.png)
The threat of legal action
has had a negative effect on safety in our industry. No longer are some
companies sharing safety incident information with their peers. No longer are those
same companies sharing safety incident information with even the aluminium
trade associations tasked with promoting safety to their members. Almost every
incident can be reproduced in another facility. But, without knowing and
sharing incident information our industry is caught in a vicious cycle. Here
is a recent story:
A man is suing a major employer
in United States federal court, claiming the company is to blame for his severe burns.
The man, worked for a contractor,
initially sued the aluminium company in district court.
The case was transferred
in the Summer of 2014 and recently had a hearing before a judge, according to
court documents.
The worker was injured in
the Fall of 2014 at an aluminium plant. In the lawsuit, he claims he was
working on a tank owned, controlled and operated by the aluminium company, and
its contents exploded because of the aluminum producer's negligence.
The aluminium company, in
its answer to the court, denied any wrongdoing. The company wrote the (injured)
worker assumed the risks of working there, and his acts or omissions caused his
injuries.
The worker is seeking
damages for medical expenses, loss of earnings and also physical impairment and
disfigurement while his wife, is seeking damages for mental anguish and loss of
household services. The demand is for over €15 million, according to court
records.
The aluminium spokeswoman declined
to comment about the pending litigation.
The Aluminium Plant Safety Blog
prays that the injured worker recovers fully from his physical and mental
injuries. The APSB acknowledges that the threat of litigation is not unique to
our industry. Depending on the region, the threat of litigation has always been there. It
has only been the past 10 years where companies who previously were forthcoming
to safety incidents in their plants have now become silent. Their silence is
sad. Because no one wants a worker to be injured nor killed in our industry.
But, their failure to communicate with their peers and aluminium trade associations may result in just that.
Please Comment.
5 comments:
Interesting article. I wonder though: how much of this shift in information sharing is the result of the trend in large aluminum companies taking over smaller ones? I have worked with a variety of organizations, and the smaller ones are overwhelmingly more "cooperative" or open with others. They also show much greater care of their employees, and a willingness to solve problems rather than cover them up.
Thanks for your comment. In my opinion when larger companies took over smaller companies the opposite of what I said took place. A majority of the instances the larger companies would talk (at various public forums) about the difficulties, successes, and goals that they had at their newly acquired facilities. Ten years ago many aluminium companies would be willing to share safety information with their peers. If not they would atleast share it with the regional aluminum trade organizations. Now a days not so much. What has resulted is that I will be contacted by an aluminium company saying "I heard there was a fatality at....they have the same equipment that we do. Do you know anything about it?"
I agree with you Alex. When you look at the companies that author the safety brochures put out by the Aluminum Association, present at the TMS forums, and also allow their experts to present at the safety workshops, you see they are the big guys.
In my opinion, only those who have something to hide... do.
I agree with you. When you look at the companies that author the safety brochures put out by the Aluminum Association, present at the TMS forums, and also allow their experts to present at the safety workshops, you see they are the big guys.
In my opinion, only those who have something to hide... do.
All your comments are obvious. But companies have much to lose with an open system as it seems you promote. Isn't possible to find an anonymous system that can overcome the reluctancy of companies to report on safety. If not, what about promoting a kind of compulsory self-surveillance system from professional safety organizations? And I wonder in the unionized systems what is the role of unions in safety promotion. But the main responsability will always be in the first supervisor of the injured worker, whether we like it or not, whether we distribute the information or not. It seems everything is invented as usual with regard to ethics, that nobody seems to know what is it about.
PG Spain
Post a Comment