Since the inception of the Workplace Safety & Health Act on 1 March, 2006, 27 companies have been fined a total of more than $1.3m. Although some cases involved no injury or fatality, there was still evidence that employees were at risk from safety standards simply not being adhered to.
Acts of safety
The Workplace Safety & Health Act replaced the Factories Act, which aims to reduce workplace accidents through higher penalties for poor safety and health management. The objective of the legislation is to reduce workplace accidents and instil greater industry ownership of safety outcomes.
In 17 months, there were eight convictions against companies, and three against individuals. The corporate fines ranged between $70,000 and $100,000. Compared with the repealed Factories Act where the maximum penalty for a death resulting from the contravention was $50,000, the new fines are significantly higher. This is in line with the Ministry's emphasis on higher penalties to reflect the seriousness of health and safety offences. The Act was expanded to cover six additional sectors effective from 1 March, 2008 and will eventually cover all workplaces and employees.
As an example of the expanded liability under the new Act, which makes persons other than registered occupiers responsible for safety outcomes, Scafcoat, was prosecuted for failing to take reasonably practicable measures to ensure the safety and health of workers doing scaffold dismantling works - though it was not the main contractor on the job site. Here, the Court noted that while some safety measures were in place, there were no effective measures to ensure their adherence. It also emphasised that those who are accountable for safety outcomes should discharge their responsibility diligently and effectively.
Gan Kim Yong, Acting Minister for Manpower, at the launch of Keppel Shipyard's Safety Excellence 2010, in May this year, said that initial efforts have achieved good progress, with a steady decline from 4.9 fatalities per 100,000 employees in 2004, to 2.9 in 2007 - a 40% drop in three years. "The Prime Minister has recently challenged us to aim for one of the best workplace safety records in the world," said Gan. The new goal aims to reduce the rate to 1.8 by 2018. This will place Singapore in the league of the top three developed countries with the best safety records. An ambitious target, but Gan believes it can be achieved by firstly, raising standards through the setting of acceptable WSH practices; secondly, building new and stronger capabilities to manage safety and health at workplaces; and thirdly, improving and developing a vibrant WSH culture that would require the collective effort, cooperation and strong partnership of all stakeholders.
HR's integral role
There are five basic steps that HR can take to reduce risks to its staff. Prevention is more cost effective that cure, and not only would a company end up with a safer and happier work environment, but also one that instils the message that management has its staff wellbeing in mind; in turn encouraging trust and loyalty.
1. Management leadership and employee involvement
A safety and health program will only work if management is fully committed to it and communicates that commitment to the entire organisation. Employee involvement means actively engaging front-line employees - who are closest to workplace operations and have the highest stake in preventing job-related accidents - in developing, implementing and evaluating the safety and health program.
2. Hazard identification and assessment
Hazard identification and assessment means, among other things, that the employer reviews workplace safety and health information, inspects the workplace, identifies hazards, and prioritises covered hazards for elimination or control. Front-line employees are empowered to avert injuries and accidents by identifying and bringing hazards to the attention of their supervisors. In essence, this element calls on employers to look for hazards, decide how serious they are, and prioritise their control or elimination.
3. Hazard prevention and control
A workplace has to obey the existing law and must fix identified hazards in accordance with the relevant standards or the general duty clause. Unless hazards are prevented, controlled or eliminated, workers who are exposed to them will continue to be injured, made ill, or even killed.
4. Information and training
Information and training ensure that both workers and management have the information, knowledge and skills to recognise identified hazards, understand what controls are in place to prevent exposure, and understand their roles in preventing or minimising exposures. People need to know hazards when they see them, so they can protect themselves and their co-workers.
5. Program evaluation
Program evaluation simply tells an employer to assess how well its safety and health program works, to ensure that it protects workers. Where the employer identifies deficiencies, they should be corrected.
TNT: Better safe than sorry
"As a global express and freight company with extensive air and road networks, operational safety and health is of utmost importance to TNT," says Damien Tan, managing director, TNT Singapore. At the end of the day, such guidelines and safety acts are ultimately for the people; not profits or processes, says Tan.
"At TNT, we expect all our managers and supervisors to consider health and safety as part of their normal duties and responsibilities." TNT conducts regular health and safety internal audits to ensure the high standard is continually maintained. It also provides annual health checks for its employees to encourage healthy living.
"Besides providing safe and secure working environments, continuous education and training of our employees is key in ensuring both our employees' and the public's well-being, in the safe and secure delivery of services to our customers."
IBM: Case in point
IBM's commitment to workplace safety was first formalised as a corporate policy in 1967. The company's safety record continues to be among the best in the industry when it comes to rates of illness and injury.
IBM's numbers in Singapore alone has been impressive, recorded as being below industry levels. Their lost workday case rate per 100 employees (a measurement of injury/illness severity and business impact), measured at zero in 2004, against the 'Peer/All Industry' rate of 0.38. The company has also adopted the National Fire Protection Association's 'Life Safety Code 101' or equivalent standards. Life safety review teams have been trained in each of the geographies where IBM has facilities. These teams review newly occupied buildings, both owned and leased, to ensure that life safety requirements are met.
In 2005, in addition to ongoing evaluations at established research, development and manufacturing locations, health and safety reviews were conducted in more than 130 sites globally. As a result of these reviews, numerous safety and health enhancements have been implemented.
When an illness or injury occurs in the company, the objective is threefold: help restore the employee's health as soon as possible, prevent further occurrence, and help support the employee during his or her time off from work.
In 2005, IBM was awarded a Platinum 'Best Employers for Healthy Lifestyles' award by the National Business Group on Health. This Platinum award, for established programs with measurable outcomes, recognises the urgent need to improve workers' health, productivity and quality of life.
SIDE BAR
Grave acts at great expense
1
In August 2007, GreatEarth-United Engineers Joint Venture was fined $160,000 for failing to ensure that the place of work was of sound construction and properly maintained. It was stated that the bar-chair support system which was used for the construction of the raft foundation was not of sound construction nor properly maintained, resulting in the collapse of the bar chairs.
2
In the same month, Keppel Shipyard was fined $160,000 because they failed to ensure a safe place for workers. In this case, a cherry picker which workers were using to undertake painting work was not kept safe in order to prevent workers from falling from heights.
3
In September 2007, Hoy San Stevedoring was fined $100,000 for failing to take necessary measures to ensure the safety and health of its employees at work. There were inadequate safe work procedures and control measures for the discharging of metal plates.
4
In the month after, company Zap Piling was fined $65,000 because they failed to ensure that the piling machine was not overloading and was operated on level ground. The failure caused the piling machine to topple over.
5
In December 2007, BCEG Construction Singapore was fined $80,000 for failing to ensure the safety and health of its employees at work.
6
Some cases involved a specific person instead of the entire company. In November 2007, Kim Kyung Soo was fined $10,000 because his reckless act endangered the safety and health of himself or others.
7
In November 2007, Huang Wei Bing was fined $15,000, again due to recklessly endangering the safety and health of himself or others.