Schlagwort 'ISO 45001 2nd CD'

Proposal: BS 45004 Occupational health and safety management systems. General guidelines on effective application of ISO 45001

Samstag, 6. Mai 2017 - 11:49

Proposals on BS 45004: https://standardsdevelopment.bsigroup.com/projects/3a879651ac6d2e245e7c31aa0efebab9

Public Comments start date: 2017-03-13
Public Comments end date: 2017-05-24
2017-05-06: The text seems not to be accessible.

See also: http://blog.psybel.de/stichwort/iso-45001-english/

I don’t know whether any 45004 standard will be necessary. As far as I understand, ISO 45001 already will include guidelines.

“Incident” in OHSAS 18001 and ISO 45001

Freitag, 7. April 2017 - 20:59

An incident based on OHSAS 18001:2007 is an incident in which
※ physical ill health (regardless of severity) occurred,
※ physical ill health (regardless of severity) worsened,
※ physical ill health (regardless of severity) could have occurred,
※ physical ill health (regardless of severity) could have worsened,
※ mental ill health (regardless of severity) occurred,
※ mental ill health (regardless of severity) worsened,
※ mental ill health (regardless of severity) could have occurred,
※ mental ill health (regardless of severity) could have worsened,
※ injury occurred,
※ injury could have occurred,
※ fatality occurred,
※ fatality could have occurred.

An incident based on ISO/DIS 45001.2:2017 is an occurrence arising
※ out of work or
※ in the course of work
that
※ could or
※ does
result in
※ injury and/or
※ ill health (regardless of severity)
which both are an adverse effect (including occupational disease, illness and death) on the
※ physical,
※ mental or
※ cognitive
condition of a person.

Google: “conitive ill health”

Draft: ISO/DIS 45001.2:2017

Mittwoch, 5. April 2017 - 07:22

Occupational health and safety management systems. Requirements with guidance for use

http://shop.bsigroup.com/ProductDetail?pid=000000000030358994

[...] Once the balloting period opens, on 19th May, you will be able to go on the draft review site to read and comment on the standard clause by clause. If you prefer to read it all in one go before commenting you can buy the draft today. [...]

https://standardsdevelopment.bsigroup.com/projects/889a26b727ebec532a7bc1dac105d0e9 (ISO/CD 45001:2014 Occupational health and safety management systems. Requirements with guidance for use – (Withdrawn Standard)) says:

Public Comments start date: 2017-05-26
Public Comments end date: 2017-09-27

(Previously, the public could get to the comment page vis https://drafts.bsigroup.com/Home/Category/13.100.)

See also: http://blog.psybel.de/stichwort/iso-45001-english/

Vorfallskategorien nach OHSAS 18001

Mittwoch, 16. September 2015 - 06:41

Im Arbeitsschutz von nach OHSAS 18001 zertifizierten Betrieben gibt es zwölf Arten von Vorfällen:

Vorfall, der …
  1.1.1.1 … eine körperliche Erkrankung zur Folge hatte
  1.1.1.2 … eine Verschlechterung einer körperlichen Erkrankung zur Folge hatte
  1.1.2.1 … eine körperliche Erkrankung hätte zur Folge haben können
  1.1.2.2 … eine Verschlechterung einer körperlichen Erkrankung hätte zur Folge haben können
  1.2.1.1 … eine mentale Erkrankung zur Folge hatte
  1.2.1.2 … eine Verschlechterung einer mentalen Erkrankung zur Folge hatte
  1.2.2.1 … eine mentale Erkrankung hätte zur Folge haben können
  1.2.2.2 … eine Verschlechterung einer mentalen Erkrankung hätte zur Folge haben können
  2._.1._ … eine Verletzung zur Folge hatte
  2._.2._ … eine Verletzung hätte zur Folge haben können
  3._.1._ … einen tödlichen Unfall zur Folge hatte
  3._.2._ … einen tödlichen Unfall hätte zur Folge haben können

Die zwölf Vorfallskategorien ergeben sich logisch aus den folgenden Begriffsbestimmungen:

Vorfall (in enger Anlehnung an OHSAS 18001:2007):
Arbeitsbezogenes Ereignis, das
  ※ eine Verletzung
  ※ oder Erkrankung (ohne Berücksichtigung der Schwere)
  ※ oder einen tödlichen Unfall
zur Folge
  ※ hatte
  ※ oder hätte
zur Folge haben können.

Erkrankung (in enger Anlehnung an OHSAS 18001:2007):
Erkennbarer, nachteiliger
  ※ physischer oder
  ※ mentaler Zustand,
der durch eine Arbeitstätigkeit und/oder durch eine Arbeitssituation
  ※ entstanden ist und/oder
  ※ verschlechtert
wurde.

Diese Begriffsbestimmungen waren wichtige Verbesserungen bei der Umstellung von OHSAS 18001:1999 zu OHSAS 18001:2007. Es gab Arbeitgeber, die diese Verbesserungen dank schlampiger Audits (durch einen bei der DAkkS akkreditierten Auditor) bei der Umstellung aus ihren internen Anweisungen zumArbeitsschutz heraushalten konnten. Die Mitarbeiter erfuhren so nicht, was ihnen ein nach OHSAS 18001:2007 zertifizierter Arbeitgeber eigentlich bieten müsste. Ich nehme an, dass in den meisten nach OHSAS 18001:2007 zertifizierten Betrieben kaum ein Mitarbeiter weiß, zu welcher Erfassung von Vorfällen sich der Arbeitgeber verpflichtet hat.

In der wohl Ende 2016 zu erwartenden ISO 45001 fehlt die Definition von “Erkrankung” (“ill health”) leider, darum werden solche konkreten Vorfallskategorien aus der ISO 45001 nicht mehr ableitbar sein. (Nachtrag 2016: Es hat hier Verbesserungen gegeben, sogar gegenüber OHSAS 18001. Mal sehen, was davon umgesetzt wird.)

12 OH&S Incident Categories

Mittwoch, 9. September 2015 - 00:15

These incident catecories are based on definition 3.8 and 3.9 in OHSAS 18001:2007. The data should be easy to obtain. Just quarterly categorize OH&S incidents using the twelve categories shown below. Then count the incidents per category and enter the sums for each category into the table.

12 KPIs for Occupational Health & Safety

 
In words:
Incidents which …
    1.1.1.1   … have caused physical ill health
    1.1.1.2   … have worsened physical ill health
    1.1.2.1   … could have caused physical ill health
    1.1.2.2   … could have worsened physical ill health
    1.2.1.1   … have caused mental ill health
    1.2.1.2   … have worsened mental ill health
    1.2.2.1   … could have caused mental ill health
    1.2.2.2   … could have worsened mental ill health
    2._.1._   … have caused injury
    2._.2._   … could have caused injury
    3._.1._   … have caused fatality
    3._.2._   … could have caused fatality

Or in other words (even closer to OHSAS 18001:2007):
Incidents in which …
    1.1.1.1   … physical ill health occurred
    1.1.1.2   … physical ill health worsened
    1.1.2.1   … physical ill health could have occurred
    1.1.2.2   … physical ill health could have worsened
    1.2.1.1   … mental ill health occurred
    1.2.1.2   … mental ill health worsened
    1.2.2.1   … mental ill health could have occurred
    1.2.2.2   … mental ill health could have worsened
    2._.1._   … injury occurred
    2._.2._   … injury could have occurred
    3._.1._   … fatality occurred
    3._.2._   … fatality could have occurred

 

“Incident” and “ill health” according to OHSAS 18001:


The underlined words met resistance from employers when moving from OHSAS 18001:1999 to OHSAS 18001:2007. In internal communications they tried to replace “ill health” by “desease” and “identifiable” by “diagnosable”. They also tried to hide “regardless of severity” from their employees. “Made worse” was not welcome, as the term did not allow them to reject incidents which worsened an already existing ill health. And “could” was a challenge to employers, because due to that term they could not ask affected employees to prove that they actually suffered from ill health. The reasons for resisting against “mental” where quite similar to the reasons for mentioning “psychological factors” only in the notes to clause 7.1.4 of ISO 9000:2015 rather than clearly in the clause itself.

 
Discussion:

 
Download:

United States Technical Advisory Group (TAG):
“No with Comments” to CD2 of ISO 45001

Sonntag, 28. Juni 2015 - 16:36

The latest draft (CD2 or CD 45001.2 etz) of ISO 45001 has been approved (with comment) in June 2015. United States Technical Advisory Group (TAG) probably is happy. In their view the planned standard doesn’t offer sufficient flexibility.

http://envcompsys.com/blog/iso-45001-update-june-2015/, ECSI (EH&S Management Consulting Training and Auditing), 2015-06-06:

We recently participated as voting members in a meeting of the United States Technical Advisory Group (TAG) for the new ISO 45001 (Occupational Health and Safety) standard. The meeting was held at Google Headquarters in San Francisco. Extensive discussion took place within the TAG regarding the United States TAG position on the proposed ISO 45001 Draft Standard (CD#2). The consensus was strong that the United States TAG believes the standard is still not ready to move to the next stage of the standards development process (DIS). To this end, a motion was made, seconded, and unanimously approved during the course of the meeting and at a follow-up conference call.

The motion and its result were communicated in a letter to the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) on June 3. The motion was as follows

The United States votes “No with Comments” on the draft standard with the position that the proposed standard is not yet ready to move to the DIS stage of the standards development process.

The impact of this negative vote is uncertain because the US has only a single vote on the International ISO 45001 committee (PC283) and there could be enough votes by other nations to move the standard to DIS rather than to another Committee Draft. The US is voting that the standard go through another cycle as a Committee Draft (CD3) to allow more time to iron out some sensitive and controversial issues. [...]

What kind of “consensus” will be reached for ISO 45001?

Donnerstag, 16. April 2015 - 06:51

https://drafts.bsigroup.com/Home/View/3449099

Comment

How will a consensus be reached for ISO 45001? The 1st CD had been rejected because it failed to get two thirds of the required votes. The representatives of the employee side and the business side probably would not allow to let such a surprise happen again. It seems that the promoters of ISO 45001 are quite sure that they get their way and meet the planned deadlines. Are they confident because as many voters could be added as required to get two thirds of the vote? I fear that the employer side has significantly more resources to secure a majority for their position compared to the resources which are available to the employee side.

Remedy

Democracy instead of plutocracy.

False Claims

Dienstag, 14. April 2015 - 08:05

http://www.iosh.co.uk/~/media/Documents/Networks/Branch/Ireland/Speaker presentations/Safety in a re emerging construction sector/Finbarr Stapleton presentation.ashx, page 18

A system meeting the requirements of ISO DIS 45001 will meet OHSAS 18001

The presentation fails to prove that this claim is true. Compared to OHSAS 18001 and ILO-OSH, in ISO 45001 the rights of employees are weaker.

 
And http://www.healthandsafetyatwork.com/hsw/safety/iso-45001-second-draft claims:

Second ISO 45001 draft emphasises worker consultation. [...] key change is an increased emphasis on the importance of worker consultation. The lack of reference to communication with workers in the first draft was a major concern for the International Labour Organisation, the United Nation’s agency that promotes labour rights. [...]

This is a cheap trick. Don’t compare CD2 to CD1. Compare CD2 to OHSAS 18001:2007 and to ILO-OSH.

Bussiness minded approach to ISO 45001

Dienstag, 14. April 2015 - 07:48

http://ehstoday.com/safety-leadership/connecting-dots-iso-45001-supply-chain-and-risk

Connecting the Dots: ISO 45001, the Supply Chain and Risk

On March 26, voting began on ISO 45001, which sets requirements for occupational health and safety management systems. Kathy Seabrook, former president of the American Society of Safety Engineers, shared her thoughts on ISO 45001 at a recent event.
[...]
According to Seabrook, there are two drivers impacting change by some organizations to be more accountable for their supply chain: the market economy and sustainability reporting, and they are closely tied, she noted. “The investment community and organizational stakeholders are driving market demand for more transparency from the organizations they invest in,” said Seabrook.
[...]
According to Seabrook, ISO 45001 can inform and play a role in creating solutions that cross borders. While the scope of ISO 45001 is not intended to include supply chain workers, “an organization can choose to leverage the ISO 45001 management systems approach as a solution to identify, control and continually improve opportunities to reduce or eliminate worker safety and health risk to workers in the supply chain,” she noted.
[...]

This is an unsurprisingly American business minded approach: The concerns on the side of employee organizations are no issue to the author of this article. And the author probably has not even has an idea, why this should be an issue.

By the way: If voting already begun, than BSI’s invitation to the public could be just an alibi. Is ISO 45001 already a farce before it is pushed through?

Comments on 5.4 “Participation, consultation and representation” in ISO 45001 2nd CD

Freitag, 10. April 2015 - 07:54

5.4 Participation, consultation and representation

https://drafts.bsigroup.com/Home/View/3449155?pos=3449155

Comment

This is about Employee Participation: ISO 45001 vs. OHSAS 18001

ISO 45001 weakens the worker’s options compared to what has been achieved in OHSAS 18001:2007, paragraph 4.4.3.2 “Participation and consultation”.

Remedy

Here the employee representatives in the committee probably will have to propose significant changes in order to come to a standard which is acceptable in Europe. My proposal is to at least maintain what has been achieved with OHSAS 18001:2007.

I hope that employee representatives thoroughly compare to the 2nd CD of ISO 45001 what is written about employee participation in OHSAS 18001:2007. Additionally, the differences between OHSAS 18001:1999 and OHSAS 18001:2007 show what had been achieved for the workers thanks to the beneficial competition with the ILO standard. (There also was resistance on the employers’ side against this improvement. I know of a case where a large European company had been certified since 2009 for OHSAS 18001:2007 although they only switched to from :1999 to :2007 in 2013 after complaints by employees to the accreditation authority.) Was OHSAS 18001 too tough on employers? Seemingly the development of ISO 45001 is used by them as a means to revert these achievements.

Unions should check with labour councils how much resistance they met when trying to put 4.4.3.2 of OHSAS 18001:2007 into practise. Support to workers councils by certification auditors may have been negligable too. Employers may want to use the chance provided by a new AMS standard (ISO 45001) to get rid of requirements which gave workes a say in occupational health&safety practises.

Furthermore, the “Certification scheme for occupational health and safety (OHS) management systems according to OHSAS 18001″ of the SCCM (Stichting Coördinatie Certificatie Milieu- en arbomanagementsystemen) in the Netherlands is a valuable source for ideas, how workers participation can be put into practice.

 

Comment

There is too much “as applicable” in the draft, e.g. “Effective participation of workers (and, as applicable, their representatives)”. The workers’ representatives need sufficcient competence and clout.

Remedy

The standard should make it an requirement to establish elected workers representations for OH&S matters where no works councils exist yet. Without such representatives you simply can forget about an effective workers participation. One special requirement should be to let the workers’ representatives participate in certification audits and internal audits. These workes should be able to obtain the required qualifications.