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 |