1

The safety representative The safety representative under pressure.under pressure.A study of the occupational health and safety regime in the Norwegian oil and gas industry.

Terje Lie , International Research Institute of Stavanger, Stavanger, Norway

Jan Hovden, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Trondheim

Jan Erik Karlsen, University of Stavanger, Stavanger, Norway

Bodil Alteren, SINTEF Technology and Society, Trondheim, Norway

Presentation and corresponding author: Professor J. Hovden, Dep. of Industrial Economics and Technology Management, NTNU, NO-7491 Trondheim, Phone:

+4773593507, Fax: +4773593107, E-mail: hovden@iot.ntnu.no

WorkingOnSafety 2006

2

Objectives and ScopeObjectives and Scope• Examine the role of the safety representatives in modern working

life based on information collected from the Norwegian offshore oil and gas sector,

• Investigate the operational conditions for employee influence on occupational health and safety (OHS) matters as reflected in the opinions and assessments of the safety representatives themselves and by their corresponding managers.

WorkingOnSafety 2006

3

Background and context of the studyBackground and context of the studyo Safety Representatives’ functions include a legal

right to represent employees in discussions with the employer on health, safety or welfare and in discussions with the OHS enforcing authorities.

o The position as safety representative has for generations been a vital part of modern OSH management.

o However, a white paper (2002) expresses a worry for that role of the safety representative being undermined (ref.: the oil & gas safety authority and the unions)

o Different realities for SRs between oil companies and the hierarchy of contractors and sub-contractors

Professional knowledge

Safety committeeSafety

RepresentativesOHS-experts

Internal control

Workplace assessment

The OHS workplace arrangement (Karlsen & Lindøe)

WorkingOnSafety 2006

4

From industrial democracy to business From industrial democracy to business administration ideals in OHS managementadministration ideals in OHS management• Participative OHS management – a Nordic construct based on

industrial democracy ideals and a socio-technical systems approach rooted in the 1960ies and 1970ties.

• Health and safety legislation (three party collaboration), followed by a reflexive self-regulation (internal control) and replaced by a more market oriented, flexible OHS governance

• The participative aspects of safety management seem to have lost its previous attention in the research literature during the last 10-15 years.

• It has become political mainstream and fashionable to study other approaches to occupational health and safety (OHS) management: – monitoring by performance indicators, safety culture, behavioural based

safety, etc.

• This study aims at resuming attention to questions related to workers participation, power relations, and conflict negotiations and collaboration.

5

Research Questions

Given that the safety representative institution has a positive effect on the overall OHS quality in the offshore petroleum industry, what are the dilemmas and challenges influencing this contribution margin?

Subsumed to this theme a series of secondary questions arises:• How do safety representatives assess the allocation and use of time

and resources at their disposal? • Do the safety representatives have the necessary training to do their

job? • What is the social status of the safety representatives at their work

place? • To what degree do the safety representatives participate in planning

and reorganisations affecting safety and health? • How could the operational conditions for the safety representatives be

improved, if necessary?

WorkingOnSafety 2006

6

MethodsMethods• A one day work seminar on the subject for a broad range of

offshore personnel from different companies. The seminar was composed of safety representatives, but also managers and safety officers onsite, union representatives and representatives from the Petroleum Safety Authority Norway.

• Three forms of data collection were introduced at the seminar: a questionnaire, plenary discussions and team work/group discussions/focus groups.

• On the agenda were 1) description and analysis of the working conditions for the safety representatives’ status of today, 2) suggestions for possible change and improvements for the safety representative, and 3) how to evaluate changes.

WorkingOnSafety 2006

7

Results: Opinions on safety representatives’ role

WorkingOnSafety 2006

8

Results: Participation in workplace changes

WorkingOnSafety 2006

Safety representative Management

9

Findings: The parties agreed on• The parties saw no need for a radical change in laws and regulations

regarding participative management. • The managers might think that a change will alter the situation to the

worse from their point of view, and so do the safety representatives. The result is that nobody want a change, but from a different point of departure.

• It is mainly on improved education for safety representatives remedial action is demanded by the parties.

• Managers and employers expressed that they accepted and respected the role of safety representatives and the need for participative OHS management.

• All parties agreed on the importance of reporting and whistle-blowing, and even STs rights to stop dangerous activities.

10

Findings: The parties disagreed on

• SRs have not enough time and resources to fulfil their functions. The managers did not fully agree on that.

• The climate of participation and collaboration is assessed by the safety representatives as being less conducive to the overall objectives of the OHS regulations than perceived by the managers.

• The safety representatives viewed the status of their position as lower than the managers did. They had more influence on small and less costly measures compared to the big safety issues.

A paradox:• The results also demonstrate a lack of consistency between identified

problems in the role of SR and proposed measures of improvements in their role and functions and in general OHS management efficiency.

11

Findings: Differences in practice

• The safety representatives practice of reporting deviations varied a lot between companies and installations. Examples of unlawful sanctions were mentioned.

• The institution of safety representatives functioned rather well for the employees of the oil companies, and also to a large extent for the big contractors, but most subcontractors and especially for employees working in small teams moving constantly between installations (so called “nomads”), e.g. in maintenance, had very little support from safety representatives.

• The safety representatives pointed at the practising of the law as the problem, more than the laws and regulations themselves.

12

Overall Overall ConclusionConclusionThe institution of safety representatives is functioning and plays an

important role in OHS management. However, participative OHS management has become overshadowed by the focus on goal oriented, KIP based safety management, safety culture and behavioural modification trends in the industry.

The role as safety representative is faced with several challenges and threats as a consequence of rapid technological and organisational changes in the oil and gas industry, e.g. new organisational principles like integrated ICT based operations and from internationalisation.

 

Thank you for yourThank you for yourattention!attention!

Parties with unequal power