Skip to main content

Table 3 Example of results from pilot implementation of APHIRM toolkit in a mining company: Stage 2 feedback from workgroup members

From: The APHIRM toolkit: an evidence-based system for workplace MSD risk management

MAIN HAZARDS CAUSAL FACTORS IDENTIFIED BY WORKGROUP MEMBERS ACTIONS PROPOSED BY WORKGROUP MEMBERS
Often do very repetitive actions • Constant use of the joystick
• Twisting to see behind for reversing
• Allocated to a dozer for the full roster cycle (7 days)
• High turnover in crews (no relief opportunities)
• Insufficient numbers of crew members to manage sickness, leave and breaks due to crew turnover
• New starters engaged that don’t have appropriate skillset and experience
• Regular breaks out of the cab
• Proactive task rotation (prior to onset of discomfort) to different jobs, for those workers who are interested
• Training on other equipment to facilitate job rotation
• Examine strategies to reduce turnover in the crew
• Increase overall numbers in each crew
• Engage the trainer/assessor in recruitment of new staff
Lack of opportunities for learning new skills and using existing skills • Limited access to training opportunities
• Workers with additional skills not being able to use these.
• Not always clear about how work is allocated
• Training in use of other equipment for employees who want to work in other areas
• People with skills to be able to rotate to other jobs
• Transparent allocation of opportunities
Problems due to lack of promotion opportunities • Difficult to become permanent
• Tend to stay at the same level
• No clear path to move to the next level
• Only one trainer and assessor
• Development of individual plans for workers who want to move to higher levels
• Investigate the role of performance reviews in this process
• Develop and implement a clear and transparent process for workers who want to be trained on other equipment
• Increase the number of trainers and assessors
Lack of feedback on performance • Workers feel they are doing a difficult job, but this is not always recognised as valuable, some jobs considered more important • Workers reported that this has improved but asserted that feedback needs to be meaningful
Opinions differ on ‘correct’ way to do some tasks • Differences in the way things are done between crews
• Rework required because of inconsistent practices between the different crews
• Implementation of “Dozer Playbook” reported as an action to address this issue. This process was designed to ensure more early reporting from workers was positive
Often hold or grip things with hands or fingers • Inherent part of the job, concerned with operating the controls and also for bracing to reduce load on back • No ideal solutions identified but rotation of tasks would change the exposure to this hazard
• Improved blasting to reduce the exposure to jolts and jars due to working in hard material
Senior management attitudes • Workers feel they are not respected and do not have a voice
• Senior managers not visible
• New dozers reported to be coming but still have not arrived after 12/18 months
• Projects can take a long time to be implemented
• Greater visibility of senior managers so that they understand the issues faced by workers in their work when decisions are made that impact how they do their job
• Communication from senior managers, even when things could be changed, workers want to know good and bad news and an explanation underpinning decisions
• Provide regular updates to workers on projects, even when projects are slow/delayed
• Have input to new equipment prior to being ordered
Work stations and workspace • Overcrowding in crib hut • Bigger crib hut to be provided