Industry Interventions For Addressing MSD in NZ Meat Processing

REPORT ISSN 1174 - 1234 Volume 8 No 5, 2007
COHFE copyright 2007
Industry Interventions for Addressing Musculoskeletal Disorders (Strains/Sprains) in New Zealand Meat Processing
May 2007
D. Tappin, D. Moore, T. Bentley, R. Parker, L. Ashby, A. Vitalis, D. Riley, S. Hide
Findings from the 2004-2006 project Addressing Work Related Musculoskeletal Disorders in Meat and Seafood Processing.
Centre Centre for for Human Human Factors Factors and and Ergonomics Ergonomics
Industry Interventions for Addressing MSD in NZ Meat Processing
Acknowledgements
We gratefully acknowledge the assistance of the Meat Industry Health and Safety Forum and of plant staff around the country, for making themselves available and provided information throughout all stages of the project. This research is funded through the joint research portfolio (Health Research Council of New Zealand, Accident Compensation Corporation, Department of Labour) and is supported by New Zealand meat processing companies.
Table of Contents
Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 1 Some Information on MSD............................................................................................... 3 About the Intervention Tables .......................................................................................... 4 Intervention Headings ...................................................................................................... 5 Job Design Task Rotation ................................................................................................................... 6 Rest/Recovery Breaks ..................................................................................................... 8 Work Pace ..................................................................................................................... 10 Physical Task Requirements.......................................................................................... 11 Organisational Design Recruitment and Retention ............................................................................................ 13 Work Flow ...................................................................................................................... 15 Remuneration / Job Grades ........................................................................................... 17 Job Allocation................................................................................................................. 18 Attendance..................................................................................................................... 19 Staff Participation ........................................................................................................... 20 Shift Design.................................................................................................................... 22 Health and Safety Management..................................................................................... 23 Early Reporting and Injury Management........................................................................ 24 Maintenance .................................................................................................................. 26 Physical Design Plant Design................................................................................................................... 27 Workspace and Equipment Design ................................................................................ 28 Knife and Glove Design ................................................................................................. 30 Thermal Environment..................................................................................................... 31 Noise.............................................................................................................................. 32 Training Design Task Training ................................................................................................................. 33 Knife Sharpening Training.............................................................................................. 35 MSD Awareness Training .............................................................................................. 36 Task Specific Design Sheep / Beef Packing..................................................................................................... 37 Aitch Boning................................................................................................................... 40 Sheep Gutting ................................................................................................................ 41 Beef Boning ................................................................................................................... 42 Y Cutting ........................................................................................................................ 43 Beef Gutting ................................................................................................................... 45
Introduction
Between 2004-2006 COHFE and Massey University conducted a study within the meat and seafood processing industries to find out about interventions that were being used, or could be used in the future, to prevent musculoskeletal disorders (MSD also often referred to as sprain & strain injuries). The study was funded by the Health Research Council, ACC, and the Department of Labour. This report contains a range of industry interventions identified during the study that can be used to help address MSD in meat processing. The specific intentions of this document are to: 1. Help improve knowledge about MSD across the industry, including raised recognition of more of the risk factors and implementation barriers than are currently identified. 2. Make it clear that MSD have many causes and that as many as possible need to be addressed to prevent MSD. There is no single cause or single solution. 3. Encourage a broader range of interventions to be implemented, based on those currently being applied or considered in the industry. 4. Help to plan for systemic change at an industry level for some of the interventions. The study had three stages. In the first stage, high risk tasks were identified by the researchers and the Meat Industry Health and Safety Forum (MIF) based on analysis of ACC and plant injury data (2002-2004). The second stage of the study involved assessment of these high risk tasks and the work systems in which they operate in 28 processing plants around the country (20052006). During these visits, information about existing or proposed interventions addressing MSD was collected at each plant. Other intervention ideas were also collected from the meat processing literature. Most of the interventions identified concerned wider work system issues, as well as those more immediate ones specific to each task. Data on key risk factors and barriers to implementation was also collected. In the third stage, data and information from the first two stages was summarised and sent to the MIF for feedback on content and intervention priority. Their feedback was then incorporated into this final document for use by the industry1. For simplicity, the interventions have been summarised and grouped under 28 headings. For each heading there is information on relevant MSD risk factors and potential barriers to implementing the interventions. Many of the interventions have been implemented by the processing plants involved in the study (although not always for the purpose of reducing MSD risk) and have been effective to varying degrees.
For further information on any part of the study contact David Tappin (027 290 6958, david.tappin@cohfe.co.nz).
May 2007
Page 1 of 46
Other interventions are ideas that plants involved in the study are planning to implement. Finally, some of the interventions are ideas from the meat processing literature, related industries, or from the research team themselves. The full list of interventions were rated (A J) by the researchers for their combined; potential to reduce MSD (based on current understanding of those conditions), and their breadth of industry applicability. The Meat Industry Health and Safety Forum subsequently also rated the interventions indicating; their likely impact on reducing MSD, and the likelihood of their implementation. Accompanying this intervention document is a literature review on MSD in meat processing which was conducted as part of the study. This provides more detailed background information on risk factors, interventions and implementation barriers as reported by other researchers internationally.
May 2007
Page 2 of 46
Some Information on MSD

MSD (or sprains and strains) is a term used to describe a wide range of conditions that affect muscles, tendons, bones and joints (the musculoskeletal system). These occur when the demands of manual handling are too great, resulting in discomfort, pain, or an injury2. MSD can either happen suddenly or occur gradually over time. They can involve any part of the body but are often related to the body parts involved in the work tasks (i.e. upper limbs, neck and trunk). There are many other terms used to describe some MSD (e.g. RSI, OOS, work related upper limb disorders) as well as specific diagnoses (e.g. rotator cuff syndrome), however the term MSD is used here for consistency with international literature. MSD are very common in meat processing. They account for more than half of both the number and cost of ACC compensation claims for the industry each year. In 2005-06 the cost of new and ongoing MSD claims for meat processing was over $12 million. Meat processing also has the highest MSD incidence rate when compared with other similar NZ industries. Many MSD risk factors were identified during the study, which is a reason in itself why MSD are so prevalent in meat processing. They can be divided into two groups. Primary factors (or root causes) include such things as seasonality, staff turnover, fixed work pace and a limited labour pool. While many of these things are difficult to change and may not be seen to be directly associated with MSD, they are the underlying drivers of MSD risk. Their presence leads to secondary risk factors, or those most often identified with MSD such as repetition, high forces, fast work pace, etc. On top of these risk factors are the barriers that make implementing changes more difficult (e.g. cost, training, lack of space). Left unchecked, these implementation barriers can render otherwise good intervention ideas ineffective. In many cases, just recognising the barriers can be enough to make them easier to manage. These risk factors and common barriers to change are further outlined under each intervention heading. There are many reasons why MSD are hard to address. Most commonly this appears to be due to a narrow range of interventions being applied to a narrow range of risk factors. Other reasons include: their gradual onset making them harder to investigate and prevent, and the fact they are so commonplace and are often comparatively minor resulting in overemphasis on injury management rather than addressing root causes. MSD interventions are more likely to be effective when implemented as part of a programme rather than individually. Reducing MSD incidence therefore requires identifying the wide range of risk factors (primary and secondary) along with any implementation barriers, putting them in some order of priority and then systematically implementing an equally wide range of interventions over time that act on them. It is also important to recognise that there are often advantages to productivity and product quality of many of the interventions, in addition to reducing MSD risk.
2
Two further sources of information on MSD are the literature review on MSD in meat processing completed as part of this study, and the ACC resource Preventing and Managing Discomfort, Pain & Injury.
May 2007
Page 3 of 46
About the Intervention Tables

Interventions are grouped together under 28 headings (see page 5). For every intervention heading there is information on relevant key risk factors and implementation barriers, and a recommended intervention approach (first principles adapted from the literature). The number of plants who have implemented each intervention or are planning to do so, is indicated in two columns alongside the intervention. It is important to note that this is not a count for all the plants assessed, the interventions were simply those raised by plants as steps to address MSD. Where support exists in the literature for an intervention, this is indicated in a further column. The interventions have been prioritised by the researchers (COHFE) and the Meat Industry Health and Safety Forum (MIF). The COHFE rating for each individual intervention is based on its potential to reduce MSD nationally. The MIF combined ratings for all interventions in the heading are based on: the likely impact on reducing MSD & the likelihood of its implementation (i.e. how practical they are, how easy they are to implement). To enable comparison between the ratings they have been grouped, whereby A-C=high, DG=medium, and H-J=low. The purpose of providing this evidence and priority ratings is to help the reader establish which interventions may be applicable in a given situation, to help build a case, and an order in which they might be applied. Example: explaining the layout of tables
Rest/Recovery Breaks (Job Design)

MSD key risk factors and implementation barriers For every period of work there is an accompanying period of recovery time required. Without sufficient recovery time Recommended intervention approach Establishing the right balance of recovery opportunities will be different for each situation
Current interventions in the 28 plants included in the study
Plants Plants Support COHFE rating: already planning for it in potential to reduce doing it to do it the MSD, & breadth of literature industry applicability (A=highest, J=lowest) MIF combined rating for the likely impact on reducing MSD (High, Med, Low) MIF combined rating for the likelihood of implementation (High, Med, Low)
1. 2. 3. 4.
5 minute breaks in the middle of each run (except last if short). Enough time. Short runs 1.5 hour maximum. Limits. Have floater(s) available to give every staff. Compulsory micro-pauses for 20 seconds.
5 1 2 1
Yes
C C D D High Medium
May 2007
Page 4 of 46
Intervention Headings
We have grouped the intervention headings into five categories in the table below to help your navigation through the document. Job Design (page 6) Task Rotation Organisational Design (p. 13) Recruitment / retention Physical Design (p. 27) Plant Design Workspace and Equipment Design Training Design (p. 33) Task Training Knife Sharpening Training Task Specific Design (p. 37) Sheep/Beef Packing Aitch Boning Sheep Gutting Knife and Glove MSD Design Awareness Training Thermal Environment Noise Beef Boning Y Cutting Beef Gutting
Rest / Recovery Breaks Work flow Work Pace Physical Task Requirements Remuneration / job grades Job Allocation Attendance Staff Participation Shift Design Health & Safety Management Early Reporting and Injury Management Maintenance
May 2007
Page 5 of 46
Industry Interventions for Addressing MSD in NZ Meat Processing: Task Rotation (Job Design)
Task Rotation
MSD key risk factors and implementation barriers For tasks with MSD risks present, rotating onto other tasks decreases the risk of MSD injury. However, poorly designed rotation systems (such as informal/spasmodic rotation, arbitrary rotation timing, or where rotation occurs around equally physically demanding tasks) may achieve little or no reduction in MSD risk. There are a number of barriers to task rotation, including: training requirements, seniority/grades, remuneration, limited space, staff resistance, workspace design constraints or a limited range of tasks available. It is also important to note that task rotation does not address any MSD risk factors inherent in the tasks but simply spreads exposure to the risk around a large enough number of people to (hopefully) avoid injury. Addressing these MSD risk factors will require a range of other interventions in addition to task rotation. Recommended intervention approach There are no hard and fast rules. First principles are to avoid physical overloading and reduce boredom, without adversely affecting production or compliance, and hopefully enhancing both. To be effective, task rotation systems need to have the following components. Ideally, they need to be formalised, constructed to provide physical variety and recovery time for the staff involved. They are most needed during periods when the work pressure increases, but this is also when they are most often neglected. Staff need to be trained in all tasks in the rotation cycle, and additional trained staff need to be available to cover for absent staff. Rotation systems should be matched to the work area requirements, both in the range of tasks involved in the rotation cycles as well as the rotation interval timing. Other potential barriers such as: remuneration/grade differences, staff reluctance to rotate (dislike of change, perceived loss of prestige, preferences for certain tasks), and absenteeism need to be resolved for task rotation to be fully effective. Ironically, other MSD interventions that seek to reduce workload for certain workers, such as alternative duties and early return to work schemes have been noted to make the designing of task rotation systems more difficult within some plants as the lighter, easier tasks are taken out of the rotation. This reinforces the need for first principles to be the pursued to make all tasks as physically undemanding as possible to maximise acceptable exposure times. Evaluation should be periodically carried out to ensure that the rotation is being adhered to as it was designed. As well as reducing exposure to MSD risks, effective task rotation also increases staff skill levels and therefore workforce flexibility. It can also have a positive effect on motivation, satisfaction and concentration. An alternative to rotating around different tasks is to increase the range of tasks within each job. This enlargement of the job can have similar effects to task rotation in reducing MSD risk.
May 2007
Page 6 of 46
Industry Interventions for Addressing MSD in NZ Meat Processing: Task Rotation (Job Design)
Plants already doing it
Plants planning to do it
Support for it in the literature
COHFE rating: potential to reduce MSD, & breadth of industry applicability (A=highest, J=lowest)
MIF combined rating for the likely impact on reducing MSD (High, Med, Low)
MIF combined rating for the likelihood of implementation (High, Med, Low)
1.
Task rotation formalised so that all staff in all tasks involved do rotate. Previous informal rotation found not to work well enough and some MSD occurred; some staff choose not to rotate, or do so at different times than the rotation system was designed for, compromising the safety of all staff involved in the rotation cycle. 2. Task training provided to ensure that all staff are competent on all the rotation tasks before being involved. 3. The timing of, and number of tasks involved in, formal rotation take into account: task cycle length, physical requirements of tasks, available trained staff, rest tasks, travel distances, equipment/workspace adjustments. 4. Have a pool of staff trained and ready to step into rotation cycle if required (when absenteeism, staff leave, or increased workload requires it). 5. All staff are on the same pay rate - makes rotation possible. Can draw on staff from either boning or packing to fill gaps (if task trained) as pay or grades are not barriers. 6. There is less division of labour or job specialisation in some smaller plants (lower tally therefore more time per carcass and each staff is doing more tasks). This increase in the breadth of tasks undertaken by each person (referred to as job enlargement) provides more physical and mental task variety and less repetition. 7. Want to develop a rotation chart to allow others to easily see what tasks are done in each work area. Would enable OHN, Drs, etc to better advise alternative duties if they also know exactly what tasks are involved in the rotation. 8. Want fine-tuning of rotation cycles so variation in physical demands are accounted for, not just what's easiest to organise for quick changeover. 9. Overcame reluctance of some staff to rotate by providing discrete task training/refreshing after hours (saved face/esteem and filled gaps in skill knowledge). A gradual process - got buy-in person by person. 10. Want to improve attendance (e.g. trained casual staff, attendance bonus) so that there are no holes in skill sets needed for achieving rotation and meeting production targets. 11. Rotation (slaughter and boning) every 15 minutes in most cases - within a small number of tasks that are close enough together for a quick changeover. Not formalised. 12. Rotation is informal and is used as a way of spreading new people around so that bottlenecks are minimised. Daily rotation expected as minimum. Rotation is encouraged by health and safety staff and supervisors.
Yes
1 1 1 4 3
Yes
A A B D
D High 1 1 D D D 1 D E 1 E High
6 5
May 2007
Page 7 of 46
Industry Interventions for Addressing MSD in NZ Meat Processing: Rest/Recovery Breaks (Job Design)
Rest/Recovery Breaks
MSD key risk factors and implementation barriers For every period of work there is an accompanying period of recovery time required. Without sufficient recovery time, body tissues will eventually become damaged and injury will occur. Rest breaks provide this recovery time, both physically and mentally, during the shift of work. MSD are a common problem with process lines which enforce a certain work pace and rest regime over the natural work rhythm and inherent rest pauses of individuals (both of which may be faster or slower than the process line). The main barrier to implementing rest breaks is the perception that productivity will decline. There is much evidence indicating that this does not occur in well-designed rest break regimes. Changes in task design which result in reduced cycle times also provide the opportunity to build in additional rest breaks which may be needed if the changes have increased MSD risk factors but this does not always happen. A perception that returning to rest/recovery periods similar to those from a generation ago when the work was less automated may also act as a barrier to change. However, increased task specialisation and reduced task cycle times that have occurred subsequently have only served to increase the importance of achieving a balance between work and recovery time, both for reducing MSD risk and optimising task performance. Recommended intervention approach Establishing the right balance of recovery opportunities will be different for each situation, and will be influenced by such factors as work pace, physical demands, rotation, total exposure time, and staff experience. Rest breaks can take several forms, from brief pauses during the work, regular short breaks, and less frequent longer breaks. Work should ideally be designed to incorporate all three types, and for it to be possible to continue to take them even at the busiest times. People may need to be taught how to reduce muscle tension to make best use of brief pauses in their work. Findings of studies published in the literature include: passive breaks (relaxing at their work positions) were found to be more effective for combating MSD than active breaks (stretches, exercises) which were more unpopular with staff 9 minute breaks each hour improved discomfort ratings with no reduction in daily productivity; 2 minute breaks for active stretching were introduced in one study, with up to 12 such breaks per day.
May 2007
Page 8 of 46
Industry Interventions for Addressing MSD in NZ Meat Processing: Rest/Recovery Breaks (Job Design)
1.
5 minute breaks in the middle of each run (except the last if it is short). Enough time to maintain knife, recover, go to the toilet, smoke break in some cases. Leave a gap in the chain so that the break is staggered as it works its way down. Both slaughter and boning. Paid under some circumstances, not in others. 2. Short runs - 1.5 hour maximum. Limits exposure to the tasks with highest injury risk. 3. Have floater(s) available to give every staff a break. Only works if no-one is away. Not always available when needed most. 4. Compulsory micro-pauses for 20 seconds every 15 minutes when they rotate. Implement this as part of the task (e.g. washing, steeling). 5. Micro-pauses every hour for 1 minute (slaughter and boning). Chain stops. Also signals task rotation. Time used for micro-pauses, knife maintenance. 6. Have rovers who move along the slaughter chain providing a break for every person, on every run (5-10 minute breaks). Keep them as rovers even when short-staffed. Rovers need to be skilled in each of the tasks. 7. Have two 5 min breaks during the shift, primarily for knife sharpening. 8. Want to trial 1-2 min/hour micro-pauses. Measure overall productivity, rework/quality, staff turnover, injuries to determine their effect. Resolve debate about who pays. 9. 20 minute smokos (after 2 hour runs) 10. 7 min breaks in the middle of the first three runs (2.75-3 hour run length). Use floater in slaughter so no empty hooks 11. Have casual breaks during runs, staff replace each other for a short break (within grade jobs).
5 1 2 1 1 1 1 3 2 1 1
Yes
C C D D D D D D E E E High Medium
May 2007
Page 9 of 46
Industry Interventions for Addressing MSD in NZ Meat Processing: Work Pace (Job Design)
Work Pace
MSD key risk factors and implementation barriers Condensing the same amount of work into a shorter time period increases MSD risk through: removing rest breaks or the opportunity for brief pauses, and increasing the work pace leading to compromises in work methods in order to keep up. This practice of condensing or compressing work can therefore result in previously acceptable physical task demands becoming unsustainable for some people. Commonly those most at risk are packers, labourers and others who lack sufficient influence on the degree to which work is compressed into shorter periods. Barriers to changing such work practices include: a reluctance to trade early finish times for reduced MSD risks, breaking traditions, and the control of change being in the hands of a small group of influential staff whose views, personal characteristics and MSD risk profiles may not be representative of all those affected. Recommended intervention approach Work compression that results in the work pace or work flexibility becoming physically unsustainable for any staff involved should be phased out over time, or if this proves too difficult, then be capped at levels that all staff involved find manageable.
1. 2. 3.
Compression not allowed. Any missed hooks can be made up at the end of the shift to a predetermined maximum. Limit compression to a fixed amount per run (e.g. 5min/run (20mins/shift)). Jumping carcasses ahead of the chain to compress runs has been controlled so there is a minimum number of minutes to be worked and a fixed work pace.
2 1 1
Yes
B C C High Medium
Other interventions identified during the study 1. The reduction of work compression was recommended in a previous NZ study (1993-1996) in the meat processing industry. The factors that increase MSD risk through work compression may also reduce product quality and yield. Yes A
May 2007
Page 10 of 46
Industry Interventions for Addressing MSD in NZ Meat Processing: Physical Task Requirements (Job Design)
Physical Task Requirements

MSD key risk factors and implementation barriers The physical demands of the industry are moving beyond the capabilities of an increasing number of people as the nature of the workforce changes. Most notably there are on average older staff, reduced physical capability of people starting in the industry than in the past, and increasing percentages of female staff. Similarly, there are changes in the nature of some of the work (e.g. larger carcasses, greater throughput, mechanisation leading to increased division of labour) which have increased the physical demands in many tasks. The trend towards reduced capabilities of incoming staff may be exacerbated by low national unemployment figures and increased employment options in regions around plants. The resulting mismatch between physical task requirements and workforce capabilities can increase the risk of MSD significantly. Recommended intervention approach Reducing the physical demands of tasks, for example through providing mechanical assistance, reduces the MSD risks for everyone. By contrast, the approach of attempting to increase the physical strength and fitness of existing staff will make some MSD less likely to occur, but will not address all MSD risks and requires ongoing maintenance and a low level of staff turnover to be effective. A combination of both approaches is likely to produce the best results in preventing MSD.
May 2007
Page 11 of 46
Industry Interventions for Addressing MSD in NZ Meat Processing: Physical Task Requirements (Job Design)
1.
2.
3. 4.
5. 6. 7.
Want to make jobs physically easier so that a larger range of people could be employed to do them (including older workers, both genders). MSD risks would reduce and therefore staff that would otherwise be injured could stay at work. Similarly, there would be less staff leaving because it's too hard. Industry has to overcome lack of skills and ageing workforce by designing out heavy work. Trends should be towards casual and job-sharing arrangements as these can provide more flexibility (e.g. providing cover, meeting production requirements) and may make it easier to recruit and retain staff. Have two labourers positions in a training room as step down positions for older boners wanting to ease out of full tally work in boning. Want to start working out a strategy (career path) for people nearing retirement rather than let them work on and possibly injure themselves. Could include: training roles, light duty jobs (may impact on task rotation however), capped hours of work during season peak (no longer days, limited weekend work). Improve physical preparedness of staff through pre-employment physical training, encouraging staff to maintain fitness through the season. Set maximum weights at 27kg. Loads greater than this become a two person task. Would like to have a department for older workers with tasks that are less physically demanding (e.g. cutting chops).
High
Medium
1 1 1
D E F
May 2007
Page 12 of 46
Industry Interventions for Addressing MSD in NZ Meat Processing: Recruitment and Retention (Organisational Design)
Recruitment and Retention

MSD key risk factors and implementation barriers An overall shortage of staff, and skilled staff in particular, can result in: higher workloads for the available workforce, less rotation options, less time available for training, and mismatches between skill level and task complexity. Successfully retaining staff reduces MSD risk through having a more skilled and flexible workforce. Plants with low staff turnover appear to have fewer MSD problems. There are clearly many possible explanations for this, but it could be a combination of having well-trained staff who know what to expect, resources that can be used for training for existing staff rather than for the recruitment and initial training of new staff. Strong teamwork built over time may also factor. Barriers to recruiting and retaining staff include: part-year employment, seniority, competition from other industries, night shift work and low unemployment figures in the country. Pay rates in the meat industry are also not as attractive in comparison to national averages as they have been historically. Recommended intervention approach Actively assist employees to achieve a financially and socially sustainable 12 month work cycle.
1.
2. 3.
Try and maintain workforce stability (low staff turnover) through recruiting wisely and keeping staff happy. Is a priority as it reduces recruitment & training load, helps maintain productivity, keeps overall skill levels high in the plant and makes the plant easier to manage. Have reciprocal arrangements with other processors (NZ, overseas, seafood), or help arrange other work in the off-season (forestry, farming, manufacturing, construction) Requirement to disclose other employment at recruitment.
3 5 2 1
B Medium D D Medium
May 2007
Page 13 of 46
Industry Interventions for Addressing MSD in NZ Meat Processing: Recruitment and Retention (Organisational Design)
Current interventions in the 28 plants included in the study (contd)
4.
5. 6.
7. 8. 9. 10. 11.
12. 13.
14.
Labourers are kept in employment even in quiet times. While this incurs a cost, this is offset by the advantages of having them available to fill in for staff absences as well as not having to recruit when the plant gets busy. During quieter times they are trained by the contract staff they work alongside. Try to get a balance of young and old, male and female when recruiting. Would like to make the season as long as possible (e.g. process other species) to provide steady employment so as to reduce staff turnover and to reduce risk of overexposure through intensive work periods. Annual recruiting drive - look to employ staff from outside the region to meet plant needs if necessary (staff numbers, required skills). Pre-employment medical for new staff. New staff are trained for 2 weeks by WINZ (ex-meat worker), paid for by NZITO. Recruit separately for day and night to get a mix of experience on each shift - not all new staff are put on nights. Run a holiday scheme during the off season (reserves for annual leave). This enables day shift staff to have a break and provides a bit more work to night shift staff (helps to reduce staff turnover). Night shift is the training shift - is used as a source of new staff for day shift. National recruiting drive for the industry to counter high staff turnover (e.g. as in dairy farming and teaching). Define what makes meat processing jobs attractive compared with the competition (other industries) Want to improve the profile of the meat industry to make it easier for workers to borrow money and get insurance (workers reported not being able to get loans because of perceived low job security offered by the industry - disincentive to stay in industry).
1 1 2 5 1 1 1 1 2 1
D D D E E E E E F F Medium Medium
Other interventions identified during the study 1. Ensure that in a long season there is still provision made for annual leave E
May 2007
Page 14 of 46
Industry Interventions for Addressing MSD in NZ Meat Processing: Work Flow (Organisational Design)
Work Flow
MSD key risk factors and implementation barriers Peaks and troughs in the flow of work can lead to the same peaks and troughs in physical workload. These peaks, however brief, may be enough to create discomfort which progresses to MSD. They can occur as a result of: line imbalances (e.g. between boning and packing), boning chilled prime/mutton after weekends, product changes within a run, and less experienced staff working for long periods at the pace of more senior workers. While production requirements and factors such as seasonality, weather fluctuations, staff skills and staff availability are among the main determinants of work load and work flow, greater awareness of the effects that they have on MSD may enable the risks from peaks to be better managed. Recommended intervention approach Looking upstream from the processing plant - anticipating animal condition and numbers; and downstream developing sustainable working patterns acceptable to the customers.
A. Chillers 1. Spray chillers - keeps meat moist, fat is not as hard. 2. Want to store chilled product at the upper margin of the acceptable temperature range over the weekend. Ensure that chiller temperatures are within intended ranges and are not too cold. 3. Want to raise temperature of prime carcasses/fatty ewes before they arrive in the boning room (especially over 2+ day breaks). 4. Where carcasses are over-chilled, would like to make provisions in the workflow for staff to work at a slower tally. 5. Bone on the curve - necessary as chilled fat on certain grades is thicker and is a significant factor in MSD developing. B. Boning Rooms 1. Have a slower chain at the beginning of the season to help learners get used to it. Once at full speed the experienced and new staff get mixed up across all chains. May 2007
1 3 1 1 1
D D D Medium D E Medium
Page 15 of 46
Industry Interventions for Addressing MSD in NZ Meat Processing: Work Flow (Organisational Design)
Plants already doing it Plants planning to do it Support for it in the literature COHFE rating: potential to reduce MSD, & breadth of industry applicability (A=highest, J=lowest) MIF combined rating for the likely impact on reducing MSD (High, Med, Low) MIF combined rating for the likelihood of implementation (High, Med, Low)
2.
Tally is set at a pace that enables sufficient time for those staff present to complete their task accurately, sterilise/steel, and recover. 3. Better awareness of achieving balance in the room (avoiding bottlenecks, recognising increases in workload through product changes, increase in carcass weights). Meeting quality and specifications may require slower pace, more staff in packing, short rest breaks to achieve it. 4. Start the season with easier product (boner cow). 5. Boning - Start prime at a lower tally (provides warmup time), increase as the shift progresses and workers get used to it. 6. Reduced tallies for first few weeks until staff can cope with increased speed and still have sufficient recovery time. 7. Tally reduces for heavier grades. 8. Try to process prime first, then bull, then cow (by shift and by season). 9. Maintain a constant chain speed and increase shift length / staff numbers to accommodate greater kill numbers if required. 10. Maximum daily tally limits (paid by piece rate) and no work compression allowed. 11. Break up runs of big mutton with small lambs to get a rest for staff. Muttons require more force, lambs are quicker repetitions. 12. Boning - Try to change products by shift rather than within shifts where possible, particularly when going from hot to chilled boning. Changing between prime, bull, cow often requires change in pace and technique and can take time to achieve C. 1. 2. 3. Staff Send surplus stock to other plants within company to avoid overstretching staff. Butchers & labourers can step up/down (on butchers rates) to fill gaps if short-staffed. Pro rata system (slaughter & boning) to allow for different staffing &/or training levels. Tallies are based on the number of staff and their skills. Daily pay remains the same. 4. Have a pool of multitasked staff who can step in to cover and help anyone struggling. 5. 6. Staff numbers are based on covering the average absenteeism so that there are usually enough people for the job. Two people packing heavy cuts - if sufficient staff are available.
1 1 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1
C C D D D D D D D E Medium Medium
1 1 2 1 1 1
C C C C C C
May 2007
Page 16 of 46
Industry Interventions for Addressing MSD in NZ Meat Processing: Remuneration / Job Grades (Organisational Design)
Remuneration / Job Grades

MSD key risk factors and implementation barriers A significant factor in creating MSD risk can be the use of piece rate payment systems. If poorly managed, these may allow staff to work beyond their physically sustainable limits, and can also enforce unsustainable conditions on staff further along the process line (e.g. packers). They can provide a financial incentive to be doing the task as fast as possible, as soon as possible (particularly relevant in plants with long off-seasons where the aim is to earn as much as possible during the available work period). This is increased further if a slower pace or gradual return to work is advocated (e.g. beginning of season, return from injury). With group payment systems, peer pressure can increase MSD risk through requiring people to work beyond a pace at which they feel comfortable. Bonus payments can have a similar effect unless managed carefully. Complex payment systems with a number of different grades can create risk through reducing both the ability and motivation to rotate. Production pressures are also suspected to be a factor in grip forces used. A study in 2004 (McGorry et al) found that in their laboratory based study of non-meat workers on a simulated meat cutting task, the variable of asking subjects to work as though they were getting paid by the amount of cutting they did produced the biggest increase in cutting force applied. Recommended intervention approach Either phase out piece rate payment and bonus systems or alter their design so that MSD risk is avoided. Find other ways to reward staff for good work, promote better teamwork and process innovation.
1. 2. 3. 4.
Set sustainable limits on the maximum number of hours permitted to work per day, and maximum number of shifts per week. Minimise the number of grades and payment systems to enable easier management of staff within rotation systems and to cover for staff absences. There is not the same incentive to do more than achieving the threshold for bonus payment this acts as a de facto maximum limit per shift. Pay staff well (although piece rate) - low staff turnover as a result (less than 5%).
1 1 1 1 2
C D D F Medium Low
Other interventions identified during the study 1. Set maximum tallies / work pace by run, shift, week. May 2007 D Page 17 of 46
Industry Interventions for Addressing MSD in NZ Meat Processing: Job Allocation (Organisational Design)
Job Allocation
MSD key risk factors and implementation barriers Job grades, pay scales and seniority can act as barriers to rotation, injury rehabilitation and working part-time. Some seniority systems can be a disincentive to move to another job (permanently or as cover for absent staff). Similarly, task allocation based on seniority alone may expose people to MSD risk due to insufficient task experience or skills training. Better recognition of the potential effects of these barriers on MSD risk is needed. Recommended intervention approach The situation is a complex one and the importance of respecting the personal dignity and mana of staff should not be underestimated. However, to reduce MSD risk, the job allocation systems should also include competency, skills and attendance factors to a greater degree than at present.
1.
2. 3. 4. 5.
6. 7.
Promote staff based on task competency and reliability. Provides motivation for staff to get skilled. Seniority effectively stops at the gate, where it gives a right for people to be on site and determines start and finish dates. Task competence and reliability determine what jobs they do. Focus more on abilities to find the best people for the position. Want to talk with unions about allowing competent people to step into rotations irrespective of their seniority. Dummy numbers in the seniority list to enable staff movements between grades, departments and shifts. Would like to try and achieve consistent policy in the meat industry regarding seniority across all regions and unions. Would like to try and maintain staff dignity by having the assessment method for task placement clearly set out in the contract. (For circumstances such as staff promotion or when there are more A graders than there are positions available.) Positions in the room are determined by competency and seniority. Try to stick roughly to seniority but do promote out of order if required. Remove disincentive to change departments or shifts by ensuring seniority lists allow for this (by department across all shifts, and plant).
1 1 2 1 9 2 1
D E E E F F High Low
May 2007
Page 18 of 46
Industry Interventions for Addressing MSD in NZ Meat Processing: Attendance (Organisational Design)
Attendance
MSD key risk factors and implementation barriers Absenteeism can overload the staff that do arrive for work. Absences adversely affect the ability to rotate and train, resulting in people being stuck for too long on tasks, and also being asked to do tasks that they are not adequately trained for. All these factors increase MSD risk (as well as affecting the ability of the firm to process to required specifications). Barriers mentioned that impact on achieving high attendance include: long work hours and/or long season leading to fatigue, holiday legislation for seasonal staff, busy periods coinciding with school holidays, avoidance of specific unpopular shifts or tasks, and the ability of staff to earn sufficient for their needs in less than a full week. Recommended intervention approach A two-pronged approach appears most successful. Firstly, minimising absences through anticipation of spells of likely high absenteeism and acting to mitigate the factors concerned, and secondly, to reduce the impact of absences on other preventive functions such as task rotation and training.
1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
Have a casual pool of staff to call on if people are away. Start a new one each season to cover staff leaving. Only work during the week, and not weekends, has helped to reduce absenteeism. (Weekend work conflicted with sport and younger staff often started work on the weekend shift). Staff shortages are manageable when not working seven days as the weekenders are available as a casual pool of staff. The effects of absenteeism are managed to a limited extent by maintaining tally but discarding product that would normally be kept or reducing the processing required. They dont put job sheets up until the beginning of the shift to reduce the chances of absenteeism from people avoiding unpopular tasks.
3 1 1 1 1
D E E F G Medium Low
Other interventions identified during the study 1. Bonuses for high levels of attendance. F
May 2007
Page 19 of 46
Industry Interventions for Addressing MSD in NZ Meat Processing: Staff Participation (Organisational Design)
Staff Participation
MSD key risk factors and implementation barriers Implementing change without meaningfully involving the relevant staff misses the opportunity to improve the system design through drawing on their task expertise and using their injury prevention knowledge. Avoidable MSD risk factors can be permanently built into workplaces as a result. Attitudes towards the changes and those responsible for them may also be improved when meaningful participation takes place. Pressures on development time and fears of lost production are the most common barriers to a more participative approach. The attitudes of designers and management staff therefore need to be changed through highlighting the benefits of adopting a more formally inclusive, and less ad hoc, approach to staff participation. Recommended intervention approach Significant gains in productivity and reduced injury risk can accrue from a well-managed participative development and trialing process. There is an opportunity to learn from other industries where this approach is accepted practice. Best practices reported in the literature include: Training of all team members on the relevant skills required for the design process (e.g. MSD causation) Information sharing between departments Team composition that reflects the full work system involved Evaluation of performance and feedback findings to the stakeholders involved in the changes.
May 2007
Page 20 of 46
Industry Interventions for Addressing MSD in NZ Meat Processing: Staff Participation (Organisational Design)
1.
2.
3.
4. 5.
6.
Involvement of all relevant staff in the proposed changes and meaningful inclusion of their input through such steps as: establishment of a working party (management, staff, unions), visits by task experts and designers to other plants, staff comments on concept drawings, staff trialing of prototypes, full-time involvement of specific staff to collect ideas and input from other staff, regular input/feedback meetings with all staff affected by proposed changes, bringing people back during the off-season to have input into and trial changes, involving other system users (e.g. cleaners) in the design process. Trialing of proposed changes at relevant stages of the design. Can include: concept design walkthroughs, off-line trialing of mock-up, operational trialing of prototype (with consideration given to extreme operational conditions, e.g.; different work paces, staffing levels), and evaluative trialing of design once bedded in. Important to establish the objectives of each trialing stage - what information needs to be collected, what needs to be tested, who needs to be involved. Effective liaison between staff affected, health and safety staff, supervisors, engineers and management regarding potential workplace changes. (Not just involving staff who are present when changes are to be made - during off-season for example.) Long lead in time for plant modifications, which allows time for consultation and refining designs with the processing staff concerned. Health and safety reps are in each dept (voted on by staff). Meet every three months minimum or ideally every month. Members include union reps, supervisors, health and safety staff, maintenance staff. Hazard identification competition - staff outline hazard and suggest solution, feedback given to them on how it was managed. Staff go into prize draw. Encourages early reporting and hazard management.
Yes
A High High
2 1 1
1 2
C D E
May 2007
Page 21 of 46
Industry Interventions for Addressing MSD in NZ Meat Processing: Shift Design (Organisational Design)
Shift Design
MSD key risk factors and implementation barriers The longer the exposure to MSD risks the greater the chance that they will occur. Long hours and inadequate recovery time also lead to fatigue and the onset of discomfort/injury. Potential barriers to change include: loss of earnings (through reduced overtime), production requirements, and altering traditional shift structures. Recommended intervention approach Potential MSD risks associated with run length and total shift duration need to be included in any considerations on shift design, for example during season peaks when longer hours and weekend work may occur. Rest breaks and task rotation regimes that are balanced with the shift design should be developed at the same time.
1.
2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.
Determine ideal shift structure for workload (especially peak workload) and available workforce. Set a maximum number of hours permitted to work/day and maximum shifts/week, then monitor this. Reducing run lengths over the course of the shift. Reduced length of shift from 10 hours to 8 hours with 2 hour runs. 4x10 hour days preferred by staff - more time off / recovery time, found it easier to recruit & retain staff. Maximum run length of 2.5 hours, with 30 minute breaks between. Used to run third shift (Fri-Sun). Now extend day or night shift by a few hours in peak season. Third shift had high absenteeism, difficult to train staff, hard to recruit and retain. Getting rid of night shift. Only work one permanent night shift, all the rest are day shift (Monday to Friday) only. Changed from day and evening shifts operating for 6 days to current system (4 on / 4 off, days only, 5 x 2 hour runs). This helped stop double shifting.
1 5 3 3 1 1 1 1
B D E E High E E E Low
May 2007
Page 22 of 46
Industry Interventions for Addressing MSD in NZ Meat Processing: Health and Safety Management (Organisational Design)
Health and Safety Management

MSD key risk factors and implementation barriers Given the multiple contributory factors for MSD and their gradual onset, they can be time consuming and costly to address. Many strategies in place in the industry are aimed at managing emerging and existing MSD cases. More emphasis needs to be placed on incorporating MSD prevention principles into relevant management decisions to prevent them occurring at all. A common barrier to this is the fatalistic approach by some management and staff that pain is an inevitable consequence of meat processing tasks. This not only impacts on early reporting but may also mean that easily fixable causes are not identified, nor solutions implemented. Equally unhelpful are the assumptions that any reported MSD is not genuine. Mismanaging MSD leaves gaps in the system which exposes the plant to exploitation, whereas robust health and safety systems can reduce this risk. Recommended intervention approach Informed recognition of MSD risks, and the commitment of resources to identify, prioritise and address these risks, is the first and most important step in their prevention. This is a completely separate process to that of managing emerging and existing cases, dealt with in the next section.
1.
2.
3. 4.
Want H&S to be a higher priority in plants. Educate management, engineers, inspectors on their importance and gains that can accrue. Incorporate important principles into preemployment training. Would like recognition by management of the negative effects of extended work hours and workload peaks on MSD, absenteeism and staff turnover. Would like to see more managers coming in with management backgrounds that are from industries other than meat processing. Processors who become managers often need to contract in people with management systems skills, and spend time back on the process line during busy periods rather than managing the issues creating problems. Look at what other industries do to manage their MSD issues Provide Occupational Health nurses (OHN) with the autonomy to design, trial and implement interventions rapidly in response to the identified MSD risks after an incident. Although this is reactive, the necessary changes at least get made quickly.
1 1 1
D E F
High
High
May 2007
Page 23 of 46
Industry Interventions for Addressing MSD in NZ Meat Processing: Early Reporting & Injury Management (Organisational Design)
Early Reporting and Injury Management

MSD key risk factors and implementation barriers With the gradual progression of many MSD, it is more time and cost effective to manage early reports of discomfort than to respond to serious and longstanding injuries that may otherwise develop. The wide range of contributory factors makes identifying and addressing the causes more difficult than other injury types (e.g. cuts). Further barriers include: underreporting due to the perception that this will reduce their chances of retention/promotion or that it won't be seriously addressed, using alternative duties systems to prevent injuries incurring lost time, data inaccuracies due to on-hire workers, health professionals unfamiliar with the industry, and reporting injuries obtained elsewhere. Recommended intervention approach A well organised injury management process will help reduce severity of incidents that do occur, and help prevent reoccurrences among those who have been injured. Plants should aim to establish staff confidence in the process by making informal and discrete reporting easy for all shifts and departments, and respecting confidentiality.
1.
2.
3.
4.
Return to work / Alternative duties programmes are designed with a list of tasks that encompass different skill levels / grades as well. Alternative jobs do not jeopardise existing task rotation systems (e.g. second person on physically hard jobs, sorting meat on the conveyor). People are paid at full rate if they have had normal production in the past week and report the injury/discomfort to the plant immediately (removes reporting disincentive and enables early injury management). Need a robust hazard identification system for meat plants not just a generic one or just physical hazards. Two examples raised were IMABS, or KEA auditing where people fill out a hazard report form which is then assessed, commented on, and reported back to person who raised it within 24 hours, monitored and checked after one month. Early reporting of discomfort is actively encouraged with staff. Cases are resolved through intensive treatment, advice/training, task modifications. Good communication required between supervisors, health and safety staff, trainers, engineers. Comprehensive incident investigation to identify and work out how to address contributory factors. May 2007
Yes
Yes
High
High
8 1
Yes Yes
D D Page 24 of 46
Industry Interventions for Addressing MSD in NZ Meat Processing: Early Reporting & Injury Management (Organisational Design)
5.
6.
7.
8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14.
Health and safety committee has the support of management, supervisors, maintenance staff and workforce. Has moved from reactive to proactive as pre-existing issues have been addressed. A graduated return to work programme involving the staff involved, health professionals, and relevant supervisors. Programme is several weeks long. Encourages staff who get sore/injured to get fit and is also good for physically unprepared new staff as well. Involves occupational assessment and placement post-injury. Pre-employment medical screening for MSD. Results are used to help direct staff to work in particular areas. Includes baseline measurement of fitness levels, or grip strength for rehabilitation if injuries occur. Invite local Doctors on site to increase their understanding of the industry, the tasks and management strategies. Plant coordinates their own case management, with more emphasis on injury prevention (proactive) rather than injury management (reactive). Significant cost savings accrued. External contractors assist with hazard management as well as rehabilitation and return to work programmes. Information on exercises provided pre-employment to increase strength and flexibility prior to starting work. Occupational Health Nurses on site (covering all shifts) have preventive and investigative roles as well as clinical. Occupational Physicians / Doctors on site in clinics for short periods each week (covering all shifts / departments). Also have trained first aiders in each department. Physiotherapist on site for periods of time each week (covering all shifts / departments). Involved in early intervention treatment, rehabilitation, exercise programmes and injury prevention advice. Work in with other medical staff and trainers on task technique. Time on site ranges from 1 visit per week to 30 hours per week.
Yes
3 2 1 1 1 3 6
E E E E High E E E High
Other interventions identified during the study 1. 2. Organise a conference for meat OHN staff (all companies) to share successful interventions, and discuss common problems. Use positive performance indicators (e.g. risk factors identified and addressed) for measuring health and safety in preference to negative measures such as LTI frequency. E E
May 2007
Page 25 of 46
Industry Interventions for Addressing MSD in NZ Meat Processing: Maintenance (Organisational Design)
Maintenance
MSD key risk factors and implementation barriers Poorly maintained equipment can increase MSD risk through the raising of force requirements, elevated noise, introducing unexpected forces and resistances, and imposing additional handling steps or complexities. Barriers include limited time available for preventive maintenance and lack of allocation of responsibility. Recommended intervention approach Pragmatic initial plant selection and design, well-functioning preventive maintenance program and prompt-response repair systems will help reduce these risks.
1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
Good preventive maintenance system (rollers, castors, rails, etc). Involvement of engineers in plant problems and redesign issues. Have separate contract cleaners - reduces total work hours for processing staff, especially important during season peak. Spare conveyor belts available on a trolley in case of breakdown. Want to train maintenance staff on: principles of MSD prevention relevant to their role, requirements of tasks on which they have an impact (e.g. sharpening flay knives), and to be more efficient/knowledgeable on machines (reduce repair time).
3 1 4 1
C D E E Medium Medium
May 2007
Page 26 of 46
Industry Interventions for Addressing MSD in NZ Meat Processing: Plant Design (Physical Design)
Plant Design
MSD key risk factors and implementation barriers As with workspaces and equipment, MSD risks can be inherent in the existing plant design. These risks may be: present in the original design, occur where processing requirements have changed since the facilities were built - with ad hoc modifications over time, or occur where facilities are being used for different functions than those for which they were originally designed. Barriers to making changes include: costs, structural constraints of existing buildings, insufficient time available during the off season to make all the changes necessary and lack of awareness of MSD risks by those responsible for the design. Recommended intervention approach The meaningful, and timely, involvement of staff in the design and trialing process will help develop the most appropriate design, provide valuable future-proofing, and help prevent repeating the mistakes of earlier designs.
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
Consistent step / floor surfacing (granulated - non-slip) In designing new rooms, place services in such a way that a consistent floor level can be achieved. This would require changes in rail height rather than floor level. Keep clearways free of trip hazards, and ensure that circulation space at elbow height is the same as at toe height. Want a plant design that is easier to clean - less time involved, less risk of injury. Want simple travel routes, straight with enough circulation space to prevent bottlenecks. Want more wash-up facilities and closer lunchroom to use break time more effectively. Position management offices close to the processing areas ideally visible for both. Enables informal contact and supervision. Staff feel more involved and less isolated.
3 2 1 1 1 1 1 Yes 2
E E E E E F G Medium Low
Other interventions identified during the study 1. 2. For new sheds, provide for future demands that will inevitably take up space and cramp staff. Base the extra space on additions that have occurred in the last generation (i.e. equipment, staff, hygiene checkpoints). Plant layouts that provide an extra position at each rotation group - for training and doubling up when less experienced people have to be brought in to key positions. May 2007 D D Page 27 of 46
Industry Interventions for Addressing MSD in NZ Meat Processing: Workspace and Equipment Design (Physical Design)
Workspace and Equipment Design

MSD key risk factors and implementation barriers MSD risks can be unintentionally built into workspaces and equipment design. For example, poor workspace geometry and overly-tight designs constrain posture and movements and may make it impossible to work equally comfortably with left or right hand dominance. In contrast, the providing of surplus space, or simply bad planning, often leads to excessive travel distances and overlap of travel routes especially for packers / labourers. Where these problems occur within the task cycles of multiple staff on a chain, the implications not only for manual handling and MSD risks, but also yield and quality control, can be significant. Specific MSD risks introduced at the workspace design and fit-out stage also include enforcing the need to work above shoulder height on the rail, bending, twisting and reaching forward, or working in constrained and awkward positions. Recommended intervention approach Incorporating workspace design principles (e.g. from the Manual Handling Code) and the involvement of staff in the design and trialing process when redesigning or introducing new equipment is the most effective way of reducing such risks. Sections on Staff Participation and specific tasks may provide further relevant information.
May 2007
Page 28 of 46
Industry Interventions for Addressing MSD in NZ Meat Processing: Workspace and Equipment Design (Physical Design)
1.
2.
3.
4. 5. 6. 7. 8.
Boning - trimming area geometry should be such that product can be dropped onto slides by boners without lifting, moving with the cut or throwing cuts (ie use gravity). Same applies for waste. Trimmers should be able to easily reach cuts, work on them and transfer to waste and meat conveyor without excessive lifting, reaching or bending. Work area ideally configured to comfortably fit at least 95% of male and female staff (for heights, reaches, and clearance). Enable staff to get as close as possible to what they are working on so that handling or applying force can be done as close to their centre of gravity as possible. Remove restrictions to foot and leg placement, and ensure work platforms extend as far as possible under the load - including the use of horizontal adjustment if required. Want to provide height adjustability in workstations where large height differences (product and staff) warrant it, to prevent working with arms elevated or needing to bend forward. Through adjustable stands, rails &/or worksurfaces. The aim is for the task to be undertaken between shoulder and hip height. Individual height adjustable stands are prevalent in the NZ seafood processing industry. Position sterilising gear to minimise awkward reaching, and excessive travel distances. Legging stand has been increased in both width and depth to provide more space for moving around in the legging task. Want auto-feed conveyors instead of manually handling products/waste to other areas. Want to provide clear space in all work areas for leg/foot placement. Want to trial footwear insoles (inserts to existing boots) / alternative boot designs for reducing discomfort from standing on hard surfaces for long periods (along with other trial considerations including: slip resistance, cleanability, durability/cost ratio). Use of acrylic attached to the rail has helped provide a more constant level of friction than steel (easier to push), reduced noise, and reduced rail maintenance.
Yes
Yes
1 1 2 1 2 1
D D D D D E
High
High
9.
Other interventions identified during the study 1. 2. 3. Work areas to be comfortable for both left and right handed operation Design trolleys so that they can be pushed and manoeuvred while standing upright (rather than stooping to push trolleys that are made low enough to fit under structures). Modify and trial D handle meat hooks to reduce rotation in the hand (e.g. grip shape, thumb or finger holes) D E E
May 2007
Page 29 of 46
Industry Interventions for Addressing MSD in NZ Meat Processing: Knife and Glove Design (Physical Design)
Knife and Glove Design

MSD key risk factors and implementation barriers Potential MSD risk factors include: wrist torsion with longer blades, handle pressure points, increased grip force and fatigue onset with poor fitting gloves or multiple layers, restricted blood flow through tight gloves, glove tensioners or tape around wrists. Concerns exist about deterioration in technique and exposure to new risks as a result of the protection provided by gloves. Barriers include a lack of good science on which to base decisions, a wide range of product types to trial and select from, and personal preferences and habits regarding both knife and glove use. Recommended intervention approach Gloves provide protection at the expense of hand performance, to a greater or lesser degree, and therefore participative selection and trialing are important. It is essential that they are trialed in specific contexts, and that all effects (protection, MSD risk, performance, maintainability, durability, life cycle costs, etc) are measured before deciding whether or not gloves are of net benefit. These principles also apply to the trialing of knives. Published studies also advocate: highly polished blade surface the trialing of different knife blade/handle configurations that allow neutral wrist postures during use shorter blade lengths (for tasks where this is feasible) resulting in less force being applied during cutting.
1.
2. 3. 4. 5.
Gloves - trial different gloves and glove combinations to find the best fitting range for staff, the least number of layers, and the least effect on usability (some plants find knives 'stick' on liner gloves, others find CR gloves alone are too slippery). Advice on glove design and use: fit and the effects of poor fit, performance specifications, over-taping. Different knife designs (handle design, blade length) are available to provide some choice for staff to meet individual preferences. (Have to return old one first.) Trial knives with different tang designs as a way of reducing run-through risk (e.g. Victory knife with large tang). Want to trial knives with different steel characteristics to determine the effects of blade flexibility and steel hardness on task performance. Trial knives with different grip and handle characteristics for providing good friction and minimising grip force requirements.
Yes
4 1
E High E High
1 1 Yes
E E Page 30 of 46
May 2007
Industry Interventions for Addressing MSD in NZ Meat Processing: Thermal Environment (Physical Design)
Thermal Environment
MSD key risk factors and implementation barriers Low temperatures, high air velocity, high humidity, frequent changes in temperature, and vibration (e.g. trimming tool) can increase the risk of MSD occurrence. Recommended intervention approach Improving thermal comfort requires consideration of: optimal production/working temperature and humidity levels, minimising air movement and the use of effective protective clothing. Recommendations in published studies include: wear functional work clothing that increases thermal comfort of workers in chilled work environments optimise the balance between meeting hygiene standards and minimising discomfort for staff working in cold environments; slight increases in temperature at the workstations and reduction in air movement can be beneficial for preventing MSD.
1. 2. 3.
Provide baffles/barriers to reduce drafts in work areas. Better quality boots (freezer style) supplied to workers standing for long periods. Mats are used to compensate for cold, hard floor. Some benefits reported but trip hazards, and no benefit when moving around the workplace, and there are potential room hygiene problems.
1 1 1
D E F Low Medium
Other interventions identified during the study 1. 2. Trial the effectiveness of thermal clothing in providing consistent thermal comfort for the range of people working in chilled environments. Investigate the feasibility of providing cooling only where the product is, rather than the whole room. Yes F H
May 2007
Page 31 of 46
Industry Interventions for Addressing MSD in NZ Meat Processing: Noise (Physical Design)
Noise
MSD key risk factors and implementation barriers The most significant effect of noise from an MSD perspective is compromised communication and the restricted ability to train or provide advice on line. Research also indicates that high levels of noise can: increase stress levels, bring on fatigue, diminish performance and affect balance. Recommended intervention approach All efforts should be made initially to reduce the noise at source through redesign and maintenance so that hearing protection is not necessary. Any plant or workspace modifications should also consider noise reduction principles in the design.
1. 2. 3.
Not having to use hearing protection means that staff are able to communicate verbally more effectively - possibly helps with team development and enables issues to be raised early. Company subsidise radio headsets and pay to put in aerials to get good reception in slaughter and boning. Want to use radio headsets instead of muffs and a very loud radio.
1 1
Yes
D G Medium Low
May 2007
Page 32 of 46
Industry Interventions for Addressing MSD in NZ Meat Processing: Task Training (Training Design)
Task Training
MSD key risk factors and implementation barriers Untrained or incompletely trained staff may exert more physical effort than is required (force, additional movements) until the tasks become fully learnt. Task pace is also slower during learning, reducing the opportunity for brief pauses or breaks between task cycles if they are on line. The extra effort, accessory movements and reduced rest pauses all significantly increase the risk of MSD, particularly when combined with repetition and constant chain speed. Learning from other workers may result in bad practices being passed on and assumes that those providing the training have, and are able, to impart their knowledge effectively. Further barriers to task training include: having limited room on line for buddy training, finding the time and staff to train, and where there is no link between pay rates and training. Recommended intervention approach Improvements in the duration, setting, content and delivery of training to match the standards set by some processors would significantly reduce MSD risk.
1.
2. 3. 4.
5.
Implementation of a 12 week training programme in a training room (off line). Have experienced staff teaching in the room. New staff are employed on a provisional basis for these 12 weeks. Learn all the task skills at their own pace before adding speed. Helps overcome accessory and redundant movements that occur when learning and adapting to new task processes. Also used for injured staff returning to work. Full time trainers (task training, knife sharpening) in each department so that standards are maintained even when the plant is busy. Have a training table / dead rail where trainers work offline with trainees. As they get more competent they go on-line and gradually build up to full workpace. Trainers and others (e.g. H&S Manager, Production Manager, Supervisor) identify where people may be having difficulties - task training is then targeted toward these people through individual training and development plans. Assessed annually. Trainers are trained on how to train/teach others. (People involved in training should therefore be certified trainers, not just people who are skilled at the tasks but who may not be able to impart that knowledge to others.) May 2007
6 4 4 Yes
C C C High High
Yes
Page 33 of 46
Industry Interventions for Addressing MSD in NZ Meat Processing: Task Training (Training Design)
6. 7. 8. 9. 10.
11. 12.
13.
14. 15.
Provision made for some off-line training within the department (for training without work pace pressure). Comprehensive induction training over 1-2 days covering: company values, hygiene, safety, MSD and how to prevent them, task skills, knife skills. Alter task technique to reduce required effort (e.g. reduce handgrip to minimum required for the task). Casual staff are called back in prior to the season starting for induction and to get them trained and ready for stepping in when required. Want to develop task technique training - plant initiated and managed. Trainers film skilled staff to illustrate good and bad techniques (a training resource for all staff). Trainers can also film staff and use the footage as an individual training tool to help identify and correct mistakes, and improve their own technique. Train through using ITO unit standards. Staff have to be signed off (induction and training) before they can work on a task. Want to develop standard operating procedures that describe each task in detail so it is easier to learn. SOPs not to assume prior task knowledge and to include relevant health and safety information as part of the task description. Would like to ensure that managers and supervisors are aware of their responsibilities to prevent and manage MSD in their work areas (and how to achieve this), so that interventions are implemented and MSD trends are closely monitored and managed. Requires good communication between staff and supervisors/managers. Have seasonal re-inductions to cover main risks and processes to manage them. Write an induction document each year for staff, with updated information. Information includes stretches and exercises. Could also include MSD risks and methods of prevention.
2 4 3 1
C D D D
D High High
2 2
E E
2 1 1
E E F
May 2007
Page 34 of 46
Industry Interventions for Addressing MSD in NZ Meat Processing: Knife Sharpening Training (Training Design)
Knife Sharpening Training

MSD key risk factors and implementation barriers A person using a blunt knife has to apply greater force to make cuts and grip force applied to the knife handle may increase. The task time is also increased, as is the number of movements to perform a cut (impacting on rest pauses). However, research indicates that high muscle tension can occur even with a sharp knife and so knife sharpening alone will not alleviate this risk factor completely. Barriers include: easy access to sharpening and steeling facilities, and replacing longstanding habits and techniques. Recommended intervention approach The ability to sharpen and maintain a knife reduces the MSD risk for the knife hand. Findings suggest that sharpening systems can be especially beneficial in ensuring minimum standards of knife condition are achieved for new and other less skilled staff.
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.
Knife sharpening systems and system-specific training (PPCS, ACC) in place. Especially valuable for new staff (more than one session often needed). Full time knife trainer/mentor for all staff (training trainers for each department, induction, refresher training). Knife sharpening trainer for each department (not full time) Parallel grinders, knife setters and training to increase standards of knife sharpness (not systembased). Have more than one sharp knife in pouch in case needed throughout the run. Staff encouraged to help each other with getting a sharp knife, or covering while a person sharpens their knife. Send people with knife related injuries back to the trainers for extra tuition. No limit on how many times they can use this resource. Knives returned to one area for sharpening (within the plant, or leased knives returned to supplier). Maintains overall high levels of knife sharpness, reduces time and resources spent sharpening and training. Used by some seafood processors.
9 5 3 1 1 1 1
Yes
C D E
E E E E High High
Yes
May 2007
Page 35 of 46
Industry Interventions for Addressing MSD in NZ Meat Processing: MSD Awareness Training (Training Design)
MSD Awareness Training

MSD key risk factors and implementation barriers Low levels of understanding about MSD and acceptance of their occurrence makes it more likely that risk factors will go unnoticed or be underestimated. Better understanding about MSD should result in risks being identified and managed more effectively. Barriers include: time spent away from production, having knowledgeable people to lead training, the lack of immediate benefits of training due to the slow onset of MSD. Recommended intervention approach Training provided to all employees including supervisors and managers. Recognised adult education principles apply, including: key messages repeated and reinforced over time, varying learning styles reflected in the material and delivery methods, examples relevant and directly applicable to the individual in their job, active learning preferable to passive, and opportunities for prompt application of learning provided.
1.
2.
3. 4. 5. 6.
Design guidelines for physical design changes on plant. Including information on: MSD risk factors and those that physical design can address, basic layout principles with examples (rail heights, table heights, workspace geometry), guidelines for getting the most pertinent information from consultation and trialing, anthropometric data and how to apply it. Aimed at H&S/compliance staff, engineering staff, and line management. More information on MSD causation and prevention for all staff, including: achieving work fitness and flexibility, redundant and accessory movements that occur when a task is being learnt and which decrease as skills increase, working at a constant pace rather than peaks & troughs, physical sustainability and the concept of gradual onset conditions occurring through overexposure (e.g. long work hours, overtime, double shifts, second jobs), and the cumulative effect of exposure to relatively minor risk factors. Provide MSD information and guidelines for plants to make their own video on MSD prevention using their staff. (This has worked well with other issues, e.g. Leptospirosis). Training on active micro-pausing, and stretching exercises. Warm-up prior to each shift (staff follow same processes as they would for sport). Wellness programme for all staff covering: fitness, nutrition, and injury prevention principles. May 2007
Yes
Yes
Medium
High
1 6 2 1
E F F F
Page 36 of 46
Industry Interventions for Addressing MSD in NZ Meat Processing: Sheep / Beef Packing (Task Specific Design)
Sheep / Beef Packing

MSD key risk factors and implementation barriers Despite the differences in cut size, weight, and frequency, these two work areas share many of the same MSD risk factors, including: reaching/bending/ twisting under load through workstation design deficiencies, space constraints, repetitive manual handling, work flow peaks, repetitive wrist and arm actions. Other factors that contribute to a higher risk of MSD in these areas include: lower status of staff with limited ability to control pace and work compression, a predominantly female workforce in a potentially heavy task group, higher proportions of new and lesser-trained people, machinepacing restrictions (electronic scale and labelling problems can create bottlenecks for example), lower pay rates and less involvement in productionrelated decisions. Inadequate buffer zones can lead to product backlogs and extra manual handling. Packing areas also appear the most susceptible to physical redesign as product specifications and technology change. Initial designs may be adequate, but the packing area is likely to be modified several times in the life of a building and invariably each redesign introduces more equipment, rather than taking it away. The original plans rarely allow space for such expansion of the processes, as the expense would be hard to justify at the outset. As a result, these parts of the plant are often the most crowded, and with the least optimised circulation routes. This can reduce task rotation options, and increase manual handling risks. Recommended intervention approach In new building designs, allow more space for future value-added activities, and through the subsequent changes maintain handling systems that use gravity - rather than working against it. Refer also to earlier sections on plant design, workspace design and staff participation.
May 2007
Page 37 of 46
Current interventions in the 25 plants involved in the study where these tasks were assessed 1. Conveyor design principles: full width conveyor belt with no raised edges (cuts can be slid off rather than lifted off), packing/trimming tables same or lower height than conveyor (no lifting required), guide on conveyor to move meat away from middle and towards the edges (reduce reaching), belts motor driven where possible (less manual handling), conveyors to maintain desired meat presentation for packers (prevent extra handling step), unidirectional rollers used for where a manual change of direction is required (reduce force required), prevent tight turns for roller conveyors where manual intervention is then required to keep cartons moving. 2. Loop conveyor system for meat cuts, which reduces the need to reach or rush to prevent backlogs. 3. Workspace design principles: find heights that are comfortable for staff and the tasks conducted there, no lifting product onto higher surfaces (not fighting against gravity), sufficient space between top and lower belts to enable visibility and unconstrained access, provide foot/legspace in all work areas, index carton chutes, reduce carton backing-up pressure on scales/strapper, sufficient floorspace to prevent circulation bottlenecks, once cartons are full there should be no manual handling from that point on. 4. Have sections of roller conveyors that can be positioned where required to reduce handling/lifting. 5. Task rotation (15-20 minutes) between heavy and light packing tasks. 6. Reconfigured scales area to reduce twisting. Scales now in conveyor line so that no lifting or twisting is required. 7. Belts drive product into open bags - no lifting and holding by packer. 8. Pack straight from tables - reduces manual handling required 9. Packers work in pairs: provides company, motivation for each other, good for new staff, and they can help each other with brief breaks when required. 10. Alternate sides for staff where possible, so are working left to right, then right to left. 11. Want mechanised control of pace into packing room to ensure that the work pace is sustainable for all staff. Need buffer areas to even out surges and provide a constant workflow into the room. 12. Formal daily rotation in packing (staff fully trained on all tasks). Labellers and strappers excluded in one case - important to have consistent quality in this task.
High 5 3 3 2 1 1 1 1 3 D D D D D D D D E
Medium
May 2007
Page 38 of 46
Current interventions in the 25 plants involved in the study where these tasks were assessed (contd) 13. Introduction of dixies and accompanying trolleys to help reduce carrying. 14. No manual handling beyond where cuts are placed in cartons - no lifting or carrying. Indexed scales conveyor, foot operated. 15. All staff are the same grade so this is no barrier to rotation. 16. Rotation every 2 hours between main packing tasks. 17. Rotation every 30-40 minutes between main packing tasks. 18. Use compactor to flatten down bulk meat and get it square (not bulging) - makes scale work easier and also stacking onto containers faster and safer for chiller staff. Less unstable stacks, better use of volume (more cartons). 19. Considering splitting meat belt into 2 - individually wrapped on one side and trimmed product on the other. Would reduce reach, search time on the belt, and dropped product. Other interventions identified during the study 1.
3 2 1 1 1 1 1
E E E E E F E High Medium
Carton design: consider designing cartons with side handles to make moving them easier (particularly for heavier cartons), and designs that reduce reach across the carton when packing and avoid being obstructed by the lid.
May 2007
Page 39 of 46
Industry Interventions for Addressing MSD in NZ Meat Processing: Aitch Boning (Task Specific Design)
Aitch Boning
MSD key risk factors and implementation barriers The main MSD risks associated with this task include: skill-task mismatches, poor workstation geometry (reaching up or bending forward), gripping/pulling/throwing by the non-knife hand, minimal task variation, and repetition with limited rest pauses. Recommended intervention approach Minimise forces and speed required, optimise biomechanical advantage, minimise load carrying, then reduce individual exposure to the task. Interventions in this report concerning task, organisation, training and physical design also still apply.
Current interventions in the 12 plants involved in the study where this task was assessed 1. Workspace is designed so that boners can adopt their own pace, can drop legs directly down onto table/conveyor and aitch bone directly down waste chute, and push meat across onto conveyor (no throwing or lifting required). Hook height can be adjusted by the boner (minimum range of 200mm) so that the task is between shoulder and elbow height for workers of different heights, handedness, and legs of different sizes. Rotation every hour with table boners (30 min rotation with boners and bandsaw). Do aitch boning plus trim and bone on the table if required. Provides some task variety rather than constantly working off the hook. Multiskilled staff so that there are more people (male & female) who can aitch bone. Reduced tally at the beginning of the season for at least a week, and for new staff. Monitor workload - keep it sustainable for the slowest person. Break up aitch boning with other specs where possible to provide task variety. Chain is slowed for absenteeism and for cuts that take more time to complete. Use cutting boards on tables to reduce knife bluntening. Want an indexed line into the boning room to control the work pace of the room.
2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.
6 3 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 1
E E E E E F F H F
High
Medium
Other interventions identified during the study 1. Task technique training including basic anatomy to improve understanding of where and what to cut, and the use of body weight rather than pulling to assist when applying force. E
May 2007
Page 40 of 46
Industry Interventions for Addressing MSD in NZ Meat Processing: Sheep Gutting (Task Specific Design)
Sheep Gutting
MSD key risk factors and implementation barriers The most significant MSD risk in this task appears to be the trunk rotation/stepping required while carrying the gut to transfer it from the carcass to the tray. Variations in plant design either reduced or increased this risk. Overlying risk factors include: repetition, fixed work pace, carcass variations (particularly when longer or heavier). Recommended intervention approach Minimise forces and speed required, optimise biomechanical advantage, minimise load carrying, then reduce individual exposure to the task.
Current interventions in the 12 plants involved in the study where this task was assessed 1. Carousel system (in place since plant opened). Minimal manual handling as tray moves in under the offal as it is removed and is able to be dropped straight down into the tray. No significant lifting or carrying is required. 2. Gut tray and standing platform heights modified so that guts do not have to be lifted up (to avoid any surface contact of runners). 3. Rotation every 15 min around 4-7 tasks (including labourer tasks in some cases). Rotation periods also 10 min (1) and 20 min (1). 4. Increase number of staff in rotation, or increase number of guttees for bigger sheep. 5. Reduce chain speed for sheep. 6. For small plants, one person does all the tasks (butcher and labourer) rather than dividing the job up. Is an alternative to rotation as it achieves the same reduction in MSD risk. 7. Want adjustable / higher chain for sheep gutting (or rise and fall stands) 8. Want to develop a kidney popping tool that makes peeling easier to perform, with less grip force and wrist twisting. Also needs to be reliable and durable. 9. Want to allow generous unobstructed platform length to give: room for additional staff when training, room for inexperienced staff to do it solo. 10. (Pelting - use rail or blocks on the floor to push foot against when pulling shoulders.) Other interventions identified during the study 1. 2.
2 1 9 2 1 1 4 3 2 1 1 1
D D E E E E E E E F D F Page 41 of 46 High Medium
Configure workspace so there is no bending forward to reach carcass, room for feet under the carcass to get close to the load as it is handled, no lifting, walking or trunk twisting required to transfer guts into trays. (Pelting - consider exoskeleton development for adding grip power in fleecing tasks.) May 2007
Industry Interventions for Addressing MSD in NZ Meat Processing: Beef Boning (Task Specific Design)
Beef Boning
MSD key risk factors and implementation barriers As with all process line operations there are inherent MSD risk factors in these tasks (dealt with under other intervention headings). MSD risk factors specific to this task arise from the high weights, forces exerted and product volumes handled. The level of skill, strength and fitness required in the tasks limits the pool of capable staff which in turn increases their exposure to the risk factors. MSD frequently occur in the non-knife hand which can be exposed to significant manual handling demands such as gripping, restraining, pulling and throwing. Barriers include being entrenched in existing work methods, and the perceived impact on production speed and quality (affecting the whole room). Recommended intervention approach Interventions to control MSD risks need to target both work organisation (e.g. turnover/absenteeism, poor training, inadequately robust work-rest regime) and physical design factors (e.g. excessive forces, biomechanically disadvantaged workstation design, enforced twisting when under load).
Current interventions in the 10 plants involved in the study where this task was assessed 1. Workspace design principles: rail height placing task between shoulder and elbow height, sufficient space laterally to complete the task without chasing the chain, consistent floor level (or height adjustable stands), straight drop for cuts down onto slides/trimming tables, tables run flush onto meat conveyor (minimising manual handling). 2. Formal task rotation every 30 minutes for boners involving all tasks. Pay rates the same for all boning staff. Same system for trimmers also. 3. Separate height adjustable standing platforms (fixed rail height). 4. Rail boners rotate around rail tasks and also do fat trim task (rest job). All table boners also rotate among themselves. Rotation is 20 min on grass fed and 30 min on grain fed. 5. Alter rail height to suit boner heights and the tasks being carried out along its length. 6. Mechanical assistance for boning tasks. Can reduce manual handling significantly. 7. Trimmers on boning tables rotate daily - sides of tables (for variation in lateral movements) as well as between tables (for variation in cut types). 8. Boners do a whole quarter/side each so get variety as they work as they follow it along. Some staff also vary this with rotating among themselves every 10 minutes as well. 9. Hinged trimming tables so they can be lifted and cleaned under more easily. 10. Hot boning is seen as having less MSD risk as it is easier to cut.
Yes
3 1 1 1 1 3 3 2 1
E E E High E E F F F F Page 42 of 46 Low
May 2007
Industry Interventions for Addressing MSD in NZ Meat Processing: Y Cutting (Task Specific Design)
Y Cutting
MSD key risk factors and implementation barriers There are many different ways in which this task is organised. MSD risks occur with skill-task mismatches, high levels of repetition, limited opportunity from rest pauses, high forces required to manually clear the brisket, and certain carcass characteristics (e.g. size, wool thickness). Recommended intervention approach Minimise forces required and speed, optimise biomechanical advantage, then reduce individual exposure to the task.
Current interventions in the 12 plants involved in the study where this task was assessed 1. 2. Counter-balanced brisket roller. Cutters each walk with chain and do all Y cut tasks on a carcass. Brisket roller and hang up are rest tasks. 15 min rotations. Ideal rotation would be to move from Y cut to first rest task back to Y cut then second rest task. This system enables whole body movement, provides task variety within each cycle and can reduce the risk of bottlenecks through better utilisation of existing space. No floor obstructions, sufficient space for each task area, room for trainer also. One steriliser/person at hip height. Four in rotation for three positions, creating 25% rest time every rotation cycle. Rotation every 15 minutes (hang up, y cut, brisket roller) Comprehensive training and slow introduction to Y cut task, butchers start on other tasks first. Sheep cleaning system in yards cleans off dirt and grit, makes wool easier to cut through & knife edge lasts longer. Use Victory - Y cut knives. Have a running tip blade so that it slides along meat and blade cuts skin, compared with non-Y cut knives which can catch and make the task harder and slower. Rail height approx 1750mm, making brisket height mid-way between shoulder & elbow for most staff.
3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.
3 1 5 2 3 2 2
D D D D E E E High Medium
9.
May 2007
Page 43 of 46
Industry Interventions for Addressing MSD in NZ Meat Processing: Y Cutting (Task Specific Design)
Current interventions in the 12 plants involved in the study where this task was assessed (contd) 10. To reduce bottlenecks the brisket cut is done after inspection so that a few can be done at once, rather than having to cut and sterilise between each one. 11. Put an extra person in the chain when the brisket roller breaks down. 12. Large distance from halal to Y cut to allow bleeding and stimulation time - makes task easier. 13. Sterilisers are on a swivel to allow repositioning to suit personal preferences. Also increase available workspace (so can move down line to keep up or have trainer on line) and reduce leg/foot obstruction. 14. Use of shorter/longer hooks to make up for suboptimal rail height. Other interventions identified during the study
1.
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
E E E E E High Medium
2. 3.
Workspace design principles: rail height placing task between shoulder and elbow height, sufficient space laterally to complete the task without chasing the chain, consistent floor level, good task visibility, steriliser per person. Use of a combined wash and steriliser unit - save time and space. Consistency in compliance requirements across the country. Is spear cut required or is under-running acceptable (variation was noted between plants).
E G H
May 2007
Page 44 of 46
Industry Interventions for Addressing MSD in NZ Meat Processing: Beef Gutting (Task Specific Design)
Beef Gutting
MSD key risk factors and implementation barriers There was significant variation in how this task was organised in the ten plants concerned. MSD risks in some were minimal, while in others there were many risk factors present including: the need to lean forward to reach the task (further aggravated by the swing away of the suspended carcass), reaching up to open up, bending forward to free the pluck, limited or no task rotation (more of an issue where other MSD risks were present). Recommended intervention approach Optimise conditions for accurate and fast releasing of gut contents from carcass. Avoid any attempt at mechanically unassisted horizontal movement of gut contents by staff. Manage exposure to task to maintain sustainability.
Current interventions in the 10 plants involved in the study where this task was assessed
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.
Adjustable rail. Can alter rail height (foot button or pendant hand control) to bring carcass to a good height for gut, pluck (approx. 600mm used on observation). Rise and fall stands for guttee (foot operated). Rotation every hour with first and second leggers. Reduced tailgating cattle so gut is not as full - easier to handle, and easier to separate runners and paunch. Standing in the tray enables getting close to load and therefore less reaching and bending forward (slippery however). Task variation - guttees involved in brisket cut, gut, halving saw. Good technique and a sharp knife are most important - don't pull where cut will do. Gut buggy design: large front castors (6-8") positioned to minimise tipping force but without accidental tipping, swivel braking castors at the rear for manoeuvrability, stops on the floor to position buggy and facilitate tipping. Boning knife used rather than butchers as more accurate cutting is possible.
5 1 1 1 1 3 1 2 1
E E E E E F F G G Medium Medium
9.
May 2007
Page 45 of 46
Industry Interventions for Addressing MSD in NZ Meat Processing: Beef Gutting (Task Specific Design)
Other interventions identified during the study
1.
2. 3.
For labourers - reduce gut tray width so that the reach is reduced as contents end up closer to the labourer (e.g. angled or two level tray bottom), provide surfaces to lean against to take weight (without obstructing movement), and provide legroom underneath the tray to get the load closer to their centre of gravity. Guttee stations with standing platform: move it as close as possible to the carcass to reduce forward leaning and working away from the body. Optimise lighting to improve task visibility (e.g. moveable spotlight behind guttee, headtorch).
E Medium E I Medium
May 2007
Page 46 of 46

Industry Interventions For Addressing MSD in NZ Meat Processing

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Industry Interventions For Addressing MSD in NZ Meat Processing

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

REPORT ISSN 1174 - 1234 Volume 8 No 5, 2007

COHFE copyright 2007

D. Tappin, D. Moore, T. Bentley, R. Parker, L. Ashby, A. Vitalis, D. Riley, S. Hide

Industry Interventions for Addressing MSD in NZ Meat Processing

Industry Interventions for Addressing MSD in NZ Meat Processing

Industry Interventions for Addressing MSD in NZ Meat Processing

Industry Interventions for Addressing MSD in NZ Meat Processing

Industry Interventions for Addressing MSD in NZ Meat Processing

Some Information on MSD

Industry Interventions for Addressing MSD in NZ Meat Processing

About the Intervention Tables

Rest/Recovery Breaks (Job Design)

Industry Interventions for Addressing MSD in NZ Meat Processing

Current interventions in the 28 plants included in the study

Plants already doing it

Support for it in the literature

Current interventions in the 28 plants included in the study

Plants already doing it

Support for it in the literature

Current interventions in the 28 plants included in the study

Plants already doing it

Support for it in the literature

Physical Task Requirements

Current interventions in the 28 plants included in the study

Plants already doing it

Support for it in the literature

Recruitment and Retention

Current interventions in the 28 plants included in the study

Plants already doing it

Support for it in the literature

Current interventions in the 28 plants included in the study (contd)

Plants already doing it

Support for it in the literature

Current interventions in the 28 plants included in the study

Plants already doing it

Support for it in the literature

Current interventions in the 28 plants included in the study (contd)

Remuneration / Job Grades

Current interventions in the 28 plants included in the study

Plants already doing it

Support for it in the literature

Current interventions in the 28 plants included in the study

Plants already doing it

Support for it in the literature

Current interventions in the 28 plants included in the study

Plants already doing it

Support for it in the literature

Current interventions in the 28 plants included in the study

Plants already doing it

Support for it in the literature

Current interventions in the 28 plants included in the study

Plants already doing it

Support for it in the literature

Health and Safety Management

Current interventions in the 28 plants included in the study

Plants already doing it

Support for it in the literature

Early Reporting and Injury Management

Current interventions in the 28 plants included in the study

Plants already doing it

Support for it in the literature

Current interventions in the 28 plants included in the study (contd)

8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14.