Three Back Injuries in Six Weeks on a Lashing Gang
Kwai Chung, 02:15. A lashing gang of six employed by Wing Hoi Lashing Co, a subcontractor to the terminal operator, has lashed 38 of 52 boxes on a 12-hour night shift. Each 40ft box needs four semi-automatic twistlocks released and two turnbuckle rods shipped, working at deck level in the 1.1 m gap between stacks. The gang uses a 1.4 m steel lever to free twistlocks that jam. Over six weeks, three lashings hands have reported lower-back pain; one, aged 24 with 11 months' service, has been off work for nine days with a prolapsed disc. There is no documented manual handling risk assessment, no rotation rota and no health surveillance. The terminal's contract with Wing Hoi states that the contractor is responsible for its own health and safety. Records show the injured man held a valid MBST card and attended a 20-minute toolbox talk on lifting technique in January. The terminal's own lashing gantry serves berths 3 to 5 only; tonight's vessel is at berth 7.
1. Who owes what duty here, and does the terminal's contractual clause that the contractor is responsible for its own health and safety remove the terminal's obligations? Explain the reasoning an inspector or court would apply.
Read the worked answer
Duties are not transferable by contract. The clause is a commercial indemnity between two companies; it does not reduce a statutory duty owed to a worker. The inspector asks who actually controlled the work, not who signed the document.
- Wing Hoi (employer). OSHO Cap. 509 s.6: plant and systems of work that are safe, plus information, training, instruction and supervision. Here the system itself is the hazard: 52 boxes, six men, 12 hours, and a 1.4 m lever to force jammed locks. That system is the employer's design, so the primary duty sits there.
- The terminal operator. It is the occupier and the party in practical control of berth 7. It sets the berth window and therefore the lashing deadline, owns the stacks, and owns the lashing gantries - and chose a berth whose gantry does not serve. Under the F&IUO it carries duties as proprietor/occupier of an industrial undertaking in respect of the premises and plant; under OSHO it is itself an employer; at common law it owes a duty of care to people working on its premises. A terminal that sequences and co-ordinates a subcontractor's work cannot contract out of that.
- The injured worker. OSHO s.8: take reasonable care of himself and co-operate with safety measures. Relevant to apportionment, not to root cause.
- The supervisor. Three back complaints in six weeks made the harm foreseeable; leaving the method unchanged is the management failure.
Reasoning to display: duty follows control and foreseeability. The most effective control - a lashing platform at every berth, or a tool that removes the lever force - was within the terminal's gift, so the terminal cannot point only at its contractor.
2. Set out the content of the manual handling risk assessment that should have existed, and rank the controls you would implement first.
Read the worked answer
What the assessment must quantify - not just 'lifting'.
- Task: per shift, 52 boxes x 4 twistlocks = 208 lock releases, plus 104 turnbuckle rods, in a 1.1 m gap between stacks.
- Load: a semi-automatic twistlock is roughly 22–28 kg; a turnbuckle rod roughly 15–20 kg; freeing a jammed lock with a lever can still demand 25–35 kg of handle force plus a twisting moment through the forearm and lower back.
- Posture and frequency: stooped, twisted, reaching below knee and above shoulder height, repeated every few minutes for 12 hours with no rotation.
- Environment: wet deck, night, wind, restricted footing, time pressure from the berth window.
- People: age spread, previous injuries, fitness, the 58-year-old with a knee support, new starters.
Controls in hierarchy order
- Eliminate / substitute. Semi-automatic locks that can be released from the deck edge; lashing points reachable without entering the gap; powered rod drivers instead of hand-levering. This removes exposure rather than managing it.
- Engineering. A lashing platform at every berth (the terminal already owns the design); long-handled twistlock tools of 1.5–2 m; deck lighting aimed into the gap; a trolley for rods.
- Administrative. Pace the work to the berth window instead of compressing it; rotate tasks every 30 minutes; two-man teams alternating; warm-up; early reporting of symptoms; a return-to-work plan for the injured man.
- PPE. Gloves - hand protection only, and last in the list.
Health surveillance: baseline and periodic back assessment, physiotherapy access, and a clear reporting route that does not penalise the worker. Record explicitly in the assessment that administrative controls alone leave a residual risk that is not tolerable - that is the finding that forces the platform or the tooling.
3. What must be reported, to whom and within what timeframe, and what difference does the January toolbox talk and the MBST card make?
Read the worked answer
Reporting chain
- Internal: accident report and accident book entry the same shift, plus an investigation - three similar injuries in six weeks is a trend, not three accidents.
- Employees' Compensation Ordinance: the employer (Wing Hoi) reports the accident to the Commissioner for Labour - within 14 days for a non-fatal accident causing incapacity for work, and within 7 days where the accident is fatal. Nine days off work makes this clearly reportable.
- F&IUO: the proprietor of the industrial undertaking must give notice of the accident to the Commissioner for Labour; file promptly and keep the acknowledgement.
- Commercial: the terminal logs it in its own incident system and notifies its client and insurer as the contract requires - a separate track from the statutory one.
Preserve, before anything is tidied: the lashing plan and berth window correspondence, the 1.4 m lever and any other tooling, the gloves and harness in use, the training and induction records, shift rosters showing the 12-hour pattern, and CCTV of the deck.
Effect of the toolbox talk and MBST card. They are evidence of some instruction, nothing more. Training is one of the weakest controls and does not discharge the duty to provide a safe system of work. An MBST card certifies basic safety induction; it says nothing about manual handling competence. A 20-minute talk in January, against 208 lock releases a shift, does not make the method safe - and relying on it in the investigation will be read as blaming the injured worker for a system the employer designed.