Container Terminals OSH Preliminary Study

5. Case study findings: Perceptions of work-related risks

This and the following two chapters consider the findings of the six case studies. They do so following a thematic approach. We begin in the present chapter with a consideration of perceptions of risks to health and safety among the management and workers in the six terminals studied, including views of occupational health at the terminals, an area on which there seemed to be some differences between the conception shared by workers and that understood by management. Subsequent chapters will then: consider some of the operational aspects of the systems in place for health and safety management that were evident during our field investigations; and also present our findings on the structures and procedures for consulting workers and representing their interests in health and safety in the terminals. The intention in adopting this approach is to afford some degree of comparability of experiences at the level of the terminals with those identified from the global scoping study discussed in Chapter 3. In that Chapter, we noted that the trade union respondents in our global scoping study, as well being aware of conventional risks to safety, also shared additional concerns about the effects of work organisation and intensity on the health and well-being of workers. In the case studies we sought further information from managers, operatives and their representatives concerning these issues in the terminals in which they worked and how they responded to them. The following Chapter presents our findings, first from the perspective of managers, then from that of workers and their representatives, followed by a summary of the common features and the differences in these two perspectives. 
5.1 Management perspectives 
The management in all of the case study terminals had a far more developed approach for addressing risks to safety than they did for addressing risks to work- related health. This was true regardless of whether they were part of the Occupational Health and Safety Department or involved with operational management. The only exceptions to this general finding were found among the few personnel who were employed specifically as occupational health professionals.7 
Commonly held views concerning the risks associated with working in the terminals were, predictably related 
7 As opposed to being safety management specialists

to those that arose from the interaction between workers and machinery, and especially between them and moving vehicles, in the terminal yards and in the operations of loading and unloading ships. Working at height was regarded as a serious concern along with the need to guard against falling objects. Slips, trips and falls were a further common concern, both in relation to working at height, on board vessels and on the quay-side. In some of the European terminals injury rates were discussed in terms of job category, where it was known; for example, injury rates among lashers, mostly in relation to manual handling, were far higher than those among other groups of workers and that of the average for the terminal as a whole. Truck drivers who were unfamiliar with the terminals were identified as posing a significant risk to workers in several terminals. Safety issues also arose in relation to working on board ships, where unsafe work practices and an unsafe workplace that were the responsibility of the ship’s management and operation were not infrequent. Managers tended to discuss their perceptions of risks to health and safety at the same time as approaches to their prevention. Since a large proportion of such approaches were aimed at achieving improved safety behaviour through following safe working procedures and wearing personal protective equipment, the general orientation of managerial perspectives on the risks addressed by such preventive strategies was that they were the consequences of unsafe acts or behaviours by the workers involved. 
In terms of risks to health, although less of a focus for managers, several were identified in common in most of the terminals. In case study E1, for example, health risks in relation to ergonomics and noise were acknowledged as serious by the company and particularly by the terminal’s Safety Manager. Interviewees recognised that, although the GNT was providing relatively new technology and had invested in a number of technical OHS improvements (as well as in increased terminal surface maintenance), dock work was hard outdoor labour, which impacted on workers’ joints in particular (through wear and tear as a result of physical labour, poor and sustained work posture, and bumps and vibrations). The Technical Department Manager said that technicians carried heavy tools and equipment up and down stairs, which was hard physical work. He referred to the redeployment of a technician to office duties because of back problems. He also indicated that working on reefers involved exposure to noise, both from cooling equipment and

also from other machinery nearby. The Safety Manager in the same terminal said that noise at the terminal also arose from containers hitting each other or the quayside (i.e. steel or concrete) up to 40 times per hour. In addition, the straddle carrier alarms contributed to overall noise levels as they were set at 110dB in order for them to penetrate the surrounding noise. The main preventive strategy was the provision of earplugs, although their use was unpopular because workers found them uncomfortable and difficult to work with, especially because they could not hear their colleagues. There were plans to provide earplugs designed to enable wearers to hear speech in the future. 
Changes to shift patterns were regarded as contributing to increased fatigue in Terminal E1, where it was regarded as a health problem which, according to the Safety Manager, should be identified by annual medical check-ups. Moreover, national regulations required the GNT to carry out risk assessments on the basis of these medicals, both as a prevention measure and also in order to plan the purchase of (compulsory) occupational health services. There were also alternative employment arrangements that could be made for dockers reporting sleeping problems as a result of their shift patterns. In addition, he was aware of other staff, such as planners and shift leaders, who worked irregular shift patterns and experienced health problems including sleeping problems, stomach complaints and diabetes. However, these problems were perceived to be difficult to address because the operation of the terminal was dependent on the arrival of vessels — which meant dockers often did not know very much in advance exactly when and how much they would be required to work. Even with legally mandated rest hours, rapid changes were hard to deal with, particularly among older workers. This problem was felt by the Safety Manager to be insufficiently acknowledged (either by the employers or by the unions – who perhaps also felt there was little operators could do about the necessity of flexible shifts) and he believed it to be as much the cause of early retirement among dockworkers as were the physical problems associated with dock work:

‘One of the hardest things ... is the flexible shifts. A dockworker has no idea if he is going to work the next week or not, if he is going to work one day or seven days in a row, early shifts, late ones, three nights, three early. It is these differences, these jumps in shift hours, that is the hardest for the body. And older employees they have it much harder to stand these jumps. ... That is the problem. And that is the greatest bodily load and which is not recognized. It’s not properly recognized by

neither the employers nor the employees. The employer must adapt to the ships.’

Health, Safety and Environment Manager, Terminal E1 
In case study E2, musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) were also seen by employers, unions and the joint employment body for day-labour dockers (which was the dominant OHS actor) as the main health issues affecting many different kinds of operatives including lashers (through hard physical labour), crane, forklift and straddle carrier drivers (through poor working positions maintained over long periods of time), padders (through handling heavy objects such as twist- locks) and markers (who have one-sided computer work). Crane drivers were also exposed to severe vibrations dependent on their specific tasks, machines and the quay surfaces. Management interviewees mentioned various initiatives in place to address them. For example, the Operational Manager explained that quayside surfaces were checked regularly and maintained. The Technical Manager explained that his technicians get all the available lifting equipment to help them – an initiative of the GNT’s local management. Replacement of plant with that which met better ergonomic design standards was also under discussion and examples were given of keeping a close watch on the results of trials going on in nearby terminals where straddle carrier cabs with supposed improved ergonomic design were being tested, with a view to ordering replacement cabins if they could be demonstrated to confer significant ergonomic improvements. Noise was an issue that the external OH service has raised at the port joint health and safety committee meeting because, in a similar way to that described above in Terminal E1, many dockers were exposed to high sound levels both from machinery and from containers coming into contact with each other and with the quayside. Similarly, working inside ro-ro’s (roll-on roll-off vessels) was noisy. Again individually adapted earplugs were seen as a solution. Maintenance technicians were also acknowledged to face chemical risks. Other dockworkers also occasionally faced risks from leaking chemical containers on which there were clearly defined emergency procedures.

There was evidence of increasing recent interest in health issues in some of the European terminals that were the subjects of the case studies. In Terminal E3, for example, the Managing Director suggested that health was becoming more of a concern, with its inclusion within the terminal’s objectives and mission statements as well as its addition to the safety policy within the last year

Fatigue and tiredness for Dockers = one thing

Read the whole publication here
http://www.itfglobal.org/infocentre/pubs.cfm/detail/39726