© Kamla-Raj 2014 J Soc Sci, 40(3): 343-357 (2014)
The Experience of Occupational Risk and the Handling of Incapacity Due to Ill Health and Injury
Jacquelene Swanepoel and J.C. Visagie*
School of Human Resource Sciences, North-West University, Private Bag X6001, Potchefstroom, South Africa 2520 *E-mail: [email protected]
KEYWORDS Health and Safety. Ergonomics. Accidents. Frequency and Severity. Management Commitment. Labour Relations
ABSTRACT This paper is concerned with the assessment of risks in the manufacturing industry and the effects thereof on employee wellbeing, performance ability and consequently on the labour relationship between employee and employer. The centre of this paper relies on the interaction between the person and the machine and the design of the interface between the two. This can be described as the heart of Ergonomics, and it further includes the nature of the task, workload, the working environment, the design of displays and controls, and the role of procedures. Characteristics of strains on the human body, in terms of unsafe conditions and work-related stressors, are identified and discussed in order to explain human capabilities and limitations within his/her work environment. The frequency of occupational incidents and accidents, as a result from a high risk environment, is examined and discussed. Occupational hygiene surveys, medical reports, real incident statistics and annual reports, based on the empirically researched organisation, were collect and used to sustain the research objectives. The data was analysed and is summarised in this paper to support the conclusion of the effect of a high risk work environment in correlation with employee wellbeing, and subsequently on labour relations. The results indicate comparisons between unsafe conditions and employee incapacity due to injury or ill health and how it should be addressed out of a labour relations point of view.
INTRODUCTION The human-technology-workspace-environ- mental model found in, Guild et al. (2001) is use- According to Guild et al. (2001), the interac- ful in identifying the factors that will have an tion between human and technology always effect on comfort, task performance and safety. takes place in a certain workspace, which is lo- Strydom (2009) supports this view and explains cated in a specific physical and psychological that the interaction between workers and tech- environment. The environment can be described nology should be the focus of safety improve- in terms of temperature, lighting, noise and vi- ment efforts. Guild et al. (2001), elaborates that bration, the presence and effect of chemical and by identifying “ergonomic risk factors” rather biological agents, as well as in psychological than “ergonomic hazards” or “ergonomic prob- terms such as teamwork, management structure, lems” allows several techniques of proactive risk shift conditions and psychosocial factors. The management (Strydom 2009). working interface between human and technol- Although there is little agreement over a def- ogy is the configuration of equipment, facilities, inition of “risk”, the notion of probability that systems, and behaviours that define the inter- injury or damage will occur (Guild et al. 2001) is active tasks of the worker with technology (Be- central to all risk assessment techniques identi- havioral Science Technology Inc. 2010). Stry- fied in literature, although the interpretation of dom (2009) explains that the working interface probability depends on whether it is viewed concept is the place where behaviours and or- objectively or subjectively (Aven and Reniers ganisational conditions, systems and process- 2012; White 1995). Risk probability is known as es come together. He elaborates that this is also the possibility that something unpleasant or where accidents usually occur, in that loss inci- unwelcome will happen, or a possibility of harm dents only occur when an employee interacts or damage against which something is insured with the condition in an unsafe way, where un- (Oxford University Press 2013). safe conditions exist (Strydom 2009). Within the context of occupational safety and health, “harm” generally describes the direct or *Address for correspondence: indirect degradation, temporary or permanent, Fax: +27 18 299 1393 of the physical, mental, or social well-being of E-mail: [email protected] workers (Michaelson 2014). Therefore, factors 344 JACQUELENE SWANEPOEL AND J.C. VISAGIE that cause injuries, such as back and neck strains, ing, pushing, carrying, moving, or any other form shoulder injuries and strains, knee sprains and of strenuous duties; motorised vehicles coming strains, elbow injuries and strains, carpal and tun- in and going out or even moving things from nel syndrome and musculoskeletal disorders have one side of the building to another; electric become crucial for management to identify and shock; and causes related to hazardous chemi- control real risks (Scheel and Zimmermann 2009). cals, fire and water, slips and falls, and ma- Therefore, in relation with the above, it can chinery (Baker 2013; Smith 2010). be sustained that the goal is to decrease the risk Cumulative Trauma Disorders (CTD) were of injury and illnesses, to improve worker per- identified as one of the fastest growing occupa- formance, to decrease worker discomfort, and to tional injuries in the last decade in South Africa improve the quality of work life (Guild, et al. 2001; (Grobler et al. 2002), and are now considered to Mangone and Van Der Linden 2014). Human- be the largest work-related health problem (Bac- system interactions have frequently been iden- chi 2010). Cumulative Trauma Disorders are in- tified as major contributors to poor operator per- formance (Anon 2012; HSE 2012; Naderpour et juries of the musculoskeletal system – including al. 2014), while an ergonomically correct work- the joints, muscles, tendons, ligaments, nerves, place provides many advantages that will im- and blood vessels that are often grouped to- prove productivity and product quality. This gether as CTDs, Repetitive Stress Injury (RSI), statement will form the focus point of this paper overuse syndrome, and repetitive motion disor- as it suggests consequently an effect on the la- ders (Melhorn et al. 2014). bour relationship between employee and em- Furthermore, Walder et al. (2007) explain that ployer. when ergonomic principles and guidelines are Individuals have a wide range of abilities and not being followed in the workplace, operator limitations within a working environment. Hu- fatigue and stress, leading to potential work- man factors (or Ergonomics) focus on how to related musculoskeletal and neurovascular dis- make the best use of human capabilities by de- orders (MSDs), will be the end result. The risk signing jobs and equipment that are fit for peo- factors of these disorders are multifactorial and ple (HSE 2012). present aspects that have not been clarified and Finally, the problem derived from the above explored fully (Alazab 2007). summary is that the working interface between The three major risk factors for the potential human and technology, existing in a demand- development of work-related MSDs are high- ing work environment, will have an adverse force, awkward posture and excessive repetition effect on the wellbeing of the employee, influ- (Konz and Johnston 2004; Wilander et al. 2014). encing the individual’s ability to perform, sub- These health risks develop from muscular work, sequently affecting the labour relationship be- nervous control movements, and contact stres- tween employer and employee. sors (Granjean 1988; Phelan and O’Sullivan 2014). Factors and exposures in the workplace, re- Muscular disorder injuries experienced by em- lating to accidents and injuries, are explored and ployees relating to overexertion or repetitive summarised below. Real incident statistics gath- motion will subsequently lead to Repetitive ered from the empirical researched organisation are analysed and discussed below (statistical Muscular Disorders (RMDs) (Kreitner and Kin- analyses). Methods in terms of handling poor icki 2008; Mithun Pai et al. 2014). work performance and/or incapacity due to ill Work-related RMDs/MSDs are not specific health or injury – as a result of human interac- to any type of job and affect workers in a wide tion with a high risk work environment – are variety of occupations (Alazab 2007). These stipulated below (results and discussion). The usually take months or even years to develop paper builds up to explore the effect of a high and they are a major cause of lost time at work, risk work environment on the labour relation- worker disability and health care costs (Alazab ship (conclusion). 2007). Relating to the above, MSDs play a sig- nificant socioeconomic role as they represent Factors and Exposures Relating to one of the major causes of disability and conse- Accidents and Injuries quent absence from work. Many employers do not pay enough atten- Most common workplace accidents include tion to the measurement and the effects of ab- manual handling, such as lifting, lowering, pull- senteeism and its control (Curwin et al. 2013; THE EXPERIENCE OF OCCUPATIONAL RISK AND THE HANDLING 345
Johnson 2007). Almost all employers understand industries must ensure that there is no deterio- that high absenteeism rates have a negative ef- ration in hearing greater than 10% among occu- fect on their businesses, but the monetary ef- pationally exposed individuals (Van Deventer fect of abnormally high absenteeism is very rare- 2011). In addition, by December 2013, the total ly quantified. Direct costs of absence are esti- noise emitted by all equipment installed in any mated by considering the employee’s annual workplace must not exceed a sound pressure salary (assuming absences are paid) and output level of 110 dB(A). to pay ratio, multiplied by the amount of time Loss of hearing is certainly the most well- missed within the year (Corporate Research As- known adverse effect of noise, and probably sociation 2011). Indirect costs, on the other the most serious, while other detrimental effects hand, are ‘hidden’ costs, which include (among include tinnitus (ringing in the ears), interfer- others) the cost of replacing the absent employ- ence with speech, communication and with the ee in critical positions, possible overtime pay- perception of warning signals, disruption of job ments to replacement workers, as well as the performance, annoyance and extra-auditory ef- effects that absenteeism has on workforce lev- fects (Van der Heever 2012). Exposure to noise els, medical aid costs, group life and disability causes stress, anxiety and sleeping disorders premiums (Curwin et al. 2013; Johnson 2007). and compromises the quality of all daily activi- Adding to the cost of absenteeism, the cost of ties (performance), also resulting in use of sleep musculoskeletal disorder is estimated based on drugs and sedatives (Kim et al. 2014). medical costs, wage losses, and associated costs (Alazab 2007). Thermal (Heat) Stress Subsequent to the above, the importance and necessity of job design and designing the work The thermal environment has a special ef- environment is increasing in light of the costs fect on the comfort of an individual. Serious involved related to the number of employees deviations from the comfort experienced by an individual can have a detrimental effect on pro- who are suffering from injuries associated with ductivity, increase the possibility of making er- RMDs/MSDs/CTDs. Furthermore, the quality of rors (and therefore the accident rate), and can the workplace environment may determine the also have a negative effect on the health of the level of employee motivation, and subsequent- individual (Van den Heever 2012). ly performance and productivity (Leblebici 2012). Heat stress occurs when the body’s means Comfort issues such as improper lighting (artifi- of controlling its internal temperature starts to cial illumination), poor ventilation, excessive fail and the body generates more heat than it occupational noise, thermal (heat) conditions can lose which highlights the vital role of an and emergency excess (Chandrasekar 2011; Leb- efficient sweating mechanism through ther- lebici 2012), which can be very stressful for a moregulation (Alzeer and Otair 2014; Crockford human being, will be discussed in more detail 1999; HSE 2002). There are various types of heat- below. related illnesses, including heat cramps, heat exhaustion, heat rash, or heat stroke, each with Occupational Noise its own symptoms and treatments (Iowa State University of Science and Technology 2013). Noise is conveniently and frequently defined These symptoms vary from an inability to con- as ‘unwanted sound’, a definition which in its centrate, severe thirst, fainting, fatigue (heat looseness enables a sound source to be consid- exhaustion), giddiness, nausea, headaches, ered as ‘noise’ or ‘not noise’ solely on the basis moist skin, or hot dry skin, confusion, convul- of the listener’s reaction to it (Oborne 1985; sions and eventual loss of consciousness, com- Paunoviæ et al. 2014). monly known as heat stroke (HSE 2002; Iowa Noise is one of the most common of all occu- State University of Science and Technology pational hazards (Workplace Health and Safety 2013). Bulletin). According to the Occupational Health Apart from heat illness, high temperatures and Safety Act (85 of 1993), the South African in the workplace reduce worker morale and noise exposure limit is no more than 85 dB(A). It productivity, and increase absenteeism and also mandates that after December 2008, the hear- mistakes (Tombling Ltd. 2006), which will be ing conservation programme implemented by explained below. 346 JACQUELENE SWANEPOEL AND J.C. VISAGIE
In a study performed by ASHVE, it was proven The light levels listed in the OHS Act, 1993, that a typical manufacturing plant loses 1% effi- are the absolute minimum statutory average light ciency per man hour for every degree the tem- levels that may exist in a workplace at any time perature rises above 27ÚC (ASHRAE, as cited in the life of that workplace. Failure to comply by Tombling Ltd. 2006). In terms of the duration with the OHS Act requirements is an offence of exposure to heat, the graph below shows the committed by the employer. The employer is al- temperature levels able to be tolerated before ways responsible for providing and maintaining cognitive performance decrements become ap- a safe, healthy and workable workplace (OHS parent (As cited by Oborne 1985: 222). Act, 85 of 1993, section 16). Figure 1 indicates the decreasing effects on The advantages available to industry by vir- performance in relation to higher temperatures tue of good lighting can be listed as follows over longer exposure times. Performance is fur- (Anon 2013: 1): ther affected in terms of the relationship between “The quality of lighting in a workplace can the ability to carry out work at different intensi- have a significant effect on productivity. With ties: Performance will decrease more rapidly, de- adequate lighting workers can produce more pending on the work rate level in correlation with products with fewer mistakes, which can lead an increase of temperatures (Kjellstrom and Dirks to a 10 to 50% increase in productivity. Good 2001; Kjellstrom et al. 2009). lighting can decrease errors by 30 to 60 % as well as decrease eye-strain and the headaches, Artificial Illumination nausea, and neck pain which often accompany eyestrain.” In any inhabited environment, safe condi- tions, including the measurement of light, are Ergonomics and Safety essential in the design and evaluation of work- places. Because the eye adapts to light levels, As emphasised above, the human body is automatically compensating for any changes in part of the physical world and obeys the same illumination, subjective estimates of the amount physical laws as other living and non-living ob- of light in a work area are likely to be misleading jects (Bridger 2003). Therefore, the goal of ergo- (Bridger 2003). It is therefore important to de- nomics is to optimise the interaction between sign lighting installations to compensate for the body and its physical surroundings. Bridger human limitations, and to increase the probabil- (2003) elaborates that “ergonomic problems of- ity that a person will detect a potential hazard ten arise because, although the operator is able and act to avoid it (Van den Heever 2012). In to carry out the task, the effort required over- many cases where illumination has been asso- loads the sustaining and supportive process of ciated with accidents, factors such as glare, the body and causes fatigue, injury or errors” both direct and reflected, visual fatigue and (p. 6). Humans have limited capability for pro- harsh shadows were identified (Van den Heev- cessing information (such as from displays, er 2012). alarms, documentation and communications),
48.9 Y 43.4 Y: Effective temperature in *C 37.8 X: Exposure time in minutes 32.2
26.7 0 60 120 180 240 300
Fig. 1. Upper tolerance limit for impaired mental performance THE EXPERIENCE OF OCCUPATIONAL RISK AND THE HANDLING 347 holding items in memory, making decisions and is (Boyd 2010). It is furthermore suggested that performing tasks (HSE 2010). Experience of be- these three types occur in the ratio of approxi- ing driven to the margin of physical and psy- mately 1:60:400 (lost time: non-lost time: dam- chological capability by strenuous exertion, hot age accident), so that for every lost time acci- climate, schedule pressure, unreasonable behav- dent occurring in the industry, there will be ap- iour of superiors or colleagues, oncoming ill- proximately 400 damages to property/no-injury ness, or the feeling of useless efforts can cause accidents (Oborne 1985). Boyd (2010) explains “stress on the job” (Kroemer et al. 1994). Some that an environment that frequently generates of these stressors are physical, others are psy- low-severity events harbours systems, cultural chological; self-imposed or external; short-term and leadership issues that will generate high- or continual (Cox 1990; Chim 2006; Punnett 2014). severity events as well. Workload is defined as the total amount of work that a person is expected to do in a speci- METHODOLOGY fied time (Choi et al. 2014; Chim 2006). Job de- mands depend on type, quantity, and schedule Sample of tasks; the task environment (in physical and technical terms); and the task conditions – re- The data gathered at the manufacturing/pro- ferring to the psycho-social relations existing duction plant were obtained through real inci- on the job (Kroemer et al. 1994; HSE 2010). Men- dent and accident records, documented over a tal workload is defined primarily as the relation- period of 10 years. The data analysed reflects ship between the worker’s perceptions of the the frequency and severity ratios of types of demands of the task and their perceived coping accidents experienced within the researched capacity (MacDonald 2004: 40). When the job manufacturing plant, where an average of 830 demands exceed the person’s capability, he/she employees are employed (participants), includ- is overloaded and would seek either to reduce ing machine operators, machine maintenance the workload, or to increase capability (Kroemer servicemen, line to top management, and office et al. 1994). A high (or perceived high) workload staff – all of whom are exposed to some sort of not only adversely affects safety, but also neg- occupational hazards and risks through each atively affects job satisfaction and, as a result, normal day of work. contributes to high turnover and staff shortag- The occupational hygiene data gathered es (HSE 2010). Furthermore, an environment were conducted by an approved inspection au- demanding more of the operator than he is able thority in terms of the Occupational Health and to give can result in human performance issues Safety Act 85 of 1993 (as amended), on request such as slower task performance and errors such from management and as part of legal compli- as slips, lapses or mistakes, and subsequently ance. A random selection of the most recent re- serious accidents (Oborne 1985; HSE 2010). ports at certain departments was analysed and It should also be noted that ‘underload’ can included in the study to sustain the research also lead to human performance issues, such as objectives. The occupational hygiene data in- boredom, loss of situation awareness and re- cludes occupational noise, thermal conditions, duced alertness (HSE 2010), as can be expected and artificial illumination. from repetitive work, or working in the same area, position, or posture with little human interac- Measuring Instrument tion. Accidents are unfortunate, unpredictable, unavoidable, and unintentional interactions with Dr DJ Van den Heever, a registered occupa- the environment. However, it is believed to be tional hygienist, conducted all measurements at preventable, with reference to the old paradigm the premises of the manufacturing/production of HW Heinrich who first described the relation- plant. Special permission was received to use ship between injury types (Boyd 2010): the reports and results in this paper: - Lost time accident; non-lost time accident; Assessment of noise in all areas was carried damage accident out with three Quest 1200 type 1 integrating The safety triangle holds that an inverse re- sound-level meters. Measurement was conduct- lationship exists between frequency and sever- ed on site according to South African National ity: the more sever the injury, the less frequent it Standard 10083 (2004) (The measurement and 348 JACQUELENE SWANEPOEL AND J.C. VISAGIE assessment of occupational noise for hearing in minutes over which the measurements were conservation purposes). The measurements taken. were taken at an average temperature of 22ÚC and the wind speed at the sound level meter Statistical Analysis never exceeded 0.02 m.s-1. Measurements of artificial illumination were Lost time accidents are divided into ‘dis- carried out during the day according to Appen- abling’ and ‘non-disabling’ accidents. Within this dix H of SANS 10114-1:2005. The standard meth- context, the disabling accidents refer to any ac- od was used for the measurement of artificial cident that resulted in more than 14 days lost illumination. The survey was performed under (absenteeism) due to the injury. Non-disabling actual working conditions and from a specific accidents represent fewer than 14 days lost to work point location. Measurements were car- the company due to injury. Non-lost days acci- ried out with a calibrated cosine and colour cor- dents are identified as ‘first aid’ cases, and rep- rected light meter (Extech S/N Q023267). resent minor injuries (Table 1). The monitoring of the thermal conditions was It was found that a total of 127 non-lost day performed using a calibrated electronic direct read- accidents (first aid cases) occurred during 2012, ing heat stress monitor. The instrument was set in relation with nine lost-day accidents (disabling up and used according to ISO method 7243 in and non-disabling). This indicates a ratio of 14:1 combination with the method of the American (non-lost day: lost day accidents). A total of 53 Conference of Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH 2001; days were lost to the company, only for injuries Schröder and Schoeman 1989; South Africa 1987). on duty (IOD), during 2012. Measurements were made in the areas where The average frequency rate for first aid cas- workers were executing their normal duties. es, calculated against man hours worked over The time-weighted average WBGT was cal- 2012, is 17.51, while the severity of accidents, culated as follows: calculated in terms of lost days against man WBGT1t1 + WBGT2t2 + WBGT3t3 +...+ hours worked, is rated at 0.70, for 2012. Figure WBGTntn 2 shows the relationship between the types of t1 + t2 + t3 + ... + tn injuries suffered in the manufacturing plant where, WBGT1, WBGT2, WBGT3, ... WB- (study population). GTn = the calculated wet-bulb globe tempera- During June 2012, the researched manufac- ture index for the different work environments, turing plant experienced the highest level of first and; t1, t2, t3, ... tn = the respective time periods aid cases, as well as one serious disabling inci-
DI. NON-DI & FA INJURIES -2012 (excluding visitors/suppliers/outsurced YDT Month departments) DIFR = 0.00 DIFR = 0.33 NON-DIFR=0.00 NON-DIFR=0.66 F/A FR = 14.1 F/A FR = 13.93
15
10
5
0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Fig. 2. Disabling, non-disabling and first aid injuries for 2012 THE EXPERIENCE OF OCCUPATIONAL RISK AND THE HANDLING 349 0.00 9864 1823047.71 42534.36 219760.86160406.71 219760.86 160406.71 5617.68 5617.68 SEP-12 OCT-12 NOV-12 DEC-12 TOTALS 163011.56163323.83 163011.56163323.83 0.00 1.0 21 5 0 53 AUG-12 5588.94 5588.94 167726.61157577.84175059.46168530.25 QTR 3/4 497270.48 QTR 4/4 386124.07 9.30 7.15 11.42 9.14 15.43 14.11 17.51 JUN-12 JUL-12 2/4 465658.48 0.00% 0.00% 1.20% 0.00% 1.19% 0.00% 1.14% 0.00% 0.00% APR-12 MAY-12 0.00 473994.68 QTR 0.000.00 0.000.00 1.22 0.00 1.260.00% 1.22 0.00 1.57 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.16 0.60 1.19 0.00 26.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.14 0.00 1.27 0.00 23.99 3.56 0.00 5.93 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.62 0.70 QTR 1/4
JAN-12 FEB-12 MAR-12 290821.00178729.66110856.31238436.81409567.0717270.45121896.40 152480.58 163380.44158133.66 127580.50171130.26166947.72171966.03 290821.00 178729.66110856.31238436.81409567.0717270.45121896.40 Accumulative statistics 2012
Fatal inj/illnessDisabling injuriesNon-disabling 0 0 injuries Disabling illnessDi frequency rate 0Non-di frequency 0 rate 0 0Lost workdaysSeverity rate First aid cases 1 0 frequency rate 0 0FA 0DI freq Percentage 17.05 13 1last disabling 0Injury/Illness 19.59 0 1 0 17.71(Month-end Report, December 2012, R01) 16 0 1 0 0 0 15.68 14 10.52 0 0 0 1 21.56 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 9 1 0 0 1 18 1 0 0 23 0 0 8 0 0 0 1 6 0 0 0 0 9 3 0 3 0 8 0 0 13 0 3 3 6 0 127 Manhours Accum M/H since Table 1: Table Employees 817 819 816 818 815 812 827 827 827 837 824 825 350 JACQUELENE SWANEPOEL AND J.C. VISAGIE 8.81 14.17 19.13 2025434.8 1981399.9 1996202.47 1647956.7 1602466.1 1791901.5 1998441.1 1736702 0.000.620.70 0.75 0.00 2.15 0.00 0.36 3.38 0.34 1.13 16.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.28 3.91 0.00 0.61 10.24 0.00 0.92 15.66 0.70 35.98 1.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 2012TotalSSSSSSSSS 9864 2011 Total 2010 9785 Total 1009 9054 Total 9025 2008 Total 2007 9930 Total 10646 2006 Total 10877 2005 Total 11190 2004 Total 11274 160406.71 357663.81 718854.55 265080.67 760126.30 503658.36 364931.51 195004.62 93470.58 1823047.71 Table 2: Accumulative statistics for the period 2004 to 2012 Accumulative statistics for 2: Table Employees Manhours Fatal inj/illnessDisabling injuriesNon-disabling injuriesDisabling illnessDi frequency rate Non-Di frequency rate 6 0Lost workdays 3Severity rate First aid cases 0 frequency rateFA 3 53 0 2 17.51 127 0 3 39 15.02 0 0 120 0 15.81 6 19 0 4 125 22.01 0 60 149 3 0 2 14.80 0 145 71 10.13 6 0 0 0 28 91 6 0 0 0 43 91 6 0 3 128 84 0 15 0 6 188 304 0 Di freq percentage Accum M/H since last disabling injury/illness (Month-end report, December 2012, R01) THE EXPERIENCE OF OCCUPATIONAL RISK AND THE HANDLING 351 dent. The disabling incident suffered in June Results indicated that the maximum continu- 2012 (Table 2) is known as the worst incident ous exposure time at one department was 1.9 experienced by the manufacturing company dur- hours per day, with a maximum dBA noise level ing the last 10 years. This incident will be dis- at 106.3. Furthermore, it was found that the ma- cussed in more detail below. jority of areas or departments of the researched Over a period of nine in years, the re- manufacturing plant (factory) were classified as searched organisation had a total of 1 164 non- noise zone areas with eight-hour rating levels lost day accidents (first aid cases), and a total of (LAr, 8h) of more than 85dBA (Occupational 74 lost day accidents (disabling and non-dis- Hygiene Survey CI 030 OH VDHIH 114/12, 2012). abling cases). This indicates a ratio at 15:1 (non- Thermal Conditions: Heat monitoring was lost day: lost day accidents), which correlates conducted on request from management at the with the ratio experienced in 2012 (as explained researched manufacturing plant, for the follow- in Table 2). A total of 701 days were lost to the ing purposes: company due to injuries on duty (IOD) from 2004 - Assessment of the heat exposure of the to 2012. It was found that the most common in- workers in various working areas; juries sustained per department were finger and - Compliance with the requirements of the hand injuries: 55 minor hand injuries and 23 mi- Environmental Regulations for Work- nor finger injuries were recorded in 2012 alone. places, 1987 (as amended); and - Determination of the exposure of the work- Occupation Hygiene ers to excessive heat in their workplaces. Heat stress measurement results at selected Noise: An assessment of the noise exposure workplaces of the researched manufacturing of the workers was conducted on request from plant indicated the following: management at the researched manufacturing The outdoor ambient temperature was 28ÚC plant, for the following purposes: and the relative humidity inside the factory - To determine the individual noise expo- ranged from 29 to 38%. sure for personnel with or without fixed The outdoor ambient temperature was 32ÚC work locations. and the relative humidity inside the plant ranged - Verification of the noise levels according from 28 to 32%. to SANS 10083 (2004) and to demarcate As stipulated above, the WBGT-index was noise zones where necessary. not exceeded during the measurement periods - Compliance with the requirements of the mentioned (Table 3, 4). Noise-Induced Hearing Loss Regulations, Artificial Illumination: Artificial illumination 2003. was measured at selected workplaces of the re-
Table 3: Occupational hygiene survey CI 030
Area / Dept Wet bulb temp. (CÚ) Dry bulb temp. (CÚ) Globe temp. (CÚ) WBGT index
“A” 21.6 31.2 33.1 25 “B” 22.6 33.2 35.3 26.4 “C” 20.7 28.6 30.4 23.6
(Occupational Hygiene Survey CI 030 OH VDHIH 446/12)
Table 4: Occupational hygiene survey CI 030
Area / Dept Wet bulb temp. (CÚ) Dry bulb temp. (CÚ) Globe temp. (CÚ) WBGT index
“D” 20.8 33.1 35.7 26 “E” 21.7 34.0 35.7 26.0 “F” 22.7 37.7 38.2 27.4 “G” 22.4 35.2 37.1 26.8
(Occupational Hygiene Survey CI 030 OH VDHIH 050/12) 352 JACQUELENE SWANEPOEL AND J.C. VISAGIE searched manufacturing plant on request from As a result of the above, absenteeism be- management for the following purposes: comes a concern in relation with poor health - Assessment of artificial lighting levels and/or injuries (work days lost to the company). in order to promote productivity, safety, health, The absenteeism rate was found to be high welfare and congenial working conditions at an above the objective target for the period 2011/ economic cost and to provide data to manage- 2012, meaning that the employer suffered a fi- ment for the implementation of the Occupation- nancial burden. The ability to prevent accidents al Health and Safety Act, Act 85 of 1993 (as has become more important in terms of cost ef- amended) standards. fectiveness, considering direct (known) and in- - Verification of artificial illumination levels direct costs. Furthermore, managing cases of according to the requirements of the Envi- absenteeism, where a high rate or pattern of ab- ronmental Regulations for Workplaces, 1987 senteeism is evident, may result in disciplinary (as amended). actions against the employee involved, leading - Compliance with the requirements of the to dismissals. Environmental Regulations for Workplaces, 1987 (as amended). RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Results indicated that in some cases the av- erage luminance of the building and premises With reference to the above, the researched do not comply with the minimum requirements manufacturing plant experienced the risk of hid- as prescribed by the Environmental Regulations den and unknown costs with a real accident that for Workplaces, 1987 (as amended). occurred during late June 2012: The results at one specific high accident area The injured worker was working night shift at the researched manufacturing plant were found on the day of the incident, performing his nor- to be as given in Table 5. mal duties at his area of work. The injured work- er came in undesirable contact with the machine, Occupational Diseases which resulted in the amputation of fingers 2,3,4,5 at level of MP joint (knuckles) of both hands, as The highest number of visits made to the well as de-gloving of skin from level of wrists of medical station on the premises of the researched both hands (as stated in the final medical report, manufacturing plant by employees during 2012 received from the hospital). The suspected cause was a daunting total of 1 292 visits for ear, nose of injury was found and stated in the investiga- and throat infections only. The highest occu- tion report as “Human Error – Unsafe Act/Prac- pational disease for 2012 was related to the tice”. The evidence indicated that the injured musco-skeletal system. A total of 703 visits were worker wore the incorrect gloves (artisan hand made to the medical station relating to musco- protection), and furthermore ignored the safety skeletal disorders (MSD’s). rule to stay behind the safety bars of the ma-
Table 5: Area/machine: “X”
Workplace Illumination (Lux) OHS Act Compliance
Let-off 105 200 No Let-off control panel (v) 93 200 No Water pumps 85 100 No Staircase to platform (f) 97 100 No Platform 123 75 Yes EMG No. 2 control panel (v) 40 200 No X350 control panel (v) 32 200 No Mill 143 200 No Gum gauge control panel (v) 72 200 No Winding 135 200 No Winding control panel (v) 109 200 No Machine 77 200 No Control panel (v) 106 200 No
(Occupational Hygiene Survey CI 030 OH VDHIH 151/12) THE EXPERIENCE OF OCCUPATIONAL RISK AND THE HANDLING 353 chine. Consequently, the injured worker came in Unfit for Work: Failure to meet the specific contact with moving machinery, which resulted requirements of an occupation. A person can be in the accident. The injured worker was placed declared unfit because of a medical condition on ‘long-term illness’, and has been absent from that excludes him/her from the relevant occupa- work since the date of the injury in June 2012. tion, or because of demonstrable lack of capac- The injured worker has remained in the employ- ity to perform the work. ment of the company. Impairment: Deviation from the functional According to the Basic Conditions of Em- capabilities expected of a healthy individual. Loss ployment Act (75 of 1997, as amended), an em- of hearing, visual acuity, lung function or joint ployee is entitled to an amount of paid sick leave motion is impairments. during every sick leave cycle (ss 22 (2)). A sick Disability: An impairment that prevents a leave cycle means a period of 36 months’ em- person from performing a task or occupation or ployment (three-year cycle) with the same em- limits the performance of the occupation or task ployer, immediately following an employee’s A common mistake made by employers when commencement of employment or the comple- handling a case of incapacity is that most em- tion of that employee’s prior sick leave cycle. ployers follow the same disciplinary procedure However, during the employees first six (6) as would have been appropriate in a matter of months of employment, an employee is entitled misconduct. However, poor performance or an to one day’s paid sick leave for every 26 days inability to perform due to incapacity is not a worked (ss 22(3)). form of misconduct and may never be treated as It should be noted that the injured worker in such. The procedure for poor work performance this case was only employed for three months or incapacity due to ill health or injury is very prior to the incident, subsequently only had specific in that it is the employer’s responsibili- approximately three (3) days paid sick leave avail- ty to investigate and consider all alternatives to able. However, the employer accepted the re- accommodate the injured, as far as reasonably practicable. The Code of Good Practice, sched- sponsibility to compensate the employee to the ule 8 of the Labour Relations Act (85 of 1995), amount of 75% of his normal salary per month provides a basic guide in terms of dealing with a since the injury occurred, which the company case of incapacity due to ill health or injury. An may claim back in terms of the Compensation for employer that ignores the basic guide or refuses Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act (130 of or fails to follow the correct procedure will be 1993). The risk that the employer may never be found guilty on procedural unfairness in a dis- refunded is a reality that the company has to pute resolution council (CCMA or appropriate face. bargaining council). The second most common Furthermore, as the employee has been clas- mistake made by employers is the assumption sified as permanently disabled the employer is that a matter of incapacity is a quick and easy obligated to investigate alternatives to accom- way out to terminate an employee’s contract of modate the employee in his employment. Ulti- employment. There are no shortcuts when deal- mately, one cannot ignore the significant effect ing with incapacity, and employers should ac- on human resource management and the battle cept the responsibility to do everything in their it will bring forth in terms of maintaining and power to support the employee involved. The controlling labour relations, relating to pre-dis- procedure requires full commitment from the missal procedures when dealing with incapacity beginning to the end. and poor work performance, disability, and dis- When investigating the extent of the inca- missal arising from ill health or injuries and high pacity or the injury the following factors should absenteeism rates. be considered, as summarised by SA Labour Guide (2011): Handling Incapacity Due to Ill Health or Injury - If the employee is likely to be absent for a as a Result of Human Interaction with a High time that is unreasonably long in the cir- Risk Work Environment cumstances, the employer should investi- gate all the possible alternatives short of In this section, ‘unfit’, ‘incapacity’ and ‘dis- dismissal. abled’ will be regarded as synonymous (Guild et - When alternatives are considered, relevant al. 2001): factors might include the nature of the job, 354 JACQUELENE SWANEPOEL AND J.C. VISAGIE
the period of absence, the seriousness of performance. The employee must carry full the illness or injury and the possibility of knowledge of the inherent requirements of his/ securing a temporary replacement for the ill her job, and must be fully aware of the minimum or injured employee. standards that must be reached. The employee - In cases of permanent incapacity, the em- must furthermore carry knowledge of conse- ployer should ascertain the possibility of quences that may follow if performance is not securing alternative employment, or adapt- enhanced and must be aware of the seriousness ing the duties or work circumstances of of the matter. During stage three, the employer the employee to accommodate the employ- may seriously start considering alternative mea- ee’s disability. sures in order to address poor work performance, - In the process of the investigation, the including (but not limited to) further training and/ employee should be allowed the opportu- or counselling, demotion or transfer alternatives nity to state a case in response and to be short of dismissal. The fourth stage is the final assisted by a trade union representative stage. The employer may consider dismissals if or fellow employee. the employee failed to improve performance af- - The degree and the cause of incapacity are ter all reasonable steps were taken, and other relevant to the fairness of any dismissal. alternative measures were considered. True impossibility of performance can con- stitute grounds for terminating the employment CONCLUSION relationship, when all alternatives had been con- sidered and reasonable accommodations to as- The employer has the responsibility to pro- sist the employee had failed. Venter (2007) ex- vide a safe and healthy working environment, plains the reason being that, under certain con- which includes the duty to identify and assess ditions, a company can neither be reasonably all possible hazards and risks involved Further- expected to keep an employee’s job open for an more, appropriate precautionary measures indefinite period, nor be expected to accept losses should be considered and implemented to mini- as a result of such accommodation. mise, reduce or eliminate potential risks in the As an alternative measure to the above, the workplace. Risks take various forms, namely employer may implement a poor work perfor- strategic, operational, financial, non-financial mance management programme, to counsel, eval- and compliance (complying with laws and reg- uate and measure performance with the intent to ulations). The necessity of planning, job design improve performance up to desired standards. and designing the work environment, when man- The performance management programme: aging health and safety in the workplace, has poor work performance or ill health/injury con- increased in light of the costs involved in work- sists of: place accidents and incidents Ergonomics seeks - Minimum of three (3) consecutive poor to maximise safety, efficiency and comfort by work performance counselling interviews; matching the requirements of the operator’s work - Identification of desired standards versus environment to his capabilities – to design the actual performance; workplace to fit the worker; or fitting the task to - New goal setting of minimum requirements the man. Discomfort in the workplace, including and measuring batteries; improper lighting, poor ventilation, excessive - Follow-up and continuous evaluation of noise, extreme thermal conditions and emergen- performance. cy excess places a great deal of strain on the The performance assessment and evaluation individuals working under such conditions, add- consist of four stages: The aim of the first stage ing stress and anxiety to their jobs. Operator is to determine the reason for poor performance, fatigue and stress lead to potential work-related whether the non-conformance is as a result of disorders (MSDs) and increase the risk of work- incapacity to perform or is it related to miscon- place incidents and accidents. As fragile as the duct such as attitude to work, management short- human body is, the thought process is just as comings or insubordination. complex. Humans have limited capability for pro- The second stage of the evaluation will be cessing information, and the experience of be- more formal and constructive in order to exam- ing driven to the margin of physical and psy- ine all direct and indirect factors that influence chological capability can add stress to the job. THE EXPERIENCE OF OCCUPATIONAL RISK AND THE HANDLING 355
When becoming incapable or unfit to perform Alzeer, AH, Al Otair, HA 2014. Sweat chloride concen- the desired standard and specifications of the tration in patients with heat stroke. Journal of Taibah University Medical Sciences, 9(1): 50-53. job, the employee faces the possibility of termi- Anon 2012. Human Factors/Ergonomics - Interfaces. nation of services, which places a great deal of From
of heat strain for workers wearing personal pro- ders. Journal of Occupational Health and Safety tective equipment. The Annals of Occupational – Australia New Zealand, 20(1): 37-47. Hygiene, 43(5): 287-288. Melhorn J M, Gatchel R J 2014. Epidemiology of Curwin S, Allt J, Szpilfogel C, Markrides L 2013. The musculoskeletal disorders and workplace factors. healthy life works project: The effect of a com- In: RJ Gatchel, IZ Schultz IZ (Eds.): Handbook of prehensive workplace program on the prevalence Musculoskeletal Pain and Disability Disorders in and severity of musculoskeletal disorders in a Ca- the Workplace. New York: Springer, pp. 175-204. nadian government department. Journal of Envi- Mangone G, Van Der Linden K 2014. Forest microcli- ronmental Medicine, 6(55): 628-633. mates: Investigating the performance potential of Gerandjean E 1988. Fitting the Task to the Man. 4th vegetation at the building scale. Building and En- vironment, 73: 12-23. Edition. New York: Taylor and Francis. Michaelson J 2014. National accounts of well-being. Guild R, Ehrlich RI, Johnston JR, Ross MA 2001. Hand- Encyclopedia of Quality of Life and Well-Being book of Occupational Health and Practice in the Research, New York: Springer, pp. 4237-4244. South African Mining Industry. Johannesburg, RSA: Mithun Pai BH, Shenoy R, Rajesh G, Rao A 2014. Symp- SIMRAC. toms of Carpal Tunnel Syndrome in a dental work HSE 2013. Introduction to Human Factors. From force of a developing country. International Jour-
Van Deventer P 2011. Sounding out workplace noise. assist device. Solutions for a productive workplace. Health, Safety and Environment, 2(3): 17-19. An MHIA White paper. Material Handling Indus- Venter WP 2007. The Role of Familiness in the Suc- try of America Nov 2007(5-10). cess and Failure of Family-Business Groups. D White D 1995. Application of systems thinking to risk Phil Thesis, Unpublished. Johannesburg: Universi- management: A review of literature. Management ty of Johannesburg Decision, 33(10): 35-45. Vinck B 2007. Industrial noise-induced hearing loss Wilander AM, Kåredal M, Axmon A, Nordander C 2014. Inflammatory Biomarkers in Serum in Subjects with continues, thanks to three ghosts. Risk Manage- and Without Work Related Neck/ Shoulder Com- ment, 3(8): 23-25. plaints. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, 15:103. Walder J, Karlin J, Kerk C. 2007. Integrated lean think- From