How do you approach progressive discipline for employees with a high-frequency accident history? For example, if someone incurs three injuries (from first aid to medical treatment) in less than a year, what approach does one take in coaching and proceeding to further disciplinary actions?

We put this question from a SafetyXChange member to you at the conclusion of my recent series on progressive discipline. Here were your responses.

**************

TAKE IT ONE CASE AT A TIME

By Ian

First and foremost, there is no one-size-fits-all answer. Each individual must be addressed as a unique case. What you must know is why is this person being injured and others are not. Is it a case of one worker being more prone to injury or one worker listening to us when we say to get any injury looked at to minimize the chances of infection etc.? Is the worker that reports three times in a year actually more accident prone or is he/she just more obedient? Is the number a reflection of the fact that they report and gets small cuts and nicks treated? Do we really want to consider this person a discipline problem or do we want to reward him/her for doing what we asked? To report injuries? Why our fixation with numbers? Why not a fixation on fact and work practice?

Look for Why the Injury Happened

Case in point: One of my workers told me he was proud that he had never been an "occupational injury statistic." But this worker always had nicks, cuts and burns on his hands and arms. Another worker bragged to me about his good record and that he had "tough job" avoidance down to an art form. He also bad mouthed his co-worker as "accident prone." But, on further investigation, the "accident prone" worker was the one who did all of the higher risk and difficult jobs during the shift. It turns out that the worker with a "good record" avoided injuries because we had good cushions on chairs.

My point is that numbers do not tell the story; actions do.

How to React

So if, on investigation, it is found that a person's disregard for safety has caused an injury, be it one injury or five, this must be addressed in a positive manner. You offer reinforcement of the company's expectation that work be done safely and to "Stop, Think and then Act". You fill any voids that may be present where it relates to procedures and work practices.

The next step is follow-up, and reinforcement, and yes, accountability. Accountability is on the worker's shoulders and the supervisor's shoulders. It should not be an injury that initiates the discipline; it should be bad work practices. If you are relying on injuries to take action then you will drive injuries underground (in the short term it will look good on paper but can be fatal). If there is a discipline issue due to unsafe work practice then it should have been addressed prior to an injury happening. Thus the importance of the "Safety Audit/Assessment by Heartbeat."

In other words, as long as your heart is beating, as a supervisor, you should be doing a safety audit on every instruction you give and every work activity you see. This is not a physical audit it is a mental audit - this should be second nature to each supervisor. How many times has a person seen an unsafe or questionable work practice and not reinforced the expectation that it is done safely just to turn around and when someone is injured to then regard them as a problem because they got injured? If we do not manage safety at the task assignment and task execution steps in our workplace then we will do an injustice to the injured worker. In the game of Roulette they just happened to be the one present when the odds caught up to our poor management practice.

Conclusion

In summary, if management practices are allowing people to get injured, you need to fix that first. If you are relying on injuries to drive corrective measures and/or discipline you are looking too late in the process. You should spend more time looking into how work is getting done, not just the fact that it got done and someone got injured in doing so.

Ian S P (WO)*

NOTE: This is all the ID I want printed if you choose to print. I would be willing to have further dialogue if someone was interested so if someone wanted my email to follow up on anything I could look into it.

**************

LOOK AT THE PROBLEM FROM 3 ANGLES

By Wayne Vanderhoof

I would take a few different angles:

First Angle: The Employee Himself

First, I would ask the employee why he/she seems to be getting injured so much and then listen to the response. At first, they will probably plead ignorance ("I have no idea why!") and then blame management ("my supervisor is rushing me", "all this company cares about is production" or "that procedure takes to long if I follow it exactly, it is a ridiculous procedure"). But with the right questions and assurances, the employee may come to accept some responsibility for his injuries ("I may have been rushing", "I may have looked away for a second", or "I am a little distracted by stuff going on at home.")

From there, the employee can be coached on different ways to modify his/her behavior to remain focused on the task at hand, offer assistance to dealing with the problems at home and looking at the procedures for any opportunities to improve them.

Second Angle: The Supervisor

The second angle would be to talk to the employee's supervisor to see what they think may be causing the injuries. The supervisor may also initially plead ignorance, then blame the employee. But, then with the right questioning and assurances, the supervisor might assume some of the responsibility for the employee who is under his direct supervision.

At the very least, the supervisor will be directly involved in the coaching and behavior modification such as in reviewing the task to be performed including helping the employee identify the hazards and risks, identifying ways to remove or reduce the hazards and risks, and then the supervisor or an "employee mentor" observes the employee giving both positive and negative feedback.

Third Angle: Co-Workers

The third angle is asking employees who perform similar tasks under similar conditions about risks and hazards they may have uncovered and whether or not they addressed the hazards and risks and how. Some retraining may be needed on the procedures or when talking to the other employees, it may be that they do not follow the procedure exactly because of problems with the procedure and the procedure needs to be revised.

Just because this employee has a high frequency of injury, does not mean that the other parts of the safety management system does not need improved. Some employees are more risk takers than others and that needs to be addressed with behavior modification techniques such as coaching and observations of the employee. In the process of addressing all of these angles, the employee needs to understand that his/her high frequency of injury is of great concern to the company and that they do not want to see the employee hurt again, maybe even worse the next time, the company needs to set up a system to evaluate the progress of the employee to improving and reducing his exposures to injuries.

If these goals are not met, the employee needs to be disciplined up to including termination because of the risk of further injury to themselves and possibly other workers.

Wayne Vanderhoof CSP, WSO-CSS
Integrated Health & Safety Solutions, Inc

**************

IS IT REALLY A SYSTEM PROBLEM?

By Glenn Keenan

One has to be very careful here, or risk hurting a good co-operative safety culture. Are the incidents really the worker's fault? Or are they the product of the system? To answer this question, consider whether the company:

• Provided and documented training and follow-up;
• Has a functioning Joint Committee / Worker Rep involvement;
• Does consistent workplace inspections and follow-up;
• Provides competent supervision, i.e., no special circumstances;
• Provides good instruction;
• Consults workers for input into job procedures;
• Demands good housekeeping as part of the job;
• Has investigated sub-standard parts (purchasing), engineering, leadership, etc.;
• Has talked to the worker confidentially about personal changes that may be having an effect; and
• Has asked for input from the worker as to what could / should be improved in or about the work area

If all of this, and more, is being done, and the worker still remains "haywire" and uncooperative, then discipline is the only answer. While you're at it, discipline the HR person that hired the worker.

Glenn Keenan
Worker H&S Advisor
David Bell Mine
Ontario, Canada

Story Tools:  E-mail this to a friend  Print This Post Top