Health, safety and climate change

Sydney, Australia – October 19, 2016: Construction workers set up scaffolding in a construction site.

In a small article on the ABC news site, Professor Peng Bi of the University of Adelaide said occupational health and safety laws needed a review to accommodate the changing climate and

“I reckon some regulations should be set up to get employers to pay [fresh] attention to the occupational health and safety of their employees…”

Contrary to Professor Peng Bi’s request, Australian worksites have done much to accommodate the changing climate conditions and to maintain productivity, primarily, in relation to excessive heat exposure by working within the existing occupational health and safety (OHS) legislation.  This is not to say more should not be done.

The risks associated with working in heat are well established and recognised by Safe Work Australia and State safety regulators but the advice often focusses on personal changes such as ensuring there is adequate hydration or that jobs should be rotated or that long-sleeved shorts are worn.  The amplification of these conditions due to climate change is foreseeable so what should employers, companies and OHS regulators do?

(This article will focus on the construction industry as it is one of the industries most effected and where change is already occurring but changes in outdoor occupations will have a flow-on effect to all workplaces.)

Professor Bi’s concern is valid but his target is the wrong one.   Working hours in an Australian Summer are usually associated with daylight hours.  The more daylight, the longer the work day. OHS accommodates these hours by applying fatigue risk assessments at the end of a regular shift to determine the suitability for a worker to continue for a few, usually specified, hours more before there is a formal end to the working day, regardless of the daylight.  This is also limited on many sites with a fatigue management requirement that the worker must have a minimum of ten hours rest or be away from the worksite.  These processes tie OHS with industrial relations on this issue.

OHS achieves what is reasonably practicable to maintain the production program and health and safety but there are going to be limits to the assessment of personal wellbeing, fatigue and hydration.  Structural changes will be required and this is what Professor Bi was alluding to.

Climate change will require what is reasonably practicable to be regularly assessed.  At some point the working day will need to be re-ordered.

In the rail construction sector in Summer, a lot of track work is undertaken at night.  This has the benefit of allowing for materials to be handled when at their coolest.  Rail tracks in particular should only be installed within certain temperature ranges and in Summer, these ranges may only occur at night.  Additional benefits of night work are that the environmental conditions are more conducive to comfortable work.  UV exposure is non-existent but, as with any night shift work, fatigue risk are higher. The challenge with night construction work is that it is often contrary to the sleep activity of neighbours.

It is accepted that the hottest parts of the day are between 12 noon and 3pm and, therefore, these are the hours that present the greatest heat risks to outdoor workers Perhaps companies should be looking at the job structure and the tasks undertaken to see what can be done to provide alternative duties for outdoor workers during these hours? It would not be difficult to provide tasks such as training, project planning or other company-related tasks in an air-conditioned room away from the highest environmental risk period.

Companies should also consider the feasibility of splitting the working day into two sessions.  This would be out-of-synch with the rest of most Western societies so would be disruptive but is worth considering.  In some industries, like construction, the day is already long but workers are expected to continue working through the highest risk period.  OHS should ask why?  And why not have a risk-induced break for several hours at the height of the hot weather?

The OHS reasons are strong but the workplace structures and societal expectations make these reasons impractical because of their level of disruption and inconvenience.  At what point will the safety risks outweigh this inconvenience?  When melanoma rates in outdoor workers peak?  When heat is found to be a major contributor to workers’ deaths? (Workplace Health and Safety Queensland have begun just such an investigation last week)

The anticipation and management of climate change risks to outdoor workers in Australia is an interesting case of safety vs productivity.  If workers are expected to work through periods of excessive heat and climate exposure, then companies need to find innovative solutions to allow for this.  This may require a restructuring of working hours which will have industrial relations and societal impacts.  It may even require the enclosing of a work area in some circumstances but what cannot continue is the imposition of more PPE rules, increased hydration and supply of icy poles and iced drinks.  Australia is reaching the limit of these individually focussed controls and needs to step up the Hierarchy of Controls to other solutions.

Contrary to Professor Bi’s comment, more regulations are not required but plenty of discussion, consultation and innovation is.

Kevin Jones