Volume 10 Issue 1

Journal of

HEALTH &SAFETY RESEARCH &PRACTICE Vol 10 Issue 1 • 2020

Inside this issue Worker engagement in OHS decision making: a literature review with an Australian focus Second-hand mobile plant, equipment and machinery: finding the invisible hazards before they become visible catastrophes – EDEEP a potential solution Australian Work Health & Safety Policy for Psychosocial Hazards & Risks: Problems, Perceptions & Practice

A JOURNAL FOR THE HEALTH AND SAFETY PROFESSION

Journal of

HEALTH &SAFETY RESEARCH &PRACTICE Vol 10 Issue 1 • 2019 Editorial Board EDITOR IN CHIEF

Dr Stephen Cowley EXECUTIVE EDITORS

Dr David Borys, Dr Susanne Tepe BOARD MEMBERS

Dr Liz Bluff Dr Perri Timmins Dr Geoff Dell CFSIA Dr Felicity Lamm

Professor Niki Ellis Prof. Dennis Else FSIA (Hon) Prof. Michael Quinlan FSIA Dr Barry Gilbert FSIA

Dr George Rechnitzer FSIA (Hon) Prof. Andrew Hopkins FSIA Prof. Derek Smith FSIA Derek Viner FSIA (Hon)

Guidelines for authors Guidelines for authors are available at www.sia.org.au Subscriptions The journal is distributed free-of-charge to members of the Safety Institute of Australia.

Members may also access electronic copies of articles via www.sia.org.au. Published articles are available freely (open-source) via www.sia.org.au 6 months after publication. Subscribers will receive printed copies of each volume of the journal at the time of publication and will be granted access to the electronic copies of the latest articles.

In addition to receiving the JHSRP, subscribers will also receive the OHS Professional magazine, which is published quarterly. Subscriptions rates are available via www.sia.org.au.

Correspondence Correspondence should sent to: The Editor in Chief Journal of Health & Safety Research & Practice, Safety Institute of Australia Ltd. PO Box 2078, Gladstone Park, Victoria 3043. Email: publications@sia.org.au ISSN 1837-5030 The JHSRP is an international publication of the Safety Institute of Australia Ltd. It is aimed at health and safety practitioners, researchers and students.

The journal aims to: > Promote evidence and knowledge-based practice in health and safety;

All published papers have been subjected to a double-blind refereeing process by at least two referees.

> Share information about health and safety interventions;

The journal is distributed free-of-charge to members of the Safety Institute of Australia.

> Share information about solutions to health and safety problems;

Members may also access electronic copies of articles via www.sia.org.au.

> Encourage intellectual debate around propositions for improvements in practice.

Published articles are available freely (open-source) via www.sia.org.au 6 months after publication.

IN THIS ISSUE Worker Engagement in OHS Decision Making: a Literature Review With an Australian Focus.

Dr. Gerard F Ayers — Pages 3–10 Second-hand mobile plant, equipment and machinery: finding the invisible hazards before they become visible catastrophes – EDEEP a potential solution Prof. Garry Marling, Prof. Robin Burgess Limerick PhD, Adjunct Prof. Terry Brennan — Pages 11-17

Australian Work Health & Safety Policy for Psychosocial Hazards & Risks: Problems, Perceptions & Practice Dr Rachael Potter, Dr Valerie O’Keeffea — Pages 18- 26

2

JOURNAL OF HEALTH AND SAFETY, RESEARCH AND PRACTICE

Volume 10 Issue 1 • 2020

Worker Engagement in OHS Decision Making: a Literature Review With an Australian Focus.

Gerry Ayers1 Abstract: The definitions and interpretations of terms such as worker engagement, empowerment, workplace participation, consultation and industrial democracy have long been identified as issues of debate and discussion, yet they are often used synonymously. It is not the intention of this paper to distinguish between, nor dissect or indeed ‘unpack’ these terms; rather the terms will be used to express a common approach that many claim achieves greater worker involvement and influence in the occupational health and safety (OHS) decision-making process at the workplace. To help better understand how worker empowerment and engagement is dealt with in the workplace, and, in particular, in Australian workplaces, a literature review and examination of a range of publications, that had as their central theme the extent of workforce empowerment and engagement, was undertaken. The review also looked at issues of power-relationships at the workplace and the sometimes hostile labour relations climate, commonly associated with conservative governments, and how this can adversely affect workforce empowerment and engagement in terms of OHS decision making. The literature review indicated that collective worker involvement, together with trade union engagement and support and positive cooperation between employers and workers, can result in greater levels of OHS. The practical implications of this paper are to provide a discussion point over how workplace participation can positively affect levels of OHS and whatpotentially, is the most favourable industrial/workplace environment for this to occur.

CITE THIS ARTICLE AS

Ayers, G. (2018), Worker engagement in OHS decision making: a literature review with an Australian focus, J Health & Safety Research & Practice 10(1), 03-10 KEYWORDS

Worker engagement, participation, consultation, workplace democracy CORRESPONDENCE

Dr. Gerard F Ayers OHS&E Manager, CFMEU C&G Div Vic/Tas Branch 540 Elizabeth Street, Carlton South Victoria 3000.

E-mail: gerrya@cfmeu.org 1 Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU)

Introduction The fluidity of terms such as worker empowerment, worker engagement, workplace participation, industrial democracy, employee democracy and employee involvement and consultation, while often used synonymously and as part of an interchangeable dichotomy, have long been identified as issues of debate and discussion (Collins 1994). It is not the intention of this paper to distinguish between, nor dissect or ‘unpack’ these terms; rather the terms will be used, as Davis and Lansbury (1996) suggested, to express a common approach that many claim achieves greater worker involvement and influence in the decision-making process in the workplace – especially in terms of occupational health and safety (OHS).

The aim of this paper is to assist in a better understanding of how worker empowerment and engagement is dealt with in the workplace, in particular Australian workplaces, and what effect it may have on levels of OHS. Using a range of electronic databases located within academic libraries, including; Federation University Ballarat, RMIT University Melbourne and the State Library of Victoria, as well as computer based searches conducted via popular search engines Google, Google Scholar and AltaVista; this paper examined a range of publications, that had as their central theme the extent of workforce empowerment and engagement. The literature review also looked at papers that focused on issues of power-relationships at the workplace and the (sometimes hostile) industrial/labour relations climate and how this can affect workforce empowerment and engagement in terms of OHS decision making.

Utilizing an approach that might best be described as a ‘hermeneutics mode of understanding’, that is using a 3

JOURNAL OF HEALTH AND SAFETY, RESEARCH AND PRACTICE

Volume 10 Issue 1 • 2020

critical theory of interpretation of the texts (Crotty 1998), the author carefully focused on not just the knowledge and the findings within the literature, but constantly questioned such knowledge and findings. The result of this review is as follows.

The ‘Level’ of Worker Involvement Cameron, Hare, Duff and Maloney (2006) and Lunt, Bates, Bennett and Hopkinson (2008) both described worker engagement as the degree of input that workers have into the very decisions that affect them; which they believed was best measured via the degree of control that those workers had over such decisions. Worker engagement was further defined by Lunt et al. (2008) as ‘… the extent to which the workforce contributes to decisions that affect their health and safety…’ (p.x). In their opinion, such engagement allowed more effective control solutions to be generated while positively motivating the workforce to perform/undertake their tasks safely.

Shearn (2005) had earlier identified that workers generally responded positively to being in a position whereby their influence helps shape or veto workplace decisions. In his research, Shearn provided valuable insights into the issues that surround and influence worker participation in the management of OHS. However, he also claimed (2004) that participation by itself, regardless of the mechanisms used, is an unviable proposition unless workers actually realise some degree of influence over decisions and practical outcomes.

The research of Walters, Nichols, Connor, Tasiran and Cam (2005) concurred with this approach. They argued that consultation must be much more than just a mere imparting of information, stating that it must be associated with what they described as an ‘implication of consequential action’. Whilst this approach may well be commendable, there are still some employers who arguably have an unfortunate tendency to either fail to take heed of suggestions or recommendations eventuating from consultation, or simply commit to information and consultation only after decisions are made without any input, or, at the very least, consideration of employee points of view (Cooling 2005; Sargeant 2001). Similar sentiments were expressed by Walters and Frick (2000), who argued that while the provision of information is important, without the right of input and influence into the decision-making process, this constitutes a very weak form of participation.

In his critical analysis on how the changing labour market affected levels of OHS and participation of employees at the workplace, using evidence from Sweden, Norway and Italy, Johnstone (2005) argued that participatory mechanisms with high levels of worker involvement were far superior to those where worker involvement was more circumscribed. It is generally accepted that worker involvement and positive cooperation between employers and workers can and indeed does result in greater levels of OHS (Johnstone 2005; Walters et al. 2005; Wilkinson, Dundon, Marchinton & Ackers 2004; Frick & Walters 1998).

In their social commentary on workplace rights and social citizenship Hearn and Lansbury (2005) believed that a worker’s role both at the workplace and in society in general, was far broader than the limited effect that was generally attributed to them, stating that ‘…workers should have the time and appropriate forms of representation and self-expression, to be able to influence the conditions that affects them both in the workplace and in the wider community…’ (p.258).

The recognition between worker participation and engagement and society values, was also acknowledged by the United Kingdom’s Health and Safety Commission in their document ‘Strategy for Workplace Health and Safety in Great Britain to 2010 and beyond’. In this document, employee involvement was cited as a fundamental factor in aiming to make health and safety the cornerstone of a civilised society. However, notions of managerial prerogative can potentially outweigh, overrule and unduly influence the workplace participation and decisionmaking process (Butler 2005; Jones 2003; Collins 1996).

The Influence of Managerial Prerogative Collins (1996) inferred that the notion of managerial prerogative existed because management have always had an ongoing struggle to secure control over output levels and labour discipline. He suggested that employee participation was merely set up to deflect or temper worker aspirations and was simply another managerial control initiative. In his critical appraisal and evaluation on the concept of employee empowerment, Collins (1996) argued that it was management who generally control the workplace and unilaterally set the conditions of employment; thereby having the greatest influence over the workplace environment. He suggested it was the degree of empowerment, and what issues employees actually had any influence over, that should be questioned and challenged, rather than whether employees were engaged in any type of employee participation programme.

Indeed, Butler (2005) described managerial prerogative as ‘…the dominance and ideological hegemony of management, serving to routinely privilege managerial interpretations of given situations…’ (p.285). Many managers claimed that the participatory and consultation process had significantly impinged upon their roles and 4

JOURNAL OF HEALTH AND SAFETY, RESEARCH AND PRACTICE

Volume 10 Issue 1 • 2020

responsibilities - ending in frustration and resentment by those in managerial roles (Grison & Worland 2000).

However according to Sargeant (2001), workplace participation and consultation is not about stopping managerial prerogatives; rather it is about making management decisions subject to a process of an exchange of views with employee representatives. In essence, it is about establishing a dialogue that is considered and accountable, prior to decisions being made and subsequently implemented. This is in some ways consistent with an earlier approach taken by Lashley and McGoldrick (1994), who believed that employee empowerment was about embracing a wider variety of ideas and practices, including the notions of consultation and communication with employees, and should be seen not so much as a way of doing away with the more traditional and conventional ideas of managerial control, but rather as a way of varying the forms of the exercising of that control. As Gollan and Patmore (2003) suggested, consultation is nothing more than employees having ‘…a right to know at an early stage and to have meaningful input into decisions which fundamentally affect their lives and livelihoods…’ (p.15).

Employee Participation and Industrial Relations in Australia - Control, Power or Consensus?

Historically, compared to the rest of the world, Australian managers have lagged in their appreciation and support of employee and democratic participation in the workplace (Morgan & Zeffane 2003, Davis & Lansbury 1996).

This is perhaps surprising because it is generally acknowledged that employee representation schemes can produce great social, economic, cultural and health and safety benefits (Arthur & Dong-One 2005; Combet 2003; Gollan & Patmore 2003).

Buchanan (1996) argued that the rhetoric about the need for employee involvement and participation in Australia has not always been matched in practice, because managerial and human resource management ideology has meant that, in reality, consultation and employee participation has largely been based on management terms or subsequently not at all. As Wilkinson et al. (2004) noted, ‘…the levels at which employees have a say remains the preserve of managerial control…’ (p.299).

According to Mitchell (2003), the rationale for employee democracy, participation or involvement is primarily based upon the concepts of democracy and power. The definition of this power was described by Mitchell as the inherent power imbalance in an employer/employee relationship and the authoritarian nature of the employment relationship; which he suggested must be checked by applying democratic principles in the workplace. In such an approach, the principles of democracy are applied, drawing upon the notions of democracy of the parliament and transferring them to the workplace to draw a parallel between a citizen’s relationship with the state, to that of a worker’s relationship with their firm or organisation. In this way, Mitchell (2003) implied that employees are entitled to a voice in the direct control of their workplace, as they arguably have over their state. The notions of a re-distribution of power at the workplace were also seen by Morgan and Zeffane (2003), as an important element for employee involvement - especially in terms of workplace decision making.

In 1996, the then Australian conservative federal government unilaterally removed all provisions dealing with employee consultation from federal industrial awards1. Gollan and Patmore (2003) argued that unlike citizens in many European democracies, this meant that employees under Australian Commonwealth law had no general right to be consulted in their workplaces or become what they called ‘industrial citizens’. Effectively, the 1996 changes meant that Australian industrial law failed to recognise the basic right of employees to be informed and consulted when organisations failed or engaged in major restructuring (Forsyth 2003).

Ideological, political and economic structures and factors are all acknowledged and recognised as important influences in the shaping of managerial strategies and the levels of involvement in representative structures and employee participation and decision-making processes at the workplace (Härenstam et al. 2006; Peetz 2006; Gaventa & Cornwall 2001; Walters & Frick 2000). In light of this, the definition of ‘industrial power’ is often taken to be an ability to dominate or benignly control the nature of the industrial relations agenda (Antonsen 2009; Park 2001; Alexander & Lewer 1994).

If certain voices are excluded from the workplace debate, non-participation can be mistakenly interpreted as apathy or inefficacy, rather than a process of exclusion in what is essentially a political process (Gaventa & Corwall 2001). Indeed, Gaventa and Cornwall claimed that the hidden face of power is not so much about who wins or loses on an issue, but rather who is prevented from becoming involved in the discussions in the first place. In their view, ‘…empowerment through knowledge means not only challenging expertise, but it means expanding who participates in the knowledge-production process…’ (p.71).

1 In Australia, an industrial award is a ruling handed down by either the Fair Work Commission (or its predecessor) which grants all wage earners in one industry or occupation the same minimum pay rates and conditions of employment (wikipedia.org, 2018)

5

JOURNAL OF HEALTH AND SAFETY, RESEARCH AND PRACTICE

Volume 10 Issue 1 • 2020

Direct or Collective Representation and Participation?

Within the debate on worker engagement/participation, the literature indicates that over the past decade or so, there has been a gradual move away from collective representation to an increasing focus on the individual (Peetz 2006; Walters et al. 2005; Wilkinson et al. 2004; Morgan & Zeffane 2003).

In comparing the quality and efficacy of direct and indirect participation and consultation, Cameron et al.

(2006) noted that while direct consultation can be effective, they also recognized the limitations and the logistical difficulties that can and do eventuate in implementing such a form of consultation and participation. This is especially so when a workplace, or indeed an industry such as the construction industry, is based upon a transient workforce and has an abundance of subcontractors, smaller contractors and many other individual subcontracting workers that make up the majority of the workforce population (Lingard & Rowlinson 2007; Quinlan & Mayhew 2000). Such individual or direct consulting can be both expensive and extremely time consuming, which are arguably two of the main considerations and concerns for any contractor and/or subcontractor in the construction industry (Frick et al. 2000; Quinlan & Mayhew 2000; Quinlan & Bohl 1991). According to Cameron et al. (2006), on large commercial and industrial construction sites, which generally have large numbers of workers working for a multitude of sub-contractors, individual consultation generally appears to be only superficial, thereby reducing the effectiveness and meaningfulness of the consultation and employee participation process.

Whilst the approach of consulting directly with individual workers is promoted by many conservative governments, ideological and conservative lobby groups, and employer associations as being successful and effective, there still appears to be a lack of empirical data that adequately demonstrates this. Conversely, there is arguably strong evidence that continually reveals the success and effectiveness of collective representation and consultation – especially over issues to do with workplace health and safety (Quinlan 2009; Lunt et al. 2008; Walters 2006; Wilkinson et al. 2004; Quinlan & Mayhew 2000; Walters & Frick 2000).

In terms of such evidence, Cameron et al. (2006) had earlier referred to numerous studies which they claimed provided clear verification that effective worker involvement and consultation is reliant upon committed trade union activity in the workplace; hence the notion of collectivism and, through this, indirect or collective consultation via duly elected OHS representatives. However, while they recognized the importance of trade union involvement and the collective idealism that is fundamental to trade unionism, they also cautioned that this approach would not automatically guarantee lower rates of accidents and incidents or indeed increased levels of OHS. Nevertheless, they believed the trade union still remains one of the main sources of OHS advice and information for many affected workers.

Gill (2009) claimed that the strength of collective representation is that it allows workers to initiate issues and grievances and enables them to confidently seek advice over such issues and grievances, without the fear of company reprisals. Interestingly, she also indicated that there is substantial evidence that shows that a collective voice and group representation may actually compliment the individual voice. Rather than seeing the individual voice as a substitute for the collective voice, Gill believed that the two forms of employee voice should be seen to complement one another. Instead of debating the positives and negatives of either collective representative or individual employee engagement, Cameron et al. (2006) believed it was the issue of competent and accurate advice which was the real factor in determining whether or not effective and meaningful worker engagement and consultation occurred.

While there may never be complete agreement over whether representative employee participation or direct employee participation or consultation is more effective or efficient than the other, Walters and Frick (2000) claimed that ‘…research on direct participation in general indicates enormous variation in the degree of participation experience and only in a minority of cases, is there a high degree of worker involvement’ (p.48). Indeed, Quinlan and Bohle (1991) were of the firm belief that regardless of the type of environment workers may find themselves in, some workers, by themselves, will simply never be in a position to either articulate or defend their interests against managerial and or corporate directives and philosophies.

OHS Representatives and Their Trade Union Evidence indicates that one of the most effective means of making workplaces safer is for the workplace to have elected trade union OHS representatives (Walters & Frick 2000; Quinlan & Mayhew 2000). According to Wilkinson et al. (2004) the presence of recognised trade unions and union representation on formal joint consultative committees also ensures a fair and independent voice is heard in such forums. While this evidence may indicate the importance of trade union involvement, the mere presence of trade union representation at the workplace does not automatically guarantee improved levels of OHS and overall OHS performance (Cameron et al. 2006). Gill (2009) indicated that trade unions needed to be strong, knowledgeable and competent if they were 6

JOURNAL OF HEALTH AND SAFETY, RESEARCH AND PRACTICE

Volume 10 Issue 1 • 2020

not only to help improve safety for their members, but if they were also to assist and contribute in the creation of high levels of trust and commitment at the workplace; thereby providing a more cooperative relationship between all stakeholders. This appears to reinforce and support the earlier work of Gollan and Patmore (2003) who claimed that: ‘… t rade union representation of employees is of obvious importance in building an improved system of employee participation’ (p.26).

Lunt et al. (2008) believed that there was ample evidence that indicated that workplaces, with trade union OHS representatives and safety committees, performed far better in terms of fewer accidents and incidents of ill health than non-union workplaces. They argued that trade unions had a particular role to play in supporting and training OHS representatives so that effective workforce engagement could take place, claiming that ‘… in cases where trade unions were present, more meaningful worker consultation and representation on health and safety has been found…’ (p.40). Trade union training also appeared to give OHS representatives the knowledge, confidence, power and ability to challenge and question the decisions made by management in relation to their members’ health and safety (Walters 2003, 1998). The work of Walters and Frick (2000) appeared to support this, stating that ‘…the significance of both the quality and quantity of trade union training has emerged very clearly from European surveys as crucial to both the development and integration of representation in health and safety at the workplace level…’, and that ‘…this training is also unmatched by any other source of provision’ (p.48).

This sentiment was also supported by Shearn (2004), who claimed that worker participation was more effective where trade unions provided training and support for workers. He believed trade unions and trade union OHS representatives in the UK appeared to have a positive impact upon safety performance when compared with nonunion workplaces, which in general appeared to have poorer levels of OHS. While it is generally acknowledged that having workers involved as genuine partners via direct worker participation will only succeed if adequate legal protection is provided under a legislative framework, it is also important to note that such legislative protection is much more effective in industries where trade unions are strong and safety conscious (Tombs 2005; Walters et al. 2005; Gunningham & Johnstone 1999; Quinlan & Bohle 1991). Indeed, the Robens’ philosophy on OHS legislation and the general move towards OHS self-regulation, upon which much of the ‘modern’ OHS regulatory framework both in Australia and many European Union member states has been underpinned, was in fact predicated upon a strong and active trade union movement (Shearn 2004, Walters 2003).

However, as pointed out by Gunningham and Johnstone (1999), the decline in trade union membership and changes in industrial relation legislation, together with what Hall, Oudyk, King, Naqvi and Lewchuk (2016) recently described as the ‘…effects of neoliberalism and globalization in reshaping the capacity of workers to meaningfully participate in the governance of their working conditions…’ (p.2), is making strong trade unionism in many industries and indeed in many countries, much more difficult to achieve. Indeed, Hall et al. (2016) claimed that ‘…declining unionism, increasing employment precarity and worker insecurity, deregulation, privatization and rapid labor process changes are all seen as eroding the political capacities of communities and worker representatives to exercise an influence over employer decisions’ (p.2).

Recent Australian Experiences Australia has experienced a dramatic decline in union density and collective employment regulation over the past twenty years, especially with the election of conservative governments back in the 1990s (Saksvik and Quinlan 2003). According to Saksvik and Quinlan (2003), this has lessened participation and co-operation between the parties, and while the full effect that this may or may not have had on levels of OHS in the Australian workplace is yet to be fully and critically assessed, they believed that there is enough evidence to suggest that there are fewer effective workplace OHS committees and employee representatives. Saksvik and Quinlan also argued that the lessening importance of tripartite collaboration has reduced the influence and the role that workers have been able to play in terms of vetting OHS management systems.

In two relatively recent research papers, Walters, Quinlan, Johnstone and Wadsworth (2016) and Walters, Johnstone, Quinlan and Wadsworth (2016) wrote about the effects of worker representation in the Queensland coal-mining industry. Both of these papers primarily focused on how workers represented their members OHS interests in a fundamentally hostile labour relations environment, and some of the strategies they were forced to use in such an environment.

Both pieces of research concluded that overall, better OHS outcomes were more likely when employers and OHS representatives work together and that ‘…joint arrangements, trade unions and worker representation at the workplace are positively associated with such outcomes…’ (Walters, Quinlan et al. 2016, p.380). Walters, 7

JOURNAL OF HEALTH AND SAFETY, RESEARCH AND PRACTICE

Volume 10 Issue 1 • 2020

Quinlan et al. (2016) also specifically commented on past papers that had examined participative approaches in OHS management in mining, arguing that one reason for the limitations in its contribution to improving trends in OHS recently, are the hostile labour relations in the industry – which they suggested leads to levels of mistrust between managers and union representatives. In their opinion, many of the Queensland coal mining companies whom participated in their research ‘…employ aggressive and often uncompromising human resource strategies, attempting, among other things, to marginalize the position of organized labour…’ (p. 382).

Walters, Johnstone et al. (2016) concluded that ‘…operating in a hostile labour relations system has caused (OHS) representatives to place a strong reliance on regulation in support of their actions…’ (p. 437) and they were glowing in their praise and recognition for the ‘…positive role representatives and unions play in preventive health and safety…’ (p. 439).

Walters, Quinlan et al. (2016) held similar views, stating: ‘…our analysis provides evidence that, with the support of fellow workers, their union and the mines inspectorate, HSR’s2 in Queensland coalmines address serious risks and these actions are broadly effective. This is despite a hostile labour relations climate and limited support from mining companies, whose preferred unitary approach leaves little room for pluralist forms of representative participation…’ (p.392).

Conclusion and Future Research: On the weight of the evidence reviewed and presented in this paper, it is clear that there are well acknowledged benefits that can and do occur within organizations that have, as their workplace engagement and empowerment centerpiece, employee elected OHS representatives and trade union participation and involvement. It is perhaps unfortunate that there still appears to exist an approach (at least in some industries) that relies on an aggressive and hostile labour relations environment that attempts to restrict, if not completely eliminate, employee and trade union involvement at the workplace.

However, even in the face of such hostile and antagonistic labour relations, employee OHS representatives together with their trade unions, can and still do play a vital and positive role in improving OHS outcomes in many industries through their active and resourceful participation and engagement.

To fully determine if workplace engagement and empowerment is truly engrained and effective in our workplaces, it is recommended that future research focus on the amount and/or level of influence employees can and do exert in decision making, and what types of decisions employees are capable of influencing. It is important to continue to identify the types of environments – both in terms of overall ideological and governmental approaches and the general industrial relations environment, which is best suited to facilitating and achieving the best OHS outcomes for all stakeholders and the broader community, in a truly cooperative, respectful and equal partnership.

In terms of practical applications for OHS practitioners and professionals, a workplace environment that both respects, acknowledges and allows for free and open employee participation, with trade union representation, without negative or adverse employment relationship consequences, may well yield more OHS benefits in terms of OHS outcomes. This is something that all OHS practitioners and professionals should consider giving a higher priority to, not just within the context of their current roles and responsibilities, but also in the cultural, industrial and political environment that they may work within.

2 HSR’s refers to health and safety representatives.

References

Alexander, R. & Lewer, J. 1994, Understanding Australian industrial relations (3rd Ed), Hardcourt Brace, Sydney. Antonsen, S. 2009, Safety culture and the issue of power, Safety Science, (47), pp.183-191.

Arthur, J.B. & Dong-One, K. 2005, Gainsharing and knowledge sharing: the effects of labour-management cooperation, International Journal of Human Resource Management, vol. 16, no.9, pp.1564-1582.

Buchanan, J. 1996, Managing labour in the 1990s, in Rees, S. & Rodley, G. (eds) The Human Cost of Managerialism: advocating the recovery of humanity, Pluto Press, Australia.

Butler, P. 2005, Non-union employee representation: exploring the efficacy of the voice process, Employee Relations, vol.27, no.3, pp.272-288.

Cameron, I., Hare, B., Duff, R. & Maloney, B. 2006, An investigation of approaches to worker engagement, Research Report RR516. Available on the internet, Health and Safety Executive (UK) homepage 8

JOURNAL OF HEALTH AND SAFETY, RESEARCH AND PRACTICE

Volume 10 Issue 1 • 2020

http://www.hse.gov.uk/reserach.htm Accessed Feb 2017.

Cooling, R. 2005, Wishful thinking, Safety and Health Professional, vol. 23, no.11 pp 43-45.

Collins, D. 1996, Control and isolation in the management of empowerment, Empowerment in organisations, vol.4, no.2, pp.29-39.

Combet, G., 2003, Employee consultation in an Australian context: The Works Council debate and trade unions, in Gollan, P. J. & Patmore, G. (eds)], Partnership at work: the challenge of employee democracy, Labor Essays, pp.134-139.

Crotty, M. 1998, The Foundations of Social Research: meaning and perspective in the research process, Allen & Unwin, St. Leonards.

Davis, E. M. & Lansbury, R. D. 1996, Employee involvement and industrial relations reform: reviewing a decade of experience in Australia, Employee Relations, vol.18, no.5, pp.5-24.

Forsyth, A. 2003, Giving employees a voice over business restructuring: a role for works councils in Australia, in Gollan P.J. & Patmore G. (eds), Partnership at work: the challenge of employee democracy, Labor Essays, pp.140-150.

Frick. K., Jensen. P. L., Quinlan. M. & Wilthagen, T. 2000, Systematic Occupational Health and Safety Management: perspectives on international development, Pergamon, Amsterdam.

Frick, K. & Walters, D. 1998, Worker representation on health and safety in small enterprises: lessons from a Swedish approach, International Labour Review,vol 137.

Gaventa, J. & Cornwall, A. 2001, Power and knowledge, in Reason, P. & Bradbury, H. (eds.), Handbook of action research: participative inquiry and practice, Sage, London.

Gill, C. 2009, Union impact on the effective adoption of high performance work practices, Human Resource Management Review, vol. 19, pp.39-50.

Gollan, P. J. & Patmore, G. 2003, The challenge of employee democracy, in Gollan, P.J. & Patmore, G. (eds), Partnership at work: the challenge of employee democracy, Labor Essays, pp.15-36.

Hall, A., Oudyk, J., King, A., Syed, N., & Lewchuk, W., 2016, Identifying knowledge activism in worker health and safety representation: a cluster analysis, American Journal of Industrial Medicine, Vol 59, Issue 1, pp.42-56.

Health & Safety Commission 2005, “Strategy for workplace health and safety in Great Britain to 2010 and beyond”. Available on the internet, Health and Safety Executive (U.K) homepage http://www.hse.gov.uk/ consult/condocs/strategycd.pdf Accessed Feb 2017.

Hearn, M. & Lansbury, R. 2005, Reworking citizenship: renewing workplace rights and social citizenship, unpublished paper, University of Sydney, available on the internet http://airaanz.econ.usyd.edu.au/papers/ Hearn_Lansbury.pdf Accessed Feb 2017.

Johnstone, R. 2005, Regulating occupational health and safety in a changing labour market, Working paper 34, National Research Centre for OHS Regulation, available on the internet, Australian National University home page http://ohs.anu.edu.au Accessed Feb 2017.

Jones, O. 2003, The persistence of autocratic management in small firms: TCS and organisational change, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, vol. 9, no. 6, pp. 245-267.

Lashley, C. & McGoldrick, J. 1994, The limits of empowerment: a critical assessment of human resource strategy for hospitality operations, Empowerment in Organisations, vol.2, no. 3, pp. 25-38.

Lingard, H. & Rowlinson, S. 2005, Occupational Health and Safety in Construction Project Management, Spoon Press, London.

Lunt, J., Bates, S., Bennett, V. & Hopkinson, J. 2008, Behaviour change and worker engagement practices within the construction sector, Research Report RR660, Health and Safety Executive, available on the Health and Safety Executive home page: http://www.hse.gov.uk/research/rrhtm/rr660.htm. Accessed Feb 2017.

Mitchell, A. D. 2003, Democracy and power as foundations of employee control, in Gollan, P. J. & Patmore G (eds.), Partnership at work: the challenge of employee democracy, Labor Essays, pp.73-83.

Morgan, D. & Zeffane, R. 2003, Employee involvement, organisational change and trust in management, International Journal of Human Resource Management, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 55-75.

Occupational Health and Safety Act 1985 (Vic).

9

JOURNAL OF HEALTH AND SAFETY, RESEARCH AND PRACTICE

Volume 10 Issue 1 • 2020

Quinlan, M. & Bohle, P. 1991, Managing occupational health and safety in Australia: a multidisciplinary approach, MacMillan, South Melbourne.

Quinlan, M. & Mayhew, C. 2000, Precarious employment, work re-organisation and the fracturing of OHS management, in Frick, K., Jensen, P. L., Quinlan, M. & Wilthagen, T. (eds), Systematic occupational health and safety management; perspectives on an international development, Pergamon, Amsterdam.

Saksvik, O., P. & Quinlan, M. 2003, Regulating Systematic Occupational Health and Safety Management: comparing the Norwegian and Australian experience, Industrial Relations, vol. 58, no. 1, pp. 33-59. Sargeant, M. 2001, Employee consultation, Employee Relations, vol.23, no.5, pp. 483-497.

Shearn, P. 2005, Workforce participation in occupational health and safety management at the FMC Technologies Ltd, Dunfermline, Report No. HSL/2005/52. Available on the internet, Health and Safety Executive (U.K) homepage http://www.hse.gov.uk/research.htm Accessed Feb 2017.

Shearn, P. 2004, Workforce participation in the management of occupational health and safety, Report No. HSL/2005/09. Available on the internet, Health and Safety Executive (U.K) homepage http://www.hse.gov.uk/ research.htm Accessed Feb 2017.

Walters, D. 2006, One step forward, two steps back: worker representation and health and safety in the United Kingdom, International Journal of Health Services, vol 36, no.1, pp. 87-111.

Walters, D. 2003, Working arrangements for OHS in the 21st Century; Working paper 10, National Research

Centre for OHS Regulation, available on the internet, Australian National University homepage http://www. ohs.anu.au/publications/pdf/WP10.Walters1.pdf Accessed Feb 2017.

Walters,D, & Frick, K, 2000, Worker participation and the management of occupational health and safety: reinforcing or conflicting strategies? in Frick, K., Jensen, P. L., Quinlan, M. & Wilthagen, T. (eds), Systematic occupational health and safety management; perspectives on an international development, Pergamon, Amsterdam.

Walters, D. 1998, Employee representation on health and safety in small enterprises: a trade union initiative in agriculture, Employee Relations, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 164-179.

Walters, D., Johnstone, R., Quinlan, M., & Wadsworth, E., 2016, Safeguarding workers: A study of health and safety representatives in the Queensland coalmining industry, 1990-2013., Departement Des Relations Industrielles, Universite Laval, ISSN 1703-8138, RI/IR 71-3, pp.418-441.

Walters, D., Kirby, P. & Daly. F. 2001, The impact of trade union education and training in health and safety on the workplace activity of health and safety representatives, Health and Safety Executive (HSE), London, available on the internet, Health and Safety Executive (UK) homepage http://www.hse.gov.uk/research Accessed Feb 2017.

Walters, D., Quinlan, M., Johnstone, R., & Wadsworth, E., 2016, Cooperation or resistance? Representing workers’ health and safety in a hazardous industry, Industrial Relations Journal, Vol 47, Issue 4, pp.379-395.

Walters D., Nichols, T., Connor, J., Tasiran, A., C. & Cam, S. 2005, The role and effectiveness of safety representatives in influencing workplace health and safety, Health and Safety Executive, available on the internet, Health and Safety Executive (UK) homepage http://hse.gov.uk.research/rrhtm/rr363.htm Accessed Feb 2017.

Wikipedia, 2018, Industrial Award, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_award, Accessed June 2018.

Wilkinson, A., Dundon,T., Marchinton, M. & Ackers, P. 2004, Changing patterns of employee voice: case studies from the UK and Republic of Ireland, The Journal of Industrial Relations, vol. 46, no. 3, pp. 298-322.

10

JOURNAL OF HEALTH AND SAFETY, RESEARCH AND PRACTICE

Volume 10 Issue 1 • 2020

Second-hand mobile plant, equipment and machinery: finding the invisible hazards before they become visible catastrophes – EDEEP a potential solution Prof. Garry Marling1, Prof. Robin Burgess-Limerick PhD 2, Adjunct Prof. Terry Brennan 3 Abstract The mining industry is suffering from a softening of the global economy. As such, there has been a rationalisation of resources, and this has included the sale of plant, equipment and machinery (plant) that is no longer required.

A fundamental problem with purchasing second-hand plant is that, without thought for the design of the plant and the nature and scope of its new operational requirements, it can result in ill-health, injury, damage and loss. There are statutory obligations for suppliers and buyers of second-hand plant. Not managing the risk of second-hand plant may have both civil and criminal legal implications and result in fines that directly impact on profitability and organisational reputation. The Earth Moving Equipment Safety Round Table (EMESRT) developed the Design Evaluation for EME Procurement (EDEEP) method to deliver safe design information for new plant in the procurement process. The EDEEP process can also be used to assist buyers and sellers of second-hand plant meet their statutory and common law obligations.

CITE THIS ARTICLE AS

Marling, G., Burgess-Limerick, R. & Brennan, T., (2019), Second-hand mobile plant, equipment and machinery: finding the invisible hazards before they become visible catastrophes – EDEEP a potential solution, J Health & Safety Research & Practice 10(1), 11-17 KEYWORDS

Second-hand equipment, mobile plant, mining CORRESPONDENCE

Professor G Marling The College of People, Technology and Systems, Spring Hill, Qld 4000 AUSTRALIA. E-mail: g.marling@coptas.com.au 1 T he College of People, Technology and Systems, Spring Hill, Qld 4000 AUSTRALIA, Minerals Industry Safety and Health Centre (MISHC), Sustainable Minerals Institute (SMI), The University of Queensland (UQ) Brisbane St Lucia, Qld 4072 AUSTRALIA and Sichuan Normal University, Jinjiang District, Chengdu, Sichuan Province, CHINA 2 Minerals Industry Safety and Health Centre (MISHC), Sustainable Minerals Institute (SMI), (UQ) St Lucia, Brisbane, Qld 4072 AUSTRALIA 3 T he College of People, Technology and Systems, Spring Hill, Qld 4000 AUSTRALIA and Relay Consulting OHS Services, Rochedale, Brisbane, Qld 4123, AUSTRALIA

Introduction The mining industry in Australia makes a significant contribution to the economy. Individual sites are generally large-scale and operate large fleets of plant.1 This paper addresses the control of risk associated with the sale and purchase of second-hand plant. The focus is on the impact of second-hand mobile plant in particular, however, other types of plant may be commented upon for illustrative purposes. Some of these plant are mining-specific; however, some of them are general-use that can be employed as supplied by the original equipment manufacturer (OEM), or with some post-purchase modifications. It is the latter that is the consideration of this paper.

Statutory requirements referred to in this paper are based on those in Queensland, which is a significant contributor to Australia’s mining economy. The Queensland Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (WHS Act) has been used in this discussion, being the most relevant legislation applicable to plant that will pass into sectors other than mining and representative of the other States and Territories as part of the harmonised WHS laws.

There has been a softening in the global economy since 2008, that by 2012 had tempered the Chinese thirst for iron ore and coal, particularly affecting Australia (Finch, 2012). As a result of this downturn, there has been some workforce and plant rationalisation resulting in used mobile plant being sold at prices considerably lower than the original purchase price (Robertson, 2015). The slowing of the mining industry also results in the rationalisation of plant in secondary industries.

1. Plant includes any machinery, equipment, appliance, container, implement and tool; and includes any component of any of those things; and anything fitted or connected to any of those things, WHS Act 2011 (Cwth), WHS Act 2011 (A.C.T), WHS Act 2011(N.T), WHS Act 2011 (Qld), WHS Act 2011 (South Australia) and WHS Act 2011 (Tasmania).

11

JOURNAL OF HEALTH AND SAFETY, RESEARCH AND PRACTICE

Volume 10 Issue 1 • 2020

Janischweski et al. (2003) state that second-hand plant in Germany is estimated to be 3-5 per cent of annual turnover at €10 to 15 billion. For the whole of the European Union, it is estimated to be €45 billion, but it may be as much as €75 billion, and in the USA, conservatively, €40 billion and the whole world €1 trillion. It is likely that these figures have now increased with continuing softening of the global economies. Janischweski et al. (2003) also mention that most second-hand plant originates from “modernisation measures, factory conversions or from factories being shut down” (p. 14).

While it is not possible to quantify, plant is associated with a significant number of injuries and fatalities in Australian workplaces annually. Safe Work Australia (2017) states that mobile plant and transport accounted for 55 per cent of a total 182 fatalities in 2016, and 58 per cent of fatalities over the 10 years to 2016.

In addition to the potential injury of employees and bystanders, inadequate control of risk associated with second-hand plant can have both civil and criminal legal implications, and significant financial and operational implications (Glover, 2010).

This paper aims to highlight issues with purchasing second-hand mobile plant and to propose a solution that ensures that hazards have been identified and appropriately risk-assessed prior to the transfer of ownership and use in a different operating environment.

Advantages and disadvantages of buying second-hand plant Janischweski et al. (2003) and Gopalakrishnan (2001) identified both advantages and disadvantages of buying second-hand plant. Advantages included reduced cost and shorter lead time for delivery, enabling rapid mobilisation. In addition, the purchase of second-hand equipment avoids initial high levels of depreciation (new plant can depreciate by up to 40 per cent in the first 12 months of ownership under some tax regimes); wellmaintained used plant can retain relative value better than new plant. The global second-hand mobile plant market offers a wide choice of plant and great potential for matching a purchaser’s needs, and the re-use of plant has environmental and sustainability benefits.

The disadvantages of second-hand plant purchases are many (idib.), and include: • the plant potentially not being ideal for the intended purpose or work environment; • generally, second-hand plant has no warranties or guarantees; • the plant potentially being dormant for a period prior to purchase and not undergoing required inspections and not receiving maintenance; • the plant not complying with current safety standards; • plant modified by the vendor and not having design certifications; • unknown previous use and service history; • training requirements differing from those currently met by the purchaser; • unavailability or cost of spare parts; • the plant may be past its economic life use; and • the plant may not be registered to operate in the purchaser’s national or provincial domains, or even at a client site level.

In the above circumstances, suppliers of second-hand plant must do what is reasonably practicable to supply equipment that is safe for use at work. This may include consideration of retrofitting or modifying the plant to make it safe for its intended use. If it is not reasonably practicable, then the buyer should be advised in writing about the state of the plant and what must be considered to ensure it would operate without risk to health and safety.

Buyers also have a duty to ensure the plant is safe and has all the required safety features before bringing it into service.

Statutory duties and obligations There are various Work Health and Safety (WHS) statutes and Codes of Practice that place risk management obligations on suppliers and purchasers of plant and equipment. The following discussion is based upon that as current at the time of writing.

Statutory duties There are several sections under the (Queensland) WHS Act that address specific duty holders in the ‘chain of responsibility’. These duty holders include designers, manufacturers, importers, suppliers and those who have and use plant at the workplace. This paper focuses on the person in control of a business or undertaking (PCBU) who purchases and uses second-hand plant. However, it is relevant to discuss the duties that arise for the design, manufacture, supply and use of plant in the workplace and how a PCBU can be subject to more than one duty.

12

JOURNAL OF HEALTH AND SAFETY, RESEARCH AND PRACTICE

Volume 10 Issue 1 • 2020

General duties There is a general duty under section 19 of the WHS Act that requires a PCBU to, as far as reasonably practicable, provide and maintain safe plant which includes the safe use, handling and storage and the necessary information, training, instruction and supervision.

An additional duty applies under section 21 of the WHS Act to those managing or in control of plant, to ensure that plant is without risks to any persons. With regard to second-hand plant, the implication is that purchasers also need to ensure that plant is safe according to currently available information and what they ought to reasonably know. A PCBU who purchases second-hand plant would reasonably be expected to know if it has been the subject of a manufacturer recall or a safety alert by the regulator.

Specific statutory duties There are a number of statutory obligations for suppliers and buyers of second-hand plant under the WHS Act and WHS Regulations 2011. Guidance is provided in, for example, the Managing Risks of Plant in the Workplace, Code of Practice 2013. However, the basic requirements of ISO 31000:2018 Risk Management – Principles and guidelines, and the How to Manage Work Health and Safety Risks, Code of Practice (2018) also offers guidance to sellers and buyers of second-hand plant. The following discusses obligations for some specific parties involved in the lifecycle of plant.

Designers Under the WHS Act section 22, designers must ensure that plant is designed without risks to persons. They must consider any necessary conditions and information required for not only those who use it in the workplace but also people at different phases of the plant’s lifecycle such as those who manufacture, assemble, store, decommission, dismantle and dispose of plant.

Manufacturers Under the WHS Act section 23, the manufacturer has a duty to ensure as far as reasonably practicable that plant is made without risks to other persons besides those who use it, e.g. people undertaking maintenance, installation and repairs as well as people who are nearby the plant and may be affected. The duty also then requires providing information and any necessary conditions to be followed to ensure that plant when used is safe. In line with the designer, the duty includes supplying current relevant information to pertinent persons when requested. The information must address the purpose for which the plant was designed. These duties are clarified and defined in the WHS Regulations 2011 Part 5.1 Division 3, where manufacturers are required to undertake additional duties such as notifying the designer when manufacturing plant. For example, when a manufacturer discovers a hazard for which a designer has not incorporated a control, the manufacturer needs to take reasonable steps to consult with the designer to rectify the hazard.

However, in practice, regulators often focus upon the end-user or owner of plant and have been reluctant to prosecute the upstream duty holders (Bluff et al., 2012). It has been argued that the focus of the regulator on the prosecution of owners or users of plant is because previous WHS statutes encompassed duties based on plant that was properly used. The intent was to limit liability where the plant was safe but became unsafe because of misuse, but not to limit liability where the manufacturer had not made the machine safe (Bluff et al., 2012). In contrast, however, there is a criticism of manufacturers who seek insufficient input from end-users with regard to safety at the design stage (Bluff, 2015).

These duties for the manufacturer to supply information on using plant and various instructions of what to do or what not to do makes it pertinent regarding second-hand plant. As an example, in 2016, a safety alert (WorkCover Queensland, 2016) was issued regarding an ageing borer machine where the boom of the machine collapsed whilst trying to pull a power pole out of the ground. It was found that not only was there deficient maintenance on the item of plant, but the manufacturer’s information was to not use the borer to pull poles out of the ground.

Suppliers Suppliers have somewhat similar duties under the WHS Act section 25 to designers and manufacturers. Suppliers must provide safe plant as well as information that addresses the purpose for which the plant was designed or manufactured.

The term ‘supply’ is defined under the Queensland WHS Act section 6 and includes not only those who sell plant but also those who supply plant by way of exchange, lease and hire.

13

JOURNAL OF HEALTH AND SAFETY, RESEARCH AND PRACTICE

Volume 10 Issue 1 • 2020

There are also specific duties under the Queensland WHS Regulations 2011 in regard to suppliers of secondhand plant. For example, section 199 requires that the supplier ensures that any faults are identified and that the recipient of the plant is supplied with written information on its condition and faults and instructed not to use the item unless any such faults are rectified. It is also the case that many second-hand items of plant are supplied for spare parts and the WHS Regulations 2011 section 200 requires that the supplier notifies in writing or through marking the item of plant that it is being supplied for parts only and that it is not to be used in its current form. If second-hand plant passes through multiple hands, these requirements may either not be met or not communicated on its journey.

Further details of suppliers’ duties are provided within the Managing Risks of Plant in the Workplace, Code of Practice 2013. If second-hand plant has out-of-date or no safety features, section 3.1 of the Code calls upon the supplier to consider if it is reasonably practicable to retrofit or modify the plant. If this is not reasonable, the supplier needs to consider providing information to the buyer, including the purpose for which the plant was designed or manufactured and any conditions necessary to ensure the plant is without risks to health and safety when properly used. The purchasers of second-hand plant are exposed to the possibility that suppliers do not know of these duties or do not fulfil them, leaving the buyer uninformed or with outdated and unsafe plant.

Some of the responsibilities of manufacturers and suppliers have previously been clarified in cases in other jurisdictions, albeit before the harmonised laws, such as WorkCover Authority (NSW) v Arbor Products International NSWIR (2001) 105 IR 81, a case where a worker suffered severe injuries from having his arm drawn into a wood chipper. The Court held that the manufacturer and supplier company had breached their duty to ensure that plant was safe and without risks to health when used properly because the chute used to feed material in was too short, permitting contact with the rotating blades. Other cases have subsequently confirmed the principle that plant must be designed and manufactured to be safe, and that provision of information or training alone are not a substitute for this (Bluff et al., 2012).

While the designer and manufacturer of new equipment are generally easily identifiable, with secondhand plant there may be several hands that the plant passes through during its life and as such the duty of supplier could apply to each person. The duties include ensuring that the item is made safe in accord with the manufacturer’s requirements and that instructions, maintenance requirements and operator equipment manual are available upon request. It is arguable that this duty is perpetual. In Inspector Page v Edsleaf Pty Ltd Unreported NSWCIMC 1998 it was held that the obligation upon the supplier was a continual one to provide safe plant during the hire or use of the plant and not just at the initial supply (Tooma, 2011). This introduces difficulties not only for suppliers of second-hand plant to ensure it is well maintained but also those PCBUs purchasing second-hand plant which has come through several suppliers where they do not receive important information on the use and maintenance of the item of plant.

Owner and operator Aside from the general duty under section 19 of the WHS Act 2011, a PCBU who owns and operates plant in the workplace also has other duties, for example, under section 21, where they have management or control of plant.

The duty requires that as far as reasonably practicable, the plant is without risk to the health and safety of any person. As such, although it is second-hand plant, those involved in the supply chain should have a consideration of the full lifecycle as depicted in Figure 1 (Marling, 2017).

Figure 1 - Lifecycle of a system

14

JOURNAL OF HEALTH AND SAFETY, RESEARCH AND PRACTICE

Volume 10 Issue 1 • 2020

Thus, these duties command an overall holistic responsibility that starts before plant is in the workplace and cover its initial purchase, handling, storage, use, maintenance, repair, decommissioning, dismantling and disposal. They include the provision of the information, instruction, training and supervision necessary for those who conduct an activity with, or around, the item of plant.

Other legal matters for consideration Information As noted, a difficulty faced by the PCBU purchasing second-hand plant is not receiving adequate information for the use and maintenance of plant. However, there is also then a consideration if such plant can be used safely as the PCBU has to ensure that the plant is safe for use and that it is used in accordance with the instructions and information as under sections 205 and 206 of the WHS Regulations 2011.

Where suppliers cannot obtain the information on second-hand plant such as from the manufacturer or previous owner then it should be obtained from a “competent person” engaged to develop information on eliminating or controlling risk as identified in the Managing Risks of Plant in the Workplace, Code of Practice 2013.

Numerous difficulties arise when information is not available or lost when plant passes from owner to owner, and not just on use of plant but areas such as maintenance where plant may require specifically designed tools and equipment to be used, leaving the PCBU without the knowledge of what equipment needs to be used.

Modification In relation to second-hand plant being modified to suit another industry or similar use, any such modification requires scrutiny from the manufacturer as to its suitability. Although an item of non-mobile plant, the case of Safe Work New South Wales v Waycon Bulk Pty Ltd [2015] NSWDC 254 involved a wood splitting machine that had been modified by the employer. A designed two-handed, two-button operation was modified to a one-handed operation or one-button operation believing this would make the use safer but instead resulted in a worker’s hand being severed. It was held that the modification in effect made it non-compliant with the Australian Standards by circumventing the safety features of the machine and that the risk was obvious. Such risks may be faced by those who purchase and then modify second-hand plant that may be outdated or use it for a purpose different to that it was originally designed for, to suit their own purpose.

Maintenance Second-hand plant that is not fully serviced and maintained exposes employees and others to risk and places the owner or PCBU at risk of prosecution or litigation. Failure to repair the reversing lights and ensure visibility through windows was maintained was held as a significant factor in a fatality in Workcover v Visy Paper P/L [2015] NSWDC 284.

Discussion of a potential solution – EDEEP The hazards associated with the operation and maintenance of plant are well recognised by the mining industry (see, for example, Earth Moving Equipment Safety Round Table (EMESRT) (2017), Horberry et al., (2011) and Burgess-Limerick, R. & Steiner, L. (2006)). A solution for the buyers of second-hand plant and equipment is to employ the EMESRT Design Evaluation for EME Procurement (EDEEP) process. However, before discussing EDEEP in detail, some history about EMESRT might assist the reader with context.

In 2006, the EMESRT was formed with an aim to engage with the manufacturers of equipment to accelerate improvements in mining equipment design. An initial step undertaken by the EMESRT members was the development of “design philosophies” that collated the experience of mining companies through the identification of the potential unwanted events that cause equipment-related injuries and illness. These unwanted events were grouped into eight categories in the current version of the ‘design philosophies’ – (i) access and working at heights; (ii) tires and rims; (iii) exposure to harmful energies; (iv) fire; (v) machine operation and controls; (vi) health impacting factors; (vii) manual tasks; and (viii) confined spaces and restricted work areas.

In 2011, the EMERST members proposed that a common form of ‘safe design information’ be requested during procurement, and the EDEEP process was developed (Burgess-Limerick et al., 2012). The process has three steps: (i) priority task identification; (ii) task-based risk assessment involving mining company-based operation and maintenance personnel; and (iii) documentation of the outcomes in the form of ‘safe design information’.

Priority task identification begins with the generation of a list of operation and maintenance tasks associated with the equipment. Tasks lists are equipment specific, and they are effectively generated through consideration of operation and service manuals for the equipment. The frequency with which each task is performed is estimated 15

JOURNAL OF HEALTH AND SAFETY, RESEARCH AND PRACTICE

Volume 10 Issue 1 • 2020

and coded on a seven-point scale. For each task identified, each of 20 potential unwanted events is examined to determine whether they might occur during the task, and if so, the maximum foreseeable consequence of the unwanted event is coded on a five-point scale. The frequency and consequence values for each task are combined to provide a prioritisation of the tasks for further assessment.

The second step is to undertake a detailed risk assessment of priority tasks. In addition to analysis and evaluation of the inherent risks, the aim is to identify both existing design control measures and potential design improvements that may be implemented to eliminate or reduce the risk for each potential unwanted event; as well as relevant administrative controls that should be considered by purchasers of the equipment.

It is essential that operators and maintenance personnel are involved at this stage to ensure that: an accurate understanding is gained of the ways the tasks are actually performed; the likelihood of the unwanted events is valid; and to ensure that site experience is utilised in the evaluation of existing control measures and the development of new control measures. Any additional investigations required to evaluate the effectiveness of design safety such as visibility or illumination surveys, vibration or noise measurements, or ergonomics assessments are noted during the risk assessment and the results of the investigations included in the safe design information.

The outcomes of the task-based risk assessment are documented in the form of ‘safe design information’.

The ‘safe design information’ includes: (i) the details of the tasks and potential unwanted events; (ii) the design features and suggested administrative controls; (iii) evaluations of the effectiveness of the design features; and (iv) references to additional reports where appropriate. As well as assisting companies to make purchasing decisions, this information will assist the purchasers of equipment to undertake the operational risk assessments required before equipment may be used on site.

This EDEEP process that helps with the design of new plant and equipment can also be used when selling and buying second-hand plant. The EDEEP process, when properly facilitated, allows buyers and sellers of secondhand plant to meet their statutory requirements. Using EDEEP, the seller can provide the information required by the purchaser and the purchaser can apply this to their operational context to produce an equivalent of the ‘safe design information’ in a document.

Conclusion There is a glut of second-hand plant on the market around the world due to the softening economic conditions in the mining industry. Much of this plant is being sold into non-mining environments and industries.

While acquiring second-hand plant attracts benefits, there are statutory obligations to be met, and there are risks to owners and operators.

These risks and obligations can be managed, but the management processes can be onerous and subject to failure.

EDEEP is a process that was developed to support the OEMs and EMESRT members with a means to identify the degree to which newly designed equipment meets the intent of the ‘design philosophies’. The EDEEP process can also be used as a tool to help the sellers and buyers of second-hand plant meet their statutory requirements and manage the risks associated with the use of that plant.

References Bluff, E. (2015). ‘Safety in machinery design and construction: Knowledge and performance’. Safety Science, 74, 59-69.

Bluff, E., Johnstone, R., McNamara, M. & Quinlan, M. (2012). ‘Enforcing Upstream: Australian Health and Safety Inspectors and Upstream Duty Holders’. 25, AJLL, 23.

Burgess-Limerick, R. & Steiner, L. (2006). ‘Injuries Associated with Continuous Miners, Shuttle Cars, LoadHaul-Dump, and Personnel Transport in New South Wales Underground Coal Mines’. Mining Technology (TIMM A), 115, 160-168.

Burgess-Limerick, R., Joy, J., Cooke, T. & Horberry, T. (2012). ‘EDEEP – An innovative process for improving the safety of mining equipment’. Minerals, 2, 272-282.

Earth Moving Equipment Safety Round Table (EMESRT). (2017). Design Philosophies. Retrieved from https:// emesrt.org/design-philosophies/ Finch, N. (Ed). (2012). Contemporary issues in mining: Leading practice in Australia. Palgrave Macmillan UK. Glover, J. (2010). Risk management of machinery and work equipment. BSI London.

Gopalakrishnan, P. (2001). Purchasing and materials management. Tata McGraw-Hill Education new Delhi.

16

JOURNAL OF HEALTH AND SAFETY, RESEARCH AND PRACTICE

Volume 10 Issue 1 • 2020

Horberry, T., Burgess-Limerick, R. & Steiner, L. (2011). Human Factors for the Design, Operation and Maintenance of Mining Equipment. Boca Raton: CRC Press.

Janischweski, J., Henzler, M. P. & Kahlenborn, W. (2003). The export of second-hand goods and the transfer of technology: An obstacle to sustainable development in developing countries and emerging markets?

German Council for Sustainable Development.

Marling, G. J. (2017). ‘Week one: Introduction to systems engineering’ [PowerPoint slides]. Unpublished manuscript, ENGG4000/7000, University of Queensland, St Lucia, Australia.

Safe Work Australia. (2018). How to Manage Work Health and Safety Risks, Code of Practice (2018). Safe Work Australia, Canberra, ACT. Queensland State Government. (2011a). Work, Health and Safety Act Queensland. Woolloongabba, Qld, Australia: Queensland Government Printer.

Queensland State Government. (2011b). Work, Health and Safety Regulation Queensland. Woolloongabba, Qld, Australia: Queensland Government Printer.

Queensland State Government. (2011c). Managing Risks of Plant in the Workplace, Code of Practice 2013.

Woolloongabba, Qld, Australia: Queensland Government Printer.

Robertson, A. (2015). Fancy a bargain? Multi-million-dollar mining machinery sold dirt cheap as industry downturn bites. Retrieved from https://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-28/ heavy-machinery-prices-slashed-at-auction-mining-downturn-bites/6892966 Safe Work Australia. (2017). Work Related Traumatic Injury Fatalities, Australia 2016. Safe Work Australia, Canberra, ACT. Standards Australia and Standards New Zealand. (2009). ISO 31000:2018 Risk Management – Principles and guidelines. Sydney, NSW, Australia, and Wellington, New Zealand.

Tooma, M. (2011). Safety, security, health and environment law (2nd ed). Federation Press, Annandale, N.S.W. WorkCover Queensland. (2016). Lifter borer boom failure. Retrieved from https://www.worksafe.qld.gov.au/ news/safety-alerts/whsq/2016/lifter-%20borer-boom-failure

17

JOURNAL OF HEALTH AND SAFETY, RESEARCH AND PRACTICE

Volume 10 Issue 1 • 2020

Australian Work Health and Safety Policy for Psychosocial Hazards and Risks: Problems, Perceptions and Practice Dr Rachael Potter1 and Dr Valerie O’Keeffe1 Abstract Work-related psychological heath and the management of psychosocial hazards and risks represents a pervasive challenge in the modern world of work. Regulatory work health and safety (WHS) policy serves an imperative function in guiding organisational practice for risk management and setting national standards for WHS. However, evaluative research on WHS policy for psychosocial hazards and risks is limited internationally and is particularly scarce in Australia. Greater investigation of WHS policy in terms of context, content, and implementation will highlight necessary changes to improve national work-related psychological health. The purpose of this paper is to address a prominent research gap and share key findings and recommendations drawn from a comprehensive program of research focussing on Australian WHS policy for psychosocial hazards, risks, and psychological health. The paper presents a high-level overview of the collective issues that emerged throughout the completion of four published studies. The studies comprise a quantitative evaluation of a policylevel intervention using national surveillance data, a policy review and gap analysis, review and summary of all available psychosocial risk management tools (that may be used to translate policy principles into organisational practice), and interviews with key informants to explore various perspectives on the issue. While policy and psychosocial risk regulation is complex, this program of research conveys tangible developments for policy and practice that could benefit both the Australian and international workforce.

CITE THIS ARTICLE AS

Potter, R. & O’Keeffe, V. (2019), Australian Work Health and Safety Policy for Psychosocial Hazards and Risks: Problems, Perceptions and Practice, J Health & Safety Research & Practice 10(1), 18-26 KEYWORDS

Psychosocial hazard, psychosocial risk, regulation, work health and safety, work-related psychological health CORRESPONDENCE

Dr Rachael E. Potter c/o Centre for Workplace Excellence Elton Mayo Building, City West Campus, Adelaide, South Australia 5072 Email: Rachael.potter@mymail.unisa.edu.au 1 Asia Pacific Centre for Work Health and Safety, Centre for Workplace Excellence University of South Australia, South Australia, Australia

Work-related psychosocial hazards and risks are a growing global challenge within modern workplaces (Kawakami, Park, Dollard, & Dai, 2014). An extensive body of research evidence establishes that exposure to psychosocial hazards (i.e., psychosocial risks) has adverse implications on both the psychological (e.g., psychological distress; Hall, Dollard, Tuckey, Winefield, & Thompson, 2010) and physical health of workers (e.g., musculoskeletal disorders; Li, Dollard, Loerbroks, & Angerer, 2015). In turn, workers’ experiences of psychosocial hazards and risks also have broader negative ramifications at both an organisational and societal level (Nieuwenhuijsen, Bruinvels, & Frings-Dresen, 2010). These negative outcomes include increased psychological illness and injury, worker injury compensation claims and medical costs, increased absenteeism, and presenteeism (i.e., reduced productivity; Richards & Bailey, 2014). Since psychosocial hazards and risks contribute to harm and are intrinsic to the design of work, they should be viewed as strategic points of prevention and/or intervention to reduce prevalent adverse outcomes such as work-related stress and psychological injury.

To date, research has established various obstacles associated with the management or regulation of workrelated psychosocial hazards and risks (European Agency for Safety and Health at Work [EU-OSHA], 2014; Langenhan, Leka, & Jain, 2013). One major impediment of effective regulation includes the role of national or regional work health and safety (WHS) policy (e.g., legislation; Leka, Jain, Iavicoli, Di Tecco 2015; Leka et al., 2017) in terms of sparse content and poor implementation (Mental Health Commission of Canada, 2017).

So far WHS policy research on this topic is limited and most studies originate from Europe, which does not 18

JOURNAL OF HEALTH AND SAFETY, RESEARCH AND PRACTICE

Volume 10 Issue 1 • 2020

always produce generalisable findings to other world regions. While WHS policies are known to represent the foundation of national or jurisdictional standards for WHS (Leka & Jain, 2014)—and hence psychosocial risk regulation—there has been a paucity of literature evaluating their effectiveness. There is also limited research conveying the social and philosophical significance that WHS policy embodies in humanity.

In Australia, there has been very scarce research that endeavours to investigate the WHS policy context, content and implementation relevant to psychosocial hazards and risks and work-related psychological health.

Only three studies have been conducted with a focus on these issues (see Johnstone et al., 2011; Quinlan, Johnstone & McNamara, 2009; Quinlan, 2007), yet there has been no evaluation since the new WHS regulatory framework was implemented in 2012 (Johnstone & Tooma, 2012). A lack of evaluative research has hindered evidence-based improvements to policy and practice. Given the steep rise in poor work-related psychological health universally (Cocker, Sanderson, & LaMontagne, 2017), this dearth of research is no longer justifiable.

In response to a substantial research gap in Australia, we conducted a multi-phase comprehensive program of research (i.e., a PhD project) that investigates WHS policy relevant to psychosocial hazards and risks, and workrelated psychological health. The research cut across the discipline areas of work and organisational psychology, WHS, and public health policy. It was purposely concentrated on evaluating the context (i.e., availability), content (i.e. effectiveness), and implementation (i.e., practicality) of Australian national and jurisdictional WHS policy.

Four academic papers were produced over time and ref lect a highly detailed and up-to-date examination of this topic. The purpose of this current paper is to share prominent recommendations that transpired throughout the course of this research project. For greater context, these studies involved: • An evaluation of an Australian policy-level WHS intervention, using quantitative analysis of longitudinal national surveillance data (Potter et al., 2017). An evidence-based indicator of psychological health outcomes (i.e., PSC-12) was employed to investigate the policy impact between and within Australian jurisdictions over time; • An analytical review and gap analysis of the Australian policy context and content relevant to workrelated psychosocial factors and psychological health (Potter, O’Keeffe, Leka, Webber, & Dollard, 2019); • An international review of organisational psychosocial risk management tools (Potter, Fattori, & Dollard, 2016) and; • A qualitative investigation informed by WHS key informants involved in policy development, program implementation, industry advice or education, and psychosocial risk inspection (Potter, O’Keeffe, Leka, & Dollard, 2019). Inductive thematic analysis assisted in unpacking current challenges to regulatory efforts and the progression towards a more psychologically healthy national workforce.

The collective outcomes from these studies enhance knowledge surrounding WHS policy and psychosocial issues. There are clear policy recommendations and practical innovations that must be shared and are discussed in the next section. First, key conceptual implications are presented, followed by policy recommendations and then practical (regulatory) recommendations.

Conceptual Implications Wicked problems: Policy development and psychosocial risk regulation.

Wicked problems are characterised as being complex, lengthy to resolve, and attracting divergent viewpoints due to different stakeholder values (Rittel & Webber, 1973). They are usually unique, context-dependent, and lack clear-cut solutions. A visual representation of wicked problems is shown below in Figure 1. Previous literature describes both policy development (Head, 2008; Head & Alford, 2015) and psychosocial risk regulation (Jespersen, Hasle, & Nielsen, 2016) as being wicked problems. Therefore, considering these aspects together reflects dual effects of wickedness.

Most research neglects the wicked nature of both policy-making and psychosocial risk regulation. Understanding the complexity of these risks as wicked problems illuminates a clearer path for future policy development and implementation (i.e., regulation), as well as advancing research methods. Yet, the wickedness of these issues should not be viewed as a deterrent for research or practice. Rather, it makes understanding the research and practical implications more necessary. Acknowledging and appreciating the wickedness of these problems will actually bring about greater clarity surrounding their management.

There are various strategies and approaches to increase effectiveness in dealing with wicked problems. It is essential to first ensure the problem is seen from multiple perspectives. Second, there is need to create a collective learning culture based on collaborative discussions of strategies. Third, as many stakeholders as possible should be engaged in the problem area (Head & Alford, 2015). While there is no quick fix in addressing wicked problems, there can be greater progress in resolving challenges by generating a larger conversation between 19

JOURNAL OF HEALTH AND SAFETY, RESEARCH AND PRACTICE

Volume 10 Issue 1 • 2020

Figure 1. Characteristics of wicked problems (adapted from Rittel & Webber, 1973).

stakeholders. Applying these principles to psychosocial risk and policy, it is critical to address the current lack of shared knowledge and expertise in this area (EU-OSHA, 2012; Leka & Jain, 2016). Greater collaboration between academics, policy-makers, WHS regulators is needed to develop an evidence-based body of knowledge that can be widely disseminated and referenced for policy development. Also, collaborative strategies to reduce the wickedness of psychosocial risk regulation can be achieved through developing nationally consistent tools to guide regulators and workplaces. These tools should seek to bring some uniformity in thinking about psychosocial risks but should not be overly prescriptive or rigid in their approach.

In sum, communicating the wicked nature of psychosocial hazards and risks to researchers and practitioners provides a framework for conveying the challenges (Jespersen et al., 2016). It is also recommended that attention is paid to tackling specific or prominent tension points or clashes that exist between stakeholders. Contentious issues should be positively re-framed as catalysts for conversation and action within WHS (and between WHS and industry). Acknowledging that wicked problems take time to understand and commonly straddle different disciplines should encourage policy makers and relevant parties to adapt approaches to best suit these characteristics and find shared understandings.

The power of perceptions, positions and blind spots in WHS. Stakeholder perceptions and positions are paramount in policy development and implementation processes. People form their world view through their unique experiences and interactions within the social environment, consistent with a social constructionist perspective (Bakhurst, 2011). In line with social constructionism, attitudes and perceptions of psychosocial risk regulation, and the role of policy, are moulded through individual’s specific roles or positions. For instance, those employed in an educational position often perceive educational programs to be most effective in creating change and are therefore less interested in changes to the legislation. Conversely, those individuals who rely on the legislation (i.e., WHS inspectors) perceive value in increasing the specificity of policy content on psychosocial issues.

Since people construct their world view and reality through their own experiences, it is difficult for them to conceive of other ways of understanding an issue or problem (Pronin & Kugler, 2007). As such, our research showed that WHS practitioners often exhibit blind spots towards interpretations of other roles. Groups and/or individuals can be highly critical of those in other roles and lack awareness of the constraints that those roles or persons encounter. Poor insight into others’ positions is likely to hinder collaborative efforts in improving national psychological health as most positive action occurs when there is a united effort with a strong shared vision.

Those in WHS positions are encouraged to be introspective and at least aware of other groups’ or individuals’ perspectives, experiences or constraints—regardless of politics and/or vested interests.

Given the wicked nature of psychosocial risk regulation and policy, divergent views are not surprising.

20

JOURNAL OF HEALTH AND SAFETY, RESEARCH AND PRACTICE

Volume 10 Issue 1 • 2020

However, the role of social construction should be a future point of exploration. Researchers should attempt to unpack social constructionism to understand its inf luence on policy development and regulation of psychosocial hazards and risks. For instance, in policy-making, how does social construction impact policy development and content? Can and/or should there be an effort to change or unify perceptions on these issues via research such as intervention studies? Also, given the nature of social construction, policy-making processes must be transparent and enable equal say by all relevant parties. To improve equality based on our research, we recommend a stronger inclusion of WHS inspector and union perceptions in future policy-making processes.

In addition, practical action can be taken to minimise the influence of blind spots. National forums (online or in person) could be held for all persons involved in WHS so that each interest group becomes active in collaborative conversation around their different expertise, constraints, and experiences. Through embracing and discussing diverse perceptions and blind sports, knowledge can be harnessed and shared among parties. In fact, certain individuals may have valuable expertise or recommendations regarding psychosocial risk regulation that are unknown to others (or even other to jurisdictions). It is only through asking questions and engaging in broader discussion that people discover new information and uncover perceptual blind spots (Luft & Ingham, 1961). Encouraging collaborative discourse will challenge blind spots and could lead to greater progress in this complex area.

Policy Recommendations The need for more consistency in the Australian WHS policy context.

The Australian policy context for work-related psychological health reflects many recent improvements, including new national guidance material (Safe Work Australia, 2018), a high level of awareness raising, increased government funding, and industry education. There has also been jurisdictional collaboration through the establishment of working groups and committees (National Mental Health Commission, 2014). Policy instruments outside of the WHS regulatory policy framework, such as Principles of Good Work Design (Safe Work Australia, 2017) and the Australian National Strategy (Safe Work Australia, 2012), have also directed regulator attention towards managing psychosocial hazards and risks. Despite this progress, the Australian WHS policy context needs further improvement for the most effective outcomes to occur.

Inconsistencies exist between Australian jurisdictions’ availability of policy instruments. Arguably, each state and territory have its own jurisdiction over WHS and so major differences between states and territories may not be viewed as problematic. Also, each inspectorate has its own culture borne of local political, geographical, and economic factors; although the harmonised policy package, adopted across most Australian jurisdictions in 2012 was intended to increase national consistency of WHS laws. Further, work-related psychological health is a national concern and all Australian workers—regardless of their region—should be protected from psychological harm to the same degree. However, certain jurisdictions are much more advanced than others in terms of availability of policy instr uments. Ideally, it would be beneficial for all Australian ju r isd ict ion s to have an equally robust and harmonised policy context for psychosocial issues, including the presence of various Codes of Practice and guidance material. All Au st r alia n jurisdictions (both harmonised and non-harmonised) should be encouraged to develop, adopt, or update pre-existing older policy instruments that address psychosocial risks and hazards. Policy instruments should be relevant and ref lect new and emerging psychosocial hazards or psychosocial issues such as the use of technology at work. To further overcome the inconsistent policy context, jurisdictions more advanced in this area could disseminate their guidance material and/or other practical resources to other jurisdictions.

In attempting to explain the disparities between jurisdictional policy context and resources, it was noted that state-level compensation claim costs were key drivers of action and funding within their respective jurisdictions.

For instance, in some Australian ju r isd ict ions, due to the structuring of compensation claim legislation and processing, work-related psychological injury claims represent a serious economic and social cost.

Hence, a high level of preventative and intervention action has been taken to minimise the economic burden in these jurisdictions. In contrast, for other jurisdictions, work-related psychological injury compensation claims were not stated as being problematic and therefore no major action is undertaken. In sum, it is apparent that factors beyond the WHS regulatory environment in Australian jurisdictions, namely worker compensation processes, have a great influence on the action taken in preventing work-related psychological injury. As such, worker’s compensation laws and processes should be better harmonised across jurisdictions.

Further, greater development and dissemination of practical psychosocial risk management tools is needed to improve the Australian policy context. There have been limited practical organisational psychosocial risk management tools developed in Australia. That said, there are other resources available such as the People at 21

JOURNAL OF HEALTH AND SAFETY, RESEARCH AND PRACTICE

Volume 10 Issue 1 • 2020

Work project (Queensland Government, 2018) and various online resources being created throughout the country.

However, psychosocial risk management tools uniquely offer steps for both psychosocial risk assessment and management processes. While international tools are helpful, it would be most effective if practical tools were tailored to the Australian cultural and policy environment. Tools should also be evidence-based and scientifically evaluated to best assist organisations in complying with their legal duties. On a cautionary note, the high level of activity on producing psychosocial risk management tools and resources runs the risk that too many tools with too much information or different educational messages could confuse persons conducting business or undertakings (PCBUs) and reduce the desired outcome. To ensure clarity, policy-makers and regulators must be active in providing consistent material across Australia, so that there is a reliable source of context-specific information.

The need to update policy content: Increasing the visibility and consistency of language.

Visibility of psychosocial terminology needs to be increased in the Australian WHS regulatory policy framework.

First, it must be emphasised that the current Australian WHS laws do cover psychosocial hazards and risks through the obligation to protect psychological health; however, poor inclusion of relevant terms in legislative policy instruments hinders policy implementation. The lack of visibility and clarity of terminology makes it more difficult for WHS regulators to apply the legislation and for PCBUs to interpret the legislation regarding psychosocial hazards and risks. In fact, the first mention of the term psychosocial hazards is within the Code of Practice called How to Manage Work Health and Safety Risks (Safe Work Australia, 2011, p.2), in which it is incorrectly defined as “the effects of work-related stress, bullying, violence and work-related fatigue”. Poor legislative emphasis on psychosocial issues negatively impacts the process of inspecting and reduces action undertaken by organisations. Without progressing policy content on psychosocial issues, Australian policy instruments will lag behind rapid developments in the world of work that continue to be characterised by psychosocial hazards and risks.

The most effective way to improve policy content is to include psychosocial hazards in the WHS Regulations.

The WHS Regulations convey the risk management processes and other specific duties that support the general duties in the WHS Act (Stewart, 2013). At present, this layer of the WHS regulatory policy framework is silent on any language relevant to psychosocial issues or psychological health. There is a disproportionate focus on physical hazards, which indirectly sends a message to inspectors and PCBUs that psychosocial hazards and risks are of lesser regulatory importance. As well, a person referring to the WHS Regulations would need to know that the preceding WHS Act defines health as including psychological health and that principles in the WHS Regulations apply equally to psychosocial hazards and risk factors. Increasing the visibility of terms in this policy instrument would better inform inspectors, PCBUs and workers that the current legislative risk management provisions and models need to be applied to psychosocial hazards and risks. An alternative option would be to use language such as psychosocial work environment or organisational conditions. For instance, Sweden takes the approach of having a stronger legislative focus on the work environment, thereby framing the issue as an organisational concern that exists beyond the individual. This choice of language in legislative policy further supports the notion that all policy issues are socially constructed and influenced by culture and context. However, overall, strengthening the regulatory focus on psychosocial hazards through any means will be instrumental in increasing inspectors’ ability to enforce constructive workplace changes.

Another issue (relating to both policy content and implementation) is the lack of certainty and consistency regarding the application and operationalisation of general duty provisions in the WHS Act in practice (i.e. regulation). Jurisdictions and/or persons have varying knowledge as to how to more effectively apply the general duties. Cultivating a shared skill base and a shared perception will ensure better application of the general duties.

There needs to be greater national dialogue around these issues, and an increased focus on inspector training and education.

A more consistent understanding of the WHS Act and policy implementation will help WHS regulators communicate a clearer message to workplaces about their legal obligations. For instance, it is a legal obligation (under the provision due diligence) that all PCBUs should be well informed about psychosocial issues and, their implications, and then act to prevent harm. Also, it is essential that PCBUs put risk controls in place for psychosocial hazards. Based on evidence of work-related injury and illness, it is apparent that these legal obligations need to be translated more clearly into organisational practice. That said, introducing a legal binding Regulation for psychosocial hazards may ameliorate some of the difficulties that inspectors experience when applying general duties to enforce change. In other words, increasing the visibility and specificity of terms in the legislation (namely the Regulations) may lead to better application of the current general duties in the WHS Act. 22

JOURNAL OF HEALTH AND SAFETY, RESEARCH AND PRACTICE

Volume 10 Issue 1 • 2020

This proposition is consistent with policy recommendations by Australian researchers Bluff and Gunningham (2003), who state that when risks are not well understood (e.g. psychosocial risks), the inf luence of general duties can be increased if coupled with clearer process standards (i.e. the process of doing risk assessment). These process standards are outlined in the WHS Regulations and would become clearer with the inclusion of specific language pertaining to psychosocial hazards and risks.

Practical Recommendations The need to the improve psychosocial risk regulation.

Increasing term visibility in WHS policy content should be considered in tandem with practice—that is, policy implementation. While policy content is created through a tripartite process, it is then interpreted and translated by both public and private persons. Therefore, even if legislative policy instruments were to more specifically stipulate certain obligations or a certain course of action, the policy continues to be shaped by stakeholders in its operationalisation or implementation (Birkland, 2005). A myriad of practical implications must be addressed to ensure effective implementation or translation of the policy principles. If not addressed, these practical factors could hinder the positive effects of increased policy visibility.

The first barrier includes the low levels of resources provided to WHS regulators. In particular, the limited numbers of specialised psychosocial risks inspectors remains a concern. During this program of research, it became evident that specialised psychosocial risk inspectors are limited to specific jurisdictions in Eastern Australia; and in some regions, it was noted that numbers of psychosocial risk inspectors had been reduced over time (i.e. Queensland). In comparison, other jurisdictions involved in this research had no specialised teams and ref\lected much lesser activity on work-related psychological health. This finding conflicts with recommendations by Jespersen et al. (2016), which highlights that the regulation of psychosocial risks requires highly skilled inspectors to work with organisations. Overall the disparity in inspectorate resources and activity across Australia may be reflected in the inconsistent findings reported in the WHS policy intervention evaluation (Potter et al., 2017). Greater numbers of inspectors (including generalist inspectors) need to be trained to develop the skills, attitudes, and confidence required for regulating psychosocial risks. Even in those jurisdictions with the specialised psychosocial risk inspectors, without greater investments in inspector staffing numbers, the regulation of psychosocial risks could be further compromised. While not all policy issues can be amended at once, increasing regulator capacity could be a first point of constructive change.

The small and inconsistent numbers of Australian psychosocial risk inspectors, coupled with the shift towards educational (rather than regulatory) approaches of psychosocial risks management by regulators, raises some larger societal questions. For instance, what is the reason for decreased regulatory activity? From this research, it is unclear whether the movement towards education is a first point of action commonly undertaken in public health campaigns; or rather, is this a permanent shift towards a more self-regulated and neo-liberalist society that permits organisations greater freedom to increase work demands and productivity? Previous research has discussed the issue of self-regulated regulation and the shift away from state regulation (Black, 2001), yet it is unclear as to what the implications are in this context. These broader sociological questions or issues require exploration. This includes the tension points of how will the relationship between the regulator and the PCBU progress in the future? What does compliance look like for psychosocial hazard and risk management?

Despite these uncertainties, a balance needs to be achieved in Australia between self-regulation in organisations with state regulation. Continued awareness raising and education of psychological health at work in Australia is needed, but this should not dull the conversation on regulation. While a command-and-control approach is not deemed appropriate for psychosocial risk regulation, regulators still need the capacity to implement policy and enforce necessary consequences if PBCUs intentionally do not fulfil their legal responsibilities. Yet there are other influential factors that impact regulation such as its interface with legal conventions. This includes specifically ensuring legislated provisions enable the collection of evidence to meet the criminal burden of proof in prosecutions. Further discussion and research should also be undertaken on these issues as challenges to regulation.

Another notable challenge in the Australian policy context involves clarifying the perception of psychological health and safety among inspectors, workplaces, and the broader community. The topic is sometimes perceived in the context of managing mental health conditions. It is undeniable that individuals with mental health conditions, or those with greater susceptibility, should be provided with adequate resources and protections in the workplace.

Yet, it is critical that the WHS conversation remains on prevention and psychosocial risk management (or regulation) for all workers. There is undoubtedly a large proportion of workers whose mental health is negatively affected by work design and psychosocial risks, yet whose condition does not fulfil the current diagnostic criteria 23

JOURNAL OF HEALTH AND SAFETY, RESEARCH AND PRACTICE

Volume 10 Issue 1 • 2020

for mental illness. The focus must stay on cultivating conditions that are conducive to good psychological health for all workers in a preventative manner.

Furthermore, the legal requirement to manage psychosocial risks should not be confused with health promotion. Australian workplaces must be aware of their legal obligations and exercise due diligence, meaning that they are informed and knowledgeable about psychosocial risk management. There must be a clear message from WHS regulators and the broader government and community about the need to design work in a safe and healthy way. It is important that the focus should not turn to secondary (e.g., mindfulness or resilience training) or tertiary intervention (e.g., counselling once harm has ensued) approaches to replace legal responsibilities of good and safe work design and risk management. As stated in the previous discussion regarding diverse perceptions, WHS regulators must create consistency so that the message is not lost in the flurry of educational activity, or taking action on work-related psychological health is not outsourced to external consultants.

Future Directions and Concluding Remarks This program of research generates new insights and information on WHS policy and psychosocial risk regulation in Australia. While policy development and psychosocial risks regulation present a complex and wicked problem, characterised by divergent perspectives, there are tangible steps that can be taken to improve WHS policy. To shift towards a more nationally psychologically healthy workforce, Australia needs a more consistent policy context across all jurisdictions. Having greater visibility of relevant terms within the policy is also imperative, particularly to keep up with the challenges associated with the modern world of work (Benach, Muntaner, Solar, Santana, & Quinlan, 2013). For effective regulation of psychosocial risks, WHS regulator resourcing and training needs to be increased to ensure that compliance can be monitored in Australian organisations. In addition, future research should further consider the theoretical implications of wicked problems and their social construction, and how they affect policy development and WHS regulation.

It is also critical that greater national and jurisdictional efforts be placed on policy evaluation. Policy is dynamic; therefore, policy evaluation requires equal attention both to content and to its interpretation and application in practice. Addressing each component (i.e., context, content, and implementation) together in research will provide a more comprehensive evaluation strategy. As such, researchers must continue to draw upon national surveillance system data to track workers’ national health using quantitative and relevant health indicators, but also introduce qualitative measures to attain a more comprehensive overview of these issues (Head & Alford, 2015). Qualitative approaches can capture more contextual information that helps make sense of the quantitative findings. In addition, policy evaluation should also always consider the perception of organisations as well as WHS regulators.

Finally, there would also be great value in conducting case studies of how organisations can act to manage

psychosocial hazards successfully. In other words, how do they turn their legal policy obligations into action? To date, exploring the experiences of organisations at a process level has also been overlooked

in the literature. By conducting case studies, it is possible that the findings could encourage a transference of practical knowledge and provide information for further tool and practical guidance development (a need that was highlighted within this research). Overall, this program offers a foundation of research on which to extend this area. It is important that researchers continue to explore the function and impact of WHS policy, extending the methods and approaches undertaken in this research program.

24

JOURNAL OF HEALTH AND SAFETY, RESEARCH AND PRACTICE

Volume 10 Issue 1 • 2020

References Bakhurst, D. (2011). Social constructionism. In Bakhurst, D. (Ed.) The Journal of Philosophy of Education Book Series (pp. 24-51). Oxford, UK: Wiley&Blackwell.

Benach, J., Muntaner, C., Solar, O., Santana, V., & Quinlan, M. (2013). Employment, work and health inequalities: A global perspective. Geneva: WHO. Birkland, T. (2005). An introduction to the policy process: Theories, concepts, and models of public policymaking (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge Bluff, E., & Gunningham, N. (2003). Principle, process, performance or what? New approaches to OHS standards setting. Canberra, Australia: ANU Press, the Australian National University.

Black, J. (2001). Decentring regulation: Understanding the role of regulation and self-regulation in a ‘postregulatory’ world. Current Legal Problems, 54(1), 103-146.

Cocker, F., Sanderson, K., & LaMontagne, A. D. (2017). Estimating the economic benefits of eliminating job strain as a risk factor for depression. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 59(1), 12-17. Doi: 10.1097/JOM.0000000000000908.

European Agency for Safety and Health at Work. (2012a). Management of psychosocial risks at work: An analysis of the findings of the European survey. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Doi: http:// doi.org/10.2802/92077.

Hall, G. B., Dollard, M. F., Tuckey, M. R., Winefield, A. H., & Thompson, B. (2010). Job demands, workfamily conflict, and emotional exhaustion in police officers: A longitudinal test of competing theories, Journal of Occupational & Organisational Psychology, 83(1), 237-250. Doi: 10.1348/096317908X401723.

Head, B. W. (2008). Wicked problems in public policy. Public Policy, 3(2), 101-118.

Head, B. W., & Alford, J. (2015). Wicked Problems: Implications for Public Policy and Management.

Administration & Society, 47(6), 711-739.

Jespersen, A. H., Hasle, P., & Nielsen, K. T. (2016). The wicked character of psychosocial risks: Implications for regulation. Nordic Journal of Working Life Studies, 6(3), 23.

Johnstone, R. & Tooma, M. (2012). Work health and safety regulation in Australia: The model Act. Sydney: Federation Press.

Johnstone, R., Quinlan, M., & McNamara, M. (2011). OHS inspectors and psychosocial risk factors: Evidence from Australia. Safety Science, 49(4), 547-557. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2010.09.016 Kawakami, N., Park, J., Dollard, M. F., & Dai, J. (2014). Psychosocial factors at work in Japan, Korea, Australia, and China. In M. F. Dollard, A. Shimazu, R. B. Nordin, P. Brough, & M. R. Tuckey (Eds.), Psychosocial Factors at Work in the Asia Pacific. Dordrecht: Springer.

Langenhan, M. K., Leka, S., & Jain, A. (2013). Psychosocial risks: is risk management strategic enough in business and policy-making? Safety and Health at Work, 4, 87-94.

Leka, S. & Jain, A. (2014). Policy approaches to occupational and organizational health. In. Baue, G. and Hämmig, O., (Eds.), Bridging Occupational, Organizational and Public Health (pp. 231-24). Dordrecht: Springer.

Leka, S. & Jain, A. (2016). International policy and practice initiatives to tackle psychosocial risks and promote mental health in the workplace: Is there a good balance in policy and practice? In A. Shimazu, R.B. Nordin, M. Dollard, & J. Oakman (Eds.), Psychosocial factors at work in the Asia Pacific: From theory to practice (pp. 23-43). Switzerland: Springer.

Leka, S., Jain, A., & Lerouge, L. (2017). Work-related psychosocial risks: Key definitions and an overview of the policy context in Europe. In Psychosocial Risks in Labour and Social Security Law (pp. 1-12). Springer.

Leka, S., Jain, A., Iavicoli, S., & Di Tecco, C. (2015). An evaluation of the policy context on psychosocial risks and mental health in the workplace in the European Union: achievements, challenges, and the future. BioMed Research International, 2015. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2015/213089 .

Li, J., Dollard, M. F., Loerbroks, A., & Angerer, P. (2015). Cardiovascular disease is associated with the perception of worsening psychosocial work characteristics. International Journal of Cardiology, 186, 149-151. Doi: http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcard.2015.03.222.

Luft, J. & Ingham, H. (1961). The Johari Window. Human Relations Training News, 5(1), 6-7.Mental Health 25

JOURNAL OF HEALTH AND SAFETY, RESEARCH AND PRACTICE

Volume 10 Issue 1 • 2020

Commission of Canada (2017). Case study research project findings. The national standard of Canada for psychological health and safety in the workplace 2014-2017. Ottawa, ON: Mental Health Commission of Canada.

National Mental Health Commission (2014). Mentally Healthy Workplace Alliance. Retrieved from http://www. mentalhealthcommission.gov.au/our-work/mentally-healthy-workplace-alliance.aspx Nieuwenhuijsen, K., Bruinvels, D., & Frings-Dresen, M. (2010). Psychosocial work environment and stressrelated disorders, a systematic review. Occupational Medicine, 60(4), 277-286.

Potter, R. E., Fattori, A., & Dollard, M. F. (2016). Organizational tools for psychosocial risk management: A critical international review. In, A. Shimazu, R. Nordin, M. Dollard, & J. Oakman (Eds.), Psychosocial Factors at Work in the Asia Pacific (pp. 205-224). The Netherlands: Springer International Publishing.

Potter, R.E., O’Keeffe, V., Leka, S., Webber, M., & Dollard, M.F. (2019). Analytical review of the Australian policy context for work-related psychological health and psychosocial risks. Safety Science, 111, -37- 48. DOI: 10.1016/j.ssci.2018.09.012 Pronin, E. & Kugler, M.B. (2007). Valuing thoughts, ignoring behavior: The introspection illusion as a source of the bias blind spot. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43 (4), 565-578.

Queensland Government. (2018). People at work project. Retrieved from https://www.worksafe.qld.gov.au/ injury-prevention-safety/mentally-healthy-workplaces/guidance-and-tools/people-at-work.

Quinlan, M. (2007). Organisational restructuring/downsizing, OHS regulation and worker health and wellbeing.

International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 30(4), 385-399.

Quinlan, M., Johnstone, R., & McNamara, M. (2009). Australian health and safety inspectors’ perceptions and actions in relation to changed work arrangements. Journal of Industrial Relations, 51(4), 557-573. doi:10.1177/0022185609339519.

Richards, P. A., & Bailey, T.S. (2014). The impact of the psychosocial work environment on worker health and wellbeing. In M. F. Dollard, & T. S. Bailey (Eds.), The Australian Workplace Barometer: Psychosocial safety climate and working conditions in Australia (pp.201-220). Sanford Valley, Queensland: Australian Academic Press.

Rittel, H. W., & Webber, M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155-169. Safe Work Australia. (2011). How to manage work health and safety risks: Codes of practice. Canberra, Australia: Safe Work Australia.

Safe Work Australia. (2012). Australian Work Health and Safety Strategy 2012-2022. Retrieved from https://www. safeworkaustralia.gov.au/system/files/documents/1702/australian-whs-strategy-2012-2022.pdf Safe Work Australia. (2017). Handbook – principles of good work design. Canberra, Australia: Safe Work Australia Safe Work Australia. (2018). Work-related psychological health and safety: A systematic approach to meeting your duties. Canberra, Australia: Safe Work Australia.

Stewart, A. (2013). Stewart’s Guide to Employment Law. New South Wales, Australia: The Federation Press.

Steinberg, M. (2017). Strength and weakness of the Swedish legislation regarding to psychosocial Risks. In L. Lerouge (Ed.), Psychosocial Risks in Labour and Social Security Law: A Comparative Legal Overview from Europe, North America, Australia and Japan (pp. 105-121). Cham, Switzerland: Springer Acknowledgment Dr Rachael Potter would like to acknowledge the Commonwealth Government funding that she received under the Research Training Program while undertaking the PhD that produced the research discussed in this paper.

26

JOURNAL OF HEALTH AND SAFETY, RESEARCH AND PRACTICE

Volume 10 Issue 1 • 2020