CMPA News - Issue 26, April 2006

Feature Articles

·  CMPA Guarding Workshop

Industry gather for the 4th CMPA Hazard & Risk Identification Workshop

·  Giving Direction, Confidence Support

Assisting Box Hill Institute of TAFE in meeting industry’s needs

·  Just Who is in Control?

A need for legal clarity within Australian Standards and Codes of Practice

General Articles

·  Project Update

Teaching a Person to Squash Rocks and Sort Sands

·  Web in Regional Victoria

Subsidised Internet Connection

·  Progress Report – CMPA Development Manager
Adrian Town

Regular Items

·  What’s News?

·  Business Update

·  Legislative Update

·  Submissions and Issues

·  DPI Update

·  OH&S

CMPA Guarding Workshop

Industry gather for the 4th CMPA Hazard & Risk Identification Workshop

Over 70 industry personnel gathered at Caterpillar Institute in Tullamarine for the Guarding Hazard & Risk Identification Workshop, incorporating a site visit to Readymix—Oaklands Junction.

Attendees arrived at Caterpillar Institute for registration and morning tea. Morning activities consisted of a briefing on the day’s activities by our dedicated MC, Jane Sims of Box Hill TAFE, followed by an introductory guarding presentation delivered by Bob Duncan of the Department of Primary Industries, and then the Readymix induction.

The attendees piled into two buses for the trip to Readymix—Oaklands Junction. A site tour of the impressive quarry was conducted via bus, with commentary and site history provided by knowledgeable Readymix volunteers.

At the conclusion of the site tour the attendees broke into ten pre-determined groups, each specifically focussed on either guarding and access to: Mobile Plant, Crushing Plant, Screens, Conveyors or Auxiliary Equipment.

Each group was required to identify not only the hazards and risks observed on site, but also any others they could think of, relating back to their own sites, personal experiences and prior knowledge.

After a decent amount of brainstorming time on site the attendees boarded the buses for the trip back to Caterpillar Institute for their well-deserved BBQ lunch.

The afternoon session began with a presentation updating attendees on the DPI Guarding Blitz, delivered by John Mitas of the DPI.

Attendees regrouped to review, discuss and combine their thoughts and ideas from their time on site into a listing of the major hazards and risks identified, along with possible controls for these hazards and risks.

An elected group member presented the major issues discussed in their group to the attendees as a whole.

Brief presentations from Associate Sponsors Mike McCann of Terex Jaques and Neil Kinder of Kinder & Co followed, with the Workshop closing with afternoon tea.

The CMPA wishes to express its sincere appreciation towards those who assisted in the smooth running of the Workshop: Caterpillar Institute, particularly Raylene West and Kelly Smith, Readymix, DPI personnel and Jane Sims of Box Hill TAFE.

Thanks must also go to the ten team leaders who generously volunteered their knowledge and expertise to guide the groups through the hazard and risk identification process, encouraging all attendees to be involved. The group leaders ensured that the best possible results were obtained from each of the hazard and risk identification groups.

Special thanks also to the Associate Sponsors of the Workshop:

·  Caterpillar Institute

·  William Adams

·  Kinder & Co

·  PVL Engineering, and

·  Terex Jaques

for their support and generosity. Without the funding and support provided by these Associate Members, such CMPA events would be unachievable.

On behalf of the CMPA and all attendees of the Guarding Workshop we would like to express our sincere appreciation towards Readymix for the effort to which the managers prepared and presented their company’s quarry site for our field visit.

Clearly the planning, personal effort and commitment of the site personnel is reflective of the Oaklands Junction Quarry’s passion for excellence within the industry. In particular thanks must go to David Jones, Guy Sibenaler and Greg Taylor Adams, for their eagerness and commitment in preparation for the event, and on the day.

Details of all group presentations were noted down, along with copies of group notes from the day’s activities being taken. These results will be combined by the CMPA to produce an OHS Support Document, similar to that produced from prior CMPA Workshops.

This documentation will be made available industry wide and free of charge in an attempt to assist Extractive Industry personnel in providing a safer and healthier workplace for their employees.

Giving Direction, Confidence & Support

Assisting Box Hill Institute of TAFE in meeting industry’s needs

Recently, the CMPA and others were invited to make comment to Box Hill Institute of TAFE on how best they should engage industry in the training delivered by them.

The CMPA believes that any system should focus on bettering the abilities of the RTO and ensuring industry minimum standards are maintained or improved. This would include a number of checks, including an interview of trainees.

This proposal is the first of many industry sector advisory panels that will be established within the structure of Box Hill Institute of TAFE or other TAFE providers.

The principle is that this panel should benefit all parties; for instance the candidate by ensuring that they understand their role within industry, industry by giving confidence in the candidates, and the RTO by giving industry feedback.

Such a partnership between industry, its regulator and the RTO is imperative.

An industry panel’s objectives should include those listed.

Candidates

  1. Ensure the candidate understands the significance of the role they will play within the industry; and
  2. Offer a peer group/mentoring facility for the candidates to access.

Industry

  1. Carry out an interview process with candidates who have been recognised by the Box Hill Institute’s RTO as competent to give further confidence that a proper compliance assessment has been undertaken;
  2. Confirm that the RTO is delivering training and undertaking assessment that complies with current industry minimum standards;
  3. Give confidence to owners and regulators that candidates are suitably skilled;
  4. Ensure that the expectations of the candidates, owners and regulator are being met; and
  5. Ensure that industry’s interests are protected.

Box Hill Institute of TAFE

  1. Provide direction for resources and the creation of policies to ensure Box Hill Institute is placing its resources in appropriate areas and maintaining its position at the forefront of industry education;
  2. Provide a mechanism whereby RTO deficiencies are highlighted;
  3. Ensure a vehicle exists where RTO or candidate concerns can be resolved; and
  4. Communicate Box Hill Institute’s role to the industry as a whole.

It is important that the panel makeup consists of a wide cross-section of industry through:

·  Representatives who have handled sand, hard rock, clay, mobile crushing and recycling (pertinent to candidates being presented),

·  The industry regulator,

·  Box Hill Institute’s representative, and

·  RIISC representative.

There should be no more than 8 persons on the panel, with a quorum of 3. Representatives should be persons who are recognised by peers in their industry and are carrying out day-to-day activities in the industry.

Industry can contribute to competency-based training and assessment by working with providers ensuring that productivity and work ethos are continually enhanced. (This is clearly the program “Work Safely” is following).

·  Work Record Book: Industry needs to assist its workforce in accepting and recognising the need and significance of a Work Record Book to underpin the vocational training processes being undertaken by the company (one Work Record Book per unit of competency).

·  Development of Training Material: Industry through its Associations and its own resources must move to a more collective approach in the development and organisation of knowledge and competency based training.

·  Reviewing Training Material: That the industry participates in the reviewing of resource materials to ensure it is current and meets the needs of industry.

Where to from here:

The CMPA sees issues requiring further clarification as being that:

·  A Statement of Purpose for the panel to work under is developed which brings into partnership the industry, regulator and institute, articulating clear goals

·  There are clear objectives for those persons seeking training or being trained

·  Training must relate to the learners current and future job requirements

·  Training must expand the learner’s employment opportunities and add value to the business

·  Training must comply with legislative and regulatory requirements

·  Competency assessment consists of knowledge and competency based assessment as industry is seeking an arrangement where training and assessment are provided jointly

·  The present block release of Certificate IV is dismantled over time and established as unit release to allow choice and flexibility, and run consistently with the vocational training model being used in the lower levels. The first unit released may be ‘Apply site statutory compliance management plan’.

Just Who is In Control?

A need for legal clarity within Australian Standards and Codes of Practice

As personal and business life seems to become increasingly dominated by bureaucracy new terms and words enter the lexicon apace providing unnecessary complexity at best and interpretive confusion at worst.

The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (ACCI) has recently noted the insertion of ambiguous phrases in some draft standards and codes of practice such as those covering manual handling, workplace chemicals and construction.

According to ACCI the term ‘person in control’ is a new definition recently appearing without any background or explanation.

In an attempt to provide some clarity, ACCI issued a discussion paper after consultation with its industry network. The need for legal clarity and nationally consistent definitions is uppermost in ACCI’s considerations.

And while it may seem harmless bureaubabble, according to the discussion paper the lack of clarity in use or intent of the terminology ‘person in control’ could:

·  “Expand the scope of the employer’s role and responsibilities for potential for prosecution under both duties.” The ACCI believes that eliminating this duality will provide clarity in defining an employer’s responsibility.

·  The terminology may also result in multi-parties being responsible for the same obligation.

·  As control is a traditional concept in the employer/employee relationship, the proposed notion of ‘control’ being used in OH&S landscape where workers, including contractors, invested with particular skills will ‘inherently control’ their work. This new notion introduces a conflict that needs to be addressed.

·  There is a need to delimit responsibility where there is no legal or realistic capability to risk manage.

·  There is no limit to the various duty holders’ liability and therefore no reasonable chance of compliance.

ACCI recommends that the background and reasons for the introduction of the term ‘person in control’ be explained. ACCI further recommend:

·  Duty holders should be identified and liability delineated.

·  Employer’s not be responsible to exercise multiple duties simultaneously and potentially be exposed to multiple prosecutions.

·  Duties should be finite and should not expose multiple parties to prosecution or individual parties to multiple charges.

·  Meeting standards should be a defence.

·  Any new notion of control should not conflict with the traditional employer/employee notion of ‘control’.

·  There should be consistency across all uses and the adoption of a ‘definitions dictionary’.

“According to ACCI the term ‘person in control’ is a new definition recently appearing without any background or explanation…

The need for legal clarity and nationally consistent definitions is uppermost in ACCI’s considerations.”

Two examples of a control definition are provided by ACCI:

1.  Factory owned and operated by the employer:

In this scenario the employer is the person in control of the workplace and is the person in control of the work undertaken by the employee.

However, the employer may not always be in control of specialist work being carried out by a specialist contractor, such as an electrical contractor. Under this circumstance the electrical contractor on site is the person in control of the workplace and is the person in control of the work.

2.  Transport Industry:

The owner (employer) of the transport company employs drivers to undertake the work of the company. The employer is the person in control of the workplace and is the person in control of the work undertaken by the employee.

However, where a contractor is commissioned by the owner of the transport company to provide both the vehicle and the driver to undertake the work, does the owner of the transport company have any duty of care other than not to demand an unreasonable delivery timetable?

It would appear reasonable under these circumstances the contractor would be the person in control of the workplace and the person in control of the work.

The terminology is a good example of the impact definitions of new phrases or words can have in understanding and adhering to rules, codes of conduct or legislation. The CMPA will watch this matter with interest and keep you up-to-date with information.

Tom McKenny

Project Update

Teaching a Person to Squash Rocks and Sort Sands

Squashing rocks and sorting sands is something most of you do every day, but would your business be able to teach someone new to your site how to do just that? Do you have the ability to present new technologies and to give that person the skills that will improve the efficiency of your business?

Most Members don’t and those who do would struggle to find the time and money required teaching this every time someone new is engaged on site. This operator training is an essential task that many Members therefore outsource to the like of a TAFE provider.

But here is the problem—the TAFE providers can teach a person and present new ideas, but they don’t know the ins and outs of squashing rocks and sorting sands! Just ask your provider the difference between a double toggle and single toggle primary crusher or how to track conveyor belts in the most safe and effective manner.

This is where the ‘Crushing and Screening Reference Manuals’ come in. The CMPA is now developing eight reference manuals that a TAFE can use to teach your operators all about squashing rocks and sorting sands (and the maintenance that goes with it).

These tools are being developed by John Bonnitcha (formally of Terex Jaques, now with Box Hill Institute of TAFE) and will involve meeting with many of you and your operators to find out exactly what you need a new operator to know and how you expect them to do it.