I refer to the editorial ‘Blatant disregard of workers’ safety’ (July 11) which encompasses some very serious inaccuracies and shows a lack of understanding of basic occupational health and safety (OHS) practices.
The most glaring error which was thankfully corrected online immediately it was pointed out, is that a proper and ongoing risk assessment “is not red tape, as implied by OHSA”. The Occupational Health and Safety Authority (OHSA) never implies that risk assessment is red tape. On the contrary, it always emphasises that risk assessment and management systems are the very foundation upon which all OHS practices should be formulated.
What is considered red tape and an unnecessary burden is the call to involve OHSA in all steps of the process of safeguarding OHS – requiring OHSA to vet risk assessments, or even worse, to require OHSA to carry out such risk assessments for example.
One such case is the issue of ‘near misses’ which once again is being interpreted in the wrong way. Near misses should always be reported to the duty holder (usually the employer) not to OHSA.
This is a basic principle which is endorsed at both European and international levels where employers are urged to implement ‘near miss reporting systems’ to primarily investigate near miss incidents to identify the root cause and the weaknesses in the system that resulted in the circumstances that led to the near miss.
It also creates an open culture whereby everyone shares and contributes in a responsible manner towards a better safety culture and performance. The results of this internal investigation should be used to improve safety systems, appropriate hazard control, risk reduction and lessons learned to prevent a similar accident from actually happening.
Moreover, the figure of 60,000 near misses annually is not a mathematical ‘estimate’. It is an academic exercise based on the accident triangle, also known as Heinrich’s triangle or Bird’s triangle, which is a theory of industrial accident prevention.
One should note that Malta’s accident and fatality rate is one of the lowest in the EU and there has been a consistent downward trend over the years. This is an undisputed fact which was not taken into consideration by National Audit Office (NAO) in its so-called ‘bleak’ report.
Nevertheless, it is far from being a reason to be ‘complacent’. This has been repeatedly stressed by OHSA for a number of reasons, one of which is the seemingly common perception that the national state of OHS is a complete disaster. Regrettably, this is partly also fuelled by the media which seems more interested to report accidents which, as a standalone, serve little purpose.
On average in Malta, about 10 occupational accidents occur daily
One should note that, on average in Malta, about 10 occupational accidents occur daily. If over a period of time, the media choose to report one of these accidents and at another stage they report three, the public will perceive a huge increase in accidents – which would be incorrect. One cannot but also mention the role played by social media where all and sundry seem to become ‘experts’ on a myriad of subjects overnight, which regrettably also continues to fuel such perceptions.
A point mentioned in the editorial is that the “OHSA risk assessment process… is inadequate as it lacks an exhaustive checklist”. This is incorrect on various levels. In the first instance, it gives the impression that it is OHSA’s role to carry out such risk assessments.
It is in fact the legal responsibility of the employer to conduct a risk assessment or to engage a competent person to do so.
The second aspect emanating from this erroneous statement concerns the now infamous checklist. In its report, the NAO refers to the non-exhaustive checklist which is used by officers during construction-site inspections.
This is a matter of choice on the part of OHSA which uses a checklist focusing on management systems and the obvious risks present, rather than attempting to identify all hazards and quantify risks on behalf of the duty holders, including project supervisors.
During inspections, OHS officers verify whether such a person has been appointed, whether a health and safety plan has been prepared and is being followed, whether the risk assessment has been carried out, and whether the control measures are being implemented, among other things – these requirements are all included in the checklist used by OHSA, an approach which is nowadays considered to be much more efficient than what is being recommended by NAO.
It should be stated that the subject of occupational health and safety is complex, and needs a wide range of approaches – what it surely does not require are simplistic solutions which although well-intended, do not add value to the outcome.
Moreover, one should understand that the construction industry is considered a high-risk sector. This is not something stated uniquely by OHSA, but is a fact recognised by all organisations of repute, including the EU Commission, the European Agency for Safety and Health, and the International Labour Organisation.
In the case of Malta, and apart from the obvious reasons which render this sector high- risk, the manner of construction in Malta increases the level and the range of risks which are created – several of these risks are not commonly present outside of Malta.
OHSA strives to inspect as many workplaces as possible; in fact in the last six months, it carried out 3,121 inspections and issued 1,682 improvement orders.
OHSA’s sole raison d’être and motivation is to see that there is a higher level of safeguard of occupational health and safety in Malta. It has no hidden agendas nor ulterior motives and its reporting is factual and unbiased. It just wants to fulfil its mission statement of ‘working with others to ensure healthier and safer workplaces in Malta’.
The more people get on board and see this as their mission too, without vested interests, the higher the level of OHS in Malta will be.
OHSA once more reiterates that this ‘OHSA fixation’ serves no purpose other than to shift the focus of attention from the real defaulter, be it another regulatory entity or duty-holder, which thus remains exempt from being held to account.
Mark Gauci, CEO, Occupational Health and Safety Authority