The
CEPU has
today
released
ergonomist
advice that
raises
doubts about
the safety
of using the
new Mercedes
Sprinter
vans for SPB
clearances.
The advice
was prepared
for the
union by
Chartered
Professional
Engineer and
Ergonomist
Mark
Dohrmann.
His comments
reinforce
member
concerns
about the
Sprinter
vans.
Mr
Dohrmann's
advice can
be
downloaded
here:
Some
key
observations
noted in the
Dohrmann
Report
include:
-
"My
principal
concern
with
this
vehicle
is its
fairly
obvious
lack of
necessary
vision
required
by the
driver
during
common
manoeuvres.
-
"Specifically
the
driver
will not
be able
to see
properly
to his
left
when the
vehicle
is
half-turned
to the
right (a
common
situation),
and
without
a
passenger
to keep
a
lookout,
the
driver
watching
forwards
and to
their
right,
will not
be able
to see
what
hazards
are
approaching
(or are
present)
on the
left
hand
side.
-
"Vision
to the
left
(behind
the
driver's
seat) is
also
badly
compromised
when
attempting
to merge
left.
-
"There
may be
cases
where
this van
might be
capable
for
being
used
with
less
risk,
but
Australia
Post
driving
work is
not such
a case.
-
"This
vehicle
must
have
windows
of an
adequate
size
fitted
in both
its side
walls,
immediately
behind
the line
of the
driver's
seat.
-
"My
recommendation
is that
for the
safety
of
members
(drivers)
and of
the
public,
the van
should
not be
used
until or
unless
it is
supplied
or
fitted
with
windows
of an
appropriate
and
sufficient
size in
both
side
panels
behind
the
driver's
seat."
Members are
urged to
take into
consideration
this advice
when
weighing up
whether to
drive these
vans or not.
We also draw
to your
attention
the fact
that
recalls have
been placed
on the
Mercedes
Sprinter
5.0t to help
replace the
van's Brake
Master
Cylinder.
We also urge
you bear in
mind
Friday's
AIRC Interim
Order,
specifically
the section
titled "3.
Definition".
This section
reproduces
the
definition
of
industrial
action
contained in
the
Workplace
Relations
Act.
The
definition
in the
Interim
Order
contains the
Act's
exclusion of
actions that
are not
considered
industrial
action - in
particular:
"(f)
action
by an
employee
if such
action
was
based
upon the
employee's
reasonable
concern
about an
imminent
risk to
the
employee's
health
or
safety,
and the
employee
did not
unreasonably
fail to
comply
with the
directions
of the
employee's
employer
to
perform
other
available
work,
whether
at the
same or
another
workplace,
that was
safe and
appropriate
for the
employee
to
perform."
