Viva site’s toxic tensions
A DANGEROUS environment with the potential for catastrophe, or a refinery committed to improving its safety?
There are contrasting views on the performance of Viva Energy, which took over the Corio refinery just over three years ago.
The future of the then 60-year-old facility had been in doubt before a saviour emerged to replace Shell.
Viva bought Shell’s downstream businesses for $2.9 billion, and immediately pledged a massive investment in a maintenance program designed to secure the refinery’s long-term viability.
But it is the company’s conduct during this extensive maintenance work that has alarmed the union and led to repeated intervention from WorkSafe.
The workplace watchdog entered Viva sites on 56 days during 2016-17, documents obtained by the Geelong Advertiser reveal.
The inspectors dealt with a range of spills, leaks, falling items, injuries and hazards, which saw them issue 26 improvement notices.
The Australian Workers’ Union said the regular monitoring had continued since July, with Victorian secretary Ben Davis believing the company had taken little on board.
“We have seen no evidence that safety culture has improved,” he said.
“The activity of the regulator demonstrates that the culture is not up to it.”
The 395 pages of WorkSafe documents, obtained under Freedom of Information, reveal a litany of potentially dangerous incidents.
They highlight how the company’s safety record drove tensions with the unionised staff, who went out on a week-long strike last October.
The bitter blockade lasted seven days and cost the company about $20 million.
The documents also reveal the internal angst over management’s handling of a major operations review, which would see WorkSafe intervene before Viva confirmed 50 jobs would be lost. the potential dangers, WorkSafe closely monitors Victoria’s 38 major hazard facilities.
Some, however, are inspected more frequently than others.
WorkSafe would not release statistics comparing the sites, but Mr Davis was clear that Viva’s Corio refinery was at the top of its watch list.
“None of them have had the repeated attention from WorkSafe in that period as Viva has,” he said.
It is also likely that Viva has received more focus from a union than other high-profile sites.
While they argue the attention is to protect their members, some at the refinery believe the highlighting of every safety transgression is for other reasons. One operator, speaking on the condition of anonymity, claims that a small group of union hardliners were trying to undermine Viva to reap a lucrative windfall.
“There’s a small group of them trying to manipulate everyone and bring the company down,” the operator said.
The operator said the pressure was aimed at seeing the refinery shut down, which would deliver the workers large redundancy packages.
Mr Davis rejected the slur, declaring that the union wanted the refinery to stay open and to retain as many jobs as possible.
“We try to always speak truth to power and hold it to account,” Mr Davis said. “But the frequency of WorkSafe’s visits shows that any suggestion we’re trying to destabilise Viva is nonsensical.” CONTINUED PAGE 32