Physical Load Dock workers

8/3/2019 Physical Load Dock workers

1/23

Physical load on dock workers

Labour Inspectorate

Labour Inspectorate

Physical load on dock workers

Inspection of cargo transfer/transshipment in the Dutch seaharbours and their immediate periphery

A project in the framework of the European campaign"Lighten the Load". Fall 2007


2/23

Table of contents

Preface 3

1 Summary 4

2 Project setup and implementation 42.1 Reason and objectives 42.2 Implementation 42.3 Communication 8

3 Project results 83.1 Total overview of the inspection results 83.2 Results according to the nature of the load 93.2.1 Mixed cargo 103.2.2 Containers 133.2.3 Bulk cargo 143.2.4 Roll-on roll-off: lashing cargo 153.3 Sticking points for employers 16

4 Conclusions and recommendations 18

Appendix: NIOSH method 20

2


3/23

Preface

"Lighten the Load" was the motto of the European campaign of Labour Inspectorates in the Europeanmember states in 2007. This inspection project, focused on reducing the physical load in the Dutchsea harbours was part of this. The project demonstrates that physical load is still a serious labour risk.The persistent conviction that a certain part of the work just happens to be physically hard and that

nothing can be done about it, is deeply ingrained in many companies and employees in the harbours.The same is true for the attitude that the problem is primarily lodged somewhere else in the logisticchain, and that the fact that ships entering the Dutch harbours are jammed in an ergonomicallyirresponsible manner, is something that can not be changed. These kinds of convictions are preciselythe ones that obstruct effective measures from being taken. An active and creative attitude is vitalwhen one searches for solutions to reduce physical overloading: look at what is possible, not what isimpossible. In order to inspire this attitude in you, we have also included examples of good practice inthis report.

Reducing physical load to acceptable proportions at the harbour companies not only requiresadaptations inside the walls of the company itself. It is also important that international agreements aremade with suppliers. Via the Harbour Surveillance Programme, the Labour Inspectorate will continueto scrupulously monitor whether employers and employees in the harbour companies are making

every effort to substantially reduce the physical load. Both parties will profit from this, and, moreover,the process is mutual: healthy operational management implies healthy employees, and vice versa.The load will not be lightened for employees alone, but ultimately for employers as well.

Drs. A. van DijkDeputy Director

3


4/23

1 Summary

This report presents the results of the inspections of physical load in the harbours, a project that wascarried out during the months of September through December 2007. These inspections were part ofthe European "Lighten the Load" campaign, with the goal of reducing the physical load in the transportsector.

In total, the Labour Inspectorate inspected 134 companies that transfer/transship cargo in the seaharbours (container transshipment, bulk cargo, mixed cargo transfer, fish transfer). Substantialphysical overloading appeared to be involved in more than a third of the companies inspected(37.3%), and about half of the companies that manually transfer/transship cargo took no, or tookinsufficiently, effective measures to reduce the physical load. The Labour Inspectorate noted thatemployees frequently have a macho mentality, which stands in the way of denouncing physical load.Employers often have an incorrect image of the extent of the physical load and of the standards usedfor physical load. Furthermore, employers have the idea that only expensive or radical measuresshould be taken. The examples in this report show that simple solutions, as encountered at somecompanies, can also be effective.

The Labour Inspectorate calls on employers and employees to proactively search out what solutions

are available or can be developed to reduce physical load during transfer/transshipment of cargo inthe harbours. Furthermore, the Labour Inspectorate calls on employees and their trade unions, as wellas on sector organisations and employers, to bring this subject up for discussion at the company, andto actively engage employees in the search for suitable and practical measures to reduce the physicalload.

2 Project setup and implementation

2.1 Reason and objectives

Physical load still accounts for a considerable share of daily reality in the harbours of many employersthat transfer/transship cargo from ocean ships, and so, unfortunately, does physical overloading.Physical overloading results in musculoskeletal system disorders, and could lead one to drop out of

the workforce. In the Netherlands, the percentage of persons disabled as a consequence of physicalload and musculoskeletal system disorders is about 28% (CBS StatLine 2007).

Physical load is not only a Dutch phenomenon, but plays a role in the entire transport chain and in allharbours. For this reason, the European Labour Inspectorates carried out an inspection project in2007 to reduce the physical load in this international sector. This also promotes levelling of the playingfield for companies in the European member states.

Objectives of this inspection projectThe Labour Inspectorate has set as goal for itself the reduction of the physical overloading duringtransfer/transshipment of cargo in the harbours by enforcement. Furthermore, the Inspectorate wantsto stimulate employers and employees of companies in the harbour area to take measures againstphysical overloading themselves, and to devise creative solutions. To this end, the Inspectorate

provides concrete sticking points and measures as examples.

2.2 Implementation

Assessment of the physical load:The NIOSH methodInspections of physical load from lifting are based on the so-called NIOSH method. The inspector usesthis method to assess the extent of physical load by calculating the maximum acceptable weight thatmay be lifted. This calculation is made on the basis of the weight of the load to be lifted, the number oftimes this must be done, and any other possibly aggravating conditions (the position that must be usedfor lifting, the distance over which the cargo must be moved, the ambient temperature). Damage isinflicted to the health above the maximum acceptable lifting weight. Therefore, the maximumacceptable lifting weight is also called the medical threshold.

4


5/23

A different maximum acceptable lifting weight may thus apply to every work situation. Many employersassume that the maximum lifting weight is 23 kg for all situations. This is thus a misconception.Working above shoulder height is especially stressful. For this work, the Labour Inspectorate uses amaximum acceptable weight of 4 kg higher than 1.80 metres. Lifting 8 kg or more above this height isphysical overloading.You can find more information on the NIOSH method in the appendix.

Inspection systemIn its assessment of physical load, the Labour Inspectorate follows the course of action below:1. If physical load is involved, but it remains below the medical threshold, the inspection is finished.2. If the inspector assesses work that involves values above the medical threshold, but does notexceed it more than once, he will ask the employer for the more detailed risk inventory and evaluation(RIE) for physical load. The inspector then checks whether the company has assessed situations ofphysical load and whether appropriate measures have been taken, as described in the plan ofapproach in the RIE. In addition to this, the inspector verifies whether the employees have beeninformed as to the risks of physical load and are trained in limiting the physical load. If the RIE has notbeen implemented correctly, the inspector will issue a warning to the employer to still correct the RIEand of course take the appropriate measures.3. If the inspector assesses work activities that result in exceeding the medical threshold more than

twice, physical overloading is involved. This is an abuse and the inspector will impose a requirementon the employer to take immediate measures to reduce the physical load.

Inspection of physical load due to transfer/transshipment work activitiesDuring the loading, unloading and transfer/transshipment situations of ships with bulk loads, mixedcargo, containers and roll-on roll-off vessels, inspectors focused on lifting, pushing and pulling, theposition in which the work had to be carried out, the speed at which the work had to be done, thefrequency of repeating work activities and any possibly aggravating conditions. The inspectorsinspected the following work activities in the process:

Shovelling: manually loosening and pushing together or sweeping loose cargo, often with longscrapers attached to a long (approximately 4 to 6 metres) steel or aluminium pole. Loosening dry

cargo is generally no problem. The cargo drops

when touched. However, this work is very hardwhen the cargo is moist and sticky. Hard becauseone has to keep the approximately 8 to 15 kg toolup high, and hard because of the force that mustbe used to scrape the cargo loose. When workingwith a scraper, unobstructed work space isrequired behind the employee in order to assumethe correct posture. This free space must be 3.5metres, at minimum, for poles from 3.5 to 7 mlong. If the poles are shorter, this space must beat least as long as the pole plus one metre.

etres

5


6/23

Sweeping: sweeping/bringing together liquid (oil) cargo. Sweeping takes place in a tank of a vesselby means of a suction hose and squeegees. The cargo is heated and kept liquid by a heating elementplaced on the bottom. The liquid cargo is pulled together towards the suction hose. The temperature inthe tank is high in order to keep the cargo liquid and the employee wears protective clothes.

Stacking: manually securing and loosening the automatic/semi-automatic twistlocks, the connectorsto secure containers on top of each other. A twistlock weighs about 6.5 kg. The frequency and forcedwork position play a role in the extent of physical load.

6


7/23

Stuffing and stripping containers: loading and unloading a container can be particularly stressful ifdone manually. Pallets are often refused in order to load a container to the maximum capacity (sincepallets take up space) and all holes and corners are stuffed. The risk in this action is lifting loads thatare too heavy, lifting too high, assuming an unfavourable posture and applying too much force whenpushing and pulling the goods to and from the container and inside the container itself. The employercan make agreements with its supplier about the way in which the container is loaded.

Lashing containers or cargo: using straps, rods and chains when securing cargo in or on the vessel.In combination with using heavy chains and rods, the work may be physically stressful in limited workspace. Working in semi-enclosed spaces, where it may be oppressive as a consequence of hightemperature, insufficient ventilation in combination with exhaust gases from the cars or lorries beingunloaded, has aggravating consequences to the physical load.When lashing containers, they are secured and loosened manually with lashing rods on the deck ofthe container ship. These lashing rods weigh about 20 to 50 kg. Lashing is done in forced workpositions, increasing the risk of health problems.

7


8/23

Monitor questionsIn addition to making inspections, the Labour Inspectorate has made an inventory of what stickingpoints employers are confronted with, and what solutions and measures they are currently using inpractice to limit physical (over)loading.

2.3 Communication

Before the inspection project began, the Labour Inspectorate drew up a European brochure aboutphysical load. This brochure was sent to sector associations and trade organisations in the middle of2007. Furthermore, attention was focussed on the European campaign and this inspection project viathe press. In conclusion, the Labour Inspectorate gave a presentation on physical load in the harboursto the Nationale Havenraad [National Harbour Council] in the fall of 2007.

Website "Lighten the Load": http://www.handlingloads.eu/en/5.htm

3 Project results

The inspections were made at 134 companies in the period from September through December 2007.

About two-thirds of the inspections were made at a loading and unloading site of the sea harbour. Onethird of the inspections were made on a loading, unloading and/or transfer/transhipment site in theimmediate environs of the harbour premises.

The results of the inspections and the monitor give a good indication of the occurrence of physical(over)loading in the various loading, unloading and transfer/transshipment situations in harbours andin the immediate periphery thereof.

3.1 Total overview of the inspection results

The inspector has imposed an enforcement instrument at 50 of the 134 companies. In the process, atotal of 69 violations were found in the area of physical loading. This means that work activitiesinvolving physical overloading were found at more than one third of the companies (37.3%) (exceeding

the medical threshold, according to the NIOSH method). The inspector did not impose anyenforcement at 84 companies (62.7%). Incidentally, the latter does not mean that no physical loadingtakes place during work activities, but that no physical overloading was detected at the time ofinspection.

Violation / no violation n = 134

62,7%

37,3% violation

no violation

The 69 violations resulted in the inspector issuing warnings, setting requirements and writing a finereport. A warning was issued in 38 cases, nearly in all cases to make a specific assessment of thework activities with physical load in the mandatory risk inventory and evaluation (RI&E), and to takeeffective measures based on this to prevent or limit physical load. Proper assessment of the extent

and the type of physical load the employees are subjected to is often a first requirement for actuallytaking effective measures. For example, during the inspections it was regularly found that employers

8


9/23

do take some measures to reduce the physical load, but that these are insufficiently effective. It alsoappears that employers assume that no loads heavier loads than 23 kg may be lifted, as is customaryin construction. However, the NIOSH method calculates the maximum acceptable lifting weight on thebasis of the weight to be lifted, and also takes into consideration the frequency of lifting the weight, theposition assumed when moving loads, or when loads must be lifted above shoulder height, as well asthe room to manoeuvre.

The Labour Inspectorate imposed specific requirements to have certain measures taken immediatelyin 30 cases in which physical overloading was clearly involved. Among others, these were the transferof bales of cocoa. The employers working with cocoa have meanwhile started to take a joint initiative,prompted by these requirements, to develop a broad range of application-oriented solutions. Aspecialised ergonomics firm has been called in to assist in this matter.

A fine report was drawn up immediately in one case, because the employer did not have a riskinventory & evaluation (RIE) available at all, and there was a serious case of physical overloadinginvolved.

Aggravating conditions were detected in about half of the situations found (63) during loading,unloading and/or transfer/transshipment. This chiefly concerned weather conditions (45) and ambient

temperature: (freezing) cold in case of transferring frozen fish (21) and heat (4) when sweeping liquidcargo in the hold of a vessel. The lack of physical room to move (11) also results in aggravatingconditions, often in situations of lashing containers and/or cargo, but also when working in the hold ofa vessel. Finally, work pressure is involved (6). In the latter case, the factor that delay time in theharbour is expensive also plays a role, as does the fact that employees are often paid by the job,which means there is pressure to make good time.

3.2 Results according to the nature of the load

The table below presents an overview of the inspection results, itemized according to the nature of theload and the number of inspections dealing with manual work activities. The extent to which physicallystressful work activities occur is indicated for each type of cargo, as well as how often violations ofphysical load/physical overloading were detected for each type of cargo. (Note: these data were

created by means of monitor information. Since monitor information was not available for all 134inspections, this concerns a somewhat smaller number of inspections).

Type of cargo Number ofinspections

Inspections ofphysicallystressful workactivities

violationsabove thelimit value(a)

% a Inspectionsinsituationsof physicaloverloading

violations2 xNIOSH(b)

% b

Mixed cargo 28 12 10 83% 9 9 100%Containers:stuffing/stripping

34 22 16 73% 16 13 81%

Containers:lashing/stacking

16 11 5 46% 8 5 63%

Bulk 27 10 4 40% 1 1 100%RoRo 5 4 1 25% 2 1 50%Total 110 59 36 36 29

The table shows that on average more than half of transfer/transhipment activities (59 of 110) stillinvolve physically stressful work activities. Handling mixed cargo results in the most violations (83%),stuffing and stripping containers takes second place with 73% violations, and lashing and stacking ofcontainers takes third place, with 46%.Columns (a) and (b) show that violations were not detected in all situations of physical (over) load. Thereason for this is that in order for there to be enforcement, the inspector must actually have detected asituation of physical overloading in practice.

9


10/23

3.2.1 Mixed cargo

28 inspections were made on transfer of mixed cargo. This involved fish (7), metal (4), wood/paper (4),machine components (3), potatoes/fruit (3), cocoa (1) and other mixed cargo (6), such as salt, barrelsof fruit juice, rocks, bags of flour and various cargo (including yachts). The mixed cargo was packagedin boxes or bags. Work activities taking place below the deck may especially be overly stressful for the

body. 12 inspections involved work activities with a clear manual component, such as manual transferon pallets (5 times), stacking goods (4), securing/loosening (4), pushing and dragging (2) and loadingand unloading (2). Physical overloading was involved in nearly all these situations, with the exceptionof securing and loosening.

An inspector encountered a freezer trawler in the harbour of Scheveningen that was being unloaded.The fish caught had been immediately processed, frozen and packaged in cardboard boxes in thetrawler while underway. The weight of the boxes was about 23 kilograms, on average. The boxes werestored on two levels in the freezer hold. The areas were stuffed to the maximum from bottom to ceilingand from starboard to port for economic reasons. Under orders from the stevedore an externalcompany, with a crew of 8 to 10 strong young men, was put to work manually transferring the boxesfrom the freezer hold to pallets. They brought the boxes of fish from the hold to the deck via two 3 x 3

metre cargo hatches. This involved being paid by the piece and time pressure. The more pallets thecrew filled, the more they were paid. Nearly 200 boxes per person were stacked manually per hour, onaverage, in bent over to stretched position, at a high frequency and in a stressful, freezing indoorclimate.

Given the current state of the art, various technical and organisational options are available forreducing the physical load, such as lifting aids, task rotation and, for example, agreements to not stackany higher than 1.80 metres.

In the harbour of Harlingen, an inspector encountered employees at the shrimp sieving machine whowere stacking crates with a content of 20 kilograms on pallets higher than 180 centimetres. Plasticbags filled with shrimp, weight of a random sample 20.8 kg, were lifted from a crate into the tub of the

shrimp sieving machine. Using the NIOSH method, it was found that the employees were exposed toexcessive physical load and that there was a high risk of causing serious damage to their health. Thefrequency and the weight of the crates and plastic bags, as well as the height to which the crates withshrimp had to be lifted were taken into consideration in the process.

In the Amsterdam harbour, an inspector observed asituation in which 50-kilo bags of flour were processedmanually. A company spokesman stated that per person aaverage of 40 tonnes are stacked daily. Using the NIOmethod, it was found that the employees were exposedexcessive physical load and that there was a high risk ofcausing serious damage to their health.

nSH

to

The inspectors qualified the situations they found in the transfer of mixed cargo as alarmingly bad.It is striking that employers did make aids available in some situations, but that these were not used.For example, there was a company at which a vacuum lifting device was available, but this was notbeing used at the time the inspector made a visit. Instead, employees were performing their tasksmanually.

Examples of good practiceIn practice, companies apply the requisite measures to limit physical load. Measures applied were:task rotation (4), the use of pallets (3) so transfer was mechanised (wholly or in part) by means offorklift trucks, the use of lifting aids (2), lashing straps (2), the use of lifting platforms (1) and "big bags"instead of small bags (1) or packages.

10


11/23

A company in the Amsterdam harbour works with a special container inverter. The container holdingbags of cocoa is dumped on a conveyor belt by means of a special inverter machine. The conveyorbelt then moves the bales of cocoa and drops them on a pallet set up below the belt. By mechanisingthe process this way, physical load is practically no longer involved. Before this was the case, and theprocess still consisted of manual unloading, about 50 tonnes were lifted per person per day (bales ofabout 65 kg).

The management of a mixed cargo processor gave orders to its personnel that pallets are not to beloaded higher than 1.80 m (shoulder height) in order to prevent lifting being injurious to their health,and has issued written instructions to this end.Cargo ships deliver boxes of frozen fish (21 and 33 kg) on pallets. The pallets are moved by a Dutchcompany to an inverter by forklift truck, as a result of which the pallet ends up on top. The de-pallettingmachine subsequently removes the pallets, and the boxes of fish are then moved into the container byforklift truck with the help of a push-off mechanism. See the photo report.

11


12/23

The first 2 photos show physical overloading during unloading cargo by the ships Russian crew, manuallystacking boxes of cod and king crab on pallets in the hold of the Russian ship. A physically stressful work activityfor the foreign crew. The second photo shows the full pallet being hoisted from the ship by means of a hoist,which does not involve any physical load. Employees of a Dutch company subsequently take over handling of thefish boxes, using aids such as a special forklift truck and inverter. See photos 3 through 6.

Photo 1: Manual stacking of boxes with cod and kingcrab.

Photo 2: Hoisting a full pallet from the hold of the shiponto the quay.

Photo 3: The pallet is taken along by a special forklifttruck with 5 tines and then placed on an inverter.

Photo 4: The full pallet is placed on the inverter.

Photo 5: Full pallet turned 90 degrees so the cargo can

be placed and the pallet can easily be removed

Photo 6: The pallet is taken off the stack, the boxes

remain behind, properly stacked via a push-offmechanism, without any physical load.

12


13/23

Fortunately, the very heavy physical work of handling frozen fish, specifically when unloading, occursless and less frequently. About 70% of the vessels concerned are already suitable or have been madesuitable for placing the boxes on pallets. For the other vessels the relevant employers will draw up aplan of approach. This plan of approach explores the opportunities for mechanisation, improvement ofthe work environment and reduction of exposures.A remarkable initiative hereby is that one employer is studying whether slipsheets may be a solution.

Another employer at a fish auction has sent a letter to all its suppliers (shrimp cutter fishermen amongthem) with the announcement that they may not deliver any bags filled with shrimp that exceed 15kilograms; should they do so anyway, the shrimp will not be processed! Fish auction personnel areauthorised to refuse these bags.

Employers handling cocoa have set up a joint trajectory to generate practical and economicallyfeasible solutions for handling bags of cocoa that are effective in reducing physical load.

3.2.2 Containers

Lashing and stacking containersManually securing and loosening containers on the deck of container ships with lashing rods isphysically very stressful. Lashing rods weigh between 20 and 25 kg and usually must be secured and

loosened on a work platform with limited space, in a stressful work position. Ashore, theautomatic/semi-automatic twistlocks are secured and loosened. A twistlock weighs about 6.5 kg.These work activities may involve very uncomfortable work positions, possibly in combination with highfrequency.Forklift truck and reach stacker drivers and crane operators may also be subject to physical load(static body position).

16 situations involving lashing and stacking were inspected. The 11 inspections involving employeessecuring and loosening lashing rods repeatedly showed that the threshold was exceeded, andsituations of physical overloading were encountered in the majority of the cases. Loosening andsecuring twistlocks is also a manually performed task, but resulted in physical overloading in only halfof the situations inspected.The verdict on these situations of physical overloading encountered during lashing and stacking varied

from alarmingly bad (3x), bad (9x) to not bad but unsatisfactory (6x).

Examples of good practiceThe following measures were applied to lashing and stacking, in order to prevent manual handling asmuch as possible: task rotation (7), scheduled breaks (5), plastic/aluminium lashing rods (2), platformon board (for lashing) (1), the use of a safety cage for twistlocks (1).

When technical measures to reduce physical load during stacking and lashing are involved, a cradle ora platform can be used when working on the ship. When working in the hold of the ship, lighter lashingstraps can be used instead of lashing chains.During stacking activities in particular, working from the quay and/or from a safety cage is better forthe physical load, and as a rule also safer.There are certain types of vessels in the container trade where securing containers in preparation for

departure no longer takes place by installing lashing rods, but is done entirely automatically by placingthe containers between guide rails intended for this purpose (cellular container ships). Loading andunloading such ships no longer involves any manual component.

Stuffing and stripping containersThe degree of mechanisation for stuffing and stripping (packaging and unpackaging) of containers isoften low. Because of this, the risk of overloading is high. 34 inspections dealt with the furtherinvestigation of stuffing and stripping a container. Physically stressful work activities were encounteredin 22 inspections, such as stacking heavy boxes (13 times) and lifting operations (17 times). Situationsof physical overloading were encountered during 16 inspections.

The inspectors evaluated the situations of stacking and lifting when stuffing and stripping containersas bad to alarmingly bad.

13


14/23

An inspector encountered an odd jobs company that regularly put its employees to work emptyingcontainers for various clients. Among other things, bags of feed (25 kg) and bags of milk powder (20kg) were unloaded manually. Boxes of wine were also regularly unloaded manually. The employer wasunable to present a risk inventory & evaluation (RIE), nor had it assessed the clearly present risks of

physical overloading. Although the employer had taken a few measures, these were absolutelyinsufficient to reduce the hazards of physical overloading.

In the harbour of Amsterdam, inspectors also encountered situations of physical overloading when alorry was being loaded. The employees handled 18,000 to 20,000 packages per day, at an averageweight of 10 kg. The maximum package weight was 31 kg. The weight is not printed on the packages,so employees cannot prepare themselves for it. Loads were also frequently lifted higher than 1.80metres. The employer in question had not instructed its employees as to the risks of physical loadrelated to this type of work, nor had it taken any measures.

Examples of good practiceThe inspectors encountered the following measures taken to limit manual operations as much aspossible: task rotation (11), electrical aids (4), slipsheets (3), mini forklift truck (3), roller conveyors (2),scheduled breaks (1), roller forks (1), steps (1), container inverter (1) and palletisation (1).

Other solutions for reducing physical load when stuffing and stripping containers include:the use of slipsheets, roller forks, lifting aids and mini forklift trucks for hard cargo (boxes, etc.)inversion, whether or not mechanic, of a container when unloading bagsusing steps and platforms if work must be done at a height above 1.8 musing ramps when floors are on different levelsusing electrically driven aids when moving cargopaying attention to the posture when lifting and moving loads (information and instruction about

ergonomics and physical load).

There are also employers who managed to arrange clever solutions via agreements with suppliers,which result in advantages to several parties in the overseas logistic chain. This applies, for example,to an employer (wine merchant) with an office at a container terminal. The merchant stated that he hadmade the agreement with his suppliers in South Africa and Chile to place the bottom wine boxes in thesea container on so-called slipsheets (plastic sheets). When unloading the container, the slipsheet canbe grabbed via a grip on the fork set up of the forklift truck and pulled onto the forks. Not only does thisprevent physical load on employees when unloading, but the container can transport additional cargodue to saving the space the pallets would have taken up. According to the employer the costs of usingslipsheets were recovered within a few months.

3.2.3 Bulk cargo

27 situations where bulk cargo was handled were inspected, and physically stressful work activitieswere encountered in 10 situations. These chiefly involved shovelling and sweeping. When sweeping,employees manually sweep up liquid oils in tanks using large squeegees and heavy heating coils thatmust usually be moved manually. Shovelling involves scraping loose bulk cargo caked onto the vesselwall with long scrapers. 4 cases of physical load were detected here during the inspections, and onesituation with physical overloading.

The verdict of the inspectors on the situation during bulk transshipment was, in so far as physical loadis concerned, "Not bad", but absolutely unsatisfactory.

Examples of good practiceThe following measures were used in ships with bulk cargo, where shovelling or sweeping of cargo is

involved, in order to prevent the necessity of manual operations as much as possible: task rotation (6),mechanic aids (5), scheduled breaks (2), permanent pipes (1).

14


15/23

Heating coils are used to remove liquid cargo residues of edible oils, for example. These coils areheavy and must be moved and lifted. A company in the Rotterdam harbour manufactured its ownsimple lifting aid (a type of lever) to facilitate lifting and moving this coil. The costs of investment werepractically nil (40 euros), the return, in terms of process speed and reduction of physical load weremany times that! (See photo report 1 through 3.)

Photo 1: The "old" hook for manuallifting and moving the heating coil

Photo 2: The lever Photo 3: Detail photo of the foot

Specific technical measures that reduce physical load when shovelling are, for instance, the use oflighter and/or shorter poles. Instead of manual operations for sweeping, chemical cleaning or the useof mechanical high pressure cleaning may be other options.

3.2.4 Roll-on roll-off: lashing cargo

Lashing cargo involves securing cargo (mostly vehicles) on roll-on-roll-off vessels using straps, rods and chains. The work is especiallyhard in limited work space and because of the fact work is done inthe hold of the ship where it can be oppressive, for example as aresult of higher temperature, insufficient ventilation in combinationwith exhaust gases/vapours of the cars or lorries being unloaded.

Note: As far as roll-on roll-off vessels are concerned, the aggravating effect on the physical load wasprimarily examined. During this project, 5 roll-on roll-off vessels were inspected, and clearly manualand physically stressful work activities took place in 4 cases. This involved securing and releasingcargo (cars, lorries, rolling equipment) in ocean vessels. Physical overloading was detected in 2 ofthese situations. Inspectors passed the verdict "bad" and "not bad, but unsatisfactory" in these cases.

15


16/23

Examples of good practiceDuring inspections on board roll-on roll-off vessels, the following measures to make the work lessphysically stressful were encountered: task rotation (2), the use of lashing straps instead of chains,since straps are lighter (1), the use of a pneumatic turnbuckle (1). The ratchet is also an aid forreducing physical load. See photo report 1 through 3:

Photo 1: Old-fashioned securingloads using chains and rods

Photo 2: Tightening chains androds with a ratchet.

Photo 3: The ratchet (lessstressful physically)

3.3 Sticking points for employers

Why do employers fail to apply measures? Using the state of the art, a broad range of solutions isavailable for reducing physical load during transfer/transshipment work activities in the harbours.Therefore, one could expect these solutions to be applied. However, inspectors encounteredsituations various times in which (standard) solutions could have been used, in their opinion. Whydoes this not happen? The employers indicate the following reasons or sticking points for this:

employees are against this (6x)the employer is not familiar with the measure (4x)applying the solution wastes time (3x)the heavy work is contracted out (2x)there is no problem (2x)

costs are too high (1x)equipment in use is obsolete (e.g. heavy lashing chains with which the ship is already

equipped) (1x)

LoadingEmployers encounter sticking points that have to do with the manner in which ships and containershave been loaded. They refer to other responsible parties in the logistic chain who do not take anymeasures for economic reasons, which leaves the situation that then confronts thetransfer/transshipment of cargo in the Netherlands. For example, in the case of cocoa shipping, theyimmediately point out how cocoa is loaded into the ship in Africa. In the case of freezer trawlers, theypoint to the owners of the trawlers who stuff the holds with boxes of fish without putting them onpallets, or as far as outgoing loads are concerned, they point to the receiver who does not want anypallets because of the loss in volume in transport. For containers and roll-on roll-off vessels, they

depend on the equipment on board the vessel. They have no influence on how the containers arelashed or on the lashing materials on these vessels.

16


17/23

The opinion of the Labour Inspectorate is that employers must consider what is possible in thesecases to a far greater extent. Parties receiving loads can make agreements with their suppliers in theexporting countries on the manner in which cargo is loaded. There are also possibilities to includeworking conditions aspects with respect to physical load in the regulations for loading and stowage,intended for the trim of the vessel and for keeping it in balance. This way, one would be workingtowards a more integrated approach to safety of the vessel on the one hand, and the health with

respect to the physical load of the crew, or of those who handle transfer/transshipment of the cargo onthe other.

Protecting only one's own employeesSome employers prevent the physical load for their own employees to as great an extent possible byhaving temporary workers do the hard work or by calling in the foreign crew of the vessel for thispurpose. For example, a stevedore stated that he did not have his own employees stack containers,as he found this too dangerous. He made an agreement to have the crew of the vessel do this. Acomparable situation was also encountered in the case of unloading frozen fish. The ships crew didthe work manually, with the requisite physical overloading in combination with aggravating conditionsof (freezing) cold and limited room to move in. The Dutch workers then took over, using forklift trucksand other mechanical aids. These are serious situations and in violation with agreements on socialprotection and labour standards that have been signed via the ILO treaties. However, not all countries

have ratified these treaties, nor do all countries comply with these standards. Therefore, a lot of workstill has to be done in regard to this issue, but the solutions are beyond the power of individualemployees. In particular international parties (employer and employee organisations) and alsointernational politics must make a move here. The recently signed ILO Decent Work Agenda, aimed atreinforcing dignified working conditions for all employees, is a new initiative to activate countriesglobally for better working conditions, taking the specific economic situation of a country into account.Situations as mentioned above must be brought up for discussion in this framework. The Europeanlabour inspectorates can also play an active role in this, by putting abuses encountered in theirsupervision practice on the international agenda.

Misunderstanding about the lifting standardIt has regularly been detected that employers have the idea that the standard" for physical load is 23kg. Many employers think that if they comply with this standard, they are not exceeding the legal

standard for physical loads. The medical threshold (the maximum acceptable lifting weight) may differfor each situation, depending on the weight to be lifted, the frequency with which this weight is lifted,the posture during lifting, and lifting above shoulder height. The Labour Inspectorate evaluates whatthe maximum acceptable lifting weight is by means of the NIOSH method.

Company cultureAttention to safety on the workfloor is reasonably established at a great number of companies in theharbours. After all, the Labour Inspectorate has been focusing attention on this for years. Whenattention to physical load is involved, it appears that employers and employees see this as a facet"that is just part of the trade". The hardest work is often still the most popular. For example, lashingcontainers is "more worthy" than stacking. Employees usually do not discuss their health with theiremployers. However, workers express something entirely different in one-on-one conversations withinspectors: on these occasions, employees recognise how hard the work is and think the Labour

Inspectorate is doing a good thing by focusing on the issue.

Level European playing fieldIn interviews with the Labour Inspectorate, employers admit that, in addition to safety, more attentionto health, and thus also to physical load, is no luxury in the harbours. They particularly point out theever intensifying problems in finding good workers, as a result of a tight employment market. Theycomment that they are convinced of the importance of investments intended to reduce the physicalload, but also point out the importance of equal inspection and enforcement in the European seaharbours, so they are not confronted with competitive disadvantage due to a non-level Europeanplaying field. This inspection project was initiated in part for this reason. It is part of a Europeaninitiative with the purpose of reinforcing enforcement of labour conditions among neighbouringcountries and making them more uniform. Follow-up commitments on the exchange of inspectionresults in the sea harbours and on harmonising enforcement are made with the Labour Inspectorates

in Belgium and Germany, where similar projects have been carried out.

17


18/23

4 Conclusions and recommendations

This project showed that, in the harbours where manual handling of loads are involved, violations inthe area of physical load were detected in more than one third (37.3%) of the companies inspected. Italso showed that nearly half of the companies focus little or no attention on the problem of physicalload, while this does involve companies where manual handling of loads is part of the daily work. The

Labour Inspectorate emphasizes in this case that it exercises a great deal of restraint in taking actionagainst physical overloading (only when the NIOSH standard has been exceeded twice), which doesput the result of "only" a third of the companies with violations in a different light in this aspect.

Employers and employees themselves are primarily responsible, and must take concrete measures.The culture still prevails in the harbour companies that physical hard work "is just be part of the job"and that dock workers are "trained" for this. Both employers and employees often have an incorrectidea as to the legal standards for physical load. They think that a 23 kilogram maximum weight to belifted, as is the standard in construction, is all they need to know. However, physical load and theindication of physical overloading are extremely work-type specific, and the weight to be lifted is onlyone of the factors that determine the maximum acceptable weight.

Investing in solutions and measures to reduce physical load is not commonly found at the companies.If measures are taken, they are often the obvious ones, such as task rotation, or the use of availablelifting aids and mechanisation. Companies must assume a more active attitude in order to developcreative solutions. The perception of employers is often quickly one of big and expensive investments,which they think will not be profitable. Examples of good practice in this report also show that verysimple practical aids and solutions can be effective. Moreover, investments in preventing loss ofemployees, in view of the tight employment market and the continuing ageing of the work populationthat are already noticeable now, are also of great importance from a business economic point of view.The more "revolutionary" solutions, such as making agreements with suppliers, seem to be muchmore difficult to many. Several examples we showed demonstrate that they also can pay off. Even"farther away" solutions do not appear to come up for discussion at all. For example, there are certaintypes of vessels in the container trade in which containers are made ready to off-load by placing thementirely automatically between guide rails intended for this purpose (cellular container ships). No

manual component is involved in loading and unloading such vessels. It seems advisable toinvestigate the advantages and disadvantages of this type of vessel in more detail, from a workingconditions point of view, and to involve experts of insurers, engineering firms and ergonomicconsultation firms in this.

The Labour Inspectorate is concerned that a macho mentality can still be perceived in employees inthe harbours. This attitude makes it difficult to bring up physical load for discussion with the employers,and thus creates another threshold for the search for concrete solutions to reduce the physical load.

The Labour Inspectorate finds it extremely distressing that protection of a company's own employeescomes at the expense of physical overload of temporary personnel and/or foreign crew members, forexample. There is still much ground to cover in this regard. Furthermore, it appeared that agreements

with overseas merchants are a possibility, and have led to interesting win-win situations. All partiescan still profit a great deal on this point.

The Labour Inspectorate concludes that a "level playing field" has certainly not been established yetglobally, while cargo transfer/transshipment in the harbours is of an extremely international nature.This is why various parties still have the requisite work to do, including employers, employeeorganisations, sector organisations, the EU and also various maritime organisations. As far as theLabour Inspectorate is concerned: it will focus attention on the problem of physical load in theharbours, and the results of this inspection project in particular, in international context with colleagueinspection agencies and in its further international contacts such as the ILO. Attention to physical loadwill also continue to be an important subject in the framework of the harbour inspection programme.

The Labour Inspectorate makes two recommendations to the employers and employees of

transfer/transshipment companies in the harbours:

18


19/23

Recommendation 1: More creative measures

In addition to application of already existing and properly functioning measures, the LabourInspectorate considers it important that companies search more actively for and invest in creativemeasures that prevent or limit physical load. The Labour Inspection calls on companies and sectororganisations to allow themselves to be inspired by the examples of good practice within, but also

outside their own sector. It is also worth the effort to not immediately push aside the "revolutionary"solutions, but to seriously examine them for effectiveness and feasibility.

Recommendation 2: Making physical load discussible

The Labour Inspectorate considers it important that employees, employee organisations, sectororganisations and individual employers make the physical load subject discussible. This requires thereigning culture and attitude among employees to be breached. Employees can be involved actively insearching for creative solutions for physical load they are subjected to. This will increase the supportbase for implementing measures.

19


20/23

Appendix: NIOSH method

Evaluating lifting situations

The American "National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health" (NIOSH) has developed an

evaluation method for calculation of the Recommended Weight Limit (RWL). The following factors aretaken into account here:

H: horizontal distance from the load to the anklesV: vertical distance from the load to the anklesD: vertical distance the load is movedA: torso rotation, asymmetry factorF: lifting frequencyC: contact with the load

The NIOSH method can be used if one is free to choose the lifting position and can pick up the loadwith two hands. In optimum conditions, the recommended weight is 23 kg. This weight is multiplied bythe 6 factors that vary between 0 and 1 (the optimum situation). The basic assumption of the NIOSH

standard is that the majority of the population (99% of the men and 75% of the women) can carry outthe lifting operation without any risk to their health. This limit would correspond with an energyconsumption of 3.5 kcal/min or with a compressive force of 3400 N on intervertebral disc L5-S1. TheNIOSH method results in excessively high thresholds for lifting situations that do not comply with theconditions for the method (e.g. one can not choose the lifting position or must pick up the load withone hand).

NIOSH formula:RWL = 23kg * Hf * Vf * Df * Af * Ff * Cf

Hf = 25/H (minimum 25 cm to maximum 63 cm)Vf = 1 0.003 x |V-75| (maximum 175 cm)

Df = 0.82 + 4.5/D (if moving distance < 25cm, then Df = 1)Af = 1 0.0032 A (in ) (rotation must be < 125 )Ff = number of times per minute, from the table (0.2 minimum)Cf = from the table

[drawing, terms from left to right, top to bottom]

VerticalProjection point view from the top

AngleHorizontal positionThe midpoint between the anklesVertical positionHorizontalMidpoint between the anklesHorizontal positionProjection point

20


21/23

Example of pallet loading

Data:* Load 18 kg, box 45 x 45 x 30 cm.* Frequency: 5 boxes are placed on the pallet (10 cm high) per layer.

This takes about 1 minute per layer.* The employee does this for about 1.5 hours per day.* He lifts the boxes from the bottom, so he can wrap his hands at a 90 degree angle

around the load.* He can take steps to stand right in front of the load and keep the load close to his

body.

21


22/23

Evaluation according to NIOSH:

Initial situationParameters 1

st

layer2

nd

layer4

thlayer Factors 1

stlayer 2

ndlayer 4

thlayer

H (measuring

or 20/25 + depth of thebox)

35 35 35 Hf 0.71 0.71 0.71

Vbeginning 50 50 50 Vf 0.93 0.93 0.93D 40 5 95 Df 0.94 1.00 0.87F 5/min 5/min 5/min Ff 0.6 0.6 0.6C normal normal normal Cf 0.95 0.95 0.95A 0 g 0 g 0 g Af 1.00 1.00 1.00RWL 8.1 8.7 7.5End situationParameters 1

st

layer2

nd

layer4

thlayer Factors 1

stlayer 2

ndlayer 4

thlayer

Hend 40 35 35 Hf 0.63 0.71 0.71Vend 10 55 145 Vf 0.81 0.95 0.81D 40 5 95 Df 0.94 1.00 0.87F 5/min 5/min 5/min Ff 0.6 0.6 0.6C normal normal normal Cf 0.95 0.95 1.00A 0 g 0 g 0 g Af 1.00 1.00 1.00RWL 6.3 8.7 6.6

Risk assessment:

The lifting index (Li) is used for assessment of the risk.This index is the ratio between the weight that is effectively lifted and the recommended weight. Thisvalue is used as the risk indicator:< 1 : no problem1-2 : attention required for adaptation> 2 : adapt immediately

In this example:The load is 18 kg. RWl = 6.3Lifting index is: 18/6.3 = 2.86.

In this example, the NIOSH standard is substantially exceeded.Also the 5

thlayer cannot be assessed by using the NIOSH method. It is too high/heavy anyway.

Maximum stacking height is 175 cm

22


23/23

Colophon

Project number: A851

Labour Inspectorate Project ManagerMrs J.G.M. van Vlerken

Oudenoord 6P.O. Box 8203500 AV UtrechtPhone +31 (0)30 230 5600

Physical Load SpecialistMr A.G. MossJanspoort 2P.O. Box 90186800 DX ArnhemPhone +31 (0)26 355 7111

National Project Secretary

Mr W.J. LegelStadionweg 43CP.O. Box 95803007 AN RotterdamPhone +31 (0)10 479 8376

Documents

Physical Load Dock workers