Safety Management of Production Systems - Case Study Example

Topic: Safety Management of Production Systems Submitted by :< > Submitted to :< > Date :< > Introduction: Security within the workplace is significant to the accomplishment of operating a business, devoid of its magnitude. As an undersized business proprietor individuals have definite privileges and errands as regards to the health and safety within your place of work. Yet, if the situation involves no employees, we have got to guarantee that the business does not end up forming health and safety problems for the clientele and the common public. Being aware of the Occupational Health and Safety (OH&S) laws will facilitate you in evading the preventable expenses and harm to your trade sourced by occupational damage and disease. (business.gov.au) Alcohol plus prohibited substance misuse within the office is ever more becoming a foremost occupational safety and health issue. Even as more complicated measures have been developed to check and examine drug use on job, and even with implied union support on the basis of occupational health and safety (OH&S), the realization of drug testing measures remains a controversial matter. This discussion initially studies the opinion for and against drug testing and secondly, inspects the issue throughout the use of a case study investigation. The mishandling of the matter at the South Blackwater Mine within Queensland during August of 2000 resulted in a big corporate clash that affected the lives of several workers and service providers. Identification of Health/Activity Hazard and Context that Hazard occurs within: The Issue of Substance Abuse at Work The matter abuse plus the probable dangers it poses in the office are well recognized. Wall (1992) classifies that together the illegal substance misuse plus entertaining matter use (i.e. alcohol) blow harmfully upon more or less all businesses within Australia, triggering large costs within both individual and financial terms. Conventionally it has been projected that matter abuse in Australia: inflicts direct costs upon the industry adding up to an approximate $3.7 billion yearly; inflicts indirect costs to business of $10 billion yearly and holds for 10 per cent of the on job deaths plus 25 per cent of the on job accidents (Wilkie, 1998). Richmond, Heather, Holt and Hu (1992), note down that the illegal drug use is also accountable for harm that shoots from neglecting the colleagues on the job site. below OH&S legislation endorsed within every Australian state there is a compulsion over the management to offer a safe place of occupation for all their workers as well as guests to their worksites. The bosses are inflicted to harsh responsibility beneath this law plus face major fines if instituted to be in infringement (Keenoy & Kelly, 1998). The bosses’ problem extends to their workers dealings and/or exceptions, despite of their state of intellect. The examination from USA, where drug-testing is ordinary place, reveals that the employment of drug-testing codes in both service and pre-employment testing has been a chief feature in the decrease of absence and disasters, and is the most admired technique of confiscating the matter of substance abuse on job (Osterloh & Becker, 1990; Greenberg, 1992; Hartwell 1996; Flynn, 1999). These points present a gripping case for drug testing within the office to guarantee that initially, the employee is gathering his/her contractual responsibilities to a reasonable standard, and secondly, to gather the necessities of responsibility of care in OH&S legislation (DesJardine & McCall, 1990). The ACTU does not reflect on that the preface of a testing course as an efficient policy for the place of work. Literature review If , the organization is in fact concerned within these matters , it claims that the ACTU, then a more complete approach must be assumed , for instance to embrace fatigue observation and management systems. This heaves a lot more delicate and compound issue that of authority in the place of work. The Trade unions time and again see the foreword of the perceptions like the drug-testing as administration applying rule under the pretext of its right to supervise and a scheme to counter the authority of the unions, restraining their efficiency whilst radically mounting managerial rule, mainly where there is no discussion on the theme. This can potentially develop into a chief concern of conflict amidst the administration and the trade unions. The subsequent case study demonstrates the controversial issue of drug-testing within the place of work through a big clash which flamed during August 2000 at the South Blackwater Mine within Queensland over this precise subject. Case Study – The South Blackwater Mine Background The South Blackwater Coal Ltd (SBCL) has 400 employees and is situated around 900km north-west of Brisbane at the heart of the Bowen Basin coal mining region of Queensland. As element of the policy expansion to guarantee a safer working atmosphere, the management as well as the trade unions were in the progression of conferring policies and measures for drug-testing on the mine in queue with that of other mines within the district. Formerly, testing was done only if the employees were caught up in a disaster. All through this procedure, the administration found a used syringe on the work site also took this as primary verification of illegal drug being used on job. The Management instantly moved to set up the drug-testing actions on the mine. The unions suggested to their members to repudiate this mantle testing for drugs, at which point they were pushed down by the organization. After a week plus three visits to the Australian Industrial Commission (AIRC) the case was hypothetically settled. The subsequent analysis demonstrates the inconveniences and matters connected with the carrying out of these dealings. Issues Preceding the Dispute The SBCL administration had been in discussion with the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU) and the Communication, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Service Union (CEPU) for roughly 10 months, in an effort to realize a business “Drugs and Alcohol” policy at the South Blackwater Coal Mine. From the management’s view point the underlying principle for the foreword of such a drug policy was to: recognize any drug problems that may subsist in the personnel and integrate the results into the teaching part of the procedure; guarantee that the drug testing system functions resourcefully, and mull over any modifications that may be necessary in potential anti-drug efforts; and guarantee that the organization offers a ‘protected workplace’ for equally the employees and the company plus that safe formations of work are not jeopardised by individuals under the deleterious influence of illicit substances (AIRC, 2000). During August, 200 a needle stick injury was described which was sourced by a used syringe situated inside a toilet on the job site. The General Manager Jim Randall noted that: Management took this as prima facie evidence of drug abuse in the workplace. Due to its responsibility to maintain a safe work environment, and its frustration with regards to the conciliation procedure to date, SBCL management told the unions in July 2000 that it was going to execute its Drugs and Alcohol policy in August of that year. The first juncture was the prologue of ‘blind’ drug tests for all workers as a forerunner to random drug testing. The blind tests made it an obligation for each of the worker, service providers and even company to the location to provide a urine sample for testing, but no precise accounts recognizing individuals were to be reserved. The Management warranted this judgment to the mergers by referring to a prerequisite under the law to offer both a safe place of work plus protected systems of work, as authorized for within the authorized agreement (SBCL, 1998). The mine’s administration alleged that the preamble of this kind of a program was dependable along with the business standards, and SBCL’s participants had assumed comparable substance tests for a little time (Randall, 2000). The Management disputed that this type of a testing was simply a way to offer the company with constructive statistical data, upon which the administration could proceed should the requirement come up (Randall, 2000). The Senior SBCL management pointed out that the organization assumed it had the right, if not the responsibility, to test for illegal drugs as well as alcohol abuse, referring to the fear for worker safety and the explicit responsibility of the corporation for worker actions. The Management made an attempt to ease the worker and union anxiety by straining that the strategy was the effect of a security issue, and not one specially considered to lessen the personnel numbers. (Vale, 2000). Dispute over the introduction of Drug and Alcohol Policy The discussions sustained through the phase guiding the way to the execution of the blind test, though, no concurrence was attained as the union declined to overlook the business policy as it was offered. The SBCL management imposed the execution of the ‘blind’ testing management, employing evidence of the second-hand syringe found on the location as primary proof of the illegal drug use. As Jim Randall repeated within the week the drug testing policy was being executed. The CFMEU plus the CEPU advised their associates to reject to assume the tests. even though the action of declining to go through a ‘blind’ test for illegal substance violence was not well thought-out to make up the business action by the Australian Industrial Relations Commission (AIRC), the SBCL management shoved down all of the workers that declined to provide them with the necessary urine sample (250 in total) with no compensation, ensuing in the beginning of an industrial divergence. The CFMEU and CEPU legislative bodies mentioned two significant concerns behind their choice not to permit their members to offer the example required by the administration. Initially, the union discarded the managerial point of view about the requirement for a much secure job site. The unions disputed that the management’s anxiety was not so much security, but slightly an effort to augment the capability to clear themselves of the trouble employees (Vickers, 2000, Vale, 2000). The second subject recognized was that of the incapability of substance testing to precisely measure the level of employee harm whilst on job. It was the disputation of the unions that the substance testing may be intrinsically inconsistent in pains to guarantee a protected place of work for all persons. In addition, the union representatives also celebrated that if the issue is OH&S, then the events of harm and chemical intake associated to the job itself should also be incorporated in these safety measures. The Representatives of the CFMEU preserved this disagreement that even as approving that a drugs testing measures were steady with the organizations strength for duty strategy, it desired to form part of a proper set of inclusive procedures’ intended at the detection of fatigue plus stress levels as well as illegal substance abuse as well as succeeding employee treatment. The CFMEU counter position concerning the execution of the testing policy laid more emphasis on the following: the union will decline to permit members to propose for drugs testing if the workers are cooperatively miserable with the interruption into their individual lives; the testing of urine samples does not disclose the amount of injury, with some drugs residing inside the human body long after some noteworthy effects have diluted. The drugs testing policy discounts any examination of why the member of staff is taking illegal substances, laying stress only upon the query as to whether they are consuming drugs. This kind of a deficiency within the investigation neglects to point out if the employment environment may be partially responsible for the workers dependence upon these illegal mattes for example the 12-hourly shifts, the work anxiety levels, the pitiable job contentment; the impractical deadlines etc, the drugs testing policy falls short to investigate for the chemicals that may get way into the blood flow of a worker during their on job duties that may well be destructive and unfavorably influence their performance for instance the carbon dioxide levels; the unnecessary dust particles and so on and so forth . (Olsson & Valle, 2000; Vale, 2000; AIRC, 2000). The Recommendations: From a union point of view, the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) usually does not encourage the beginning of any type of biological testing of the employees for alcohol or else other drugs within the workplace, apart from during exceptionally limited state of affairs and subject to the mutual union and company conformity (ACTU, 1991). They dispute that the preface of testing cannot be viewed as a fast fix resolution. The imprecision of the test outcomes, mutually optimistic and unconstructive Drugs testing procedures experience, not mutilation or destruction. This is particularly the scenario with all the drugs apart from alcohol; the tribulations and blunders with the comprehension of the test results; the force of the prearranged prescription and over-the-counter drugs; the spotlight on the person; the violation of individual constitutional rights; the tribulations linked with the right to isolation; and the interference to industrial relations (ACTU, 1991). The ACTU standpoint is that there must be combined expansion of any drugs testing strategy by the unions as well as the companies, predominantly where alcohol or other drugs exploitation is acknowledged as a workplace problem. Certainly, any strategies dealing with the place of work hazards and OH&S should be mutually organized as well as executed. The ACTU policy structure on the subject matter concentrates on: protection on job particularly; retaining complete involvement within and cooperative control by the employees and their legislative bodies ; this should be further pertinent to both the employees workers and the administration; it should also deal with the place of work basis of alcohol or additional drug exploitation; ought to be counseling, refining and regenerating , not punishing; and sustaining discretion at all stages (ACTU, 1991). This pluralist attitude assumed by the ACTU is supported upon the dispute that it is only when the drugs in addition to the alcohol are distorted to the amount that the user cannot appropriately and securely carry out standard commitments, a necessity then takes place for direction and anticipation measures. During any deliberation of the apposite reaction in specific work areas, there ought to initially be participation of the union legislatures, and secondly an assessment of the broad ecological aspects such as those mentioned above. The ACTU should also allege that the rehabilitation action should be assumed during the on duty hours or by way of proposals that consist of paid leave. A major issue the ACTU encourages is that the exploitation of alcohol in addition to other drugs may be suggestive of several other tribulations: the perilous work; the poor working atmosphere; the idealistic goals the lack of job contentment; the lack of contribution and power; the insufficient training plus management; the on job culture; along with the shift work. Certainly the exhaustion produced by these aspects pooled with the augmented deregulation of the labour market within Australia has given rise to several major matters as regards to the OH&S within the place of work (ACIRRT, 1999) (Peter Holland, 2001). It is best for the organization to, lay down certain rules and procedures for testing their employees for excessive drug and alcohol abuse. This might also result in workplace conflicts and violence amongst the fellow workers, also if the situation is not taken under control things can get out of hand. It would be best if the Black mine, would set rules to cater to the issue and certain penalties for the employee who would be found violating those policies. This would definitely put a definite word of caution for all the employees and they would avoid getting into such situations. And wherever, an employee would unfortunately be found involved, in these acts, after being penalized would be example enough for the rest to not do it again. Conclusion As the case study explained above presents to us a seemingly grim picture of the occupational health and safety issue within Australia, It also does not specify the fact that the government and the OHS bodies are not taking the required steps to implement the right checks and balances. Just the fact that they need to be sure that all the OHS standards and policies are being executed at all work places whether big or small, public or private. There should be strict legal implications on organizations who ignore following the rules .It should also be made mandatory for all businesses and corporations within Australia to attain a Safe to Work , certification , wherein they would have the title and also maintain it .This can help both the employees and the employers , concentrate on their objectives towards long term success , avoiding these barriers that crop up with the occurrences and non compliance with the OHS standards of operations . References Aalberts, R.J. & Rubin, H.W. (1991) Court’s rulings on testing crackdown on drug abuse. Risk Management, 38(3):36-41. ACIRRT (1999). Australia at Work: Just Managing. Sydney: Prentice Hall. ACTU (1991) Alcohol and Other Drugs Policy. http://www.actu.au/national/about/policy. AIRC (2000) SBCL and CFMEU and CUPE. Decision 9 August. AGPS. Print S9023. Bahls, J.E. (1998) Drugs in the Workplace. HRMagazine, (February): 81-87. Bohle, P. & Quinlan, M (2000) Managing Health and Safety: A Multidisciplinary Approach. (2nd ed). Melbourne. MacMillian. Bowden, B. (2000) cited in B.Vale Mine Union agrees to drug tests, The Courier Mail. 12 August, p.3. Bowie, N.E. & Duska, R.F. (1990) Business Ethics (2nd eds). New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Cranford, M. (2001) Drug Testing and the Right to Privacy. Journal of Business Ethics, 17:1805-1815. DesJardine, J.R. & Duska, R.F. (1997) Drug Testing in Employment. In Ethical Theory and Business New Jersey: Prentice Hall. pp.309-320. DesJardine, J.R. & McCall, J.J. (1990) Contemporary Issues in Business Ethics (2nd eds). CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company. DTIR (1997) Alcohol and Drugs and the Workplace. Workplace Health & Safety No..34. Canberra: AGPS. Fitzarryne,C. (2000) cited in Vale, B. Mine Union Agrees to Drug Tests. The Courier Mail. 12 August. Flynn, G. (1999) How to Prescribe Drug Testing. Workforce, 78(1):107. Gip, M. A. (1999) Drug Testing Assailed. Security Management, 43(12):16. Greer, C.R. (2001) Strategic Human Resource Management: A General Managerial Approach (2nd Ed.) New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Greenburg, E, (1992) Test Positive Drop as More Companies Screen Employees. HR Focus, 69(6):7. Hartwell, T.D. Steele, P.D. French, M.T. & Rodman, N.E. 1996. Prevalence of drug testing in the workplace. Monthly Labour Review 19(11):35-42. Introduction to OHS in Australia available at, http://www.business.gov.au/Business+Entry+Point/Business+Topics/Occupational+health+and+safety/. Accessed on the 15th of October 2008. Keenoy, T. & Kelly, D. 1998. The Employment Relationship in Australia. Sydney. Hardcourt Brace Publishers. Maltby, L. (1987) Why Drug Testing Is a Bad Idea. Inc. p.152 (June). Mathews, J. (1993) Health and Safety at Work. (2nd ed). Leichardt, NSW. Pluto Press. Nolan, J. (2000) Unions Stuffed or Stoned. Workers Online, 71:1-5. September. Oliver, W. (1994) Fight Drugs with Knowledge. Training & Development, 48(5):105-108. Olsson, K. & Vale, B. 2000. Sacked Miners go to Court over Drug Tests. The Courier Mail. 10 August. Osterloh, J. & Becker, C. (1990) Chemical Dependency and Drug Testing in the Workplace. Western Journal of Medicine, 152(2):506-513. Peter Holland, Mark Wickham , THE CONTENTIOUS ISSUE OF DRUG TESTING IN THE WORKPLACE: THE CASE OF THE SOUTH BLACKWATER MINE , The Management Case Study Journal Vol. 1 Issue 2 Nov 2001 pp 44-51 , University of South Australia ISSN: 1445-033X, available at : http://www.ojs.unisa.edu.au/index.php/MCSJ/article/viewFile/42/27 Accessed on the 15th of October 2008 . Read More