Police put the boot into safety footwear issue
Top Police officials have done a backflip and reversed the Police decision in May 2007 to provide frontline staff with safety footwear.
The Association has been lobbying for safety footwear for frontline staff since 2004, but were recently informed by the Commissioner of Police, Howard Broad, that the Police Executive Committee (PEC) has pulled the plug on the long-standing project. Four reasons were given to the Associationas to why Police had decided to abandon the project, these included:
• The current fiscal environment;
• The hazards which officers face were not significant enough;
• Other priorities on the agenda; and
• Insufficient justification.
Police say employees will receive safety footwear on a case-by-case basis.
The Association considered that the delays in this project were unacceptable, but this decision is unfathomable.
Legislation – decision unlawful?
Under the Health and Safety in Employment Act it states that if an employee is faced with a hazard in their working environment, employers must take steps to either eliminate, isolate or minimise it.
The Association is of the opinion that eliminating or isolating the hazards in this environment is not possible, as police officers must attend accident scenes, crime scenes and other emergencies where they have no control over the physical environment or their work activities.
The Association believes Police may be in contravention of the Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992, section 10, 2(b), which states that employers must provide, make accessible to and ensure the use by employees of suitable clothing and equipment to protect them from harm, that may be caused by or arise out of a hazard.
The Act also states that employers cannot pay an allowance in lieu of providing required safety equipment. They are obliged to provide equipment, which meets the relevant safety standard.
Police must also adhere to the NZ Police Health and Safety Manual, which states that if any hazard has a risk factor of eight or above measures to control or manage the situation must be made straight away.
Hazardous conditions
Evidence that suggests frontline response staff often face hazards in their job can be found in a survey conducted by Police in 2005. The Police’s own survey results showed that the majority of response staff participants said that during a normal working day, five out of the eight hours worked were spent on their feet.
This indicates how long staff are exposed to potential hazards.The survey also showed that during the working day the potential hazards faced by frontline staff include:
• Surface types – concrete asphalt, grass, grave, loose earth and metal;
• Surface characteristics – uneven, slippery, rough, smooth, overgrown/ obscured;
• Surface deposits – water, mud, sharp objects, petrol/disel, debris, glass, blood, oil, human waste, chemicals, animal waste, ice and snow; and
• Work activities – running, twisting and turning, climbing, jumping, lifting and
carrying loads.
Each of these factors are a hazard in their own right, but often a combination is present, which increases the significance of the hazards and the risk of harm. For example, running after a member of the public on concrete in wet, slippery conditions with debris and glass on the surface.
When the officer catches up with the member of the public he or she is aggressive and difficult to contain, which means the officer is twisting and turning on the slippery, wet surface in their effort to handcuff the person.
Response staff that participated in the surve scored an ‘eight’ under the risk assessment process (combining “consequences” of a hazard and “likelihood” of an occurrence) outlined in the NZ Police and SafetyManual, which placed them in the “highrisk” category when it came to hazardous conditions.
The Association considers that the Police injury data does not accurately reflect the true nature and extent or significance of these hazards. Most frontline staff have taken responsibility and bought footwear, which recognises their working environment.
Cost
The Association calculated the initial cost of providing safety footwear for frontline staff at around $1.2 million. This amount is a virtual drop in the ocean (.08%) of the Police’s $1.387 billion budget for the 2009-10 fiscal year. Police have also had a number of years to plan for this cost.
Employers who provide safety footwear
Specialist squads
Police currently provide safety footwear to certain specialist squads such as the Armed Offenders Squad, Special Tactics Group, team policing, dog handlers, Commercial Vehicle Inspection Unit, Search and Rescue and Scene of Crime Officers. The Association’s argument is that General Duties Branch, Criminal Investigation Bureau and Road Policing staff often face significant hazards in their daily working environment too.
These groups are often the first responders to an incident.
Australian Police Forces
The Australian Federal Police, Queensland Police, Northern Territory Police, New South Wales Police, Tasmanian Police, Victoria Police, Western Australia and Australian Capital Territory Police are all issued with safety footwear. South Australia Police are the only state, which is not provided with safety footwear. Their uniform code is currently under review.
Emergency Services
St John Ambulance, the New Zealand Fire Service, the New Zealand Army, the Royal New Zealand Air Force, the Royal New Zealand Navy and the New Zealand Customs Service are all provided with safety footwear.
Other employers who provide safety footwear
Other jobs where safety footwear is provided to employees include: tyre fitters, aborists, demolition, river and stream operations, forest operations, helicopter logging, crane operators, timber processors, construction workers, agriculture, wielding, forklift drivers, metal casting, wharfies and factory workers.
Usual practice
Providing safety footwear is normal in workplaces, which contain hazards on a par with those faced by frontline staff. It appears that it is New Zealand Police who are out of step with health and safety practice and their failure to provide frontline staff with safety footwear lets down their staff, at the very least.
