Safety department in the plant – boon or bane?

Governments made it mandatory to have a dedicated safety department in every plant/facility conforming to certain minimum conditions considered as hazardous. Generally, the role of the safety officer specified in the applicable legislations is to advice and assist the plant officials to carryout –

hazard identification, job hazard studies, accident investigation, procurement of safety devices, conduct of safety promotional campaigns, safety competitions, etc.

Further, it should also conduct monitoring inspections to evaluate safety performance, investigate select accidents/near misses, maintain records, etc.

However, when we hear/read from media about occurrence of accidents everyday at some plant or the other, it appears that the safety departments in these facilities are not effective by themselves or concerned plant managements are not heeding to their advice.

Having a separate safety department in every facility along with other departments like production, maintenance, quality, HR, administration, security, etc may be giving the impression to the other departments that safety in the work area is not their job(work/headache). And these departments may also be of the view that it is the safety department which should identify the hazardous conditions and ALSO to rectify them WITHOUT bothering them (i.e production, etc).

Such views are against the role specified by the legislations and clearly the importance of safety department is lost when such views are also supported by the top management. Clearly, safety department cannot go hand in glove situation with other departments, they confrontation is not the solution. Safety department should act tough with erring departments. If the role of safety department is limited by not listening to their advice, then the safety in the concerned facility is doomed and accidents will be just waiting to happen.

One should realize that safety is a line function i.e everybody in the organization should make it happen and not that of staff function i.e it is not the duty of safety department staff alone. If any plant management thinks it is staff function, then safety will not improve in that plant and the expenditure on safety department staff (salaries) is waste. May be they can only show to visitors that they are complying with legislations, they are spending so much, etc and make them scapegoats in case of any accident. This is true, as of late, filing cases on safety department officials along with other department officials is on the rise. It is easy to tell that the safety officer did not caution them about the hazards though clearly, it is the responsibility of the work area in-charge. 

The occurrence of accidents at work places that come to our notice through media, and the possible reasons as above sometimes lead to the conclusion that it is better to abolish the safety department by legislation and to make concerned plant management responsible for ensuring safety. Nobody should be designated as safety officer or person responsible for safety, even within each department as the results will be same.

The responsibilities of every department in-charge should include safety also, apart from other responsibilities. The issues to be discussed   in every review meeting should include all issues like, production, quality, safety, maintenance, developmental activities, projects, etc (need not be in that order, but all issues should be reviewed without fail).

Such procedure will make the in-charges to give equal time to all issues and ensure a safe work place for all.

Bullying safety officer is like hitting under your own pants

Those who do not like safety officers to inspect their areas for identifying hazardous conditions and also pick up arguments to make/scare them not to visit their works areas will not help to improve the situation. It will only spiral the hazardous conditions and can lead to accidents on a large scale at a later date.
Clearly, there are provisions in related regulations to penalize and also punish the works managers for violations. It is a matter of time before the law catches up with the violators.

Unless these works managers realize the importance of safety and learn the punishments that await the (willful) violators, there is no light for the safety of the persons working in  work areas managed by such persons who are no different from murderers.

Injuries / deaths to employees in those work areas can be compared to planned murders/attempts to cause injuries as works managers neither take action to prevent unsafe conditions not help the safety professionals to identify and suggest safety measures.

Unfortunately, safety officers are not vested with powers like that of regulators and thus will be at the receiving end unless the in-charge of the facility gives unconditional support. Else, at some time or other, the safety department officials either will keep quiet leaving the matters to the fate or will look for better opportunities in other companies. Either way, it is the loss to the company having such safety culture.

Effectiveness of safety programme - management support

Appointment of safety officers is a mandatory requirement. When cost cutting is the mantra (rule) everywhere particularly when the company is not getting profits, how do a safety department head feels, if the management asks HR to take action for recruitment more personnel for safety department, that too, without any proposal from safety head.
It really shows the commitment of the management and this should motivate to do more. Doing routine inspections is one of the jobs. But, updating one's knowledge and foreseeing the hazards ahead and able to explain and convince the plant personnel is really the challenge for a safety officer. And, imagine if you can delegate routine inspections and is able to get time to study the processes in detail and analyze for hazards, what else is required. Definitely, this will give job satisfaction because your job is different from day-to-day jobs and you are doing special work. It will also make you an expert over a period of time and you can make your company a role model in the industry.
I always feel that the factories rules specifying one safety officer for every 1000 workers or so is insufficient even to do routine inspections for safety unless everybody in the shopfloor is committed to work safely. Otherwise, it will be like, catch me if you can, situation.
After certain age, even health will not permit a person to walk around throughout the day and his effectiveness in implementing safety will diminish.
Apart from safety inspections and pep talks in some companies, safety officer will also look after fire and environment duties, procure personal protective equipment, buy instruments, coordinate with different agencies like local authorities, factories department, pollution control board, explosives department, etc which will be taxing as he has to go their offices which can be far off and such works will reduce his attention on safety implementation.
I feel that there should be separate department for each of safety, environment, fire and welfare activities. And, one safety supervisor/officer should be available for every 10,000 square meters of shopfloor area or 250 employees (including contractors), whichever is less.
No  person should be allowed to enter shopfloor for any new work without safety briefing and work related training. Retraining should be provided atleast once in a year if the job is same. Class room training away from work area is preferable. Else, they will be called in between the training programme for any of the so called urgent works. Training programme should not pack many topics and should have one or two topics per day with theory, case studies, videos and evaluation/assessment. Participants too should be given sometime, say 45-60 minutes to speak on their experiences. Audience should be limited to 25-30. More participants means reduced attention from the faculty, less time available for the participants to interact and occasional arguments spoiling the course proceedings.

Unruly behavior of employees with safety officers

 I heard many times from my friends in safety department in various government and private organizations about the tough talk and occasional insulting behavior by those in the production line when discussions take place on safety issues. The hazards identified are ignored with a sarcastic remark that safety officers do not have any other job other than pointing out and the hazards pointed out are often not considered fit for action. They do not try to learn from incidents happened elsewhere saying that it is too theoretical and will not happen in their plant because of their confidence on their management skills.
We have ignore the unruly behavior of others as it is not in our control and we should not get disappointed and stop doing our job. We have to collect case studies of other organizations that resemble situations in our work place and keep circulating to all employees including top management for information.
We have to be bold and if required we have to take up to the notice of higher authorities when junior level people do not listen. Most of the time, people will sit straight when issues are put in writing with a copy marked to group heads and CEO or MD. I am sure this will help over a period of time in controlling unruly managers.

Design changes - no compromise for safety

Operating facilities, in order to increase capacities, try to carry out modifications in the equipment, replace some, change process parameters, etc. This can also be done through bypassing of safety systems, to achieve quick gains. While doing all these, if the consequences on safety of the personnel, environment and property are not analyzed, then it is likely that some foolish action will lead to total closure of the plant one day. Any change proposal should undergo HAZOP/WHAT IF/ETA/FTA studies. The design should be carried out only by experienced persons and safety studies should be carried out by safety professionals. If it is done by some entry level person and is endorsed by higher ups without review, we may be inviting the disaster.

Even though the safety studies will be time consuming, it is worth doing before carrying out changes rather than repenting later. Top management should recognize this and support the safety programmes. Else, shortsightedness will shut the plant at a later date. Though, it is easy to blame safety department at that time for not doing their job, one should introspect whether the advise of safety officer was given due importance or not.

Management of change is an important activity and shall be followed by all facilities, irrespective of their size, nature of work and product.

Safety officer - not a replacement for plant jobs

Some plant managers are of the opinion that conveying their safety issues to safety officer ends their responsibility. They expect safety officer to attend safety issues and hold him / her responsible for not working on it.

It is like blaming the police for theft in their house, or fire department for fire in their house. Question arises at first place, why the theft/fire occurred. What are the lapses/deviations in the house. Instead of setting own house in order, if other agencies are blamed for their problems, they will remain unsolved.

Conveying safety issues to safety officer is also not a solution. Safety officer can only offer advice, but can not work on behalf of the plant, as he is not the owner of the plant and he does not have the authority or influence. As long as this realization does not dawn upon plant officials, safety issues continue to pileup. 

DGCA removes its top safety officer - Home - livemint.com

DGCA removes its top safety officer - Home - livemint.com
The above article is about removal of safety in-charge working for The Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) for delay in investigations and not producing reports in time.If the officer is inefficient, the action is warranted. But, in the same article it is mentioned that only 14 officers monitor over 1000 flights on Indian skies. With the increase in number of air craft, no. of incidents/accidents and other activities, the staff will be stressed to perform. And the issues are concerned with safety of invaluable human lives. Under stress, the performance will deteriorate over a period of time and the quality will dive to the bottom. After all, they are also human beings and not machines to generate output automatically after keying in certain parameters. If the problem i.e delay in reports, persists for long time, then the system needs to analyzed for problems. The issue of man-power and other issues like training need to be addressed before holding safety personnel as responsible. Airlines too should be held responsible for engaging persons with fake certificates, for incidents and accidents, instead of blaming one man. It may be a management principle taught to accept additional work, but will not help the organization in the long run when limits of human beings are exceeded.

The Safety Officer's Perspective - Fire Engineering

Please go through the following link.

Safety culture

Recently, I heard a person questioning about preaching of safety culture. He questioned about the credentials of the culture of the preacher saying that the person does not wear helmet while driving from home to office and he preaches about safety culture to others.

Yes, the person is wrong that he is not using helmet. But, by his act, he will be at risk of getting injured. But, in a plant, if the Manager can't inculcate safety culture, then entire staff of the concerned plant as well as those in the vicinity will be affected. By saying you are wrong will not make my wrong act a RIGHT. A wrong act is always a wrong act only. By telling the safety man that your acts outside are wrong and you can't tell me how I should do is not a correct statement at all. These types of arguments are like shadow boxing and will not help in improving safety at the plant.

Another example is a theft has occurred in the house when the occupant is not in the house. Suppose the neighbour informs about the same to the occupant. If occupant replies not bother about what is happening in his house and advises to look into his own house affairs, who will be the loser. Obviously, the occupant. Similarly, in a factory the plant manager will be loser and will be responsible for acts and deeds and may be charged by the regulator depending upon the seriousness of the violations. At that time, plant manager can't tell the regulator that regulator is not wearing shoe or not using the helmet. Before such a thing occurs, the internal safety officer monitors and advises the plant manager for suitable action so that plant manager can avoid embarrasing and difficult situations from his employees as well as the regulator.