Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1479276
maltatoday | SUNDAY • 18 SEPTEMBER 2022 9 INTERVIEW occupational health and safety ognize that there is a problem… if nothing else, because there is so much construction going on. Recent data published by the Planning Authority showed that the number of new projects has tripled, over the past three years. The manufacturing sector, on the other hand, has not increased by anywhere near the same pro- portion. In fact, if I'm not mis- taken, it has actually decreased, slightly… So effectively, not only has there been a higher increase, in a sector that is already 'high-risk' by defi- nition; but the number of work- ers in this sector has also propor- tionately increased… … if I may butt in: it's not just the number of new develop- ments that has increased; but also the sheer scale, and size, of such projects. Doesn't that also contribute to the existing health and safety risks? Well… yes, and no. It is certain- ly a factor: because, for instance, there are more high-rise projects going on; and the risks associat- ed with high-rise are obviously greater. Then again, however: normally, this kind of project would be han- dled by the larger construction companies… whose attention to health and safety requirements tends to be greater than that of smaller companies: and especial- ly, of construction work that is contracted out by individuals. Because another thing to bear in mind is that the term 'con- struction' – insofar as the regula- tions are concerned – is not lim- ited only to the actual building of any given project. It also includes such activities as maintenance; whitewashing a facade; plaster- ing, tiling, roofing, and so on. So, apart from the three-fold in- crease in the number of buildings going up, there has also been an increase in this kind of activity as well. Because naturally, all those buildings will need additional maintenance, and so on. This is why we always insist that OHSA should not be perceived as the 'be-all and and-all', when it comes to accidents on the work- place. OHSA only has a moni- toring role, which it carries out by means of regular inspections: not just of construction sites, but also factories, other workplaces… even offices. And this is also why the law itself requires other du- ty-holders, apart from the OHSA, to be proactive; and assigns them duties, to that effect. To give you an idea how the 'chain of command' works, in practice: let's look just at the con- struction sector, for now. On any building site, the main responsibilities [for OHA] belong to: the client; the project supervi- sor (who should be appointed by the client); the contractors; the self-employed workers; and last- ly, the workers themselves. Now: the OHSA cannot know, from beforehand, what is hap- pening on the inside of a build- ing; or inside a shaft. And that is why the law places very onerous responsibilities… primarily on the client, but also on the project supervisor: whose job is to co-or- dinate activities between the dif- ferent sectors; and to ensure that health and safety regulations are being observed. On our part: OHSA is doing its bit. We have identified where the problem areas are: construction is already a risky economic sec- tor… but the risks are being com- pounded by – among the things – the utilization of many vulner- able workers… On that subject: there seems to be a very high prevalence of migrants, among recent construction-related fatalities: often including undocument- ed (or otherwise illegally-em- ployed) workers. Sometimes, it may take weeks for the victim to even be identified – because, for instance, the 'chain of com- mand' itself is often so compli- cated, that the project manager would have absolutely no idea who the contractors even em- ployed. From your own expe- rience: how widespread is this problem, in reality? Statistically, such people ac- count for 26% of all accident-vic- tims… almost a third. To put that into perspective: the total Mal- tese workforce, employed in con- struction, amounts to much less than one third of the total work- ers. So yes: migrant workers are proportionately more at risk, of either dying or suffering injury in workplace accidents, than other categories. But that is why it is important for someone else to be given the responsibility for health and safe- ty… on site [emphasized]. Let me give you a hypothetical example and once again, limiting myself only to construction (though it counts for other sectors, too). Let's say you have a client, who requires construction work of any kind; and he looks for quotations. In most cases, that person would go for the cheapest offer availa- ble… and I'm not being critical here, by the way. It is, after all, a perfectly natural thing to do. Nonetheless: the 'cheaper offer' usually implies that health and safety measures will not be taken. Why? Because (for argument's sake), if you need to plaster the outside of a building… what is cheaper? Surrounding the build- ing with scaffolding – which also needs to be set up according to various rules and regulations – or getting a contractor, who is going to just dangle his workers out on a suspended wooden platform: without any harnesses, without any training, and so on? So by accepting the cheaper offer, that client would already be 'by-passing' his or her obliga- tions, at law, to ensure that all health and safety requirements are met. Already, then, that client is 'part of the problem'… And yet, a lot of the small- er-scale construction work that is currently on-going – e.g, a property-owner, who decides to in any way extend, or re-de- velop, his own property – actu- ally involve 'ordinary citizens who hire contractors'… and not the larger companies (which you earlier described as more mindful of health and safety is- sues). Would you say that, too, has been a contributing factor? I can't give you a precise an- swer; but what I can say, is that there are certain modes of work- ing that are considered much safer than others: for instance, using a 'high-up', when it comes to doing construction work on tall buildings. But how many people are will- ing to go to the expense of hiring a high-up, for several days, so that a worker can come and 'plaster their façade' (to stick to the previ- ous example)? How many would choose the more expensive op- tion, over a cheaper one that may expose their workers to danger? Meanwhile, we are still only talking about the responsibility of the client. What about the pro- ject supervisor? Like I said earli- er: he should be appointed by the client. So it doesn't make sense for the client to tell the contrac- tor: "Listen, appoint a supervisor yourself…" The client cannot so easily di- vest himself of legal responsibili- ty: because the project supervisor will have to act on behalf of the client – not of the contractor. So if the contractor fails to imple- ment the necessary measures: what is the project supervisor going to do? Take action, against the same contractor who ap- pointed him? Neither is it sufficient, for a su- pervisor to go to a place of work once a week, or every two weeks, to draw up a report which in- cludes a number of deficiencies… and then give that report to the client, expecting him to take ac- tion. In the first instance: the major- ity of clients are not conversant with the legal requirements; nor are they technically qualified, to know what measures should even be taken. Moreover, it is the project supervisor who has the responsibility to take action; and not the client. And this has a bearing on the recent fatal accidents we have seen on construction sites. First of all, one has to say that all those accidents were 'preventable'. For example: most were caused by the lack of 'edge-protection': ei- ther at the edge of buildings, or over open shafts. So in those cas- es: why did the project supervisor not indicate to the contractor that: 'We are so many stories up; why is there no edge-protection on this site? Please ensure that this measure is implemented, right away'? The bottom line, however, is that such accidents can on- ly truly become 'preventable', if ALL the duty-holders live up to their legal responsibilities – not just the OHSA; and not just the other agencies and entities that regulate the various sectors in- volved… but everyone, through- out the entire chain of responsi- bility.