PRINCIPLES OF HEALTH AND SAFETY MANAGEMENT - ELEMENT IA1

INSURED AND UNINSURED COSTS Many case studies over recent years have illustrated the difference between insured costs and uninsured costs. It has been shown that uninsured costs were often between 8 and 36 times greater than the costs of insurance premiums. The following ‘Accident Costs Iceberg’ represents the ratio of insured to uninsured costs incurred by the main contractor (1:11) during the building of a supermarket.

Figure IA1-10: Costs incurred by the main contractor (1:11) during the building of a supermarket. Source: RMS/HSG96.

Costs relating to injury and ill-health may also be classified on the basis of whether they are direct costs or indirect costs. Direct costs Direct costs include: Lost time of injured worker and any continued payments to worker or family. Damage to equipment, tools, property, plant or materials. Medical or first-aid costs. Time and materials to clean up after the accident. Insurance, indemnity or compensation payments. Court costs. Fines. Indirect costs Indirect costs include: Lost time by other workers who stop work or reduce performance:

• Out of curiosity. • Out of sympathy.

Weakened morale. Lost time by supervisor or other managers:

• Assisting the injured worker. • Investigating the cause of the accident. • Arranging for the injured worker's production to be continued by other workers. • Selecting or training a new worker to replace an injured worker.

Preparing accident reports, attending hearings, inquests courts. Interference with production leading to failure to fill orders on time, loss of bonuses, penalty payments and

similar losses. OSHA of the USA found that the ratio of indirect costs to direct costs varies widely, from a high of 20:1 to a low of 1:1. OSHA identified that the lower the direct costs of an accident, the higher the ratio of indirect to direct costs, for smaller claims of up to $3,000 they are often 4.5:1.

© RMS 9

ELEMENT IA2 - LOSS CAUSATION AND INCIDENT INVESTIGATION

52 © RMS

The diagrams shown in figure refs IA2-12 and IA2-13 are histograms. In figure ref IA2-12 the scale on the y-axis (vertical) shows the number of recorded accidents/incidents and the x-axis shows a comparison between two years in each department.

Where the scale is on the x-axis this type of histogram is known as a bar chart.

Pie chart

Figure IA2-14: Accidents/incidents by department. Source: RMS. Figure IA2-15: Fatalities by type 2010. Source: OGP, International Association of Oil and Gas Producers.

The pie chart in figure ref IA2-14 shows the pie as the whole amount being considered and the slices as ratio parts of that whole. This pie representation could be representative of accidents/incidents in the different departments. It is easy to see at a glance where most of the accidents/incidents are.

Line graphs

Figure IA2-16: Line graph. Source: RMS. Figure IA2-17: LTI frequency (1,000,000 hrs) over time. Source: OGP, International Association of Oil and Gas Producers.

Line diagrams, such as the ones above, can show at a glance accidents/incidents over a period, but not in much detail. They are particularly useful for indicating trends for indices, as in figure ref IA2-17 where it shows the lost time injury (LTI) rate has shown an overall reducing trend over time, though there were periods when the frequency rate increased.

Principles of statistical variability, validity and the use of distributions SAMPLE POPULATION The sample population is the entire group under analysis; the group about which the analyser wishes to draw conclusions.

SAMPLING VARIABILITY Sampling variability is concerned with the different values obtained for the same property under consideration when compared with several samples taken from the same sample population, for example, the weight of males of the same age or the health and safety condition of fork lift trucks of the same type.

SAMPLING VALIDITY Independent samples are those samples selected from the same sample population, which have no influence on each another, for example, the individual eye colour of each person taken from a random sample of 100 non-related individuals.

MEASURING AND REVIEWING HEALTH AND SAFETY PERFORMANCE - ELEMENT IA3

© RMS 79

Figure IA3-12: Results of a climate survey. Source: UK, Health and Safety Laboratory.

In-house and proprietary audit systems and processes In-house audit systems and processes can be developed by an organisation for its own use. This has the advantage of being closely tailored to the needs of the organisation. In developing the audit system and processes a number of important points need to be considered including:

The purpose and objective of the audit. Which standards will be used. The need for trained auditors. Management, financial and budgetary provision. The audit programme. How the planning and performance of the audit will be measured. How the auditing policy and its implementation will be reviewed. The revision of the auditing system and processes based on the above review.

Establishing in-house audit systems and processes can however be a time consuming process involving, as a minimum, the compilation of appropriate checklists and detailed guidance to the auditors. An alternative course of action would be to use a proprietary audit system that has been developed by a specialist organisation.

There are a number of commercially available ‘off the shelf’ systems that may be obtained by an organisation in order to enable them to develop a proactive approach to health and safety management. Some notable systems include ones developed by the British Safety Council, DuPont, International Safety Rating System (ISRS) and ROSPA.

In general, these early systems have been structured in question format, with particular emphasis being given to objective yes/no type questions. The purpose of using yes/no type questions was to ‘ensure consistency between auditors in interpretation of data’. Typically the majority of the questions were so designed to ensure credit could only be given for each question when the requirement was fully met. This consequently led to low scores and a feeling of low achievement by many of those audited.

Other systems, such as RMS Publishing’s ‘Audit 123’, have been developed to allow a much more positive approach to auditing, allowing the auditor to more effectively recognise partial achievement, progress and encourage continual improvement.

Many audit systems, including Audit 123, have both paper and software-based versions. The use of software allows for a more flexible approach with a number of advantages. These include the ability to:

Tailor the package to more closely reflect company procedures and standards. Add new, and change existing, audit questions as risks are identified and legislation/standards are

introduced.

REGULATING HEALTH AND SAFETY - ELEMENT IA8

© RMS 287

Paragraph 15 of Recommendation R164 Paragraph 15 of Recommendation R164 provides guidance on requirements of employers to determine the effectiveness of their policy for health and safety, record and report to competent authorities, see figure ref IA8-38.

“(1) Employers should be required to verify the implementation of applicable standards on occupational safety and health regularly, for instance by environmental monitoring, and to undertake systematic safety audits from time to time.

(2) Employers should be required to keep such records relevant to occupational safety and health and the working environment as are considered necessary by the competent authority or authorities; these might include records of all notifiable occupational accidents and injuries to health which arise in the course of or in connection with work, records of authorisation and exemptions under laws or regulations to supervision of the health of workers in.”

Figure IA8-38: Requirements to ensure policies are effective. Source: ILO, Occupational Safety and Health Recommendation R164, Paragraph 15. In addition, an employer is generally expected to carry out risk assessments in order to meet the specific responsibilities described above.

In some countries the employers’ responsibilities are defined in civil and criminal law. An example of a country that has established general employers’ responsibilities in criminal law is the United States of America (USA) the Occupational Safety and Health Act 1970:

“Section 5 - Duties

(a) Each employer:

(1) Shall furnish to each of his workers employment and a place of employment which are free from recognised hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to his workers.

(2) Shall comply with occupational safety and health standards promulgated under this Act.”

In Malaysia general responsibilities of employers and the self-employed were established by the Occupational Safety and Health Act 1994, including:

“Section 15 - General duties of employers and self-employed persons to their workers.

(1) It shall be the duty of every employer and every self-employed person to ensure, so far as is practicable, the safety, health and welfare at work of all his employees.”

In common with a number of other countries and reflecting some of paragraph 10 of Recommendation R164 Malaysia clarifies the general responsibility created by Section 15 with specific responsibilities of employers that included:

a) Provision and maintenance of plant and systems of work.

b) Safety and absence of risks to health in connection with the use or operation, handling, storage and transport of plant and substances.

c) Information, instruction, training and supervision as is necessary.

d) Place of work maintained in a condition that is safe and without risks to health and the provision and maintenance of the means of access to and egress.

e) Provision and maintenance of a working environment and facilities for welfare at work.

Figure IA8-39: Storage of gas cylinders. Source: RMS.

Figure IA8-40: Office workplace hazards. Source: RMS.

Similar legislation has been in place in South Africa since 1993 through the Occupational Health and Safety Act 1993.