Pike River Mediation: Script for OHS Concerns Resolution

This assignment presents a detailed mediation script addressing the OHS concerns arising from the Pike River Mine disaster. The script involves a mediator, mine workers' representatives, and a health and safety manager, aiming to facilitate a transformative dialogue and reach a realistic settlement. It begins with a background on the mine's history, OHS policy implementation issues, and the stakeholders' perspectives. The script outlines the roles of each participant, the mediation process, including opening statements, and the negotiation of an agreement. The workers raise concerns about training, safety device usage, and financial priorities. The health and safety manager emphasizes the company's adherence to safety regulations and the role of contractors. The mediator guides the discussion, ensuring confidentiality and commitment from all parties. The script showcases the complexities of conflict resolution in a high-stakes environment, emphasizing the importance of good faith, open communication, and a commitment to achieving a mutually acceptable outcome.

Running Head: OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY
Topic- Pike River Mediation: Script writing
Student name
University name
Author notes

2OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY
Background
Here in this paper a transformative mediation session is conducted where all parties
concerned could come to a realistic settlement about their respective concerns. The involved
parties broadly include the mediator, the Pike River Coal Mine workers and Health and Safety
Manager on the part of the management. Before starting the mediation session, it is important to
have a look into the background of the OHS case of Pike River Coal Mine. The Pike River Mine
(PRM) is an underground coal mine in New Zealand located 46 km north-east of Greymouth
(Lamare et al., 2015). It is opined that poor management support is responsible for its not so
robust OHS policy implementation. The world class mine known for high safety and modern
machinery usage ultimately will not be able to stop chances of disaster and will went to
bankruptcy in no time if the OHS policies are not mandated to the earliest (Molyneaux, Carnegie
& Chitty, 2015). The workers are furious over their safety concerns and workplace hazards.
Workers are blaming management, management is blaming poor risk management and system
engineering by contractors, contractors are blaming poor implementation of safety laws and
regulations and this is continuing till date (Maher & Maidment, 2013). So, the ultimate question
here is why actually the OHS policy not standardized in Pike River? Who are to be held
responsible? What solutions can be inferred to reach to a constructive settlement? In order to
have some fruitful decisions on part of the case, a mediation session is called for and all parties
are here to engage in transformative dialogue and are free to share their feelings and opinions.
This is a conflict resolution approach and values and principles of mediation need to be strictly
maintained. Since it is a mediation session it is not possible to have all mine workers in the
session due to place and time constraint but 3 workers’ representatives are allowed on their
behalf.
So, the mediation session has 1 principle mediator, 3 mine workers’ representatives and 1
health and safety manager from management side. All parties gathered in the mediation room
along with their advocates for legal proceedings. An ideal mediation session is shown the figure
below.
Figure 1

3OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY
(Moore, 2014)
Mediation participants’ name and designations
Principle Mediator: Jane Brown
Workers’ representatives: 1- Joe Swift (Mine worker), 2- Jonathan Jonas (Mine worker) and 3-
Nick Ross (Miner)
Health and safety officer: Kim Anderson (Pike River Mine-management team)
2 advocates from each party.
Advocate for workers: Amber Heed
Advocate for health and safety officer: Katie Perry
Session script
Mediator: Good morning…my name is Jane Brown. You can call me Jane. I will be your
mediator for the session today. Allow me to brief you all about my qualifications. By profession
I am a Lawyer, passed my board in 1982 and is in litigation practice and legal cases since then. I
am also a professional mediator certified by AMINZ and have been participating in alternative
dispute resolution for a very long time for now since 1987. You all have commended to partake
in the mediation which is a verified and successful conflict management tool for years.
Meanwhile you all are here by contract agreement; I know you all will collaborate for the

4OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY
process to reach the best solutions for your disputes. To clarify my neutral stand, I want you all
to know that I have no linkage with this case and the knowledge I have for the case is all that
from the confidential statements and other relevant materials provided to me. My information
about the parties and the positions involved is limited to what is being presented to me as a part
of the interlocutory. Here the workers representatives are claimants and the health and safety
officer, the respondent. This has allowed me to have a brief background of the case but is not
enough to have ideal knowledge about the nature of conflict or about the means of how it should
be resolved. Also, in case, there is any difficulty in understanding the process and how it works
let me summarize the process of mediation to you all.
All concerned partied nodded their heads.
Mediator: So, here I am neither a decision-maker nor a judge. My job role is to ease
communication and flow of interaction of yours so that you all can come to a clear and
transparent solution to the dispute and it is resolved effectively. The process of mediation is
confidential and have no prejudices (Moore, 2014). I will ensure everything as far as my power
is concerned to assure you all that the procedure remains confidential and all pre-submission and
relevant papers provided will either be returned back to you or else will be destroyed at the
termination of the mediation session. Only I will disclose about the case being settled or not.
Also, the privacy of meeting will be strictly maintained. Before starting the mediation, first, a
written mediation agreement is to be signed by both parties to avoid future misunderstandings
(Goldberg et al., 2014). You all can go through it once before signing.
The agreement, as per ERA (s146), is provided to all parties and party-advocate interaction
continued for a brief while. All parties signed afterwards.
Mediator: Now, let me briefly discuss the procedure that will be followed today. The mediation
will generally be a 1-hour duration session but may stretch to 1.30 hours as per need and
seriousness of issue. When my remarks are finished each concerned party need to make an
opening statement that will clarify your party’s position. It will take around 10-15 minutes.
Since, all parties have agreed to open joint discussion I think there is no need of private
caucuses. But if at any time you feel that you need to talk in private let me know I have
alternative room arrangements for private talks. I assure you the information shared in caucuses
will remain strictly confidential. Now for the process to work successfully, I need both your time

5OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY
and commitment on the issue. Since, this is a delicate issue I want you all to be committed to
stay till some fruitful decision is not make on the case. So, are you willing to make commitment
to me?
Parties concerned: Yes, sure.
Mediator: Good, thank you. Now I also want you all to make another commitment of authority.
Do each of you have full authority to negotiate a fruitful settlement for the case here?
Worker representatives (1,2,3): We have, you can proceed.
Health and Safety manager: yes, definitely.
Mediator: Thank you. So, our aim here is to reach to an agreement. Once again, I laud your
commitment and participation. Now, if you have any question you are free to ask, or else we will
begin our mediation with the opening statements. Don’t feel stressed out or nervous, feel free, be
at ease, have some water if required. Also, if at any point you feel the need of a break, feel free
to let me know. So, let us start the mediation now. Also, it would be easier for me if I call you all
by your names, may I?
All parties involved: Sure.
Jane: So, Kim as the mediation is based on the worker’s claimant, I would like to hear you first
and want to know what you, on behalf the management, think about the claim of
mismanagement in OHS in regard to workplace safety in regard to the case.
Kim: Good morning to all. First of all, I would like to share our stand on the case and would also
like to provide the sample draft of our considerations to you Jane. But before that I would like to
let you all know about our Health and Safety policies in our organization’s workplaces and the
management attitude towards them.
Mines are more hazardous and the possibility of flood, fire, explosion and collapse is quite high
in comparison to other occupations (Dėjus & Antuchevičienė, 2013). The Department of Labor
is the lead agency that administers and ensures compliance with Health and Safety, HSE and
HSNO Act in most of NW workplaces (Gunningham, 2015). The company strictly abides by the
two national policies for prevention of work injuries and diseases- the New Zealand Injury
Prevention Strategy (NZIPS) and Workplace Health and Safety Strategy (WHSS)

6OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY
(Employment.govt.nz, 2019). In this regard, vulnerable workers and high-risk industrial sector
mining are highly focused under WHSS. The ‘Working Safer’ blueprint of health and safety
reform at work has already been recommended followed by a robust OHS by the Department of
Labor (Legislation.govt.nz, 2019). In the organization the Health and Safety in Employment Act
1992 and the Machinery Act of 1950 are followed at large. Moreover, SWMS is also provided to
supervisors and workers to support risk monitoring and control (Wellman, 2012). The SWMS
(Safe Work Method Statement) documents all possible high-risk work activities in workplaces
along with their risks and hazards (Barrett & Thomson, 2012). The other safety tools like Job
Safety Analysis (JSA) and Job Safety and Environment Analysis (JSEA) are also provided for
identification and assessment of workplace health hazards and risks (Chalmers, 2013). The
contractors and supervisors are provided all requires tools and method statements of the risk
associated to construction sites in mining operations. Moreover, a Code of Practice is there in
Pike River Mining construction company that provides practical guidance in achievement of
standards of health and safety and workers’ welfare (Horberry et al., 2013). So, above all, every
aspect of WHS laws and safety regulations are being mandated by the organization.
Jonathan: I would like to interrupt here and mention that, it is easy to say all WHS laws are
being abided by in the workplaces but in practical there are a lot of gaps and areas that need
action to the earliest. I would like to mention some on part of the whole workforce.
Firstly, there is high ratio of experienced and inexperienced miners. This is due to improper
training provided to us. Moreover, the presence of overseas miners has increased considerably
who are less used to New Zealand mining conditions and topographies.
Secondly, common worker’s practice of usage of safety devices and machineries in mining are
by-passed and construction work was compelled to be continued instead of presence of
hazardous gases and chemicals like methane in the site. This is against WHS laws which forbids
work due to contaminated gases where safety precautions required are more robust and important
(Wang et al., 2015).
Thirdly, the training provided to employees are not adequate as there is a great difference in
between the reality on the job work and off the job training of the same work (Kirsch et al.,
2014). Also, I would like to mention that all procedures are not followed thoroughly. Also, as the
projects undertaken include huge investments only financial compatibility and on-time project

7OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY
completion are emphasized the most (Lamm & Lips-Wiersma, 2018). This proves the negligence
of the management and shows how superficial is the execution of the ‘so called’ OHS policies.
Kim: It is not fair to blame the management only. As in this regard, system engineering by the
contractors is equally responsible to support a well-established OHS policy framework. There
are many instances of poorly designed ventilation, incompetent mining methods, use of various
power-electronics in underground mines and incomplete technology development in the mine
that are directly responsible for poor workers’ health and safety (Pons, 2016). Risk assessment
on the part of the contractor management team was not adequate and strategic management is not
responsible for their improper risk assessment strategies (Roy, 2019).
Joe: It is true that poor system engineering is also responsible to a considerable extent, but it is
the job of the management to hire a competent contractor consultancy who can support workers
well and look after their safety and security at large. It is being learnt that ISO 31000 risk
management standard was adopted by the contractors to support safe work constructions
(Legislation.govt.nz., 2019). So, they were not solely responsible. We are compelled to work as
per our construction supervisor’s order and in spite of this we continuously warned our team and
supervisor about the risks but our voices were not heard and we were ignored. Management rush
to complete production is well known to everyone and in spite of technology incompletion we
were asked to start work on the site.
Kim: We have a strong community support and ours is the largest underground mine in the
world. We strongly rely on our commitments to our end users and customers and when any
project is already running on lagged time frame and is operating in lower than expected
production volume, we have to increase our production capacity and need to start working to the
earliest. There were also huge financial burdens for delayed project delivery (Lingard, 2013). But
I would like to mention here that, lumpsum of bonuses are offered to all involved in the work to
‘catch-up’ the project completion timeline.
Katie: Here, I would like to add that the company has already gone through a number of legal
proceedings for not being able to complete a number of projects on time and several new
Contract have already been developed. In this regard, management had to rush to avoid further
legal hearings and so cause notices being served.

8OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY
Kim: Yes, you are right. As our community association is huge, we work jointly with
government collaboration. See, if mining operations are ceased and mine is shut down it is loss
for both the employer and the employees. So, workers should support management decision in
this regard and should support the decision of the Labor Government as well, in OHS policy
implementation (Sinelnikov, Inouye & Kerper, 2015). Also, would like to mention that the Pike
BOD has already set a new strategic direction for the company and front line has been devolved.
All management functions in regard to policy formulation and implementation will be ensured
by the Directors themselves. Most emphasized areas will include risk management, internal
reporting, legal compliances and management performance monitoring and control (Yoon et al.,
2013).
Nick: But it evident that in spite of such commitments the Board does not verify the
effectiveness of the system in risk management and resulted in poor governance. In other words,
it is the Board that is not able to provide effective health and safety leadership to workers’
protection and as mentioned earlier, it only focused on financial and production pressure of the
company.
Amber: In this regard, I would like to mention that the constant churn of management is also
responsible for such loose workplace health and safety commitments. Strategic managers were
resigning more often and there is always a positional and communication gap among higher
management and operational levels (Lingard, 2013). As a result, robust application of policy
measures was lacking to a great extent (Mahmoudi et al., 2014). The Directors are largely
blamed for the improper health and safety regulations for the workers. Though they rejected this
accusation of running an unsafe mine and that they did not acted properly for the safety of their
workers.
Jane: So, what can be inferred from the discussion and the draft settlement agreement is that
there is a higher imbalance in between prevention and recovery in regard to workplace hazards.
It is true that no hazard can be completely eliminated (Laberge, MacEachen & Calvet, 2014).
Here, in the case, prevention is much focused in hazard control than recovery. What can be
concluded from evidences, is that Pike has deficient construct of workplace health and safety risk
management whose execution is even poorer (Landsbergis, Grzywacz & Lamontagne, 2014).

9OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY
Kim: Yes, and therefore we all are supporting the new strategic decision by the Board on OHS
to validate actual stand in the same. And we are hoping that the policy implementation will be
successful and will live up to the worker’s expectations.
Joe: It is beyond imagination that the management is so relaxed in regard to OHS policy
implementation and execution. We want strict action and want a well-balanced fully scrutinized
policy for our health and safety. And we also want the management to be more empathetic to us
so that our safety and security is prioritized significantly.
Jane: Now, based on the discussion of the session the following proposed solutions are being
mandated,
 Control of the decision-making process should be extended to the part of the Worker’s
management union and they should also have a stand in decision-making outcomes as a
part of equal control exercising.
 Operational uncertainties need to be taken care of in a more robust manner where
information and knowledge should be provided through extensive training sessions (von
Thiele Schwarz, Hasson & Tafvelin, 2016).
 Control should not be unevenly distributed that is management leaders should have more
control whereas workers should have greater control.
 This is a case of dispute of both interest and rights of workers and as there is no clear or
some established methods of dispute handling, decision-making process in this regard
need to be wider in scope and considerations such that interest of both parties are
fulfilled.
 A clearly written employment agreement having signs of both employee and the
employer need to be developed that will have all terms and conditions of the job role
including expectations of the role, working conditions and employment rights. This will
reduce future risk of misunderstanding.
 Recruitment of a Risk assessment team who will personally supervise various risk
hazards on-site of the construction unit and will provide timely feedback to management
and worker representatives through formal discussion meetings (Dėjus &
Antuchevičienė, 2013).

10OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY
 Last but not the least workers’ participation in management should be increased so that
scope of conflicting situations is diminished considerably.
Now, if you all agree to the above points and support the agreement the Memorandum of
Understanding (MoU) need to be signed. I would request you all to go through it once and then
sign. Also, if you all want to have a formal binding agreement that is to be legally valid you can
consult with you respective lawyers and they could draft a binding agreement on your behalf that
will incorporate the various terms of the memorandum. Once the MoU is signed parties will be
bind to the new contract so developed. Any kind of default event by parties will be subject to
legal enforcements. In this case, witness of the parties signing the agreement will be their
respective advocates. (Copy of the MoU is provided to the parties and they signed it after
consultation with their advocates.)
Here, we come to the end to the mediation process and I hope this mediation session was fruitful
in providing both parties some agreeable solutions and also hope each party will abide by the
legal proceedings of the contract.
Kim: Yes, for sure.
Workers representatives: sure.
Jane: Any query from legal parties and advocates?
Advocates of both parties: Not such. Thank you.
Jane: Alright then. Have a good day all of you. Thank you. (All parties dismissed with their
corresponding papers and documents and the session ended peacefully)

11OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY
References
Barrett, J., & Thomson, L. (2012). Returning dignity to labour: Workplace safety as a human
right.
Chalmers, D. R. (2013). Explosions in mines–systematic failure. In 23rd World mining congress
2013 proceedings, Montreal.
Dėjus, T., & Antuchevičienė, J. (2013). Assessment of health and safety solutions at a
construction site. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 19(5), 728-737.
Employment.govt.nz. (2019). Health and safety at work » Employment New Zealand. Retrieved
from https://www.employment.govt.nz/workplace-policies/health-and-safety-at-work/
Goldberg, S. B., Sander, F. E., Rogers, N. H., & Cole, S. R. (2014). Dispute resolution:
Negotiation, mediation and other processes. Wolters Kluwer Law & Business.
Gunningham, N. (2015). Lessons from Pike River: Regulation, Safety and Neoliberalism. New
Zealand Universities Law Review.
Horberry, T., Xiao, T., Fuller, R., & Cliff, D. (2013). The role of human factors and ergonomics
in mining emergency management: three case studies. International Journal of Human
Factors and Ergonomics, 2(2/3), 116-130.
Kirsch, P., Harris, J., Shi, M., & Cliff, D. (2014). Reflections on mining and
mortality. Australian Resources and Investment Magazine, 8(3), 64-68.
Laberge, M., MacEachen, E., & Calvet, B. (2014). Why are occupational health and safety
training approaches not effective? Understanding young worker learning processes using
an ergonomic lens. Safety Science, 68, 250-257.

12OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY
Lamare, J. R., Lamm, F., McDonnell, N., & White, H. (2015). Independent, dependent, and
employee: contractors and New Zealand’s Pike River Coal Mine disaster. Journal of
industrial relations, 57(1), 72-93.
Lamm, F., & Lips-Wiersma, M. (2018). A disaster waiting to happen: Silently silencing
stakeholders at the Pike River Coal Mine. Journal of Industrial Relations, 60(4), 560-
583.
Landsbergis, P. A., Grzywacz, J. G., & Lamontagne, A. D. (2014). Work organization, job
insecurity, and occupational health disparities. American journal of industrial
medicine, 57(5), 495-515.
Legislation.govt.nz. (2019). Health and Safety at Work (Mining Operations and Quarrying
Operations) Regulations 2016 (LI 2016/17) (as at 15 May 2017) Contents – New Zealand
Legislation. Retrieved from
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2016/0017/latest/DLM6732829.html
Lingard, H. (2013). Occupational health and safety in the construction industry. Construction
management and economics, 31(6), 505-514.
Maher, P., & Maidment, J. (2013). Social work disaster emergency response within a hospital
setting. Aotearoa New Zealand Social Work, 25(2), 69.
Mahmoudi, S., Ghasemi, F., Mohammadfam, I., & Soleimani, E. (2014). Framework for
continuous assessment and improvement of occupational health and safety issues in
construction companies. Safety and health at work, 5(3), 125-130.
Molyneaux, L., Carnegie, D. A., & Chitty, C. (2015, October). HADES: An underground mine
disaster scouting robot. In 2015 IEEE International Symposium on Safety, Security, and
Rescue Robotics (SSRR) (pp. 1-6). IEEE.
Moore, C. W. (2014). The mediation process: Practical strategies for resolving conflict. John
Wiley & Sons.
Pons, D. (2016). Pike river mine disaster: Systems-engineering and organisational
contributions. Safety, 2(4), 21.