Read this article in:
11 August, 2009
Last week, ICEM North American affiliate United Steelworkers (USW) pulled out of talks with the American Petroleum Institute on developing two new safety standards, worker fatigue and a set of process-safety performance indicators.
The discussions originated with a 2007 US Chemical Safety Board report investigating BP’s deadly Texas City, Texas, oil refinery explosion, which killed 15 contract workers in March 2005. The Safety Board recommended that labour unions and the industry lead a working group to develop the two standards in the aftermath of the disaster.
The USW formally withdraw from the process on 4 August, citing skewed industry representation on the committee and lack of earnestness toward transparency issues, overtime work, and contract labour questions inside US refineries regarding safety.
Gary Beevers
“This industry will simply not get serious about developing standards that have real meat in them,” said USW Vice President and ICEM Executive Committee Member Gary Beevers. He added that USW realised its work on the committee was being met by industry wanting “as few regulations and mandates as possible.”
USW sought to introduce transparency measures by proposing to make public all safety failures in facilities. The union also wanted manning levels monitored and increased due to an industry practice of constant overtime and continuous work that has led directly to worker fatigue. USW was met with resistance on this, saying industry has called it strictly a “management rights issue, and their solution is to force overtime.”
In a news release announcing the withdrawal, the USW was sharply critical of an American Petroleum Institute statement claiming injury rates inside refineries average less than in other manufacturing sectors. In fact, the union said, the industry drew data only on refinery workers that are directly employed by a primary energy operator, and failed to account for injuries, accidents, and deaths of contract employees.
The work group is charged with developing two new standards for the American National Standards Institute. It had been composed of representatives from 22 oil companies and only three trade union representatives, with government and other stakeholders serving as well.
The American Petroleum Institute responded defensively to USW’s withdrawal. In a statement, also issued on 4 August, it charged the union with undermining the process and “trying to silence the voices of other stakeholders on the committee.” Beevers, in an interview with the Houston (Texas) Chronicle newspaper, called industry’s assertion “absolutely ridiculous.”
Leo Gerard
Amerca’s largest industrial union forewarned of management’s recalcitrance to improve safety and health inside the downstream oil and gas sector in collective agreement talks that concluded early in 2009. After making health and safety the primary topic in the negotiations, USW was stonewalled on the issue, with USW President Leo Gerard saying “the industry refused to allow us to be equal partners with them in resolving health and safety problems.”
The USW will now conduct a survey related to the two proposed standards and then use it in a direct and targeted campaign in order to get the US Chemical Safety Board to recommend proper fatigue and process-safety standards.