Health and safety obligations

The editorial ‘Project supervisors and the OHSA need a healthier relationship’ (October 8) is indeed commendable because it helps give rise to a meaningful debate on the importance of occupational health and safety which is so often missing in Malta. It also provides members of the public with an opportunity to better understand the complex realities and responsibilities involved.

Having said that, the editorial includes a number of statements which need to be addressed.

First of all, following inspections, and especially following an accident at work, OHSA investigates all duty holders.

The impression that has been given to Times of Malta is that, in the case of construction sites, it is only the project supervisor who is investigated. In every case, the OHSA investigates all duty holders, including the client, developer or owner of the site, the project supervisor, the contractor (the ‘employer’ in terms of the law’), self-employed persons and the workers.

Action permissible by law is taken against each and every duty holder who has been negligent and permitted an unsafe site, depending on the results of the investigations.

Secondly, it has been reported that the OHSA takes action against project supervisors who inform the OHSA of non-compliant duty holders. The reality is that the OHSA takes action against those project supervisors who fail to perform their duties. The key term is ‘fail to perform their duties’, a term that can be applied to any duty holder found wanting.

A contradiction that appears in the arguments being put forward by the organisation representing project supervisors is when they say that action has been taken in court against project supervisors and they have been found guilty.

This begs the question: What have they been found guilty of unless it is a failure to fulfil their legal obligations?

OHSA investigates all duty holders at a site. Photo: Matthew Mirabelli

The editorial seems to suggest that project supervisors should be contracted by the OHSA and, therefore, under its management and control. Project supervisors are answerable to the clients who appoint them and on behalf of whom they act.

What is being suggested implies a shift of responsibility, from the client to the regulator in the field, a concept which is far from what is required.

Some project supervisors complain they are being cautioned before the start of an investigation by the OHSA. The fact that a person is given a caution by an investigating officer does not mean the person thus cautioned is considered guilty and that judicial action necessarily follows but only shows the seriousness with which the OHSA carries out its investigations.

The OHSA understands the huge commercial interests at play but what the OHSA is trying to do is bring about a paradigm shift in the way this country looks upon occupational health and safety. Is it acceptable that no one is held to account – the client blames the project supervisor, who blames the contractor, who blames the workers? Or are we to blame gravity?

OHSA has analysed data concerning the last 50 accident investigations carried out. In the majority of sites where an accident occurred, a project supervisor had been appointed, indicating the actions of the project supervisor were seriously lacking. The OHSA has already stated that it is reviewing the regu­lations to better explain principles or roles, in the interests of better clarity. This applies to all legal obligations falling upon all duty holders, not just project supervisors.

It is a given that occupational health and safety is a complex subject for which there are no simple solutions. What is a fact, however, is that there is a scope for action by all and definitely, more so, for every duty holder to fulfil his or her role diligently and in the overall interest to safeguard workers’ health and safety.

Mark Gauci, chief executive officer, Pietà