Advertisement

Identifying Situational Operational Leeway for Subcontract Supervisors so as to Progress in MSD Prevention

  • A. Cuny-Guerrier
  • S. Caroly
  • F. Coutarel
  • A. Aublet-Cuvelier
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 820)

Abstract

Supervisors seek to regulate critical situations influencing operators’ capacity to deal with risks of musculoskeletal disorders (MSD). The regulation adopted depends on the supervisors’ situational operational leeway (SOL), which is influenced by their individual characteristics and by characteristics related to their working environment (2–3). The aim of this study was to identify the components of SOL for first-line supervisors working through subcontracting, in order to allow them to contribute to the design of a working environment favourable to prevention of MSDs in the supervised operatives. Two qualitative case studies were conducted on meat-cutting supervisors employed by an external company (EC) and working in a user company (UC). From interviews with the supervisors and observation of their work (for 2 to 6 h on 4 days each), 15 critical situations were identified. These situations were then examined through self-confrontation interviews. The components of the SOL for the two supervisors were then constructed from the analysis of those situations. The SOL of the subcontracted supervisors breaks down as 16 components: 4 individual ones (i.e., the supervisors’ cutting skills), 4 organizational ones related to the EC (i.e., procedural autonomy), 4 organizational ones related to the UC (i.e., flexibility of the production modes), and 4 collective components related to opportunities to cope collectively by interacting with EC-supervised operatives and/or with UC employees (i.e., with support from UC supervisors). Individual components were mobilized most often, whereas organizational components were not systematically identified. The collective components were mobilized particularly in situations lacking organizational components.

Keywords

Musculoskeletal disorders Supervisor Subcontracting meat-cutting sector 

References

  1. 1.
    Conseil économique et social, J officiel, avis et rapports: p 305 (1973)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Tappin D et al (2006) Musculoskeletal disorders in meat processing: a review of the literature for the New Zealand meat processing industry, Massey university, New Zealand. https://www.acc.co.nz/assets/injury-prevention/meat-strains-sprains-review.pdf
  3. 3.
    InVS and MSA (2007) État de santé des salariés de la filière viande du régime agricole en Bretagne. Relations avec leurs contraintes de travail physiques, organisationnelles et psychosociales. Rapport-Enquête épidémiologique. http://www.invs.sante.fr/publications/2007/salaries_filiere_viande/rapport_salaries_filiere_viande.pdf
  4. 4.
    Karltun J, Vogel K, Bergstrand M, Eklund J (2016) Maintaining knife sharpness in industrial meat cutting: a matter of knife or meat cutter ability. Appl Ergon 56:92–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Botti L, Mora C, Regattieri A (2015) Improving ergonomics in the meat industry: a case study of an italian ham processing company. Proc IFAC-PapersOnLine 48(3):598–603CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dixon S, Theberge N, Cole D (2009) Sustaining management commitment to workplace health programs: the case of participatory ergonomics. Relat industrielles 64(1):50–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gotteland C, Pueyo V (2015) An analysis of supervisor’s framework design in the horticole sector. In: Proceedings 19th triennal congress of the IEA, Melbourne, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Slappendel C, Moore D, Tappin D (1996) Meat industry injury prevention project. case study two: preventing injuries by reducing work compression. New Zealand Council of Trade Unions, Wellington, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Coutarel F, Caroly S, Vézina N (2015) Marge de manoeuvre situationnelle et pouvoir d’agir: des concepts à l’intervention ergonomique. Le travail humain 78(1): 9–29Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Goldenhar L (2016) Making a positive difference in construction safety and health by improving safety culture, safety climate and safety leadership. In: PREMUS, Toronto, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Coutarel F, Daniellou F, Dugué B (2003) Interroger l’organisation du travail au regard des marges de manœuvre en conception et en fonctionnement. La rotation est-elle une solution aux TMS? Pistes 5(2). http://pistes.revues.org/3328
  12. 12.
    Brown O (2005) Participatory ergonomics. In: Stanton N, Hedge A, Brookhuis A, Salas E, Hendrick HW Handbook of human factors and ergonomics methods. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mayhew C, Quinlan M, Bennet L (1996) The effects of subcontracting/outsourcing on occupational Health and safety 25(1–3): 163–178 (1996). Industrial Relations Research Centre, The University of New South Wales, SydneyGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Stake RE (1995) The art of case study research. Sage publications, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Yin RK (2009) Case study research: design and methods. applied social research methods series, 3rd edn. Sage publications, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Huberman M, Miles MB (2013) Analyse des données qualitatives: recueil de nouvelles méthodes. De Boeck Université, BelgiqueGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bolduc F, Baril-Gingras G (2010) Les conditions d’exercice du travail des cadres de premier niveau : une étude de cas. Pistes 12(3). http://pistes.revues.org/2777

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. Cuny-Guerrier
    • 1
  • S. Caroly
    • 2
  • F. Coutarel
    • 3
  • A. Aublet-Cuvelier
    • 1
  1. 1.INRSVandœuvreFrance
  2. 2.PACTE, Communauté Université de Grenoble AlpesGrenobleFrance
  3. 3.ACTé, EA 4281, Université Clermont AuvergneChamalièresFrance

Personalised recommendations