ENSAYO ESTATICO: 5.8 Kg/m 3 MACROFIBRAS DE POLIPROPILENO

Communication for the purpose of providing work support is indispensable between the shore management and the ship’s crew and helpful for shaping a safer working place on board a ship where the continual occurrence of a variety of maritime risks is considered normal (Anderson, 2003). From the perspective of the shore management in both companies, the communication for such a support played a key role in ensuring a ship’s normal operation and in maintaining good OHSM practice. In this regard, management providing crews with support and its responsibilities in solving shipboard problems are presented in this section.

Following this, different types of support are identified and briefly outlined.

5.2.1 Operational Support

As discussed in the literature chapter (section 2.5.2), organisational support plays a key role in safeguarding OHSM in routine workplace activities. The communication for such a purpose is closely related to employees’ safety performance. In general, much of the literature suggested a potential positive impact of organisational support on the workplace’s OHSM.

In a ship’s routine operational management, managers and superintendents from marine affairs, marine engineering and the quality and safety departments of the companies were the persons who communicated most often with crews. Their activities in this respect are highlighted in the data, particularly that of the superintendents as the immediate persons to contact crews. The superintendents in both companies were called by a dedicated name. In C1, a marine affairs superintendent was called ‘Guide Captain’ and a marine engineering superintendent was called ‘Guide Chief Engineer’, so they were called by the generic term

‘the Guide’. In C2, they were called ‘General Captain’ and ‘General Chief Engineer’

respectively. The interviews with the shore management showed that they were ready to assist crews whatever and whenever support was needed:

If we could not give them (crews) support and ships did not need [it], then the Guides (captains/chief engineers) would lose the significance of existence. (Marine Affairs Superintendent, C1)

As mentioned in section 4.3, most of the superintendents in both companies had had several years of sea experience before they took office jobs. Usually, they were ex-mariners, such as captains or chief engineers. They were selected as members of the management according to their recognised competence. In this sense, they were qualified to provide support to a ship’s crew. For example, a superintendent commented:

Relatively speaking, the Guides’ competences are high in the company. They could assist crews to identify and solve safety problems on board. It’s good for promoting safe production. (Marine Engineering Superintendent, C1)

This support had significant implications for a ship’s safe operation. The concern for safety in the chemical shipping industry made special sense given the dangerous nature of the chemical cargoes. In both companies, there were dedicated persons responsible for guiding crews regarding the management operation of chemical cargoes. A manager talked about this special role in the following way:

The person taking this role is very professional. He has worked on chemical tankers for more than ten years. His role is also valued by the company. It is the highlight in the highlighted areas. We fully support his work. (Marine Engineering Manager, C2)

In addition, as described in section 4.2.3, chemical tankers receive regular external inspection from oil majors such as BASF, BP, Lucide and Shell. These inspection standards are very high. If a ship cannot pass their inspection, they would not let the ship carry their cargoes. Thus, passing such an inspection was crucial for companies’ ‘business’ as well as for their ‘reputation’, a fact which was repeatedly mentioned by many interviewees. When a formal inspection was scheduled, the management in both companies would usually visit the ship to be inspected. For instance, a marine affairs superintendent said:

It is to give guidance. Each year, there would be several oil majors’ inspections.

Before an inspection, we would visit the ship. Something new would have emerged each year…new norms or regulations…We would tell crew the latest requirements from the oil majors, and tell them what to do in order to meet the requirements.

(Marine Affairs Superintendent, C1)

Apart from the ship visit, a manager or superintendent might sail with a ship for a voyage. In general, the data suggested that the role of shore support was very important for a ship’s safe operation and the oil majors’ inspection. In the literature, some different kinds of support in organisational context were discussed by Osca et al. (2005), among which the role of supervisory support was highlighted. This study showed a similar situation. The supervisory support was an easy and inexpensive way of improving an employee’s work environment (ibid, p.292). From the management perspective in both companies, the study showed definite positive organisational commitment to OHSM on board their ships and they thought their support was indispensable.

5.2.2 Problem Solving

More specifically, it was found that the communication for shore support was centred on solving problems for ships’ crews. It is understandable that problems can occur frequently in an organisation and they can emerge repeatedly in routine operational activities in the process of organisational production. The shipping industry is no exception in this regard, as ships operate in a harsh and perilous working and natural environment (Bloor et al., 2000).

Although front line employees were in the best position to identify workplace problems, apparently, there would be some safety-related problems that crew could not deal with properly alone. The identified problems usually needed to be solved with the management’s support. In such circumstances, the role of the management in problem solving was prominent. As Eraut et al. (1998) argue, the development of skills for problem solving was based on a full understanding of the production process within an organisation. Therefore, managers or superintendents in both companies should have been in a position where they

had a better understanding of their organisations, than available to the crews of their ships.

Their asserted competence and their control of various resources were essential for dealing with workplace problems. The problem solving could give a crew ‘a sense of safety’ or

‘logistic guarantee’, as expressed by some shore interviewees. A manager detailed its role:

The communication could solve a crew’s work-related difficulties… difficulties with the implementation of new requirements from oil majors, the scarcity of equipment, spare parts and supplies... The communication for giving a ship support is significant. (Safety and Quality Manager, C2)

Furthermore, the impact of problem solving could go beyond a problem itself. In a wider sense, it could affect the interest of all parties involved. A superintendent explained:

It (communication) helps to solve a problem. If a problem is solved properly and smoothly, the ship’s schedule can be guaranteed. It is good for personal safety, the ship’s safety, the company and also cargo owners. If a ship’s (sailing) schedule were delayed because of equipment (failure) or crew capability, cargo owners would have a bad impression of our company. They would doubt our company’s good credit.

(Quality and Safety Superintendent, C1)

In general, a strong management commitment towards problem solving could be perceived from the data. This could be illustrated by a senior manager’s account:

Whether the support to ships was in place … whether the crew’s demand for information, spare parts or materials was supplied in time … we would solve them (problems) as quickly as time allowed. (Vice General Manager, C1)

During my sailing trip on S1 C1, I witnessed a major equipment failure. The cargo pump in starboard cargo tank suddenly broke when discharging phenol in a domestic port in China.

When it was reported to the company, several managers and superintendents visited the ship that same evening:

The pump engine in Cargo tank No 5 could not be started. The emergency plan was worked out after their visit. About 9pm in the evening all of the visitors came to the main deck. The senior officers/engineers were all on the scene. All the crew wore yellow overalls, while the superintendents wore white overalls. One of the superintendents played the role of a commander. An external cargo pipe was equipped with an external emergence pump. It was used to connect the tank on starboard side and the one on port side. By doing so the cargo in the starboard tank could be pumped into the port tank and then discharged through the manifold. The bosun and duty ratings were the main operators. The captain stood aside and the chief officer joined the team to fix the pipe in place with us. I also joined the team for several hours. The workload was significant, and it took several hours to complete the work. (Field Notes, S1 C1, 4 February 2010)

Eventually, the problem was fixed temporarily and the delay to the ship’s schedule was reduced to a minimum. A marine affairs superintendent (C1) described this as a typical example of ‘communication for decision making and problem solving’.

Apart from the observed management’s commitment towards problem solving, a few managers also showed an open and tolerant attitude towards problems that emerged on board ships. For example, a manager said:

If they (the crew) were to raise some problems, we would give them a response.

Even if their queries were unfounded or they made unreasonable demands, we would also give them an explanation. In this way, we try to keep the ships in good technical condition. (Safety and Quality Manager, C2)

From the data, it could be seen that communication for problem solving played a significant role in shipboard safety management in order to ensure a crew’s safe working practice on board.

5.2.3 Types of Support

In general, the coverage of an organisation’s support was wide. In this study, evidence from the interviews highlighted three areas of support in shore-to-ship communication, namely, technical support, safety information support and material resource support, which all had implications for OHSM. They will be briefly introduced in the following paragraphs.

The technical support aimed to deal with ship’s technical problems. These could be technical barriers in relation to main/auxiliary engines, deck machinery, cargo handling or tank washing; problems with the implementation of new industrial standards or regulations issued by industrial bodies, such as maritime authorities or oil majors; or some doubts about the operationalisation of the safety management system or sheltering in adverse weathers such as a typhoon. Basically, the management’s knowledge and experience played a significant role in promoting ship’s safety management. As mentioned by some interviewees from both shore and ships, their competences were relatively higher and many problems onboard were more likely to be identified by them.

The safety information support was the provision of safety information to the crew which was critical to shipboard OHSM. In both companies, there were dedicated persons in charge of collecting and distributing safety information to ships. The safety-related information was collected mainly via external and internal sources. The external information was issued mostly by external bodies, such as the maritime administrations, PSC or oil majors. For example, during the period of my field work, there was a dedicated focus on life boat safety for PSC inspection. Some related documents were sent onboard. The internal information

was collected from the company’s fleet. Where there was a ship visit, some hard copies were provided for distribution among the crew. As soon as a ship received them, they would be dispatched to the crew members concerned. If addressed to all of the crew, they would be posted in the ship’s public areas, such as the canteen, lounge or even the smoking room. The purpose was to keep everyone informed about the visit. Also, during the monthly safety production meetings, some of the information would be learnt collectively.

The material resource support was the provision of the necessary materials for ships’ normal operations and for crews’ OHS protection. They included, but were not limited to, some basic operational tools, crew members’ labour protection articles, regular consumables and important spare parts. On some occasions where technical assistance failed, support would involve the renewal or replacement of ‘hardware’ parts. Also, daily consumables needed to be duly supplied on board ships. A typical example was the consumption of fuel oil or lubricant oil which was also a major concern of the shore management. It was evident that the material support for ships was essential and indispensable in order to ensure their normal operation and management.

As mentioned before, the support was achieved through communication between shore management and a ship’s crew. In general, the communication for the provision of the support in the three areas played a critical role in ensuring successful OHSM, without which a ship could not sail safely and efficiently.