D. Lynas et al. Ergonomics Australia, 2013. 10:1.

Case Study Participatory Ergonomics Case Study: Coal Handling Train Crew Operations Danellie Lynas and Robin Burgess-Limerick Minerals Industry and Centre, The University of Queensland

Abstract Background: Musculoskeletal disorders associated with manual tasks are a common cause of injury across a number of industries. Almost three-quarters of all serious workers’ compensation claims in 2010 -2011 across all Australian industries were the result of injury, with sprains and strains accounting for 42% of all serious claims. Mechanisms involving muscular stress while handling objects resulted in 32% of all serious injuries [1]. These injuries are often complex with multiple contributing factors including the environment, task characteristics, and individual factors influencing the mechanism of injury. While not all manual tasks are high risk, effective manual task requires identification of hazardous tasks followed by assessment of the degree and source of risk associated with the task before effective controls can be implemented to either eliminate or reduce the risk. Aim: This paper describes a project undertaken at a rail coal handling facility. Method: A participatory ergonomics process was implemented to enable management to better understand the issues surrounding work methods and equipment used by work crews and how these events may be contributing to current and potential workplace injury risks. Conclusion: This paper describes the project and presents the risk assessments undertaken and potential control measures identified. © Lynas: Licensee HFESA Inc.

Background understanding of both ergonomic concepts and techniques by both management and workers; and a process to develop, Participatory approaches to ergonomics developed from document and implement control measures [24, 23]. The Japan [2], Northern European [3] and North American role of the ergonomist is to initiate and guide the process by [4] management practices. While variations in the model providing the necessary skills, tools and ergonomic expertise exist [5,6,7] the common aspect is the assumption that to allow risks to be accurately assessed, and to facilitate the those performing the tasks have expert knowledge of their development of potential control measure by participants. tasks, and consequently they should be active participants in the process of improving their workplace. Participatory Managing manual task risk is an iterative process and needs ergonomics has been described as: “the involvement of to be repeated following implementation of any control people in planning and controlling a significant amount measures to assess whether the measures are working of their own work activities, with sufficient knowledge and effectively, and whether any new risks have been introduced in power to influence both processes and outcomes in order to the process. It requires keeping records of the hazardous tasks achieve desirable goals” [8]. identifed, risk assessments, control measure suggestions and implementations, and reassessment to ensure effectiveness of There is no single “right way” to implement a participatory implemented control measures. Ideally record keeping occurs ergonomics program and one of the strengths of the in a format that can be easily shared across an organisation. approach is its adaptability to the context and needs of specific workplaces and workers [9]. Participatory ergonomics It is important to get the right mix of skills and experience to has been acknowledged as providing a number of benefits progress through the process and, ideally, this means involving including higher productivity and improved worker well-being workers, supervisors and specialists or advisors. Participatory [10,11] reduced work-related musculoskeletal injury rate and ergonomics programs can be negatively impacted by lack consequence [12,13,14]; enhanced team communication of management support; lack of an “ergonomic champion” and job control [15]; and more rapid technological and at the worksite; insufficient time and resources allocated to organisational change [16, 5]. Participatory ergonomics develop solutions; lack of ergonomic expertise at site; and interventions have been trialled across a number of areas organisational restructures and staff changes and turnover including car manufacturing [17], meat processing [18], [25,26]. print media [19], health care [20,21], construction [22], and This paper describes the outcomes of a project undertaken mining [23]. at two rail coal handing sites. The aim of the project was to Important components of a successful participatory assess workplace injury risks and to identify potential control ergonomics interventions include “buy-in” in the form of measures, where appropriate. The activities undertaken at management commitment and provision of resources; an the sites varied across train crew shifts however a number

Corresponding author: Danellie Lynas. Email – [email protected]

[ 1 ] D. Lynas et al. Ergonomics Australia, 2013. 10:1.

of hazardous tasks were identified across sites by both • How to use a manual task tool to assess the management and crew as requiring intervention. In priority severity of identified workplace , including direct order of intervention following risk assessment these were: risk factors (exertion, movement and repetition, body posture, exposure and vibration) and contributory risk • Handbrake application and release; factors; identification; the use of and importance • Coupling and uncoupling of hoses whilst shunting; of adopting a hierarchy of control measures; • Lifting and carrying bags; • The importance of a “champion” to drive the process • Walking and working on and about the track - including forward; and ballast and access roads; • General strategies to eliminate or control identified • Access and egress from the locomotive cab; and manual task injury risks. • Locomotive provisioning. Following the initial workshops, ergonomic task analysis was undertaken with the crews, and task risk assessment profiles were Methods developed. Injury statistics Follow up workshops were held at each site six weeks later, Injury statistics were reviewed prior to the workshops to gain an again during programmed “shut down” days. Initial attendance overall understanding of the nature and mechanism of injury at scheduled workshops was lower than expected requiring across both sites. The statistics reflect combined total injury additional workshops to be arranged, (in all 18 crew at one site across both sites. and 20 at the other site attended). The workshops provided the forum for “brainstorming ” solutions with the advantage Participatory ergonomics workshops of involving both experienced and novice operators in the process. This information was refined to develop a structured Two participatory ergonomics workshops were conducted at management report outlining recommended control measures each site. The initial workshop was attended by a cross section and possible implementation procedures. of experienced and novice crew (14 at one site, 8 at the other). The workshop provided attendees with information about the Risk assessment process to be followed, including: Crew operations on two separate coal hauling lines were • Designing an appropriate intervention to meet the needs observed and analysis undertaken to assess current and of the organisation; potential workplace injury risks during the six tasks previously D.D.D. •Ly LyLynasInformationnasnas et etetal. al.al. on how to identify a hazardous manual task identified by both crew and management as potentially high ErgonErgonErgonnomicsnandnomicsomics theAustralia. Australia.Australia. associated 2013. 2013.2013. mechanism 10:1. 10:1.10:1. of injury; risk. Informal employee interviews were conducted and still

TablTablTablTableee e1: 1:1.1: Risk RiskRisk ass assessment assassessmentessmentessment toolto totooolo ll

[ 2 ] ResResResuultsultslts InjuInjuInjuryrry ystatistics statisticsstatistics CoCoCommmbinedbinedbined site sitesite s t ssatisticsttatisticsatistics for forfor t h tthehe eprecedin precedinprecedingg g12 1212 months monthsmonths (Table (Table(Table 2) 2)2) in ininddicateddicatedicated the thethe m mmostostost commo commocommonnlynlyly occoccoccuurringurringrring injurie injurieinjuries s(40%)s (40%)(40%) resu resuresultedlltedted from fromfrom sli slislipps/tripsps/tripss/trips and andand f alls ffallsalls occurri occurrioccurrinngng g“while “while“while wo woworkingrkingrking tracksi tracksitrackside”.de”.de”. TheTheThe statistics statisticsstatistics we wewererere based basedbased on onon injury injuryinjury narra narranarratives,ttives,ives, and andand it it itw wwasasas determi determideterminnedneded that thatthat the thethe difficulty difficultydifficulty in inin asseasseassessingssingssing this thisthis ta tataskss kkalone alonealone was waswas that thatthat workin workinworkingg gtrackside tracksidetrackside m mmayayay include includeinclude a a anumber numbernumber of ofof irregularly irregularlyirregularly occoccoccuurringurringrring maint maintmainteenanceenancenance activi activiactivitiestiesties that thatthat ma mamayy ynot notnot be bebe cap capcapturedtturedured in inin a aari risrikss kkassessme assessmeassessmenntn tatt atat a a agiven givengiven t ime, ttime,ime, thatthatthat not notnot all allall terra terraterrainsinsins could couldcould be bebe observed, observed,observed, a anandnd dthat thatthat the thethe w wworkingorkingorking trac tractrackksideksideside narrati narratinarrativevve emay maymay incoincoincorporaterporaterporate som somsomee eof ofof the thethe oth othotheere ridentifiedr identifiedidentified tasks taskstasks requiri requirirequiringngng assessm assessmassessmeent.ent.nt. This ThisThis ma mamaddede eaccuratel accuratelaccurately yy asseasseassessingssingssing this thisthis ta tataskss kkvery veryvery diffic difficdifficuult.ult.lt. Injury InjuryInjury st ststatisticsatisticsatistics indi indiindicatedccatedated strain strainstrain f rom ffromrom either eithereither h handhandand brake brakebrake applapplapplicationicationication or oror lif lifliftingttinging account accountaccountededed for forfor 20% 20%20% o ofo finjuries,f injuries,injuries, a anandnd d40% 40%40% of ofof re rerepportedportedorted injuri injuriinjurieese sweres werewere loca localocalizedlizedlized tototo t h tthehe eshoulder/ shoulder/shoulder/uupperupperpper limb. limb.limb. T ThirtyThirtyhirty perce percepercenntn tweret werewere loca localocalisedllisedised to toto the thethe l o llowerowerwer limb limblimb a anandnd dankle, ankle,ankle, an anandd d24% 24%24% tototo t h tthehe ehead, head,head, bac bacback kkand andand torso, torso,torso, w wwithithith 6% 6%6% hav havhavinginging no nono injur injurinjury yysite sitesite record recordrecordeed.ed.d.

55 5

D. Lynas et al. Ergonomics Australia, 2013. 10:1. and video footage of the tasks being undertaken was obtained. Participatory ergonomics workshops A risk analysis and evaluation was undertaken using the risk The participatory workshops needed to be structured assessment tool (Table 1) provided by Burgess-Limerick [27]. differently between sites. While needing to be scheduled for ErgoAnalyst [28] software was used to document the analysis “shutdown” days to maximise crew attendance and minimise and evaluation. work disruption, and to ensure attendance at workshops The risk analysis process requires documentation of: (i) the task captured both experienced and novice crew members, they characteristics (exertion, exposure, posture and movement) also needed to be flexible to accommodate changes in work for the back; arms; shoulders; and legs and (ii) environmental demands on the scheduled days, and to address work culture characteristics. Performing the task in excessive heat or cold; differences between sites. Preliminary discussions were held under stressful conditions, time pressure, and during periods off-site to ascertain the level of available resources, the most of cognitive overload/underload, increase the baseline score, suitable structure of the workshops, and most importantly to as does exposure to vibration. Each task is evaluated for both ensure site access to tasks identified as hazardous. Both sites acute injury risk and cumulative injury risk. had a core workforce of experienced crew – many having long term employment in the industry, however both sites had Results recently recruited a number of novice train crew from varying skill backgrounds. Injury statistics Potential control measures were developed for each identified Combined site statistics for the preceding 12 months (Table hazardous task at the second workshop at each site. While 2) indicated the most commonly occurring injuries (40%) elimination is always the preferred control option, followed resulted from slips/trips and falls occurring “while working by engineering/design controls to remove or reduce the trackside”. The statistics were based on injury narratives, and it was determined that the difficulty in assessing this task hazard, “administrative” controls were provided as short- alone was that working trackside may include a number of term control options until elimination or design controls irregularly occurring maintenance activities that may not were agreed on and implemented. Work practices allowed be captured in a risk assessment at a given time, that not all the assessment of common themes across both sites (with the terrains could be observed, and that the working trackside exception of locomotive provisioning), however it became narrative may incorporate some of the other identified tasks apparent that quite different work cultures existed between requiring assessment. This made accurately assessing this the two sites visited. Where it was not possible to eliminate task very difficult. Injury statistics indicated strain from the task on currently used equipment, guidance was provided either hand brake application or lifting accounted for 20% for management use in future procurement processes. of injuries, and 40% of reported injuries were localized to the shoulder/upper limb. Thirty percent were localised to the Risk Assessment lower limb and ankle, and 24% to the head, back and torso, Tasks are listed below in order of intervention priority following with 6% having no injury site recorded. risk assessment.

Table 2. Mechanism of Injury Task 1: Handbrake application and release Mechanism of Injury Percentage of Task Description Injury Total The task involves awkward postures and forceful muscular Slips/trips/falls whilst walking trackside 40 exertions. It is most often undertaken trackside where Climbing 10 both ballast condition and weather conditions are largely Strain – lifting 10 unpredictable. The task occurs when a locomotive is either Car driving 10 stowed or unstowed, when shunting, when a shutdown occurs, Strain – handbrakes 10 or at a breakdown. Handbrakes are applied to wagons at the Other (unrelated tasks/hit by object) 20 beginning and end of the train, the number depending on company policy regarding application in a given situation (ie. Slips, trips and falls were the highest reported mechanism gradient and location of track where shutdown/breakdown of injury in the preceding 12 months. Following hazard location). Typically the time taken for task completion is identification across all tasks, the priority order of intervention approximately 30-50 minutes, and may be performed in a was as follows: breakdown situation by inexperienced crew/ at night. • Task 1: Handbrake application and release; Task Analysis • Task 2: Coupling and uncoupling of hoses whilst Winding the handbrake off requires the brake lever to be shunting; disengaged (a sharp thrusting movement of the wrist) which allows the brake wheel to be loosened using bilateral shoulder • Task 3: Lifting and carrying bags; movement. The brake is then rolled on or off. The task • Task 4: Walking and working on and about the track - is often performed above shoulder height depending on including ballast and access roads; locomotive location and ballast condition. Frequently coal material lodges in the brake mechanism causing it to jam, • Task 5: Access and egress from the locomotive cab; and requiring awkward postures of the neck, shoulders, upper • Task 6: Locomotive provisioning. limbs, and trunk while the lower body provides stability so

[ 3 ] D.D. Ly Lynasnas et et al. al. ErgonErgonnnomicsomics Australia. Australia. 2013. 2013. 10:1. 10:1.

engiengineering/desneering/designign controls controls t too remove remove o orr reduce reduce the the hazard, hazard, “ad “admministrativeinistrative”” controls controls w weerere proprovvidedided as as sho shorrt-termt-term cont contrrolol options options u unntiltil eliminati eliminationon or or desig designn controls controls w weerere agreed agreed o onn and and implimplemented.emented. W Workork practic practiceess allowed allowed t thhee assessme assessmenntt of of commo commonn themes themes ac acrossross both both sit siteses (wit(withh the the except exceptionion of of locom locomotiveotive provisi provisioning),oning), how howeeverver it it beca becammee apparent apparent that that quite quite diffdiffeerentrent work work c cuulturesltures exist existeedd between between t thehe two two site sitess visited. visited. W Whhereere it it was was n noott possible possible t too elimeliminateinate the the ta tasskk on on curren currenttlyly used used equi equipment,pment, guid guidaancence was was pr proovidedvided for for m managementanagement u usese in in futufuturere procurem procurementent process processees.s.

RiskRisk Assessmen Assessmentt TasTaskkss are are listed listed b belowelow in in ord ordeerr of of interve intervenntiontion priorit priorityy following following r riskisk assessm assessmeent.nt.

TasTaskk 1: 1: Handbr Handbraakeke applicati applicatioonn and and rele releaasese TasTaskk Description Description: :The The task task in invvolvesolves awkw awkwardard posture posturess and and forcef forcefuul lmuscular muscular e exertions.xertions. It It i sis mosmostt often often und undeertakenrtaken track tracksideside where where b bothoth ballast ballast c conditionondition an andd weather weather c coonditionsnditions ar aree larglargeelyly unpredic unpredicttable.able. The The ta tasskssk occurs occurs w whhenen a a locom locomootivetive is is eithe eitherr stowed stowed or or u unstowed,nstowed, w whenhen shushunnting,ting, when when a a shutdown shutdown o occurs,ccurs, or or at at a a breakdow breakdownn. . Handbra Handbrakkeses are are appli applieedd to to wagon wagonss at at thethe b beginningeginning a anndd end end of of th thee train, train, the the n nuumbermber depe depenndingding on on co commpanypany polic policyy regarding regarding applapplicationication in in a a g giveniven situati situatioonn (ie. (ie. gradie gradientnt and and locat locationion of of track track w wherehere shutd shutdoown/breakdwn/breakdoownoown localocattion).ion). Typic Typicaallylly the the time time taken taken for for ta tasskk completio completionn is is approxi approximmatelyately 30-5 30-500 minutes, minutes, a anndd may may D. Lynas et al. Ergonomics Australia, 2013. 10:1. bebe p performederformed in in a a breakdow breakdownn situation situation b byy inexperien inexperiennncedced crew/ crew/ a att night. night.

FigurFigurFigureee 1 1 11 A,BA,B A,A,B B &C:&C: &&C: C: HH HHandbrakeaandbrakendbrake application appli appliccationation and and andrelease rele releaasese trapped material can be dislodged and the brake fully released. place. One crew member usually works from the front of the Wagons have bilateral brakes, requiring the opposing brake to train and another from the rear of the locomotive. be released/applied (Figure 1). The procedure is reversed for TasTaskk Analysis Analysis: :W Windinginding the the h haandbrakendbrake of offf requires requiresRisk Assessment th thee brake brake Scores leve leverr to to be be disen disenggagedaged (a (a sha sharprp D. Lynas etwinding al. on the handbrakes, with additional force applied at Risk assessment scores for this task are illustrated graphically Ergonnomicsthe Australia. end of2013. the 10:1. procedure to ensure the brake is securely in thruthrustingsting move movemmentent of of the the w wrist)rist) which which a allowsllowsin Figure the the 2.b b rrakeake wheel wheel t too be be loosene loosenedd using using bilat bilateraleral Risk analysis indicates: • High risk of acute injury to the shoulder and upper limb; • Moderate risk of cumulative injury to shoulder and upper limb; and • Moderate risk of both acute and cumulative injury to the back, and a low risk to the legs. 77 Possible Control Measures An effective control measure implementation will likely require a combination of both short and medium term design or to reduce crew exposure while task elimination options are investigated. Whilst not ideal, in reality short to medium term control measures may become longer term control measures depending on management financial commitment to eliminating crew exposure to injury risk. From the workshops the following control measures were developed:

Elimination: • Spring loaded or pneumatic brakes on wagons.

Design/Engineering control options: • Relocation of shaft to underside of deck of wagon. • Reduce gearing to allow use of same amount of force throughout application. • Use stainless steel chains (to prevent rusting). • System to blow coal dust away (so dust does not “set like concrete” in the gear mechanism).

• A cover to reduce coal material jamming in the gear Figure 2: Handbrake application and release risk analysis and evaluation mechanism. Figure 2: Handbrake application and release risk analysis and evaluation Risk analysis indicates • High risk of acute injury to the shoulder and upper limb; [ 4 ] • Moderate risk of cumulative injury to shoulder and upper limb; and • Moderate risk of both acute and cumulative injury to the back, and a low risk to the legs.

Possible control measures: An effective control measure implementation will likely require a combination of both short and medium term design or administrative controls to reduce crew exposure while task eliminatiion options are investigated. Whilst not ideal, in reality short to

9

D. Lynas et al. Ergonomics Australia, 2013. 10:1. D. Lynas et al. Ergonnomics Australia. 2013. 10:1.

Administrative control options: • Stow trains at locations suitable, designated and well maintained to standard. • Consistency in company policy between written policy and field requirements regarding number of brakes needing to be applied. • Supply appropriate Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) for task and climate - gloves, clothing and footwear.

Task 2: Coupling and Uncoupling brake hoses Task Analysis On observation, significant variation in technique existed between experienced operators and novice or trainee crew when performing this task. Inexperienced operators needed D.to Ly applynas et greater al. force to uncouple and couple the connection, D.usually Lynas takinget al. longer to complete the task leading to ErgonErgonnomicsnomics Australia. Australia. 2013. 2013. 10:1. 10:1. awkward body posture being adopted for longer than that of an experienced operator (time pressure was reported by all thetheoperators c ouplingcoupling when (Fig (Figrequiredureure 3B). 3B).to undertake Sig Signnificantificant the task awkawk in wwa tracksideardard wrist and upper lilimmbb posturespostures w wereere seen seen in in breakdown situation). combination with excessive force application. Operators reported the coupling end could swing comUncouplingbination the wit brakeh excessive pipe hoses force requires applica thetion. operator Opera tors reported the coupling end could swing outto squatof their between han dthe and wagons injury to t heirreach shinthe coupled so usually hoses they braced with their (R) leg to protect out(Figure of 3A),their and han againd and observed injury techniques their shin varied so usually between they braced with their (R) leg to protect thetheexperiencedmmselvesselves operators agai againnstst andinjury. injury. novices. I Inn anotherOneanother technique tetecchniquehnique observed obs erved thethe cocouupledpled jointjoint w wasas braced braced w withith involved grasping the left (L) hose with the (L) hand and hanhangraspingdds sat at theeach each right e en n(R)dd of ofhose the the with joi join nthett andand (R) bothbothhand handhosesoses rolling levere d upwards inin aa symmetrisymmetriccalal moveme movemennt tto to the forearm over and around the hose so that the (R) hose brebrecouldaakk thebe the lifted coupli coupli up nandngg join, join,around agai agai inn na requiringrequiringscissor like aamechanismwwkwardwwkward wrist and upperupper limblimb posturpostureess combined combined with with to unlock the coupling (Figure 3B). Significant awkward applapplwristication icationand upper of of limbex excessivecessive postures forc forcweree eseen.. in combination with Figure 4: Coupling and Uncoupling brake hoses risk analysis and evaluation D. Lynas et al. Figures 4: Coupling and Uncoupling brake hoses risk Ergonnomics Australia. 2013. 10:1. analysis and evaluation Possible control measures: From the workshops the following control measures were developed: the coupling (Figure 3B). Significant awkward wrist and upper limb postures were seen in excessive force application. Operators reported the coupling Elimination:end could swing out of their hand and injury their shin so combination with excessive force application. Operators reported the coupling end could swing usually they braced with their (R) leg to protect themselves • Air cut off - letting train movement separate cables. against injury. In another technique observed the coupled out of their hand and injury their shin so usually they braced with their (R) leg to protect Design/engineerjoint was ibracedng controls: with hands at each end of the joint and both hoses levered upwards in a symmetrical movement to break themselves against injury. In another technique observed the coupled joint was braced with • Change the position of hoses so coupling points are more accessible. the coupling join, again requiring awkward wrist and upper hands at each end of the joint and both hoses levered upwards in a symmetrical movement to • limbFlexible postures hoses combined (new hoses with are application more rigid) of- in excessiveclusion of force. snap lock system of break the coupling join, again requiring awwkward wrist and upper limb postures combined with Whenjoining/ recoupling,moulded hathen d(R) grips/and hose was/or held a rubber at 90 degreescup for theupward joiner. and the (L) hose held in the (L) hand and brought up to meet application of excessive force. • theTool (R) to hose hold allowing hosebag sit in to position roll into so the they lock eas positionily drop dow– againn and hook up without Figures 3A & B: Coupling and Uncoupling brake hoses F iguresFigures 3A 3A & & B: B: Coupling Coupling and and Uncoupling Uncoupling brbraakeke hoses awkward applicatiFigure 3C:3C: postureson Re Reofm mexcessovingoving in combination force/ jamme jamme usedd coal oofcoal with awkward from from force th th epwase osture.brake brake involved in mechanism task completion. Operators reported coal dust often jammed mechanism the mechanism meaning additional force was required to uncouple the joint (Figure 3C). Additional considerations to this task were walking on uneven ballast with/without long Wh Wheenn recouplin recoupling,g, the the (R) (R) ho hosese waswas heldheld atat 90 degreevegetations upward present, aanndd thethe and (L)(L) working ho hossee held atheld night. in in th th Noee (L) (L)exposure to 12 vibration was involved performance of this task. hand and brought up to meet the (R) hose allowing it to roll into the lock position – again hand and brought up to meet the (R) hose allowing it Riskto roll Assessment into the lock position – again awkward postures in combination with force was invoRisklved analysis in task and completion evaluation (Figure. Operators 4) indicated: awkward postures in combination with force was involved in task completion. Operators • High risk of acute and cumulative injury to the upper reported coal dust often jammed the mechanism meaning additional force was required to rep orted coal dust often jammed the mechanism meaninglimb. additional force was required to Figure 3C: Removing jammed coal from the brake • Moderate risk of acute and cumulative injury to all other Figures 3A & B: Coupling and Uncoupling brake hoses unc Figureouple 3C: Rethemoving join tjamme (Figured coal 3 Cfrom). Additionthe brake al considerations to this task were walking on uneven uncmechanismouple the joint (Figure 3C). Additional considerationsareas to thisof the t abody.sk were walking on uneven mechanism ballast with/without long vegetation present, and working at night. No exposure to vibration ballast with/without long vegetation present, and[ wo5 ]rking at night. No exposure to vibration was involved performance of this task. When recoupling, the (R) hose was held at 90 degrewases upward involved an dpe therformance (L) hose held of thisin th task.e (L) hand and brought up to meet the (R) hose allowing it to roll into the lock position – again Risk assessment: Risk analysis and evaluation (Figure 4) indicated: awkward postures in combination with force was invRiskolved assessment in task completion: Risk analysi. Operatorss and evaluation (Figure 4) indicated: • High risk of acute and cumulative injury to the upper limb. reported coal dust often jammed the mechanism meaning• additiHigho risnalk force of acute was requiredand cumulativ to e injury to the upper limb. uncouple the joint (Figure 3C). Additional considerations• to thisModera task werete risk wa oflking acu onte une andven cum ulative injury to all other areas of the body. • Moderate risk of acute and cumulative injury to all other areas of the body. ballast with/without long vegetation present, and working at night. No exposure to vibration was involved performance of this task.

Risk assessment: Risk analysis and evaluation (Figure 4) indicated: • High risk of acute and cumulative injury to the upper limb. • Moderate risk of acute and cumulative injury to all other areas of the body.

11 11

11

D. LyD.nas Lynas et al. et al. D. Lynas et al. Ergonomics Australia, 2013. 10:1. ErgonErgonnomicsnomics Australia. Australia. 2013. 2013. 10:1. 10:1.

Possible Control Measures From the workshops the following control measures were developed: Elimination: • Air cut off - letting train movement separate cables. Design/: • Change the position of hoses so coupling points are more accessible. • Flexible hoses (new hoses are more rigid) - inclusion of snap lock system of joining/moulded hand grips/and/or a rubber cup for the joiner. • Tool to hold hosebags in position so they easily drop down and hook up without application of excess force/ Figure 5 A&B: FigurD.Figur Lyenas 5e etA&B: al.5 A&B: Liftin Lifting bagsg bags onto onto loc loomotivecomotive at stata strt aofrt shiftof shift use of awkward posture. ErgonLiftingnomics bagsAustralia. onto 2013. locomotive10:1. at start of shift • Design a seal for brake cable to keep coal dust off. • Move the stopcock to side. Administrative controls: RiskRisk assessment assessment: Risk: Risk analysi analysis (Figures (Figure 6) 6)indicates: indicates: • Improved training - individual competency levels & particularly for new wagons coming in from China. • • HighHigh ris kris ofk ofacute acute inj injuryu ryto tothe the sh ouldershoulder and and upper upper limb limb with with this this task task. . • Update maintenance strategies to minimise likelihood of needing to undertake the task trackside. • • ModeraModerate triske risk of ofcu mcuulativemulative inju injury rfory for this this ar eara.e a. • Timetabling - so task not completed on night shift/ difficult environments i.e. undertaken at areas of level ballast. The task was noted to be easier if two operators were rostered so could work from either side of the train. • Negotiate with track owner for improved track maintenance. • “Oncall” crew list to assist when required. • PPE - when working at night - provision of head lamps and appropriate gloves (quality and purpose).

Task 3: Lifting and carrying bags Task Description Train crew carry bags containing their personal items with them onto and off of each shift involving awkward postures of the trunk and lower body while lifting above shoulder, and instability of the lower body. Bags vary in dimension and weight, and content is discretionary between individual crew members. Additionally, crew carry meal and water requirements for the duration of their shift, and procedure manuals/reference items required during the shift. The company has supplied a standard (high visibility) backpack but crew are not required to use this pack, nor are they restricted to one carry on bag. Locomotive access involves walking along track ballast (of varying heights and quality). Crew FiguFigurere 6: Lifting6: Lifting and andcarryin carryingg bags risk bags analysis risk analysisand evaluation and often stand on uneven surfaces while passing bags overhead evaluation to a crew member standing on the locomotive platform above (Figure 5). The ankle is particularly vulnerable to injury due PosPossiblesible control Control measures Measures to instability of the ballast surface. The task is undertaken DesiDesign/engineeringgn/engineering control options:options: infrequently, usually at start and completion of shift. • Motorised pulley/boat cable winch system (hooked over • Motorised pulley/boat cable winch system (hooked over handrail and bags winched up Risk Assessment handrail and bags winched up onto the locomotive). Risk analysis (Figure 6) indicates: • Hydrauliconto th eplatform locomotive lift). (similar to disabled taxis) accessed • High risk of acute injury to the shoulder and upper limb •from Hydrauli the rearc platform of the locomotive. lift (similar to disabled taxis) accessed from the rear of the with this task. • Foldlocomot down iive.pneumatic stairs. • Moderate risk of cumulative injury for this area. • Luggage rack located on outside of locomotive. • Fold down pneumatic stairs.

[ 6 ]

15

1414

D. Lynas et al. Ergonnomics Australia. 2013. 10:1.

• Luggage rack located on outside of locomotive. Administrative controls: • Consider placing manuals/Standard Operating Procedures (SOPS)/route manuals on ipad /tablet to reduce bag.

• Consider placing essential manual information in hard coD.p D.Lyy nasLy nason et al. et al.locom otives. ErgonErgonnomicsnomics Australia. Australia. 2013. 2013. 10:1. 10:1. • D. Lynas et al. Ergonomics Australia, 2013. 10:1. Track maintenance - designated change points on network/improved• • LuggageLuggage rack rack locate track located ond accesson outside outside of. o locomotif locomotive.v e. Administrative controls: Risk Assessment AdAdministrativeministrative co cntrols:ontrols: D. Lynas et al. • Consider placing manuals/Standard Operating Procedures ErgonRisknomics analysis Australia. (Figure2013. 10:1. 8) indicates: • • ConsideConsider placingr placing ma manuals/Standnuals/Standarda rdOperatin Operating Procedureg Procedures (SOPS)/rous (SOPS)/route temanuals manuals on o ipadn ipad (SOPS)/route manuals on ipad /tablet to reduce bag. • Moderate risk of acute injury to the shoulder, upper limbs • Moderate risk of acute injury to the shoulder, upper limbs and back. Task 4: Walking and working on and about the track - including b• allastConsider/tablet/tablet and placingto treduceo reducea ccessessential ba bag. g . manualroads information in hard and back. copy on locomotives. • Low risk of injury to the lower body. • • ConsideConsider placingr placing ess essentialential manu manual ainformatiol information inn inhard hard co cop• yp onyLow on locom risklocom ofotives. oinjurytives. to the lower body. • Track maintenance - designated change points on network/ Task Description: The task is undertaken frequently by all crew and performed in a variety of TheThe assessment assessment tool tool does does not not give give consi considerationderation to the to terrain the terrain in which the task is performed – • improved• TrackTrack m track amintenanceaintenance access. - designated - designated change change poin points tons on netwo network/improvedrk/improved track track access access. . thein uwhichneven andthe s hiftingtask is natu performedre of the bal– lastthe surfaceuneven u nderfootand shifting indicates ankle injury may occur nature of the ballast surface underfoot indicates ankle injury environmental conditions (heat, wet weather, night) and location s. The difficulty in assessing with this task. Task 4: Walking and working on and about the track - may occur with this task. TasTasincludingk 4:k 4:Walking Walking ballast and and and workin workin accessg ong on androads and ab aboutout the the track track - including - including ballast ballast and and access access roads roads Task Description this task is that it often involves specific maintenance tasks whichTasTas kneed Descriptionk Description to :be The: The taska ssessedtask is undertakenis undertaken frequently frequently by b ally all crew crew an and performed performed ind ina varietya variety of of The task is undertaken frequently by all crew and performed individually to understand how targeted design/engineering contenvienvirinolsronmental a ronmentalvariety can of cbes oenvironmental cnditionsonditionst be (h e(himplemat,e conditionsat, wet wet we weaether, (heat,anted.ther, night) wet night) weather, a nd and location location s. s.The The diffic difficultyulty in inasses assessingsing night) and locations. The difficulty in assessing this task thisthis task task is thatis that it oftenit often invol involvesves specific specific m aintenancemaintenance tasks tasks which which need need to tobe be assessed assessed is that it often involves specific maintenance tasks which Crew drive by 4WD, often on unsealed access roads/tracks/ballasindiindineedtv (ofiduallyv iduallyto varyingbe to assessed toun uderstandnderstand individually dimensions ho hwo wtargeted totargeted understand d esign/engiand design/engi how targetedneeringneering cont controlsrols can can bes best bet be implem implemented.ented. design/engineering controls can best be implemented. Crew CreCrew wdrive drive by by 4W 4D,W D,often often on o unsealedn unsealed ac acessccess roads/ roads/tracks/ballastracks/ballast (oft (of varying varying dimensions dimensions and and quality) to access the locomotive, and undertake a number of obsdriveervational/ by 4WD, oftenm onaintenance unsealed access roads/tracks/ballast tasks qualqual(ofity) varyingity) to toacces accesdimensionss thes the locom locom ando quality)tive,otive, and andto unaccess undertakedertake the locomotive, a nau nmberumber of ofob observational/servational/maintenancemaintenance tasks tasks and undertake a number of observational/maintenance tasks including walking the length of the train to observe any faults orincl minclincludinguaintenancedinguding walkin walkinwalkingg theg thethe length issues;length length of of theof the traincarrthe train train toy tobserveingo toobserve observe an ayn faultsyany faults or orm aintenancemaintenance issues; issues; carr carryingying faults or maintenance issues; carrying out maintenance work outoutand m aintenancmroutineaintenanc procedures,e worke work and and such ro utinero asutine handbrake proc procedures,edures, application such such as as handbrakand handbrak e applicatioe application andn and releas release; eand; and out maintenance work and routine procedures, such as handbrakproprorelease;ev isioningapplicatiovisioning and pri provisioningprior otor tocommen comme and priorncement nreleascement to commencement of ofsehi s;fhit. andf t.Stress Stress offul f shift.ulcondition condition s mays may arise arise w henwhen fault fault Stressful conditions may arise when fault detection and detdetrepairsectionection are and andrequired re pairsrepairs eitherare are re qreatuired qinitialuired either eitherinspection at atinitial initial or insfollowing inspectionpection or orfo llowingfollowing a bra eakdownbreakdown du duringring a a provisioning prior to commencement of shift. Stressful conditionas breakdownmay arise during w a shift.hen Awkward fault postures of the trunk shifshift. tAwkward. Awkward postures postures of ofthe the trunk trunk an and lowerd lower bod body arey are often often ad aopteddopted in inor dorerd erto toprovi provided e and lower body are often adopted in order to provide trunk detection and repairs are required either at initial inspection or trunfotrunandllowingk andklower and lower lowerstability astability stabilitybr whileeakdown whi standing while lestanding standing on duan o nuneven oring ann an uneve uneve surfacea n surfacen andsurface an and undertakind undertaking ag specifica specific ta skta sk undertaking a specific task (Figure 7). The ankle is particularly (Fig(Figvulnerableureu re7). 7). The Theto a injuryn aklenkle is due particis partic to ularlyreducedularly vulne vulnestabilityrablerable whento toinju inju standingry rduey due to tored reduceduced stabilit stability wheny when stan standingding shift. Awkward postures of the trunk and lower body are often aondon boptedallast. bballast.allast. A mAin ommoderatederate oorderated erleve level leve tol of lof ofexertionprovi exertion exertion dmay may emay bebe be reqrequired, required,uired, ifif creif crew wneed need to tocar carry rymaintena maintenancence crew need to carry maintenance /replacement equipment and trunk and lower stability while standing on an uneven surface an/repd/repundertake lacementundertakinlacement maintenance eq euipmentquipmentg atasks. an specificand undertaked undertake tmaintenanca maintenancsk e tasks.e tasks. (Figure 7). The ankle is particularly vulnerable to injury due to reduced stability when standing on ballast. A moderate level of exertion may be required, if crew need to carry maintenance

FigureFigure 8: 8:Walking Walking and and working on on and and about about track track risk anriskalysis and evaluation /replacement equipment and undertake maintenance tasks. analysis and evaluation

FigurFigure 7e A, 7 BA, & B C:& C:Ex amplesExamples of walof wallkinglking and and work workingi ngtrackside trackside PosPossiblesible control Control measures: Measures Design/engineering control options: • Individual maintenance tasks need to be assessed to RiskRisk assessment assessment: Risk: Risk analysi analysis (Figures (Figure 8) 8)indicates: indicates: understand if targeted design/engineering controls can be implemented. 17 • Designated maintenance/change out platforms. • Design tools that are light weight and appropriate for the task. 1616 Administrative controls: • Maintenance of track and walkways to acceptable standard/Improved vehicle access/4WD training. • Provision of tool belt - to carry water bottle, tools etc.

Figure 7 A, B & C: Examples of walking and working • Provision of appropriate footwear. Figure 7 A, B & C: Examples of wallking and working trackside trackside • Provision of appropriate clothing for environment.

[ 7 ] Risk assessment: Risk analysis (Figure 8) indicates:

16

D. Lynas et al. Ergonnomics Australia. 2013. 10:1.

Design/engineering control options: • Individual maintenance tasks need to be asseessed to understand if targeted design/engineering controls can be implemented. • Designated maintenance/changee out platforms. D. Lynas et al. Ergonnomics Australia. 2013. 10:1. • Design tools that are light weight and appropriate for the task. Administrative controls: Design/engineering control options: • Maintenance of track and walkways to acceptable standard/Improved vehicle • Individual maintenance tasks need to be asseessed to understand if targeted access/4WD training. design/engineering controls can be implemented. • Provision of tool belt - to carry water bottle, tools etc. • Designated maintenance/changee out platforms. • Provision of appropriate footwear. • Design tools that are light weight and appropriate for the task. • Provision of appropriate clothing forD. Ly environnas et al. ment. Administrative controls: Ergonnomics Australia. 2013. 10:1.

• Maintenance of track and walkways to acceptable standard/ImproveRiskd vehicle assessment : Risk analysis (Figure 10) indicates: Task 5: Access and egress from the locomotive• Moderacab te risk of acute injury to the shoulder and upper limb. access/4WD training. • Low risk of injury to the lower body (consideration needs to be given to the state of the Task Description: Access and egress is typically perfoballast rsumedrrounding once the ladder per asshift this may unle influencess unforesee the potential nfor ankle injury). • Provision of tool belt - to carryD. Lynas w eta al.ter Ergonomics bottle, Australia, tools etc. 2013. 10:1. maintenance issues arise. Locomotive access and• Modera egretess risk is of viacum ulativea ve rticalinjury to laddeback. r situated toward • Provision of appropriate footwear. theTask r ear5: Access of the and lo egresscomotive, from theleading locomotive onto cab an external platform (within the profile of the train) to • Provision of appropriate clothingTask Description for environment. theAccess cab and of egress the is lotypicallycomotive performed (Fi ggureonce per 9A). shift Tunlesshe platform is narrow requiring crew to walk side-step unforeseen maintenance issues arise. Locomotive access and alonegressg is it via to a thevertical ca ladderb (approxi situatedm towardately the 10 rear me oft theres) and is accessed via an outward opening door. To Task 5: Access and egress from thelocomotive, locom otiveleading cab onto an external platform (within the egrprofileess, of crewthe train) piv too thet on cab the of the pla locomotivetform so (Figure as t o9A). exit facing backwards and retaining three points of Task Description: Access and egressThe is platform typically is narrow perfo requiringrmed crew once to walkper side-step shift unle alongs s unforeseen conit to ttheact cab (Figure (approximately 9B). The10 metres) final and step is accessed down via to an ballast/gr ound may be up to half a metre and onto maintenance issues arise. Locomotiveoutward ac openingcess and door. egr Toe egress,ss is crewvia pivota ve onrtical the platform ladde r situated toward uneso asv toen exit and facing mo backwardsving surface/ and retainingwith three or with pointso utof long grass surrounding it. Depending on change of the rear of the locomotive, leadingcontact onto (Figurean external 9B). The pfinallatform step down (wit tohin ballast/ground the profile of the train) to shifmay tbe location up to half cr ae metrew may and be onto re unevenquired and to moving undertake thiss task in the dark, and/or on unfamiliar the cab of the locomotive (Figgure 9A).surface/with The platformor without long is narrowgrass surrounding requiring it. Depending crew to walk side-step on change of shift location crew may be required to undertake sectthis taskions in ofthe the dark, t rand/orack. on unfamiliar sections of the along it to the cab (approximately track.10 metres) and is accessed via an outward opening door. To egress, crew pivot on the platform so as to exit facing backwards and retaining three points of contact (Figure 9B). The final step down to ballast/ground may be up to half a metre and onto uneven and moving surface/with or without long grass surrounding it. Depending on change of shift location crew may be required to undertake thiss task in the dark, and/or on unfamiliar sections of the track.

Figures 9A & B: Access and egress from locomotive cab FigureFigure 10: 10: Access Access and egress and egressfrom locomotive from locomotive risk analysi risks and evaluation

analysis and evaluation Design/engineering control options: • Redesign the locomotive ladder - consider retracting stairs/extension ladder with spring adjustment release. • Install LED lighting on bottom rung of ladder. • Install handrails on bottom of locomotive footplate - 19

provide support when walking on uneven ballast. 18 • Longer handle on door locking mechanism of cab door. Figures 9A & B: Access and egress from locomotive cab Figures 9A & B: Access and egress from locomoti ve cab Administrative controls: Risk Assessment • Increase number of change platforms on line. Risk analysis (Figure 10) indicates: • Maintenance of ballast. • Moderate risk of acute injury to the shoulder and upper limb. Task 6: Locomotive provisioning • Low risk of injury to the lower body (consideration needs to be given to the state of the ballast surrounding Task Description the ladder as this may influence the potential for ankle This task is performed infrequently, and varies between injury). the two lines. One line (A) has contractor assistance with • Moderate risk of cumulative injury to back. provisioning. The other line (B) does not - meaning all provisioning undertaken18 by one person usually taking around Possible Control Measures two hours to complete. Currently, the task is performed The workshops provided the following information regarding outside and in all weather conditions. Forceful manual effort control measures for reducing the likelihood of injury from and awkward body postures are required while connecting the this task. Effective control measure implementation may fuel hoses, during the refueling process itself, and while starting involve a combination of both design controls and some the compressors to power the sand pods (Figures 11 A & B). administrative controls, if elimination of the task is not Line (A) has a vehicle fitted with a motor operated platform possible. providing operator access to refueling points without the

[ 8 ] D. Lynas et al. Ergonomics Australia, 2013. 10:1.

need for excessive manual effort or awkward postures (Figure Sanding: 11 C). Postural demands were far greater on Line B with the • Gas struts/lighter material for lid - existing heavy to remove. procedures having less variation in movement patterns and • Sand hose nozzle heavy - replace with aluminum/lighter being largely repetitive in nature, while Line A procedures weight material. D.had Ly morenas et dynamical. and varied movement patterns. The task Ergonis performednomics Australia. infrequently 2013. but10:1. may take up to two hours to • Portable sanding delivery system. complete (short periods of varied tasks) on Line B. • Extend current gravity feed hose (apparently 60cm too short). • Fit a “T piece” to the sand hose. • Provide additional pods - reduce need to move equipment during task. Oiling: • Purpose built platform for oiling requirements. • Air pressure drum (with hose reel) to dispense oil. • Oil drum on stand/reservoir moved to increase accessibility. • Oil in smaller container (5 litre) rather than lifting 20 litre drum (only small quantities are required to complete task). D. Lynas et al. • Redesign access point for oil delivered to compressors for Ergonnomics Australia. 2013. 10:1. easier access. • Work from the head end for provisioning/fault finding - eliminates need to walk back to the remotes. Figures 11 A & B Provisioning of Locomotive (Line(Line B)B) FigFigure 11 C: Provisioning (Line A) • Dipsticks re-positioned either side for checking engine oil. • Provide degreaser to counter oil spillages. Risk assessment:: Risk analysis (Figure 12) indicates:indicates: Administrative control measures: • Provide additional staff/third driver (night fuelling of D. Lynas et al. • High risk ofof acuteacute injinjury to the back andErgon modnomics Australia.eremoterate 2013. risk locomotives). 10:1. to the shoulder,, armsarms andand llegs. • Moderate risk of cumulative injury for all areas.

Noise levels while provisioning was identifiedified byby crecrew asas aa probleproblem,, andand aa recrecommendation was Figures 11 A & B: Provisioning of Locomotive (Line B) Figures 11 A & B Provisioning of Locomotive (Line B) Figure 11 C: Provisioning (Line A) madFiguree to11 alsoC: Provisioning engage an (Line occ A)upational hygienistienist toto revreviewiew airair partiparticlele contamicontaminants associated

withRisk Assessment thethe provisiprovisioning process.. Risk assessment: Risk analysis (Figure 12) indicates:Risk analysis (Figure 12) indicates: • High risk of acute injury to the back and moderate risk to • High risk of acute injury to the back and modetherate shoulder, risk to thearms shoulde and legs.r, arms and legs. • Moderate risk of cumulative injury for all are• aModerates. risk of cumulative injury for all areas. Noise levels while provisioning was identified by crew as a Noise levels while provisioning was identified by crew as a problem, and a recommendation was problem, and a recommendation was made to also engage made to also engage an occupational hygienist to revan occupationaliew air parti hygienistcle contami to reviewnants air associa particleted contaminants associated with the provisioning process. with the provisioning process. Possible control measures The workshops provided the following information regarding control measures for reducing the likelihood of injury from this task. Hazardous procedures were identified when undertaking various components of the task - these included fuelling, sanding/sand pod use, lifting of oil drums and subsequent oil leaks. Elimination: • Construct purpose built facility or hire the existing facility from track owner. Design/engineering control measures: Fuelling: FigureFigure 12: 12:Train Train provi sprovisioningioning (B line) analysis(B line) a ndanalysis evaluati andon • Consider a lighter fuel hose. evaluation

Possible control measures: The workshops provided the following information regarding control [ 9 ] measures for reducing the likelihood of injury from this task. Hazardous procedures were identified when undertaking various components of the task - these included fuelling, sanding/sand pod use, liftingg of oil drums and subsequent oil leaks. Elimination: • Construct purpose built facility or hire the existing facility from track owner. Design/engineering control measures:

22 21

21

D. Lynas et al. Ergonomics Australia, 2013. 10:1.

Discussion and conclusion References This research has focused on the tasks over which the 1. Safe Work Australia, 2012. Compendium of workers’ organisation has the greatest opportunity to implement compensation statistics, Australia 2010-11. Canberra: Safe effective injury reduction control measures. Part of the Work Australia. overall value of the participatory ergonomics process is the 2. Nagamachi M. Requisites and practices of participatory demonstration of “ownership” of the task by crew and their ergonomics, International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics. willingness to share information within a group where their 1995; 15: 371-377. expert knowledge is recognised and utilised. Crew also need 3. Elden M. Sociotechnical systems ideas as public policy the confidence that management supports moving forward in Norway. Empowering participation through worker- and is willing to demonstrate commitment to the reduction managed change. Journal of Applied Behavioural Science. of manual task injury within their workforce. The workshops 1986; 22: 239-255. provided crew with the tools and knowledge needed to 4. Liker JK, Nagamaci M and Lifshitz YR. A comparative accurately identify risk, assess tasks within their work analysis of participatory ergonomics programs in US and environment, interpret the results of their assessment and Japan manufacturing. International Journal of Industrial translate the findings into effective control measure options. Ergonomics. 1995; 3: 185-199. Additionally, they provided a forum for discussion, and an extensive list of control measures were developed during 5. Haims M and Carayon P. Theory and practice for the the workshops. The participatory ergonomics approach implementation of “in-house” continuous improvement has both successes and setbacks which were demonstrated participatory ergonomics programs. Applied Ergonomics. within this study. While the workshops generated practical 1998; 29: 461-472. solutions across all levels of the hierarchy of controls, no 6. Haines H, Wilson JR and Koningsveld E. Validating “site champion” emerged from crew level across either site - a framework for Participatory ergonomics (the PEF). this lead to management delegating the role of champion to Ergonomics. 2002; 45, 309-327. “mid-level” management personnel at each site. A weakness, 7. Haslam RA. Targeting ergonomics interventions – or threat to the opportunity of success of a project like the learning from health promotion. Applied Ergonomics. one identified in this case study is turnover of key staff within 2002; 33 (3), 241-149. the organisation, resulting in failure to ensure sufficient 8. Wilson JR and and Haims HM. Participatory ergonomics in: numbers of staff remain engaged in the project with adequate Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics, G. Salvendy influence within the organisation to drive initiatives forward. ed., 2nd Edn, Wiley, New York 1997; 490 -513. There was difficulty within the workshops gaining consensus 9. van Eerd D, Cole E, Irvin Q, Mahood, K, Keown, N, of control measure options across both sites, and within Therberge, J, St Vincent M and Cullen K. Report on process sites across different shift working crews. Different and implementation of participatory ergonomic interventions: workplace cultures appeared to exist between sites - this stakeholder engagement, Institute for Work and Health, was most noticeable in crew comments regarding perceived Toronto 2008. management commitment to the process. A weakness that 10. Hendrick H. Good Ergonomics Good Economics. HFES may significantly impact upon the success of this project is press, Santa Monica 2001. the speed of implementation of agreed control measures, 11. Vink P, Koningsveld EAP and Molenbroed, JF. Positive and the subsequent message this sends to workers about outcomes of participatory ergonomics in terms of higher management support for the success of the project. A more comfort and productivity. Ergonomics. 2006; 37; 537-546. significant setback to the program may be that suggested interventions are not implemented at all by management, or 12. DeJong AM and Vink P. Participatory ergonomics not implemented in the form envisaged by those providing applied in installation work. Applied Ergonomics. 2002; 33 the expert knowledge input to the workshops. This project (5), 439-448. operated across two sites, different geographical locations 13. Straker L, Burgess-Limerick R, Pollock C, and Egeskov with no interaction between crew from each site, but under R. A randomised and controlled trial of a participative the same management administration. This highlights the ergonomics intervention to reduce injuries associated with need for effective and open communication between all manual tasks: physical risk and legislative compliance. parties involved and strengthens the need for facilitation Ergonomics. 2004; 47: 166-188. of this process, whether by the designated “site champion” 14. Carrivick PWJ, Lee AH, Yau KKW and Stevenson MR. or the facilitator engaged for the participatory ergonomics Evaluating the effectiveness of a participatory ergonomics process. approach in reducing the risk and severity of injuries Implementation of a participative ergonomics program is from manual handling. Ergonomics. 2005; 48;8, 907-914. an effective evidence based method of reducing injury risks 15. Rivilis I, Cole D, Fraser M, Mardon B, Kerr M, Wells R associated with manual tasks [29, 15]. Involving workers and Ibrahim, S. Valuation of a participatory ergonomic can produce effective control measure options. Translation intervention aimed at improving musculoskeletal health. of this knowledge into effective implementation strategies American Journal of Industrial Medicine. 2006; 49 (10), 801- requires genuine management “buy in” and willingness to 810. take the appropriate actions to demonstrate commitment to 16. Marciel R. Participatory ergonomics and organisational reducing injury risk in their workforce. change. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics. 1998;

[ 10 ] D. Lynas et al. Ergonomics Australia, 2013. 10:1.

22;319-325. Participative Ergonomics for Manual tasks (PErforM) 17. Halpern C and Dawson K. Design and implementation programme at four Australian underground coal mines. of a participatory ergonomics program for machine International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics. 2007; 37: 145- sewing tasks. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics. 155. 1997; 20: 429-440. 24. Laing A, Fraser M, Cole D, Kerr M, Wells R and 18. Moore J and Garg A. Participatory ergonomics in a Norman R. Study of the effectiveness of a participatory red meat packing plant, Part 1: evidence of long term ergonomics intervention in reducing worker pain severity effectiveness. American Industrial Hygiene Association. through physical exposure pathways. Ergonomics. 2005; 1997; 58: 127-131. 48: 150-170. 19. Rosecrance J and Cook T. The use of participatory 25. Hignett S, Wilson JR and Morris W. Finding ergonomic action research and ergonomics in the prevention of solutions – participatory approaches. Occupational work-related musculoskeletal disorders in the newspaper Medicine. 2005; 55: 3, 200 – 207. industry. Applied Occupational and Environmental Hygiene. 26. Perhkonen I, Nykyri E, Riihmaki H,Takala E, Ketola 2000; 15: 255-262. R, Viikari Jutera et al. Evaluation of a participatory 20. Evanoff BA, Bohr PC and Wolf LD. Effects of a ergonomic intervention process in kitchen work. Applied participatory ergonomics team among hospital orderlies. Ergonomics. 2009; 40: 115-123. American Journal of Industrial Medicine. 1999; 41: 293-297. 27. Burgess-Limerick R. Procedure for Managing Injury Risks 21. Straker LM. Work – associated back problems: Associated with Manual Tasks. 2008. collaborative solutions. Journal of the Society of Occupational http://burgess-limerick.com/download/ Medicine. 1990; 40: 75-79. manualtaskprocedure.pdf 22. de Jong A and Vink P. THE adoption of technological innovations for glaziers: evaluation of a participatory 28. Ergoanalyst, www.ergoenterprises.com.au ergonomics approach. International Journal of Industrial 29. Cole D, Theberg N, Dixon S, Rivilis W and Wells R. Ergonomics. 2000; 26: 39-46. Reflecting on a program of participatory ergonomics 23. Burgess-Limerick R, Straker L, Pollock C, Dennis G, interventions: A multiple case study. Work. 2009; 34: Leveritt S, and Johnson S. Implementation of the 161-178.

Cite this article as: Lynas and Burgess-Limerick. Participatory Ergonomics Case Study: Coal Handling Train Crew Operations. Ergonomics Australia. 2013, 10:1.

[ 11 ]