As background, we met many years ago and have remained in touch periodically over the years. My friend is an international keynote speaker and has spent the last 20 years transforming people, workplaces and communities through empathic behavior change. The emphasis on his presentations focuses on empowering people to be the best versions of themselves.

This friend is an avid advocate for living healthy through eating well and keeping physically fit. He started working for an employer last year and was involved in organizing volunteers for various events hosted by that organization. A few weeks ago he was physically assaulted (punched) by another employee. Besides being totally caught off guard, this goes against everything he believes in and discusses in his presentations, that being “to help staff become more self-aware of their interactions and behaviors and to increase employee engagement”.

The assault was reported to the NYC police where the response was that they wouldn’t do anything because he wasn’t injured and nothing prosecutable happened. The offender had taken my friend’s phone and tossed it away shortly after; he was able to retrieve it. The police said, had the phone been taken, then there would have been a felony committed and grounds for an arrest, but not for the physical assault.

We also talked about the follow-up by HR and management which, to put it simply, was almost non-existent.

This was a clear-cut case of workplace violence. How differently it would have been handled in Ontario. Under Bill 168; Occupational Health and Safety Amendment Act (Violence and Harassment in the Workplace), it is the employer’s responsibility to deal with this and ensure staff feel safe and work in a healthy environment. Violence and harassment investigations are mandatory when there is a formal complaint, or if the employer otherwise becomes aware of behaviour that contravenes the company’s policy.

Complaints should be investigated by someone in senior management, an HR representative and a member of the JHSC or health and safety representative. Investigation stages may include:

• Document review
• Interviews with the complainant
• Witness interviews
• An interview or interviews with the alleged harasser
• Examination of photos if applicable
• A review of any relevant electronic records, such as emails, phone records, texts, or video

All investigation actions (meetings, interviews, etc.), steps, and reviews must be carefully documented. Doing so supports due diligence. As well, the worker or workers who made the complaint must be kept apprised through the investigative process of the progress of the investigation.

I have also encountered workplace harassment, back in the day when it was overlooked, swept under the table and simply ignored. As we become more aware and open to discussing mental health, every incident of workplace violence and/or harassment must be addressed. It is an issue of a workplace’s health and safety culture.

I shifted from the original topic of this month’s Blog to tell this story as I felt it important to address the issue of workplace violence and how it is handled by HR and upper management.

Watch for next month’s Blog published in the first week of March.

Sincerely,

Carola Mittag

Consultant and Editor for Mentor Safety Consultants Inc.

The post A CASE OF WORKPLACE VIOLENCE – IGNORED appeared first on Mentor Safety Consultants - A Safety Co Partner.

This is because you have two eyes that observe the world from two different positions. It’s a matter of parallax. (If you do this with a little kid you’ll appear like a magician to them.)

The parallax aspect is useful in comparing points of view and one’s place in a given situation. Parallax arises due to change in viewpoint occurring due to motion of the observer, of the observed, or of both.

Long ago, an ancient Chinese sage expressed parallax this way:

You can’t talk about the ocean with a frog who lives in a well. He is bounded by the space he inhabits.

You can’t talk about ice with an insect who is born and dies in June. He is bounded by a single season.

You can’t talk about the meaning of life with a person who is certain he knows everything there is to know. He is bounded by his own beliefs.

I can understand another person’s point of view even though it differs from mine. Why? Each individual sees something from a different perspective.

I can understand another person’s point of view even though it differs from mine. Why? Each individual sees something from a different perspective.

Last month I wrote about finding a root cause for an incident or accident to prevent a possible recurrence with a potentially tragic outcome. This month I want to focus on the importance of interviewing witnesses to an incident or accident as part of thorough investigations.

Whenever I taught an accident investigation course I went through a very simple exercise with the class. Standing in front of the participants, I let a pencil fall to the floor. Then I asked one person to my right to describe what he/she saw. They may have said that they saw my hip hit the desk which caused the pencil to roll off. Then I asked a person to my left to describe what they saw. They may have said that my hand brushed the pencil causing it to fall to the floor. The person on the other side may not have seen this because my torso blocked their view. The person directly in front of me saw me throw the pencil to the floor. It’s all a matter of perspective.

The whole point of the exercise was to demonstrate that it is important to interview multiple witnesses with varying perspectives and information relevant to the incident.

“the facts ma’am, just the facts”

1. Interview witnesses separately, so that their recall is their own and not influenced by another person’s observation which may cause the first person to change their report.
2. Each witness saw the incident from a different viewpoint depending on where they were standing when the incident happened. Note – even though the witness report should strictly detail factual observation, individuals may “colour” their report based on personal experiences, knowledge, opinions and attitudes.
3. Interviews, to gather testimonial evidence, should be conducted as soon as possible after an incident to ensure accuracy of memory (memories fade over time).

Witnesses may be anyone with information relevant to the incident/accident including:

• People directly involved
• Supervisors
• Others at the workplace
• External people such as material experts

Effective witness interviews require patience to:

• Focus on preventing future accidents (not on blame),
• Ensure everyone involved is aware of the investigation and the need for confidentiality,
• Respect the needs of persons interviewed and preparation.

Written, testimonial witness evidence is generally admissible in court; whereas, oral testimony or hearsay, a statement about what a witness heard someone else say, is not admissible in court.

Witness evidence is critical to establishing a root cause for an incident or accident. It is up to the interviewer to direct the witnesses to stick to “the facts, ma’am, just the facts!”

While parallax may sound like the name of some prehistoric creature, it is in fact a displacement or difference in the apparent position of an object viewed along two different lines of sight. A trained investigative interviewer will want to gather witness evidence from all lines of sight.

While checking the location of my index finger against the twelve on the clock on the far wall, the big hand just jumped an hour. LUNCHTIME!

Watch for next month’s Blog published in the first week of June.

Sincerely,

Carola Mittag

Consultant and Editor for Mentor Safety Consultants Inc.

The post PARALLAX appeared first on Mentor Safety Consultants - A Safety Co Partner.

Happy April, the harbinger of Spring. I love using uncommon words, reading catchy phrases and spinning them into meaningful thoughts and messages. While I have personal and unique reflections, I come across many thought-provoking quotes that make me pause and think about what they really mean.

This morning I read this: The Invisible Obvious. Credit goes to Robert Fulgham, one of my favourite writers.

What could I possibly make of this statement? How could I relate the invisible obvious to health and safety?

But, before I begin my rumination, here is how Mr. Fulgham explained what he was thinking in his own words. “Imagine that Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson are far out in the English countryside in pursuit of a unique case involving an agricultural mystery. They have settled down in their sleeping bags in a small tent for the night. Just before dawn, Sherlock nudges Dr. Watson awake, and says, “Watson – look up and tell me what you notice.” Dr. Watson tells him that he sees the stars – that the clear sky means the weather will be good in the coming day – that the very faint light in the east says it is almost dawn. “What do you notice, Holmes?”
Holmes sits up. “I notice that someone has stolen our tent during the night.”

When I read this for the first time, I saw only what Watson saw when looking up, the sky, the stars and signs of good weather to come. It took the good detective Holmes to see the invisible obvious first, that the tent was gone making it possible for Watson to see the sky and the stars.

And that brings me to the importance of thorough and detail-rich investigations of accidents and incidents.

It is obvious that accidents must be investigated for several reasons; firstly, to discover the cause and secondly, to report to the Ministry of Labour and the WSIB as required by law.

Why should we investigate incidents, after all, nothing happened; but isn’t an incident an “almost accident”, something that could have had a totally different and catastrophic outcome? And that is why we also investigate incidents thoroughly!

Let’s investigate a plausible accident scenario.

Because there is an injury, a full and thorough investigation is required.

The investigation reveals the following details:

• Employee had worked seven, 12-hour shifts in a row.
• Accident happened at end of shift.
• Employee was standing on the top step of the ladder (an unsafe action).
• The employee was approximately 10 feet above floor level.
• No fall arrest or restraint system was used.
• A ladder inspection policy is in place, but there is no evidence that the ladder hds ever been inspected.
• Investigation reveals the ladder was damaged and did not provide a stable working platform in any environment.
• Interview with facility manager reveals that he did not inspect the ladder when it was due for inspection. He was aware that ladder needed to be inspected.

Factors and Possible Causes Affecting Incident

• Extended work hours may have caused employee to be tired and not clear-headed.
• Employee violated safety rule (standing on top step).
• No fall arrest system in place (required at 6 feet above floor level).
• Ladder was defective and unusable.
• Ladder had not been inspected.
• Facility manager was aware that ladder needed to be inspected but did not adhere to the existing policies and procedures for ladder inspections.

What is the Root Cause?

Which factor, if not present, could have prevented the accident?

If the facility manager had inspected the ladder and discovered the defect, the ladder would not have been used, and this accident would have been prevented.
Failure to follow established ladder inspection procedures is the root cause.

What about the Other Factors?

• Extended work hours might contribute, but there is no statistical evidence available that indicates extended work hours increase the risk of accidents.
• The safety rule violation could be a contributory cause in this accident, but not the root cause. However, if the ladder had been used properly, it is possible that the incident might have been prevented.
• The existence of a fall arrest system may have prevented or reduced injury. This could be a contributory cause.
• The fact that the ladder was defective is certainly a contributory cause. But if the facility manager had followed procedures and removed the ladder from service, the accident would have been prevented.

The root cause of this accident could even be tracked deeper than just finding the facility manager’s failure to inspect the ladder. With more in-depth analysis, it might be found that the real cause (invisible obvious) was a failure in the system itself. Perhaps the safety system in place had no means of ensuring the facility manager actually carried out these inspections.

It is for reasons like this that accident investigations are best conducted by a team. This can ensure that as many possibilities are explored until all causes are discovered.

When an accident or even an incident occurs, we cannot depend on obvious causes, it is the invisible root causes that must be uncovered so that future tragic events can be prevented.

Watch for next month’s Blog published in the first week of May.

Sincerely,

Carola Mittag

Consultant and Editor for Mentor Safety Consultants Inc.

The post THE INVISIBLE OBVIOUS appeared first on Mentor Safety Consultants - A Safety Co Partner.