Facts and Commentary about Fatalities in UAW-Represented Workplaces in 2007

We suffered seven fatalities among UAW bargaining units during 2007. To date there have been three fatalities in the first 2 1/2 months of 2008. This compares to six fatalities suffered in 2006 and seven in 2005. When the numbers are considered as rates, statistically these numbers are the same.

However the essential characteristics of these fatalities reflect the changing risks faced by UAW members and should alert all local unions to actively seek changes in safety programs to prevent these devastating events. The following bullets indicate a change in fatality patterns, the job and employer characteristics were:

• In 2007, three victims, or 43 percent, were skilled-trades workers. Since 1973, 42 percent of victims among UAW bargaining units were skilled-trades workers. Five victims, or 72 percent, were working alone at the time of the fatal incident in 2007. Four (three skilled trades) were involved in maintenance-related work. Since 2005, 11 of the 22 victims, or 50 percent, were working alone or isolated at the time of the fatal incidents.

• Three victims, or 43 percent, were employed by Big 3 automakers. Since 1973, 65 percent of fatalities among UAW bargaining units were among the Big 3 automakers and sold units. Prior to this year, the most recent fatality in Chrysler was on Feb. 26, 2006, and at Ford on Feb. 2, 2006. GM members escaped fatal injury for calendar 2005, 2006 and 2007. The most recent GM fatality was Oct. 29, 2004.

• There were no fatal incidents in the TOP sector in 2007. Since 1973, 3 percent of fatalities among UAW bargaining units were in the TOP sector, but the fraction has been much higher for public sector workers in recent years.

• Four victims, or 57 percent, were among employees in non-Big 3 manufacturing units. Since 1973, 31 percent of fatalities among UAW bargaining units were in this smaller employer sector. Six victims died because of failures during maintenance and service activities in industrial facilities. Five involved machine-related hazards (machine failure, guarding and lockout). One member was a victim of a fall. One victim died because of rigging equipment failure while working alone on a demolition project. This year, UAW members avoided fatal incidents caused by contact with electrical energy or vehicles in a work area. This is in contrast to historical experience where these have been leading causes of workplace fatalities.

Approaches to prevention

A significant problem in preventing fatalities and serious injuries is not applying the “Hierarchy of Health and Safety Controls” during the design process and during hazard mitigation when hazards are identified through injury investigations, inspections, audits and worker complaints. The Hierarchy calls for eliminating exposure as the highest priority.

This can be done by applying high-level engineering controls. After this option is thoroughly explored, less effective control measures in the hierarchy such as procedures, warnings, training and personal protective equipment are considered. The hierarchy of controls is generally understood for chemical exposures where substitution of nontoxic chemicals can eliminate exposure, but less well-understood for causes of traumatic injury.

With regard to maintenance activities, the Hierarchy rating for safety devices and guarding is higher than for lockout procedures alone. Engineering controls such as guards should eliminate or reduce the opportunities for so-called maintenance “short cuts” that can prove deadly. Four fatalities could have been prevented had workers been properly protected by fixed guarding and other safety devices. In one of these, adherence to a national consensus standard would have included devices that could have stopped the hazardous motion involved in the incident.

Five fatalities involved victims working alone at the time of the fatal incident. Reductions in resources for maintenance played a role in three of these. All tasks should be properly assessed for hazards with appropriate controls put in place. Management and the union should strictly control tasks that could involve working alone or in isolated areas where situations hazardous to workers exist. Appropriate precautions include:

• Review of work procedures and procedures to be performed (taskbased risk assessment).

• Assuring an appropriate level of supervision is available; supervisor must be adequately trained and aware of the nature of the job.

• Adequacy of equipment and procedures used in the particular situation.

• Appropriate emergency support systems and personal monitoring and surveillance mechanism in place.

• Adequacy of training for all involved: worker assigned, supervisor, emergency support and monitoring personnel.

Specific lessons

1. All preventive maintenance, periodic maintenance, routine maintenance and foreseeable maintenance tasks must be considered when determining resources. Resources assigned for maintenance must be sufficient to support pretask planning (task-based risk assessment) requirements, design-in safety efforts based on the Hierarchy of Health and Safety Controls, and training needed to support these efforts.

2. All national consensus standards (ANSI, NFPA, NEC, ASME, AIHA etc.) which apply to equipment, processes and facilities should be identified and made available to maintenance, safety and engineering personnel. Appropriate training on these standards must be provided.

3. Working alone or in isolation must be limited and strictly controlled. All facilities should have a written working alone policy. Maintenance, safety and engineering personnel should be involved in developing policies and procedures. Once in place the policy and procedures must be strictly controlled, monitored and audited. Even when teams are assigned to complicated maintenance tasks, visual contact should be maintained. Designated spotters should be assigned for all tasks that involve cranes, fork trucks and other mobile equipment.

4. Preventive maintenance needs, especially for safety-related items, must be considered when allocating resources for maintenance activities. Resources should be sufficient to support all aspects of maintenance required and must consider operating conditions and age of equipment involved.

FATAL INJURIES AMONG UAW BARGAINING UNITS – 2007 Commentary

The number of fatal injuries has declined since 2000, when UAW bargaining units suffered 15 fatalities. The number in the auto sector declined to three in 2007, compared to eight in 2000. The rates have declined less than the absolute number, given decline in membership and production rates, especially in the last two years.

The problem remains intense among skilled-trades workers. The fatality rate among UAW bargaining units in 2007 was about 1 per 100,000 workers. Among skilled trades, the estimate is about 2.5 per 100,000. These values can be compared to national rates, for which the latest data available are for 2006. The rate at which fatal work injuries occurred in 2006 was 3.9 per 100,000 workers for the whole economy, 2.7 in manufacturing, 10.8 in construction, and 16.3 in transportation.

Thus, UAW members overall face about one-third the risk of comparable workers in manufacturing, and skilled trades face less than one-fourth the risk of comparable workers in construction. UAW members in hot metal industries suffered a high proportion of the fatal incidents during the last two years.

One fatality involved changing lights in a poorly maintained electric arc furnace area where they had not been changed in years. Another fatality occurred when furnace repair work was poorly planned and understaffed compromising the safety of the workers involved. Three fatalities occurred in hot metal casting equipment. A number of facilities in hot metal industries have been inspected where findings show lack of scheduled maintenance, improper guarding of automation and inappropriate maintenance staffing levels has increased hazard levels. Since the equipment in such industries operates in extreme conditions, cutbacks of maintenance resources can significantly impact safety.