Thread: Safety frustration at the mens shed

Originally Posted by shedman

It is not an excuse for an "employer" to say it was the operators fault. I was involved in 2 cases that demonstrate this. In one an "employee" a work experience person was given a safety briefing including an absolute ban on touching or operating saws and other equipment. He signed a form acknowledging he understood the rules. Whist his supervisor made a call of nature he tried to cut some timber and completely severed 3 fingers. He won compensation and the employer was fined more than $300,000

Hi shedman
Based on what you've written, the "employee" was compensated after -- I exaggerate -- deliberately cutting a hole in the safety fence using cutters they had brought from home, climbing through the hole and then jumping off the cliff. And the "employer" was fined because they did not violate the employee's privacy by conducting a search of the employee's person for the cutters.
Seems very odd. Can you provide a little of the reasoning behind the employer's fine and the basis of the "employee's" compensation.

Originally Posted by shedman

If after the event a member is deemed to be covered by Work Place Safety rules there is no avoiding the impact. It is not an excuse for an "employer" to say it was the operators fault.

These are the two main areas that require clarification imo as there is so much confusion and misinformed opinion out there about mens shed like activities,

In what circumstances is a volunteer an employee?

What sort of activities, or leases / ownership of buildings, plant & machinery trigger mandatory compliance with Work Place Safety regulations?

What level of personal responsibility rests with the individual member / operator in a community co-operative?

I have viewed the mens shed / NFP workshop as a community co-operative which has rather unique traits that makes it "not a work place" imo but that is not what the legislation and regulations deem from the limited case law that is available. Much less risky to comply than not.

What makes the mens shed / NFP different (to a work place) is that a group of members benefit from the pooling of "community owned" resources, plus the experience, and knowledge of the current members who make up that community group. The group changes, at times fairly constantly, the committee's cycle. There is always a wide range of opinions within the membership about agendas, priorities, and policy, and a wide range of attitudes to compliance. Some clubs / sheds who benefit from a strong functional committee, function with exemplary behaviours in a wide range of activities, they run “safe sheds,” others are near dysfunctional.

Then factor in the fact that the “mens shed activity” is actually the secondary objective in many of these “enterprises” we complicate things even further.

I personally believe that the “potential legal liability” of an individual committee member, “volunteer employee”, supervisor etc is deliberately understated. People tend to fear the unknown, and will withhold support if they knew the true risk / responsibility / probability / outcomes should something go radically wrong in a shed / club.

Having a peak body providing the administrative resources to assist individual sheds / clubs comply with each states work place regulations is certainly very commendable, but it is only part of the equation. The sheds / clubs committees then have to interpret and facilitate policy into functioning safe work practices (in their shed and state legislative framework), then find the financial resources to make the plant & machinery compliant, train members and continually monitor compliance and members behaviours. Even well resourced medium and large businesses struggle to successfully implement such schemes.

Hopefully we can lobby for trainers & facilitators within movements such as Men’s Sheds to conduct workshops, support committees to introduce functioning safe operating practises and provide an enjoyable experience for members and the volunteer workers who make it all happen.

Townsville City Council in 2007 was very proactive and conducted similar workshops for local NFP’s. It was very interesting to see the range of responses from attendees, everything from “stuff this I’m walking” to “we can make this work.” The only difference I could see was the “lets walk” volunteers felt unsupported, the “we can make this work” crowd had functioning support structures that delegated tasks, supported volunteers etc.

One prominent academic I discussed these matters with back in 2007 stated “I am of the view that it is prudent for nonprofit organisations to meet the requirements of the WH&S Act.“

Originally Posted by ian

Hi shedman
Based on what you've written, the "employee" was compensated after -- I exaggerate -- deliberately cutting a hole in the safety fence using cutters they had brought from home, climbing through the hole and then jumping off the cliff. And the "employer" was fined because they did not violate the employee's privacy by conducting a search of the employee's person for the cutters.
Seems very odd. Can you provide a little of the reasoning behind the employer's fine and the basis of the "employee's" compensation.

There are 2 separate areas of law at work here. The quasi-criminal fine comes from statutory law (that is Acts of a Parliament) which vary from State to State and only apply to those whom they state they apply to. Remember that you rarely find a list in an Act but merely a definition of whom the law applies to. Often as in this case the definition is not very clear.

But that is not the end of the story. The civil law relating to the Tort (wrong doing) of negligence applies to any one or group who are deemed to owe a "duty of care" to others. Because this is not statute law it has been developed by the Courts over time. Australian law adheres to the principles of Common Law from the UK plus anything they have developed themselves.

The law of Negligence has grown from a famous case in the UK where a woman purchased a bottle of ginger beer and drank almost all of it before she saw there was a snail in it. At first she was unable to sue the company that made the drink because she had bought it from a retailer and therefore was deemed not to have contractual arrangement with the manufacturer. Thus in order to do justice to her the Court invented negligence.

This has subsequently grown into an enormous area as more and more people try to fit their complaint within its scope.

During the early days of industrial growth the employee was expendable. As so often happens when something very unfair is attempted to be rectified there is an over-reach in the solution.

The current situation is that employers have absolute liability for their employees safety. They cannot say it was his or her fault. If members are deemed not to be employees then there is a doctrine of "contributory negligence". This allows the courts to say the person is entitled to damages for their loss or injury but their own actions are partly responsible so say they are 40% responsible. They would then only get 60% of the damages.

If a mens shed can show they have provided all the safety equipment and training and avoided any known hazards they are more likely to succeed in getting a contributory negligence decision. If the members are deemed to be employees and as far as I know this has never been decided by a court, then the contributory negligence will fail.

However do not despair if your shed is sued your insurer will be responsible for running the case and paying any damages.

It has been mentioned here in several threads - greed, and payouts.
I wonder if the laws only provided payouts in terms of "medical expenses and expenses in rehabilitation only" and no monetry lump sum payouts, if the number of claims would decrease.

@shedman

When it comes to using heavy machinery my club has a self assement approach.

All the machinery is on a list and next to each item you say when you became competent and how. The how coukd be traing at TAFE or someone else. I expect some put thru use in their own shed.

If you want training the club wilk provide it.

Once filled in and signed it is deemed you can safely use the equipment you have specified.

How woukd that hold up?

Dave TTC
Turning Wood Into Art

I don't know how the Men's Shed thing operates: are you more or less and independent entity when it comes to deciding on how the shed runs? I would institute a "3 strikes and you're out policy - ie 2 warnings for safety infractions, and deregistration with a 3rd. The sort of butt-heads who get thrown out are probably not the people you want there anyway. Good luck and play safe, Blue

Hi, I am a younger oldie too and come from the Power industry which is very strict regarding safety. We documented accidents and had a sign showing minor accidents, Lost time incidents etc so it encouraged workers to work safely and not become a statistic on the board..... and no it never discouraged anyone from hiding a accident. It certainly is a cultural thing for sure, when I started in the industry 44 years ago we wore boiler suits, a cap and safety boots, no hearing protection, safety glasses, gloves etc, they were considered common-sense gear, trouble is everyone seems to have a different take on common sense. To break that cycle perhaps you need to hold a tool box meeting at the start of each of your mens shed days, outline objectives, encourage a forum where the attendees set the lines of compliance for themselves. Also, maybe you need to assign a peice of machinery to each person or a group of people and they list a safe work procedure for operating that machinery, make a book of the procedures, we called ours a POI or plant operating instruction.

Originally Posted by flyingsecret

To break that cycle perhaps you need to hold a tool box meeting at the start of each of your mens shed days, outline objectives, encourage a forum where the attendees set the lines of compliance for themselves.

I like that idea but fortunately (or unfortunately) a men's shed is not a workplace so blokes come and go anywhere between 8am and 3:30pm. By 9am there are about 5 blokes there by about 10am there are maybe 15 blokes and then most vanish at lunch time and in the arvo there is usually a >50% turnover.

The blokes come for a wide variety of reasons and generally treat it like a home shed.

Some just come for a cuppa and a chat. Some are just fixing a whatchamacallit clip for their caravan while some have their own projects, e.g. planter boxes. One bloke fixes stuff for his son's coffee shop. There is a major project making kids tables and chairs which a couple of blokes work on. We mentor local school kids and do activities with school kids. Plus we do things for local pensioners, other community groups, and seniors from the nearby Seniors Centre. The emphasis seems to be on fund raising, chasing free gear and materials, getting involved with community projects, rearranging the gear in the shed and getting new members, safety is a distant afterthought.

At smoko we have "Notices" where, on the one day a week I supervise, I try to inject a bit of safety info, but I know that this is happens very rarely on the days when I do not supervise. I put a page of safety information in every newsletter.

Apart from a small handful of the 75 or so members, no one wants to or is capable of supervising and no one wants to rock the boat and tighten up on safety procedures. It was only after I agitated for more than a year for a few basic improvements that safety has been getting any attention. On the list of shed rules the first safety rule was rule number 5 - now at least rules 2 and 3 are safety related. But there is a lot more that needs to be done.

For example we have never done a shed safety audit - I did a small business safety audit last year for the shed, but we need to do specific shed safety related audit as a group so everyone is on board. I have raised this many times and it gets ignored. I raise these matters at committee meetings as suggestions and they get written down and ignored. I could do some of these (and I have) but if I do them all then that's not right either. I only go to the shed one day a week where i supervise which means there is too much to do supervising to do much else.

Also, maybe you need to assign a peice of machinery to each person or a group of people and they list a safe work procedure for operating that machinery, make a book of the procedures, we called ours a POI or plant operating instruction.

I have been asking we do this for over 18 months but there was too much opposition to it so I shut up. After a full shed meeting earlier this year I raised it again and scared some of the members by invoking "our safety practices will end us up in court" so I got the green light to do this (note "I" had to do it) and it is happening.

Spot the hazard.

Walking through the mens shed before everyone arrived this morning and found this.
IMG_6692.jpg

Originally Posted by Acer

Bob,
Thanks for starting the thread, it has provided some interesting reading.

I think the first principle to put in place with all members of the shed is that safety is a shared responsibility. All members are responsible to help manage their safety, the safety of others and the safety of the plant and equipment. If the member can't agree to this then they should not be a part of the shed. Even in an industrial environment with employees, getting compliance is very difficult...and the business has the ability to dismiss an employee if they repeatedly don't comply with safety requirements.

As a second principle it is important that all members should help care for others and stop others who are performing dangerous behaviours. This is very difficult to implement but necessary to ensure that safety is built into the way the shed operates. Some of the workers in one place I worked called this "dobb in a mate". We had to work hard to implement it. It helps if more than one person helps discuss the issue with the person who is doing the wrong behaviour. Your tiered level of training system might help with this. Still difficult to get in place but rewarding when it works. There must be consequences for those who consistently ignore the safety rules.

As a third principle you should set up safety walks/observations. All members should do them and operate off a checklist that they sign. Every day the shed is open their should be at least one safety walk involving 2-3 members. They are looking at behaviours, machinery (guarding etc) and the environment (to remove trip and other hazards). Usually best to pair experienced members with less experienced ones to help learning. The walk should be no more than 15 minutes and relatively easy to perform...though some training will be required.

Your training and hazard identification processes are also key elements of success. As has been previously mentioned consistency is hard to get across multiple days, supervisors and people. However it is critical to the success of what you are doing.

Hopefully the above is of some help. It has worked well in a number of industrial environments, but is probably harder to implement in a men's shed.
Acer

With respect, this is crap. (My apology if this sounds strong, but there has been so much going around and around in this thread).

It is crap because it will not work, not because I do not share your sentiments. I do share your sentiments.

It will not work because it is impractical. If you go down the lecture and guilt path, then you have to recite this to everyone every day, every hour, every minute. What if someone is not there on the day you offer up the advice? I suspect that the members are a rolling population.

I offered advice early on. I think that only one person, our patron Ubeaut, took notice. Go back and find my post. In a nutshell, I stated that information must be in the face of every person, and that the way to do this is with pictorials (story boards - have someone model the action, and photograph this) - pictures showing what to do and what not to do. Importantly, what to do. If the steps of procedures - e.g. from how to use to what to pack away - are not in the awareness of each person, then they will not follow safe rules. They will be distracted and sidetrack. And that is where the danger lies. I agree that teamwork must be emphasised - then do this in pictures. Show someone helping another. Show the gruesome consequences of sawing without a guard ...

They need to know what to do, and this information must be instant and constant.

Regards from Perth

Derek

Derek, makes a very good point - the safe operating proceedures and safety information has to be available immediately, and in a conscise and easily interpreted form. Members have a range of education levels, skills, knowledge and even learning impairments or conditions that affect memory (old farts disease) etc, that has to be addressed in any safety program.

The churn in attendance at daily workshop sessions and membership in general makes it difficult to encourage a culture of safety.

In all the club's and participation events around the country you will find a vast range of opinions, skills, compliance and implementation of basic safety practices. Finding processes that will work and greatly reduce exposure to hazards plus make it an enjoyable experience to attend a club or mens shed is a difficult task, far more difficult to implement than in a "typical work place."

I do agree with the doctrine of contributary neglignce however we are stuck with the law as it is. A club or mens shed is a scary place to be (legally) if there is a culture of "she'll be right" and no proactive hazard management systems in place.

All the administrivia, signing off forms etc, in the world will not eliminate / reduce hazards or risk. The only real answer is diligence - constant proactive actions to identify hazardous plant & machinery and risky behaviours by members then correcting those hazards or behaviours. If the members / client of a club or mens shed are not on the same wave length then it is time to walk away.

Hi all well I have read a fair few of the posts here ,I can tell you from first hand experience that safety of yourself and others around you should be paramount ,having worked in a few joinery shops and building sites I have and many others have done some pretty dumb things . Just because someone can turn a machine on doesn't mean there safe I have seen some horrid accidents where people who are untrained have lost nearly all the fingers because of being put into a situation that they were not fully trained on safety and operation of said machine . In this incident the inspecting officer came down the following day and as soon as he walked in saw the state of the machines and issued a 60,000 doller fine to the employer for lack of safety gaurds and screens on machinery. there is an old saying you can take a horse to water but you cant make it drink it ,and so the same is with safety .
You can show someone the safe way to do things but pressure from employers and taking shortcuts will ultimately end in disaster ,maybe not today but eventually ,in one joinery when the boss new someone was coming to do a safety audit they would run around like mad sweeping up and ensuring gaurds were in place and lines were painted ect ect ,after it was over ok back to sleep .If there is one thing I have learnt in my time is that eyes don't grow back and nor do fingers in fact now if someone is acting in a unsafe manner I would be the first to have a word to them as I said I was first on the scene to the accident I mentioned and when some ones finger drops of in front of you its not pretty.Now I haven't had anything to do with mens sheds thing but I can tell you now if it was me I would be reading the riot act to them so they fuly understood the need for safety if they cant or wont comply theres the door .

I am not going to read the whole thread and I may be repeating some one else's post so bare with me. If we had a reportable incident at work that required paperwork an outline of what had happened and strategies to avoid the problem happening again would be on all notice boards the next day. Was it effective? I don't know but it was a strategy that caused discussion amongst the troops so it may have been without us knowing it.

You need to keep in mind that this shed is not like a normal workplace
There are no bosses just coordinator.
The majority of attendees differ on a day to day or even week to week basis.
There's a different coordinator each half day to manage shed operations and few folks reads the notices.
Anyone reading a riot act is likely to be asked to tone it down or leave.