Australia Wide 1300 453 555 | International +613 9510 0477 info@safetydimensions.com.au
The Safety Journey With Costa Group

The Safety Journey With Costa Group

Costa Group is Australia’s largest horticultural company and a major supplier of produce to food retailers. With over 3,500 hectares of farmed land across Australia and more than 6,000 employees during peak seasonal periods, Costa values their employees and prioritises their safety.

Safety Dimensions has been partnering with Costa Group since 2015 to continue building a strong safety culture, working on building skills and knowledge in the area of safety, for Senior Executives and Frontline Leaders.

Approaches taken included designing and developing a Costa specific Masterclass for Senior Executives, and choosing a two-day Safety Leadership program, refined through a piloting process with key stakeholders and their front-line leaders.

Post pilot, this program was rolled-out nationally to all Leaders and Managers of the business.

The program included Keepad, a surveying technology enabling participants to respond anonymously to a series of safety culture and leadership questions through the use of a handheld device. Questions were specifically developed to enable Costa to collect real-time data about behaviours and perceptions from their workforce. This data was utilised by Costa and Safety Dimensions to analyse and prioritise next steps in the journey.

Drawing together the real-time Keepad data, the positive feedback from the learners, and the improvement in Costa’s safety figures (post the Safety Leadership program) in partnership with Safety Dimensions next steps were implemented to consolidate and continue the safety journey for Costa employees.

Costa and Safety Dimensions has partnered with Costa to launch an online portal to enabling their staff (who have already undertaken the initial programs) to refresh and embed the learning from the 2-day Safety Leadership program. Safety Dimensions has built customised online portals to enable learners to do pre-work or surveys before program, or as a tool to embed the learning after programs have completed.

Within the online portal, the initial Keepad questions have been included, and this will enable Costa and Safety Dimensions to analyse shift from their earlier data in safety behaviours and perceptions over time and gain further actionable insights.

Safety Dimensions spoke to Lou Torcaso, WHS and Workers Compensation Manager at Costa about their safety journey.

Prior to this safety journey what where some of the challenges Costa experienced that you think are common to others in industry?

A challenge prior to our safety journey was providing leadership to employees on how we think about safety. There was inconsistency in a standard message across all Costa Group (business is made up of 5 different units). Some sites were more advanced than others and the challenge was to create a level playing ground across all Costa sites.

Pre this safety journey another challenge was getting the buy-in from key stakeholders about what our safety culture would look like if we implemented a program for change. We needed to ensure that this program wasn’t “just another training course” and instead a program that would help our leaders to use tools to improve how they manage their people and that they’d see the benefits in using these tools.

What were the key outcomes you were looking for when you began this partnership?

To provide the same safety message across all Costa Group sites and ensure the consistency of the training to all employees. The challenge was to be able to do this over 40 sites nationally (with some sites located in regional/remote areas).

We were looking to improve the safety culture of our Managers, Supervisors and Team Leaders to enhance their behaviour and mindset which we hoped in effect would cascade into improvement of our safety performance through proactive control.

The key outcome for all of this was to also ensure this was sustained and not forgotten about in 6 months or that “old habits” returned. We felt we needed strong Facilitators/Trainers to provide the consistent safety message across all sites. These Facilitators/Trainers need to be engaging and influential in communicating the program.

What did you think the biggest obstacles were going to be to the success of this project?

The biggest obstacle for the success of this project was managing the logistics in getting over 600 people nationally (including those in regional areas) trained over a period of time and to manage this from a central point with venues in a number of places across the country. This created another obstacle with travel costs, accommodation etc. The other obstacle was getting support by all business units (WHS Managers) as well as the Executive team.

Another obstacle was time. Trying to not only coordinate people to get to the training, but also provide a program that wasn’t too long and wasn’t too short to be effective. This program required people to take time out of their normal duties so the challenge was to provide a program to cater for the site’s needs. For example some sites participated in two consecutive days of training, whilst others had 1 day training and then their second day was 3 weeks later. Flexibility was important for the success of this project.

Safety can be viewed as time consuming and costly, how within the partnership did you to stay within your time-frames and budgets?

Prior to approval we conducted a “snapshot” 5 hour version of the 2 day program for the Executive team (Masterclass program) as well as a “pilot program” for key stakeholders (WHS Managers). This provided the team the “buy-in” to the program so that they understood what we needed to achieve. This also provided us financial support to roll this out to the broader group.

We worked with Safety Dimensions to create a schedule for the year and mapped out what the costs would be, based on training program, Facilitators/Trainers availability, venues, travel, accommodation etc. Once finalised, this was locked in and people were able to book participants into the program according to the dates that worked with them (via an online booking system developed by Safety Dimensions).

Centralising venues across each state allowed for efficiency and reduced costs to get employees to the program. With support from our company sponsor (Chief Operating Officer) funds were approved and signoff to be included in the budget. This was then tracked regularly by me to ensure that we stayed within budget. The key to this success was to provide key stakeholders reasons as to why this wasn’t a time consuming and costly exercise and we did this by providing them information and involving them with the process.

Often when employees are directed to undertake a program this can be met with mixed reactions. Did employees shift their views during this journey?

From the day our first program commenced employees reactions were very positive overall. Whilst there were a small percentage of negative reactions, we felt that overall the mindset had shifted and this had reflected in significant improvements to our safety performance.

There is supporting evidence that would suggest that the significant increase in Near Miss reporting correlates to when the program had commenced. Feedback from some sites showed significant increase in reporting. In theory reporting near misses effectively reduces LTI’s, MTI’s and FTI’s. This theory is further supported with the Total Recordable Frequency Rate (TRFIR) trending downwards since the roll out of this program.

This in effect clearly showed our senior management the benefits of this program.

Do you have any positive stories or anecdotes about how this training impacted a particular worker or business unit’s way of operating or thinking when it comes to safety or leadership?

Keepad survey data indicated that we are moving in the right direction and that we are not that far away in where we need to be. Whilst there are some sites better than others in implementing proactive safety, there was a general consensus that people are not afraid to speak to their managers around safety and that employees were confident that there was a commitment from senior management.

One positive that comes to mind was a particular Manager at one site had called me the very next day after he had completed his training to tell me that he had “seen the light” and that it made sense to him now in what he needs to do to change the mindset of his team. Within that week that particular site had implemented a number of improvements in both process and procedures. This was further reflected on a number of initiatives implemented that eventually gave this site an internal award (Chairman’s Award) for “Workplace Health and Safety” for demonstrating improvement.

How important is it to partner with the right training provider?

An excellent relationship is really critical to partnering with the right training provider. We had carefully selected a training provider who needed to be consistent, and most importantly be flexible with our needs.

It was important that we were able to select Facilitators/Trainers who we felt comfortable with (pre-selection of trainers prior to the commencement of program) and to be able to communicate with our provider around better ways to coordinate the training to suit our needs.



Thanks to Lou Torcaso for speaking with us. Find out more about the Costa Group here.


Ready to transform your organisations safety culture?

Like to speak to Safety Dimensions about your safety journey?

Contact us now on 1300 453 555 or use our contact form here.

Victoria’s New OHS Regulations 2017

Victoria’s New OHS Regulations 2017

The Occupational Health and Safety Regulations 2017 (OHS Regulations) and Equipment (Public Safety) Regulations 2017 (EPS Regulations) commenced in Victoria on 18 June 2017.

You can access them here :

OHS Regulations 2017 [PDF, 2.20MB]

EPS Regulations 2017 [PDF, 276kB]

With the new OHS Regulations 2017 already in force, the compliance codes that align with the regulations are now under review. In consultation with stakeholders, WorkSafe has updated the codes, and eight proposed codes are available for public comment from Monday 1 May to Friday 9 June. Find out more about public comment on the compliance codes.

Find out more about OHS Regulations reform.

OHS Regulations changes

The new OHS Regulations 2017 are mainly the same. However, if you are in a workplace where asbestos is present; are a manufacturer or an importing supplier of hazardous substances or agricultural and veterinary chemicals; work in construction; or operate a mine or major hazard facility, you need to become aware of the changes. In most cases, compliance is required by 18 June 2017.

Most importantly, the new OHS Regulations 2017 maintain Victoria’s already high safety standards. In some high risk areas, like asbestos removal work, they improve standards. The changes also deliver significant savings to Victorian businesses in the areas of high risk work licensing and record keeping for designers and manufacturers of plant.

For some changes, transitional arrangements apply to allow duty and licence holders time to become compliant with the updated regulatory requirements.

If you are affected by the changes, WorkSafe Victoria has prepared a range of information and support resources to help you identify what to do to stay compliant when the changes take effect on 18 June 2017,  contact the email address below.

The Regulations have been renumbered with consecutive numbers, in line with the Office of the Chief Parliamentary Counsel’s guidance on the preparation of statutory rules. Reconciliation tables are available through the links below to help you quickly compare the numbering between the 2007 Regulations and the 2017 Regulations.

Support information

For further information contact the WorkSafe Victoria Advisory Service on 1800 136 089 or at ohsregsreform@worksafe.vic.gov.au.

Submissions and feedback

Feedback and engagement from our stakeholders has played a vital part in making sure the OHS Regulations 2017 and EPS Regulations 2017 are streamlined and modernised to better reflect current Victorian work practices.

In 2016 the proposed new OHS and EPS Regulations 2017 were made available for public comment and 61 submissions were received. WorkSafe considered and responded to all submissions before finalising the Regulations.

All of the submissions, including WorkSafe’s response, are available in the ‘Proposed Occupational Health and Safety Regulations 2017 and Equipment (Public Safety) Regulations 2017 – Response to public comment’ through the link below.

Resources

Websites


SOURCE:
Worksafe Victoria https://www.worksafe.vic.gov.au/news/notices/ohs-regulations-reform-2017

National Report on Mental Health and Suicide Prevention

The National Mental Health Commission’s National Report on Mental Health and Suicide Prevention.

>> Download The National Report on Mental Health and Suicide Prevention

This report provides a high‑level summary of the reform journey in Australia’s mental health and suicide prevention systems since the National Mental Health Commission (the Commission) presented Contributing Lives, Thriving Communities – Report of the National Review of Mental Health Programmes and Services2 (the Review) to the Australian Government at the end of 2014.

Since the delivery of that report, Australia has been undergoing significant changes to services, programs and policies in mental health and suicide prevention, as well as in primary health care, disability, housing and social services. These changes have not only been at the national level, but also at the jurisdictional and local levels, through state and territory governments and many local initiatives. Acknowledging the considerable work being undertaken at all levels, this report focuses on the initiatives being announced and progressed at the national level.

Part 1 outlines the key recommendations of the Review, the Australian Government’s response, areas of subsequent progress and where further work is
needed.

Part 2 provides more detail about some of the issues in monitoring and reporting mental health and suicide prevention, and the Commission’s ongoing role and plans for further work in this area throughout 2017. This is supported by a snapshot of currently available data for selected indicators of mental health consumer and carer outcomes in Appendix A.

Part 3 sets out where our work the Commission be taking us during the implementation stage of the reforms.

This report is also supported by a compilation of personal stories and case studies from mental health consumers, carers and service providers.

Republished under Creative Commons www.mentalhealthcommission.gov.au


Get Help – 24 Hour Emergency Services

Lifeline Australia – 13 11 14

Suicide Call Back – 1300 659 467

Kids Help Line – 1800 551 800

‘Purposeful leaders’ are winning hearts and minds in workplaces, study finds

People are happier and more productive when their leaders show strong morals, a clear vision and commitment to stakeholders, a new study has found.

The growing importance of what is being described as ‘purposeful leadership’ for the modern workplace is outlined in a new report for the CIPD, a UK professional body for HR and people development.

When modern managers display ‘purposeful’ behaviours, employees are less likely to quit, more satisfied, willing to go the extra mile, better performers and less cynical, according to the researchers at the University of Sussex, the University of Greenwich, the IPA and CIPD.

Professor Catherine Bailey at the University of Sussex said: “Our study shows that the modern workplace is as much a battle for hearts and minds as it is one of rules and duties.

“People increasingly expect an organisational purpose that goes beyond a mere focus on the bottom line, beyond the kind of short-termist, financial imperatives that are blamed by many for causing the 2008 recession.

“In turn, they respond to leaders who care not just about themselves but wider society, who have strong morals and ethics, and who behave with purpose.”

Not much is known about what causes purposeful leadership or what impact it has — this new study is an attempt to fill this gap.

Laura Harrison, Director of Strategy and Transformation at the CIPD, said: “Building on a number of studies on trust, decision making, and corporate governance, this study begins an examination of an under considered facet of leadership, purposefulness.

“Much has been discussed about the critical nature of invoking and ‘living’ purpose in an organisation, but little around the alignment of this purpose to the internal, perhaps hidden, moral compass of an organisation’s leaders.

“The challenge now is how we enable and support the development of leaders that people actually want to follow.”

The research found that just one in five UK bosses describes themselves as a ‘purposeful leader’, highlighting a largely untapped opportunity for modern organisations to improve performance by reshaping the role of managers.

The researchers suggest that there is much that organisations can do to foster purposeful and ethical leadership, including the adoption of relevant policies, leader role-modelling, alignment around a core vision, training and development, and organisational culture.

Dr Amanda Shantz at the University of Greenwich says: “If organisations are serious about acting on the rhetoric of business purpose, and are to invest in achievement of their purpose, they have to reconsider the ways they select, develop and assess leaders.

“The traditional focus on leader behaviours only goes so far as to develop their ability to perform in a role. Instead, what is required is a development of the whole person, while accepting that it is impossible to mould all individuals into a uniform model of morals and ethics.

“The real challenge is not in trying to achieve perfect match between leaders’ and organisational values, but in ensuring that they complement each other in ways that best suit organisational circumstances at a given time.

“This includes supporting leaders to successfully recognise and negotiate the differences between what they stand for and what the business intends to achieve, without detriment to the individual leader or the company’s operations.”

Find more information at: https://www.cipd.co.uk/knowledge/strategy/leadership/purposeful-leadership-report


Story Source: ScienceDaily, 14 June 2017 from materials provided by University of Sussex.

 

Corporate Manslaughter: what is it and could it bring justice for Grenfell Tower victims?

Related posts: Queensland Industrial Manslaughter: New Laws


File 20170616 545 1s6gzod

Ioannis Glinavos, University of Westminster.

The disaster at Grenfell Tower has been described by David Lammy, Labour MP for Tottenham, as a case of “corporate manslaughter”. According to English law, companies and organisations can be found guilty of corporate manslaughter as a result of serious management failures, resulting in a gross breach of a duty of care.

Amid calls for arrests, it’s time to consider whether the failings that led to the Grenfell disaster could possibly justify the use of the label “corporate manslaughter” – and what this would mean for victims who seek justice.

Prosecutions for this offence are of a corporate body (defined broadly enough to include public authorities) and not individuals – so we probably won’t see any pictures of executives being led away in handcuffs. That said, directors, board members and others may still be liable to prosecution under health and safety law or general criminal law. The offence also covers contractors and sub-contractors, so long as they owe a duty of care to the victims.

A duty of care is an obligation, whereby an organisation must take reasonable steps to protect a person’s safety. Legally, it is broadly understood as avoiding negligence by not placing people in danger. These duties also exist in relation to workplaces and equipment, as well as to products or services supplied to customers. This suggests that when an entity exercises control over people and spaces it has a responsibility to protect them.

The corporate manslaughter offence uses the same definitions of duty of care as the common law offence of gross negligence manslaughter. This means that the threshold for the offence is high – the way that activities were managed or organised must have fallen seriously far below reasonable standards.

The consequences

Any organisation convicted of this offence would face a fine of anywhere between £180,000 and £20m (though there is no hard maximum limit). They would also be handed a publicity order, which requires them to publicise the conviction, along with certain details of the offence, as specified by the court. The court can also set a remedial order, requiring the organisation to address the cause of the fatal injury, which in this case could have consequences for similar tower blocks.

While there is no direct precedent for this kind of tragedy – involving massive loss of life for non-workers – to help us estimate penalties, some indications can be gleaned from the fines imposed on rail operators for train accidents. In 2003, Thames Trains and Network Rail were fined over £2m and £4m respectively, in relation to the health and safety breaches that led to the 1999 Ladbroke Grove train crash, which killed 31 people. And in 2006, Network Rail was fined £3.5m and Balfour Beatty an eventual £7.5m (following an appeal) for faults leading to the fatal derailment of a train near Hatfield in 2000.

It’s also possible for an organisation to be charged with both corporate manslaughter and health and safety offences in the same proceedings. In these circumstances, if an organisation is convicted of corporate manslaughter the jury may still be asked to return a verdict on the health and safety charges if the interests of justice so require, which can have further consequences for individuals.

Potential defendants

Corporate manslaughter is an extremely serious offence, reserved for the very worst cases of corporate mismanagement leading to death. Even before knowing the full extent of the Grenfell disaster, it’s safe to say that it is likely to fall in this category.

Potential defendants in this case – should one eventually be brought – would probably include the building’s management company, the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation (KCTMO), and possibly also contractors involved in the tower’s recent renovation.

But advocates for the victims are likely to be looking further than that, seeking to challenge the behaviour of public authorities and political decisions about spending on improvements to social housing in London. Prosecutions of public authorities would have far-reaching political consequences.

If the defendant is a public authority, exemptions may apply to decisions about public policy. For example, strategic funding decisions and other matters involving competing public interests, cannot be challenged in criminal proceedings. But decisions about how resources were managed are not exempt, which means that deliberate under-investment in maintaining safety could lead to prosecutions.

According to the law, the offence is concerned with how an organisation’s activities were managed or organised. So, courts will look at management systems and practices across the organisation in question, and investigate whether an adequate standard of care was applied. A substantial part of the failing must have occurred at a senior management level for a conviction to be successful.

Juries would be required to consider the extent to which an organisation was in breach of health and safety requirements, and assess how serious those failings were. They would also consider wider cultural issues within the organisation, such as attitudes or practices that tolerated health and safety breaches. What’s more, it would not be necessary for the management failure to have been the sole cause of death, so a tenant’s actions in starting this fire would not exonerate those responsible for inadequate safety measures.

The ConversationFor now, London is in mourning. But when the immediate phase has passed, the law will turn its attention to those who may be responsible, and see that justice is carried out.

Ioannis Glinavos, Senior Lecturer in Law, University of Westminster

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Our COVID-19 Response from LDN CEO Melissa Williams

As the COVID-19 situation continues to evolve, our first and foremost focus is on the physical and mental health and wellbeing of our people, our clients, their staff and the wider community we all live in.Updated March 30, 2020.  (LDN will regularly update its...

Train your staff at home with LDN Interactive (LDN-i) – helping organisations train and develop staff while isolated

Safety Dimensions, Leadership Dimensions & Workplace Dimensions programs are now available through a facilitator-led, real-time, interactive training environment – via computer. We don’t offer pre-recorded online programs – just the same experience of our...

How to talk to kids about COVID-19 with resources for parents and children

How can parents and carers manage the questions, fears and concerns from children about COVID-19? We’ve put together some ideas, videos and a free downloadable resource for kids under 7 to help. With the world in the grip of the COVID-19 response, parents and carers...

Leading through uncertain times – how to be a leader through the COVID-19 response.

How can leaders make things feel as normal as possible to support ‘business as usual’ when we’re certainly not in a ‘business as usual’ environment?  So here we are at the beginning of a seismic disruption to workplaces all around the world with the COVID-19 response....

Which industries have the highest rates of work-related harassment and bullying claims?

On February 28, 2020, Safe Work Australia released the 2019 ‘Psychosocial health and safety and bullying in Australian workplaces’ annual statement. Psychosocial health is the physical, mental and social state of a person. The nationally accepted definition of...

What happens in an unsafe work environment? (Video)

In this brief video, Simon Sinek looks at what a psychologically safe work environment looks like and what happens to people when we don't create a safe place at work. People need to feel safe enough to share their honest feelings with the confidence that their bosses...

Qantas safety video a trip down aviation memory lane

The new Qantas in-flight safety video ‘A Century of Safety’ spans 10 decades and showcases some of the moments that have made Qantas the world’s safest airline. The video takes passengers on a trip down memory lane, recreating the aircraft , uniforms and music from...

Dreamworld Coroner finds leadership culpable

On 25 October 2016, a tragic incident occurred on the Thunder River Rapids Ride (TRRR) at Dreamworld Theme Park, claiming four lives.   The 30-year-old TRRR ride was a water based family orientated ‘moderate thrill ride’ where patrons simulated white water...

Industrial manslaughter to become law in Victoria

Victoria has made Industrial Manslaughter a criminal offence and will now have the highest safety fine in the country with maximum penalties of $16.5m and 20 years jail. Victoria is the third state after ACT and Queensland to legislate to make Workplace Manslaughter a...

What our learners say about our programs

The National Centre for Vocational Education Research surveyed graduates of our nationally recognised Vocational Education and Training (VET) programs. This report provides a summary of the outcomes of students who completed nationally recognised VET programs during...

The challenge of sedentary work environments – how to stay healthy

WorkSafe Qld provides some tips on how to stay healthy and keep moving.

Many workers spend a large part of their working day sitting, including administrative and call centre workers, as well as people in particular areas of sales and manufacturing. This is defined as sedentary work and it involves prolonged periods of inactivity, and an absence of whole body movement.

Even if workers manage to undertake their recommended 30 minutes of active exercise a day, if they still remain sedentary for the rest of the day, they will have an increased risk of health problems.

The human body is designed for movement and should alternate between sitting, standing and activities, such as walking, regularly throughout the day.

Benefits of moving

Benefits of sitting less and moving more include:

  • lower risk of musculoskeletal pain, discomfort and injury, particularly of the lower back and neck
  • reduced risk of chronic diseases such as cancer, cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes
  • lower risk of eye strain or fatigue
  • healthy maintenance of the circulatory system and digestive tract.

It is important to consider both a mix of design and work organisation improvements to make sure workers are well supported to reduce risks associated with sedentary work.

Design well-planned work areas

Improve the work organisation

  • Encourage a standing-friendly culture in the workplace, e.g. include opportunities for standing during meetings and training sessions.
  • Schedule breaks and task variation during the work day to break up long periods of sitting or standing in one position.
  • Consider potential work-related stress factors, such as work demands, and how these impact sedentary behaviour.
  • Conduct training for management and supervisors on ways to reduce sedentary work.

More information


Source:
Worksafe QLD
https://www.worksafe.qld.gov.au/news/2017/the-challenge-of-sedentary-work-environments-how-to-stay-healthy