OHS, NSW WorkCover, CAM$ & V8 $upercars Australia

[Uncle Cranker]

Linky

For those of you wondering where all " This Occupational Health & Safety Hoo-Haa " is coming from, please read the judges descision very closely....

Some dot points from the summary

• "A failure to ensure an exploding fire extinguisher was reported and investigated led to another explosion later on the same day and has cost V8 Supercars Aust Pty Ltd $70,000".....

• NSW IRC Justice Monika Schmidt said: "That the work had not been safely undertaken became apparent with the first explosion … but still [V8 Supercars] did not recognise and act upon its safety obligations....."

• Another party and the Confederation of Aust Motor Sports have also been charged for the incidents.

[Aquarius]

Very interesting there Uncle, I will take some time to read through that and comment some time in the future - thanks for the "linky"

[SRabbit]

I guess we know now how much Craig's fine will be.....

[Uncle Cranker]

Originally Posted by SRabbit

I guess we know now how much Craig's fine will be.....

Funny...

Can we actually try to keep this one on topic, please:


The future ramifications for the sport are astronomical, this effectively becomes a yardstick for future decisions, especially in NSW.


I'll give you a scenario to consider;
Imagine if an Albert Park type, tyre through (possibly over) the fence incident were to happen at a potential future Street Race in NSW somewhere.

The current state of knowledge of the Motorsport industry is that these incidents are possible, and the IRC would get very nasty, one would think.

Remember the term "State of Knowledge"; it is something that OH&S regulators Australia wide are now strongly considering when pursuing convictions.

[wishbone]

its not 70K but 120K

" have concluded that an overall penalty for the two offences of $120,000 is just in all of the circumstances" after discounts for early plea

[Uncle Cranker]

Originally Posted by wishbone

its not 70K but 120K

" have concluded that an overall penalty for the two offences of $120,000 is just in all of the circumstances" after discounts for early plea

Indeed:

Thanks Wishbone, I haven't yet studied the full descision, I had recieved an e-mail with a summary of the case, and cut from that.

Obviously it pays to read in full, 120 gorilla's is much more fruit than 70, but on the scheme of things, 120 K might just cover the catering for the year at VESA.


Vinnie & Kurt might have to take a bag lunch next year.....

[SRabbit]

Originally Posted by Uncle Cranker

Funny...

Can we actually try to keep this one on topic, please:


The future ramifications for the sport are astronomical, this effectively becomes a yardstick for future decisions, especially in NSW.


I'll give you a scenario to consider;
Imagine if an Albert Park type, tyre through (possibly over) the fence incident were to happen at a potential future Street Race in NSW somewhere.

The current state of knowledge of the Motorsport industry is that these incidents are possible, and the IRC would get very nasty, one would think.

Remember the term "State of Knowledge"; it is something that OH&S regulators Australia wide are now strongly considering when pursuing convictions.

Sorry Uncle. I saw an opening, and....well, you know....

Obviously you follow this sort of thing a lot more closely than most, and so I have a question for you - where will it end??

I work with chemicals everyday. The amount of 'stuff' I have to go through to handle, store, manufacture blah blah everyday borders on insanity - every little 'what if?' has to accounted for.

How can they possibly regulate motorsport to that degree?

Your street race/loose wheel scenario could happen, but let's look at some simplier examples that HAVE happened :

The GRM mechanic that got cleaned up in pitlane by his own car...
What's next? The car has to come to a complete stop before personnel are allowed to enter the working lane?
What about the car in the pitbay next to yours both front and back? Does some sort of immovable barrier now have to be put behind and in front of the car so all crew are safe?
Should a cars engine be on if the car is being refuelled? Certainly isn't allowed at the servo I go to - especially with 8 blokes around a car.
Cars being lowered off jacks? everyone clear of the working lane first so no-one gets a car on their foot?
Pit-stops could go from 4 seconds to 4 minutes.

Before anyone scoffs, my mother in law was a NOHSC consultant, and once they get the smell in their nostrils it's laser-sighting on the target and they crawl all over it, and then ask why is it they could get over it in the first place....

can it go that far???

[Uncle Cranker]

Originally Posted by SRabbit

Sorry Uncle. I saw an opening, and....well, you know....

Obviously you follow this sort of thing a lot more closely than most, and so I have a question for you - where will it end??

I work with chemicals everyday. The amount of 'stuff' I have to go through to handle, store, manufacture blah blah everyday borders on insanity - every little 'what if?' has to accounted for.

How can they possibly regulate motorsport to that degree?

Your street race/loose wheel scenario could happen, but let's look at some simplier examples that HAVE happened :

The GRM mechanic that got cleaned up in pitlane by his own car...
What's next? The car has to come to a complete stop before personnel are allowed to enter the working lane?
What about the car in the pitbay next to yours both front and back? Does some sort of immovable barrier now have to be put behind and in front of the car so all crew are safe?
Should a cars engine be on if the car is being refuelled? Certainly isn't allowed at the servo I go to - especially with 8 blokes around a car.
Cars being lowered off jacks? everyone clear of the working lane first so no-one gets a car on their foot?
Pit-stops could go from 4 seconds to 4 minutes.

Before anyone scoffs, my mother in law was a NOHSC consultant, and once they get the smell in their nostrils it's laser-sighting on the target and they crawl all over it, and then ask why is it they could get over it in the first place....

can it go that far???

Maybe, I don't have that answer, and I suspect neither do any of the State Regulators, yet...

The fact that the motor sport industry has been proactive enough to write a risk management standard will be viewed in good favor (opinion only)

But with that aspect of risk management, organisers need to do just that: Manage the Risks.

State OHS legislation is quite clear, Employees need to be provided with a workplace that is without risk to safety or health.

Pit-lane activities, as you so rightly described them, do not currently fulfill that criteria:

If the GRM crew-member had been seriously injured or killed, would be be complaining about "4 minute pit stops" in the future?????



Does anyone accept the risk of being seriously injured at their place of work as acceptable ?

Especially for the excitement & TV viewing pleasure of others...

[SRabbit]

Nobody would accept it at all i suspect, and i certainly wasn't complaining.
Once you sit and give it some thought for 2 seconds it's actually quite a scary prospect.

Of course we'll get the 'motorsport is dangerous' answer here somewhere, but if they're really going to set their sights on motorsport, it will be crippled IMO.

But what do you do? Everyone is entitled to know that everything was done so that they can return home from work each day unscathed and unharmed...

[Average Punter]

oh puh-lease.......

Next we'll have Glen McGrath bowling tennis balls in case he hurts somebody.

Do you really think the OH&S gurus want to go that far?

Memo to self.
Better learn skydiving soon.

Before it's banned too!!!

[PVDA]

Originally Posted by SRabbit

What's next? The car has to come to a complete stop before personnel are allowed to enter the working lane?

Watched a NASCAR race lately??

They seem to be able to get quick stops done with less people over the wall and as Larry proved years ago you can do an entire Bathurst without a brake pad change.

The way NASCAR works the pit crew do the far side first and then duck around to the near side so the car leaves with them between it and the pit wall.

[GTRMagic]

Originally Posted by Average Punter

Do you really think the OH&S gurus want to go that far?

In a word... YES!

Having had them them around various manufacturing operations for the last umpteen years.. there is usually a real focus on the issue after an accident.

The situation where 'Shirl' was bowled over in a pitstop, or where the Kmart crew got a petrol bath a couple of years ago, or a driver pulls a pitboom over and dongs crewmen on the head.... are usually enough for the OH&S mob to go nutso.

A few weeks ago there was a transport accident on one of my employer's sites. We were lifting up the 2nd deck in a movable deck trailer. Two forklifts were in place lifting the deck enough for the driver to get underneath and change the pin settings... two forks, so if one drooped, the 2nd would pick up the load.

Anyhoo, the deck fell... and injured the driver. Which is unfortunate, and something that had never happened before, after probably 20 years of operating that way. The driver is now fully recovered..

.. but the Workcover officers probed everyone and anyone connected with the deal, made recommendations (building inefficiency into the process whilst not actually improving safety compared to the previous methods) and have since made random weekly visits to make sure that this operation didnt continue in its old ways.

In the end, the burdens of inspection and the processes required to be put in place were so much that the operation refused to continue doing that work. Which puts a different delay into the network, and sends the risk up to someone else who doesnt have the level of scrutiny that this site now currently enjoys.

They have also started sniffing around other processes in an operation that has been there since the 1950s and has very few LTIs because the management are as passionate about safety as the crews doing the work.

Take unnecessary risks and it will eventually bite you on the behind.

In the case of the fire extinguishers... I presume that there is a Workcover-approved premises where the units are able to be refilled, in an environment where if they exploded, that they would not injure or maim.

In the motorsport sphere in pitlane... there are many things that are risk enabled.. hot brake pads, a car travelling at 40 km/h, hot tyres, fuel, hot wheel nuts, air activated guns.... people who shouldnt be there...

Isnt this one of the reasons given for the big barrier behind the pits at Sandown too?

The Workcover people need to be totally clear what their ideas and solutions are for these kinds of issues. They usually arent, or their ideas are generally onerous or indeed impractical.. and it generally takes some real cooperation between the subject and the Workcover mob to tune up a palatable solution to both sides.

Just the kind of thing the mob at CAMS, and their risk assessment crew should be undertaking, after consultation with their category owners of course...

[PVDA]

Originally Posted by Uncle Cranker

Obviously it pays to read in full, 120 gorilla's is much more fruit than 70

Actually Uncle it was 150 Gorilla's but they got a discount for a very early guilty plea.

This is a very interesting case in that a party is responsible for the actions of a third party they had no real control over, especially considering it happened twice on the same day after the injured party returned to have another go

[Uncle Cranker]

Originally Posted by PVDA

Actually Uncle it was 150 Gorilla's but they got a discount for a very early guilty plea.

This is a very interesting case in that a party is responsible for the actions of a third party they had no real control over, especially considering it happened twice on the same day after the injured party returned to have another go

I'd dispute the fact about a lack of control. Who's series credentials did the IP enter the facility on ?


There are two other parties still to face charges, and despite gnashing of teeth, and wringing of hands, the landowner isn't one of them.


A fact made even clearer by a recent VCAT descision against WorkSafe Victoria. Grey Bruni descision.

Pay specific attention from para 47 onwards, regarding a OHS inspector issuing a prohibition notice to a council, who had contracted out work to a party, who had in turn sub-contracted to a third party.


The third party were found to be working in an unsafe matter, and VCAT agreed the council had no control over the third party, a clear similarity to the landowner (Wakefield Park) not being charged by WorkCover NSW....

Promoters/organisers are in control of a race meeting, and need to have appropriate systems in place to control the risk of harm to persons under their control.


Let's wait and see how CAMS fare when they front the beak later in the year.....

[hoffy]

Agreed with you there.

I have worked in heavy industrial before both in an employee role & in a sub contractor role. As a sub contractor, they tend to be very strict, having to have all equipment tagged & safety tested, having to attend safety & site inductions, having to abide by all the sites safety regulations, etc. I also know from various sites that I have worked on, that if subbies dont tow the line, they are quickly shown the gate & asked not to come back again

Could we possibly see this kind of thing happen at race meetings? Is the race track any different to any other industrial site?

In relation to the comment about the sub contractor returning to have another go, firstly, the promoter should (& I am sure that if a similar incident happened again, they would) have stripped the credentials until they have proven that a similar re-occurance doesnt happen again. I am also disturbed that the trained (I assume....) professional, while being injured, has asked others to do the job for him, regardless of their expertise. Does this guy still fill these extinquishers?

[PVDA]

Originally Posted by Uncle Cranker

Let's wait and see how CAMS fare when they front the beak later in the year.....

The last sentence of Paragraph 20 makes intersting reading

Originally Posted by Paragraph 20

For the prosecutor it was submitted that on the evidence it was open to conclude that this defendant was 'slightly' more culpable for what had occurred than CAMS.

The Defendant being VESA of course.

I've never liked the hard card credential system as it's too easy for them to be given to anyone who may not know the "rules" of motorsport and wander into dangerous areas. Mind you I had a series hard card for a series once but still had to sign in each day as an official.

[acotrel]

I noticed this comment in one of the posts -
'State OHS legislation is quite clear, Employees need to be provided with a workplace that is without risk to safety or health.'
'Without risk' is impossible to achieve ! Even if you're dead, there's a risk of be ing eaten by worms.
I sometimes work as a safety consultant, and I use the following definition:
'Safe: a situation or condition where the risks are minimised to a level which is tolerable to all stakeholders'
You won't find that definition in any standard or Workcover document, however I'm prepared to argue it.
I'm sorry to see CAMS in trouble, however whoever is 'in control' is usually the 'directive mind', and that's who gets the manslaughter charge if there is a fatality involving 'gross negligence'. The rest follows from there!
Best Regards,
Alan Cotterell

[275 GTB-4]

Originally Posted by acotrel

I noticed this comment in one of the posts -
'State OHS legislation is quite clear, Employees need to be provided with a workplace that is without risk to safety or health.'
'Without risk' is impossible to achieve ! Even if you're dead, there's a risk of be ing eaten by worms.
I sometimes work as a safety consultant, and I use the following definition:
'Safe: a situation or condition where the risks are minimised to a level which is tolerable to all stakeholders'
You won't find that definition in any standard or Workcover document, however I'm prepared to argue it.
I'm sorry to see CAMS in trouble, however whoever is 'in control' is usually the 'directive mind', and that's who gets the manslaughter charge if there is a fatality involving 'gross negligence'. The rest follows from there!
Best Regards,
Alan Cotterell

Well said Alan....I cover OH&S issues from afar and it really is all about hazard minimisation and risk management....definately not rocket science

[Uncle Cranker]

CAMS get fined a lazy $ 80 K for their part in the sorry saga....

linky

Interesting read this one, Policy on the run if ever there was.

"17, Mr Bruce Keys (Keys) was employed by CAMS as the Manager - Medical and Safety Services. Keys was responsible for the administration of CAMS' safety and medical requirements in relation to motor racing events conducted under the auspices of CAMS. At some stage during the evening of 20 February 2004, Keys offered assistance in sponsoring a mid weekend rule change to allow those with non complying fire extinguishers to race – this was not permitted by AVESCO as its representatives “were very fixed in their attitude”. He was present at the Raceway on 21 February 2004 to gain an overall impression as to how motor racing at that venue was conducted. He had no specific role in connection with the event. Keys was accredited by Wakefield as an official of the event. As a staff member of CAMS, he held an accreditation which allowed him access to all areas of the event.

[kosher_pig]

mmmmmmmm wait for the permit fees to rise to top up the ever dwindling finances

[275 GTB-4]

What about the expected joint announcement from Winton, Calder, Wakefield and AIR ??? ...if the rumours are true, that could make a sizeable dent in revenue for CAMS.

[wishbone]

Originally Posted by 275 GTB-4

What about the expected joint announcement from Winton, Calder, Wakefield and AIR ??? ...if the rumours are true, that could make a sizeable dent in revenue for CAMS.

i might be wrong but isn't that called the AMRS?

[Matthew Ronke]

Yep the AMRS is go next year.

The full calendar is as follows:

Round 1 Wakefield Park Feb 24-25
Round 2 Calder Park Mar 24-25
Round 3 Winton Raceway Apr 28-29
Round 4 Queensland Raceway Jun 16-17
Round 5 Adelaide International Raceway Jul 14-15
Round 6 Winton Raceway Aug 25-26
Round 7 Calder Park Sep 29-30
Round 8 Wakefield Park Oct 27-28
Round 9 Oran Park Nov 24-25

[275 GTB-4]

Goodonya Matt....So nice to see Winton NOT in the dead of winter

[Falcadore]

What is AMRS doing for 2007 to fix the problems it had this year?

I notice from the latest issue of Ignition that they are still announcing new categories, this is specifically one of their bigger issues last year.