This summary outlines the commonalities, strengths, differences and shortcomings in fatigue risk management policies of utilities who provided them. It is not meant to be an exhaustive analysis, but rather a starting point for partners to consider how they could improve their fatigue management.

Fundamentally, not all organisations have a policy. From the information received, those that don’t have
one either:

  • have one in draft, or
  • rely on elements of another company hazard mitigation policy, with or without basic fatigue risk management tools, or
  • rely on government/WorkSafe guides.
  • confidence in organisational compliance with Workplace Health and Safety legislation.

Those that don’t have a specific policy or not have one in draft have expressed a wish to develop one. Based on the data received, it appears that the further that an organisation’s fleet covers in distance per year, the more developed their fatigue policy is.

Commonalities and Strengths Risked-Based Approaches

  • Organisations that have developed polices use risk-based approaches

Accountability

  • For developed polices, it is common to see that staff from the managerial to employee level are accountable for managing fatigue risk. This remains the case for organisations who use other hazard mitigation policies.

Role of Employees

  • The role of employees is common overall, ensuring that they are rested, fit for work and notifying managers when they feel that they are in breach of rules surrounding fatigue and driving.

Role of Managers

  • The role of managers is also common, primarily being responsible for assessing the fatigue levels and fitness for work of employees at the start of and throughout the work period.