Safety footwear has existed as an accepted article of personal protective clothing for decades. As with most things, however, after a while complacency can settle in and safety footwear can start creating just as many hazards as it is designed to control. Sometimes the hierarchy of controls should begin with safety footwear and not just finish with it.
Footwear standards and design are in a constant process of refinement and development. Risk management needs to maintain a comparative process of improvement and reassessment to ensure that new and potential hazards are controlled.
Safety footwear was designed originally to protect from external hazards and was worn predominantly in manufacturing and outdoor industries. There has been much written about the functionality and benefits of steel-capped boots. There is debate on the level of protection provided to the instep. Though steel caps protect the toes from crush injuries there is much less protection of the instep from the same hazard.
The elimination of a hazard that results with a mismatch between footwear and its wearer may lead to the questioning of many of the purchasing and assessment processes that have become entrenched in some workplaces. It may be necessary to consider individual control measures for which your safety equipment supplier may be inadequately prepared.
SOLUTIONS CAUSING PROBLEMS
Shirley Marr, an occupational podiatrist, has spent years analysing the use of safety footwear in workplaces such as mines and the emergency fire services.
In the mining industry, where waterproof boots are the norm, Ms Marr found many foot problems were generated from the wet environment inside the boot and the inflexibility of the boot design to accommodate a range of foot types. She has estimated that 10-15% of people have difficulty in fitting standard footwear. The inability of the foot to "breathe" can create incapacitating fungal infections.
Ms Marr also speaks of the problems associated with wearing oversized boots specifically to accommodate unusual foot types. Ms Marr's work with the emergency services and mines has identified a high percentage of people with high arches. These people tend to wear boots that are a couple of sizes larger than their casual footwear size, so that there is sufficient room to get their work boots on. This practice, however, sacrifices support in the ankle area, as the neck of the boot needs to be larger to allow access.
Oversized boots also encourage what Ms Marr refers to as "double slip" injuries. This is where the foot has so much movement within the oversized boot that ankle injuries are caused or a slip/trip injury is exacerbated, simply by wearing the boot.
The initial hazard assessment needs to be sufficiently broad to consider any secondary hazards that the wearing of personal protective footwear may generate. Ms Marr's observations can illustrate the dangers of reliance on formulaic and rigid hazard assessment procedures and reliance on restrictive hazard identification checklists.
COSTLY OUTCOME
In 1998 there was a case in the Queensland Supreme Court (Court) of Appeal, Mount Isa Mines Ltd v Peachy, No 3072 of 1998), where an employee of a mining firm was awarded over $60,000 damages as a result of developing plantar fasciitis. The employer supplied the boots. The Court found that wearing work-issued hard-soled boots had "significantly contributed" to an acceleration of plantar fasciitis. Plantar fasciitis is a painful inflammation on the sole of the foot. According to Intelihealth, February 2000, "Worn or poorly constructed shoes may contribute to the problem if they do not provide enough arch support, heel cushion or sole flexibility".
DOUBLE SLIP UP
Double slip and trip hazards stem directly from the supply of footwear that is inappropriate for the user but appropriate as a hazard control. A risk manager needs to integrate hazard control measures appropriately or else a conflict of safety equipment will generate new hazards.
It is common to install fatigue mats in areas where an employee must stand for some time. Rarely are these mats set into the floor; mostly they are placed over the floor, presenting a small step. Therefore, controlling one hazard has presented a trip hazard.
A further hazard exists with non-slip surfaces, particularly in relation to the oversized boot. The non-slip sole is intended for use in slippery work areas. When a slip hazard is controlled through the application of an abrasive surface, the change of surface can present a tripping hazard. According to Ms Marr, however, a double slip hazard may result if the new non-slip surface is combined with an oversized boot causing an unnecessary sprain, strain or fall injury.
Ms Marr also identified a double hazard issue with the provision of footwear in the fire-fighting industry. This work environment is extremely variable and requires great flexibility from the footwear and the firefighter. Current footwear in some jurisdictions includes a steel plate in the boot to prevent sole penetration. One would expect this type of injury to be common, however, Ms Marr says this is not so. She believes that a statistical analysis would support more attention being placed on other risks, such as ankle injuries.
HIGH HEELS
There are workplaces where the wearing of inappropriate footwear is entrenched. Part of the mystique of the sex worker is the wearing of high-heeled and stiletto- heeled footwear. Many brothels have stairways and very dim lighting. This combination of hazards is likely to result in a high incidence of sprains and strains. One Melbourne brothel has had a worker fall down a considerable number of stairs due to these factors. The wearing of this type of footwear is widely accepted by the workers and expected by the clients. This practice will probably not change and therefore other control measures will be required.
The wearing of high heels is not limited to the sex industry. There is a wide range of footwear worn in office environments, high heels included. While they may present only a minor hazard, the environment in which this footwear is worn should be considered. Many guides to office ergonomics have been produced by State OHS agencies, Officewise produced by the Victorian Workcover Authority is a typical example. There is no mention in this guide of the hazard of inappropriate footwear. Even in sections dealing with foot-related issues, such as discussing the need for footrests, no mention is made of shoe type. This omission can cause problems in applying the guide as all information on posture assumes that workers wear low- heeled footwear or has illustrations where no footwear is visible. The stability of chairs is assessed but not he stability of people. Administrative workplaces that supply uniforms, which include footwear, are likely to have controls in place for this type of hazard. But it is considered that they are a small percentage of workplaces.
The Biomechanics Unit of the Victorian University of Technology has reported that at least half of the foot problems presented to GPs and podiatrists stem from ill-fitting footwear.
FOOTWEAR ECONOMICS
A crucial element in most OHS legislation is practicability. Many workplaces with footwear requirements have established bulk supply contracts. However, even with a range of footwear available, there are going to be circumstances where the required workplace footwear is incompatible with the user. Many companies allow a worker in this circumstance to obtain more appropriate footwear, as long as the initial hazard is controlled. This is probably the most practical solution but it identifies inherent deficiencies in the purchasing and, therefore, safety systems. Purchasing by individuals lets the supplier and the employer, to a certain extent, "off the hook" It must be remembered that it is the employer's responsibility to identify hazards and ensure that all risks associated with hazards arc controlled. So even when footwear is provided by the employee, the employer must ensure that the footwear controls the intended hazard and does not generate unforeseen hazards.
In some instances, it may be necessary for the employer to bear the cost of providing individually tailored shoes for certain workers. Even with a wide variety of shoes on the market, mass manufacturing may not be able to cater for all the needs of all workers. Those circumstances must be anticipated.
As mentioned above in the case of the mining company, by not considering an individual's needs when purchasing safety equipment the costs could be a lot higher than initially anticipated. In the case of the mining company it was over $60,000.
The financial and safety balancing act that must be performed when determining risk controls always operates on the current knowledge level of the decision makers. When considering what risk controls are worth paying for it is always wise to think of what the ultimate outcome could be for each idea put forward as a possible control measure. For example, how does the balancing act work when considering the possibility of a large damages bill similar to that incurred by the above-mentioned mining company? It is unlikely that a suitable boot for the worker would have cost $60,000.
Copyright: CCH Australia
Kevin Jones is a consultant with Workplace Safety Services P/L, and Editor of Safety At Work publications. He was provided with a copy of the book by CCH for review.
