Dear Editor,
Please permit me space in your newspaper to respond to the letter written by M. Williams, which appeared in the Guyana Chronicle on 8th April 2019 – `Safety should be the first consideration”. This letter writer references Guyana’s largest gold mining company- Guyana Goldfields/ AGM Inc.
It is most obvious that the writer’s aim is to discredit the company’s impeccable safety record by implying that safety is not the first consideration at AGM Inc. In fact it is the first priority and is the core value of the Company.
Following the major mining accident in 2015 where 10 miners lost their lives due to a pit wall collapse, the Ministry of Natural Resources in collaboration with the Guyana Mining School held a Train-ing Seminar at the Arthur Chung Convention Centre. Facilitated by Ret. Chief of Staff Joe Singh, participants from large scale miners from reputable companies such as Troy Resources, and Guyana Goldfields Inc. did presentations on safe mining practices to other members of the mining fraternity.
It is noteworthy that the safe mining practices demonstrated by Guyana Gold-fields Inc./AGM Inc have earned them the ability to cop the Mining award, this honour was bestowed upon them by the Ministry of Natural Resources, during the Porknocker Week festivities of said year. It is because of this and numerous other facts, that I am confident that every one of the monitoring agencies such as the Guyana Geology and Mines Commission, the Occupational Safety and Health Department of the Ministry of Social Protection and the Department of Compliance of the Ministry of Natural Resources would rubbish this erroneous claim of this letter writer.
The letter writer is alluding to some trick practised by companies regarding the failure to report the work related injuries and ‘cooking’ numbers. This suggestion is laughable, and would only be uttered by someone who is ignorant of the industrial procedure required for managing the return to work and modified duties of injured workers. For the benefit of the letter writer’s ignorance, I wish to outline the following: The duty of care of employers dictates that there be established policies that are followed by workers and supervisors in the event of an injury. (1) The injured worker promptly reports the injury to his immediate supervisor (2) the supervisor escorts the injured worker to the First Aid station, for an assessment of the injury, it is at this point that the Medical officer make a determination of whether the employee is able to return to work or further treatment is required by the medical facility. (3) If the injured worker is referred to a Medical institution, he/she is escorted/assisted by the Medical Liaison Officer to the said Medical institution for further evaluation. Based on the result of the evaluation, it is possible for that worker’s duties to be reassessed and he/she could be given restricted or modified duties that would in no way impede the healing process. Example, an employee may sustain a sprained ankle or fractured finger, there are aspects of work that can be done as against the employee’s regular duties and this is an acceptable norm throughout the industrialized world. It should be noted also this is followed for any person injured on an industrial premises, be it an employee or Contractor alike.
On the other hand, where the worker is unable to return to work immediately, he is issued a sick leave certificate. The laws of Guyana clearly dictate that a log of the incident must be recorded in the accident register and the formal notification be sent to the Ministry of Social Protection (Chief Occupational Safety and Health Officer). This can all be corroborated by the Ministry of Social Protection, the reported notification of accident by AGM Inc. and the physical record of the accident and dangerous occurrence register (This register is up to date at Guyana Goldfields Inc.)
It is possible for an employee to be off work as a result of an Industrial accident and be fully compensated for up to 26 weeks, this is separate and apart from transportation (for both the injured person and his/her spouse) and other incidentals covered by the company. However, the malicious use of the statement “Right now I am home, having been injured at work (unreported). I’m getting paid, though” is an insult to Occupational Safety and Health and should be seen as a serious one, especially during this month set aside for special emphasis on safety in the work place, the writer should be ashamed of himself.
I wish however to be pellucid by stating that the letter writer, M. Williams is not Michael Gordon Williams – Past Health and Safety Superintendent of Guyana Goldfields Inc./AGM Inc.
Yours faithfully,
Michael Williams CSO, CRSP
President Safergy Solutions
