This may be the author’s version of a work that was submitted/acceptedfor publication in the following source:

Langdon, Rebecca, Biggs, Herbert, & Rowland, Bevan(2016)Australian fly-in, fly-out operations: Impacts on communities, safety, work-ers and their families.Work, 55(2), pp. 413-427.

This file was downloaded from: https://eprints.qut.edu.au/95483/

c© Copyright 2016 IOS Press

This work is covered by copyright. Unless the document is being made available under aCreative Commons Licence, you must assume that re-use is limited to personal use andthat permission from the copyright owner must be obtained for all other uses. If the docu-ment is available under a Creative Commons License (or other specified license) then referto the Licence for details of permitted re-use. It is a condition of access that users recog-nise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. If you believe thatthis work infringes copyright please provide details by email to qut.copyright@qut.edu.au

Notice: Please note that this document may not be the Version of Record(i.e. published version) of the work. Author manuscript versions (as Sub-mitted for peer review or as Accepted for publication after peer review) canbe identified by an absence of publisher branding and/or typeset appear-ance. If there is any doubt, please refer to the published source.

https://doi.org/10.3233/WOR-162412

FIFO SAFETY & HEALTH 1

Title: Australian fly-in, fly-out operations: Impacts on communities, safety, workers and their

families

Authors:

Rebecca R Langdon, Queensland University of Technology

Herbert C Biggs, Queensland University of Technology (Corresponding author: phone 07

3138 4749, fax 07 3138 7532, email h.biggs@qut.edu.au)

Bevan Rowland, Queensland University of Technology

Abstract:

Background: Australia’s mineral, resource and infrastructure sectors continues to expand as

operations in rural and remote locations increasingly rely on fly-in, fly-out or drive-in, drive-

out workforces in order to become economically competitive. The issues in employing these

workforces are becoming more apparent and include a range of physical, mental,

psychosocial, safety and community challenges.

Objectives: This review aims to consolidate a range of research conducted to communicate

potential challenges for industry in relation to a wide variety of issues when engaging and

using FIFO/DIDO workforces which includes roster design, working hours, fatigue, safety

performance, employee wellbeing, turnover, psychosocial relationships and community

concerns.

Methods: A wide literature review was performed using EBSCOhost and google scholar,

with a focus on FIFO or DIDO workforces engaged within the resources sector.

Results: A number of existing gaps in the management of FIFO workforces and potential for

future research were identified. This included the identification of various roster designs and

hours worked across the resources industry and how to best understand the influences of

FIFO SAFETY & HEALTH 2

roster swings, and work hours on fatigue, safety, psychological wellbeing and job

satisfaction. Fatigue management, particularly in relation to travelling after extended work

shifts can increase the risk for road safety and influence safety performance while at work due

to a culmination of long hours, roster cycle and accumulated sleep debt. Further challenges

associated with the engagement of this workforce include feelings of isolation, physiological

and general health and lifestyle concerns.

Conclusions: FIFO workforces appear to be at an increased risk physically and mentally due

to a wide range of influences of this unique lifestyle, particularly in relation to rosters, length

of shift and feelings of community disengagement. Research and data collected has been

limited in understanding the influences on employee engagement, satisfaction, retention and

safety. Ensuring the challenges associated with FIFO employment are understood, addressed

and communicated to workers and their families may assist.

Keywords: FIFO, DIDO, Health, Mining, Wellbeing

FIFO SAFETY & HEALTH 3

The number of workers employed within the Australian resource extraction sector has

increased substantially since 2000 from less than 75,000 to in excess of 250,000 by 2013 [1].

Australian mining includes the extraction and production of natural resources such as coal,

ores (copper, diamonds, iron, gold, lead, magnesium), uranium, crude oil and natural gases

[2]. Australian mining has contributed over $100 billion to the economy each year since

2005, growing a total of 21% from 2005-2010 [3]. In addition, mining employees average as

the highest paid Australian workers [1]. This workforce includes administration,

maintenance, infrastructure, quarrying, dredging, oil, gas, and construction personnel

continues to expand and Australia is beginning to see a trend towards a growing number of

workers who operate in a fly-in, fly-out (FIFO) or drive-in, drive-out (DIDO) capacity.

Ten regional communities which typically host FIFO/DIDO employees who usually reside

in capital cities such as Perth, Brisbane, Adelaide or coastal cities such as Mackay have been

identified using two criteria [1]. First, at least one sixth of employed surveyed on census

night worked within the mining industry for one week prior to census. Second, the town had

at least 2% average population growth from 2006-2011. In Western Australia three towns

identified were Port Headland, Karratha and Newman. Six identified in Queensland were

Weipa, Dysart, Moranbah, Clermont, Emerald and Middlemount. Roxby Downs was

identified in South Australia. Table 1 highlights the growth of these cities identifying the

differences between usual residents and visitors (including FIFO/DIDO employees) for these

ten regional communities during 2006 and 2011.

In the absence of accurate data for FIFO personnel Carrington and colleagues estimates the

workforce directly employed to existing resource projects as approximately 150,000 –

200,000 [4]. Their estimate is based on the combination of research, government

publications and census data, and discusses the need to ensure future data collected captures

the number of workers employed with the FIFO/DIDO scope. The improvement for

FIFO SAFETY & HEALTH 4

accurately capturing this workforce became one of the recommendations made by the House

of Representatives Standing Committee on Regional Australia [5].

Utilising FIFO/DIDO workforces in lieu of establishing more permanent communities has

contributed to mining organisations becoming competitive in resource extraction, as it

mitigates the cost of building, maintaining and divesting these communities [6]. However

negative impacts FIFO/DIDO workforces on the regional communities in which they operate

have also been identified. These concerns include pressures on infrastructure due to increased

temporary populations, and the lack of reciprocity FIFO/DIDO organisations and their

employees have with these regional communities [6]. Which contributes to local businesses

and residents failing to benefit from increased spending in their communities and losses

associated with strains on local resources.

Mr Tony Windsor MHR while chairing the House of Representatives Standing Committee

on Regional Australia agreed with the Mayor of Kalgoorlie in describing Australia’s

FIFO/DIDO operations as a “cancer” which impacts harshly on regional communities. The

effects of FIFO/DIDO work practice issues ranged from home and host community, to the

health and wellbeing of workers and their families. The report described the need for

government and operators to reduce FIFO/DIDO operations and offer incentives to base

employees in existing regional areas [5].

It appears since the report was tabled, interest in treating Australia’s so-called “cancer” has

waned and as Weeramanthri and Jancey quite aptly noted, little has been done to address any

of the 21 recommendations made [7]. It has been acknowledged that government policy is

required to address a range of concerns raised in relation to Australia’s changing workforce,

however implementation of policy to address these intensifying issues has not been

supported, with urgent action being left in the hands of industry to manage [8].

FIFO SAFETY & HEALTH 5

To date, there has been a limited and varied amount of research conducted investigating

the impacts of operations utilising FIFO workforces in Australia and United Kingdom oil and

gas platforms. The Chamber of Minerals and Energy of Western Australia acknowledges

FIFO/DIDO impacts are not completely understood by the wider public [9]. It is our goal to

ensure some of the challenges in relation to the perceived burden FIFO operations place on

communities, employees and their families are raised and communicated accordingly.

This review will aim to consolidate a wide range of research conducted investigating

FIFO/DIDO concerns nationally and internationally in order to identify areas of interest for

guidance for further research.

1 Workforce Concerns

The workforce concerns associated with FIFO/DIDO operations cover a range of

variables, some of which are also prevalent in other industries (for example, manufacturing

and nursing). These variables include extended working hours, fatigue management, and

shift work, and are therefore important topics to understand and consider.

1.1 Roster Schedules, Shift Work and Work Hours

As FIFO/DIDO operations become increasingly popular, organisational working

arrangements and hours of work become an important practice to manage due to costs [6].

Much research has investigated the impacts of roster schedules, shift work and extended

working hours on employees in various sectors including manufacturing, nursing, oil and gas

operations and mining. There is no universal roster design for FIFO/DIDO workers with over

70 different schedules among mining and energy employees identified [10]. Rosters can

either consist of even-time (i.e. 14 days on, 14 days off) or asymmetrical designs (i.e. 21

days on, 7 days off). Scheduling may include day shift, night shift or rotation between night

and day shift. Employee satisfaction was found to increase, along with decreased employee

turnover was found with moderate roster schedules which encompassed 14 days on, 7 days

FIFO SAFETY & HEALTH 6

off cycles. An investigation of the effects of different roster cycles on miners finding

regardless of shift type, sleep debt accumulated for all workers, and home periods required

adequate days off for recovery [11]. In addition to the compacted roster schedules, employees

often work extended hours (10 or 12 hour shifts), with some FIFO/DIDO workers expected to

travel to/from sites in their own time which posed additional safety hazards in relation to

fatigue management [12].

The concern for workforce safety through shift work and extended working hours in

mining is supported by research conducted by Muller and colleagues who measured the

performance of employees working an asymmetrical roster of 28-days on, 5-days off working

12-hour shifts, finding particularly on night-shift, performance deteriorated beyond a Blood

Alcohol Content (BAC) reading of 0.05% [13]. In contrast Baker and colleagues did not find

any substantial differences on reported safety performance through changing of employee

rosters from 8 hours to 12 hours, offering this may have been due to employees working

shorter roster cycles (12 hour by 7 day cycle – study one, and 12 hour, 5 day schedule with

uncapped overtime – study two) [14]. It was suggested safety performance may be affected

by tasks performed, amount of overtime worked and time of day. In particular, incidents

reported in the 12-hour shifts were most common for the day shift during the middle of the

shift at 5-6 hours and towards the end of the shift at 9-10 hours, and the first 4-5 hours for the

night shift [14]. For the eight hour shifts, reports incidents for the day shift are more common

at the beginning (within 2-3 hours), with the afternoon and night shifts towards the end (after

4-5 hours) [14]. The study does not report which days of the shift are more prone to incidents

(i.e. first day, mid-shift or towards end of shift), in addition this study measured changes

before and after a significant reduction in employees and changes were necessary to ensure

survival of the mine where retained employees may influenced findings. To determine if

working extended hours increased stress, cortisol changes in FIFO workers and their partners

FIFO SAFETY & HEALTH 7

were measured finding no significant differences in stress between employees working

different rosters, concluding extended hours did not contribute to additional stress [15].

Participants included were from a broad range of mining occupations, rosters, and typically

worked longer than 10-hour shifts. Australian coal and energy workers were surveyed, where

more than 60% of respondents indicated they had no input into the amount of hours worked

[10]. With workplace consultation forming a large part of managing health and safety,

perhaps the lack of employee consultation on hours of work and shift work arrangements

contributes to employee dissatisfaction with working arrangements compounding to influence

performance and safety [16].

There has since been a substantial development in the management of working hours

urging employers to adopt a risk management approach in controlling hours of work while

considering the health and safety risks in relation to workplaces. Recommendations include

insuring overtime and shift work should not extend beyond 12-hour shifts [17], with the

Queensland Government advising regular, predictable, faster rotating shifts from day/night

shift with adequate post-work recovery periods [18]. In addition, travel time to/from work

should also be assessed for any additional risks for employees travelling home from sites or

airports. Understanding the effects of different roster schedules, hours worked, adaptation to

shift work and consultation may assist in managing the risks associated with shift work and

extended hours for FIFO employees.

In light of current research, challenges are raised specifically for FIFO/DIDO workers to

further understand how employees are affected by the particular times and days which pose

hazards to the employee or organisation. Understanding how tasks, job rotation and work

cycles can be best managed by industry for safety optimisation and increased satisfaction

[16]. Investigating employee flexibility in roster design and how this may impact on safety,

performance and satisfaction to determine if optimal roster scheduling [19, 20]. Finally

FIFO SAFETY & HEALTH 8

examination and implementation of standards and policies in relation to roster schedules to

minimise risks posed to employees and organisations [16].

1.2 Sleep Disruption

Shift work arrangements associated with FIFO/DIDO operations introduce a myriad of

sleep issues often due to hours worked and rotating roster schedules. Sleep disruption and

circadian rhythms affecting performance and functioning have been widely researched.

Bjorvatn and colleagues studied the subjective and objective impacts on employees who

experienced increased concerns for night shift adaptation to sleep cycles on a FIFO oil rig.

Those experiencing problematic sleep adjustments reported higher rates of sleepiness, yet

functioned satisfactorily on performance tests, with night shift functioning improving over

consecutive night shifts [21]. This may suggest the need to ensure sleep patterns are carefully

considered to reduce the likelihood of performance based errors [22]. An investigation of the

shift cycle changes at a Canadian underground mine, revealed changes to employees shift

cycles not encompassing the entire night period may have contributed to increased

performance for night shift workers, with night workers working from 5pm-3am reporting

increases in sleep quality warranting further investigation [23].

To better understand FIFO/DIDO adaptation to shift work in an Australian context, a study

found circadian rhythm disturbances impact performance at alarming rates, particularly on

night shift employees after the first two night shifts, noting an important need for

organisations to manage work functions or job rotation [13]. Also reported was more than

half of FIFO workers are sleeping six hours or less per day while working night shift,

compared to reporting sleeping approximately 6.1-8 hours during day shift and while on

leave. The insufficient number and quality of research available has previously been

emphasised, and the difficulties in recommending ideal shift scheduling rosters to understand

effects of roster schedules for sleep optimisation [24]. The Queensland Government

FIFO SAFETY & HEALTH 9

recommends to managing risks associated with shift work for mining operations, employers

should impose regular and predictable working rosters with rapidly rotating shifts to minimise

impacts of circadian disruptions, and discouraging engagement in additional employment

while on rest periods [18].

The challenge posed to industry is for the implementation of practical measures to ensure

sleep debt is minimised for FIFO/DIDO workers and to understand further how sleep can be

managed to reduce circadian rhythm disturbances, ensuring safety, performance, and an

increase in the quality and number of hours sleep while on camp. Future research may be

required to investigate regulating sleep through adjusting start and finish times for night shift

workers to determine if ending of night shift before sunrise helps to reduce sleepiness, and to

provide industry with information to minimise sleep debt [23].

1.3 Fatigue

Occupational health and safety laws require organisations ensure risks are managed in

relation to safety and performance. It is evident sleep disturbances and fatigue management

forms a large part of those risks for FIFO/DIDO operations. Fatigue management has

improved with government introducing guidelines for industry, focusing on shift management

and understanding sleep disruptions to manage scheduling of work [25]. As it was found

fatigue impacted substantially on employee performance after eight consecutive days on shift

work, a suggestion of limiting shift work to a maximum of eight consecutive 12-hour shifts to

limit occupational induced fatigue was made [13]. In addition it was reported the sleep

quality influenced fatigue for night shift workers for the beginning of the shift cycle, and

duration of sleep (net hours) impacted fatigue for the day shift cycle [13].

Tiernan recognises the importance of fatigue management by explaining industry is

obligated to ensure risks are managed in relation to worker fatigue, and needs to consider the

complicated varying contributing factors [26]. Factors which include; shift design, overtime,

FIFO SAFETY & HEALTH 10

travelling to/from sites for DIDO employees and airports for FIFO employees, secondary

employment undertaken on extended leave periods, and tasks/responsibilities designated to

the worker. The length of time and actual task being performed can also influence fatigue

[27]. In addition, the need to ensure fatigue is managed through rigorous risk management

practices and need to include travelling to and from work and investigation of accidents in

relation to fatigue is also required [26].

The safety implications associated with DIDO employees travelling long distances and

driving at the conclusion of an extended night shift cycle has been investigated. It was found

an increased risk of employees experiencing excessive sleepiness and/or falling asleep while

driving [28]. In addition, it was highlighted that the need for industries with FIFO/DIDO

workforces to adequately manage risks associated with employees commuting after working

extended hours was needed to reduce the likelihood of vehicle accidents [28]. Information

presented to the Regional Standing Committee Inquiry revealed driver fatigue is often

reported as a contributing factor to medical staff in relation to road traffic accidents [29],

although no statistics or data has been formally collected in relation to road accidents,

indicating an emerging need to capture this data.

The challenge associated is: Is industry listening, has fatigue management formed part of

the risk management process, are policies and procedures adopted adequately implemented

and maintained, and are the effects of fatigue and fatigue related incidents being captured and

recorded to best understand its influence on safety. In essence, are the risk management

principles provided by government working, and what are the best schedules that can be

adopted to limit the effects of fatigue. Furthermore, are company policies restricting the

practice of employees in engaging in secondary employment being investigated and does

moonlighting impact on fatigue. Future research addressing risk assessments, effectiveness

of fatigue management in FIFO workers and job planning may aid in identifying key

FIFO SAFETY & HEALTH 11

strategies to improve fatigue management for FIFO employees. Most importantly, data in

relation to incidents and road accidents in which FIFO/DIDO workers have been involved is

required to capture the unique safety implications of this workforce [28], [29], [26].

1.4 Safety Performance

It is no surprise that shift work, extended hours, sleep disruptions and fatigue impact

severely on safety and performance. The difficultly here lies in accessing safety data in

relation to FIFO/DIDO workers to accurately determine the extent of these influences on

safety and performance. Data available from mining health and safety reports provides an

industry wide snapshot for mining health and safety. In the 2012-2013 period, Queensland

reported two fatalities and a total of 947 Lost Time Injuries (LTI), increasing from one

fatality, and a decrease from 1,182 LTI’s [30]. Western Australia reported two fatalities, and

10,337 initial injury LTI’s, a decrease from four fatalities and an increase from 9,018 initial

injury LTI’s for 2010-2011 [31, 32]. It is reported a majority workers utilised in mining are

contractors [4], as mine owners prefer to subcontract out work to those that specialise in

particular tasks. This increases performance and production, allowing mine owners to

concentrate on operations as a whole, while contractors focus on performing mining

operations [33]. Alarmingly, contractors represent a substantially large proportion of

fatalities in the mining industry, with nine in ten fatalities in the coal industry and 50% of

fatalities in the metalliferous industry being contractors [34]. This phenomenon is not limited

to Australia, in the United States of America it was found that contractor fatalities in the

mining industry were 2.9 times higher compared to operators [35].

Contributing factors to fatalities were experience, length of hours worked, location of the

mine, and the type of mine [35]. In one of the few studies conducted measuring the effects of

safety performance at an Australian coal mine, the length of hours worked were compared

against incidents rates pre and post implementation of extended working hours in the mines

FIFO SAFETY & HEALTH 12

maintenance, mining and preparation/processing facility [14]. They found higher incidents

were reported on the 8-hour roster occurring for the morning shift in the beginning

(approximately 2-3 hours in), and on the afternoon and night 8-hour shifts mid-way (4-5

hours). For the extended 12-hour shifts, incidents were most common for the morning shift

during the mid-way point (5-6 hours) and towards the end of the shift (9-10 hours) and for

night shift it was also the mid-way point (4-5 hours). It was concluded that safety

performance may depend on the type of task carried out, amount of overtime worked, and the

time of day. The study however, does not indicate which days into the 7 day shift cycle are

more prone to incident and also found the preparation/processing facility reported a decrease

in incidents after changing from an 8-hour to a 12-hour shift cycle [14]. As the authors noted

however, the mine underwent a significant reduction in staff to ensure mine survival and

suggest perhaps those employees remaining may have influenced the findings, speculating

that those remaining employees were concerned for job security, more experienced, or safety

conscious.

The challenge here is determining what proportion of safety incidents can be attributed to

FIFO/DIDO workers (including direct employees and contractors), and understanding better

the times and days of increased likelihood for an incident. Parkes reports in one of the few

studies capturing this type of data, North Sea offshore workers recorded injuries requiring

medical treatments peaked on the third day into shift [36]. When increased risk of incidents

are better understood for Australian FIFO/DIDO workers, the allocation of tasks and

responsibilities during particular times of the roster may be controlled accordingly [14], shifts

and extend hours can be governed [13], and sleep and fatigue can be better managed [23].

Furthermore, with the emerging pattern of increased incidents relating to contractor fatalities,

it is evident policy makers and industry needs to increase its vigilance in ensuring and

capturing data on the health and safety of all personnel (including contractors) working in a

FIFO SAFETY & HEALTH 13

fly-in, fly-out capacity. In addition, improvement may be required for mine operators to

review contractor management processes, and to enhance regulators vigilance on auditing and

compliance for contractor management practices.

1.5 Wellbeing (Health and Mental Health)

The effects aforementioned are not limited to their influence on workplace safety and

performance. They also include a range of individual risks and health issues associated with

sleep disruptions, accumulated fatigue, and hours worked due to the FIFO/DIDO lifestyle

[37]. In demonstrating the importance of implementing health interventions, FIFO/DIDO

workers were found to more likely to engage in unhealthy behaviours such as excessive

smoking and drinking [38]. Workers were also reported to more likely to be overweight or

obese, placing FIFO workers in a similar category for unhealthy behaviours as low

socioeconomic shift workers. It was acknowledged at the Standing Committee on Regional

Australia that support and investigations into the health impacts associated with FIFO/DIDO

culture and lifestyle is required by government and industry to improve issues of concern [5].

In light of this, the need to investigate short and long-term health effects, and for the

consequent implementation of health intervention programs deemed to be urgently required

[7]. In their mining wellbeing and wellness review report Carrington and McIntosh also state

more research is required to understand how the uniqueness of the FIFO lifestyle be

influenced by workplaces [37]. This comes after a forum held in 2012 aimed at evaluating

and understanding the impacts of FIFO in Western Australia identified a number of key

points of concern for the Western Australia FIFO industry [39]. The primary concerns for

targeting future actions to support the industry in understanding the impacts of FIFO

operations included establishing partnerships for improving the health of FIFO workforces,

generating research into the effects of FIFO, delivering strategic services to families and

workers, and building relationships with home and host communities.

FIFO SAFETY & HEALTH 14

In one of the earliest reviews of on versus off-shore personnel for North Sea oil and gas

installations, it was reported off-shore workers are more likely to smoke, drink, suffer from

poor diets, and exercise less[36]. It was also stated as employees age, this increases the

likelihood for requiring medical attention (including evacuations from site) and suggests

further research including the evaluation of long-term effects of health, mental health, and

how an aging workforce will impact operations [36]. This is of particular importance as

Australia’s resource sector continues to grow [6, 37] and as we experience the worldwide

phenomenon of aging populations [40].

In contrast, Sibbel found no difference in general health and psychological wellbeing

between FIFO workers and the general Australian population. It was further suggested that

an informed decision process to undertake FIFO work may have contributed to an increased

satisfaction and motivation to endure this lifestyle [41]. Further, better health in UK off-

shore personnel when compared to on-shore personnel, suggesting a contributing factor may

be related to the offshore working medical screening process [42]. FIFO and DIDO were

both considered overweight and reported an increase in alcohol consumption while on leave

periods [15]. One suggestion made, was the higher incidence of increased weight may be

attributed to the off-shore provision of meals and ability for those eat more frequently [36].

Aside from anecdotal reports of an abundance of poor camp food, combined with

difficulties in maintaining proper diet and exercise, little investigation has been done to

research quality, availability and education of healthy options while at home and away

working. It becomes evident that more research is required to understand the sources of

differences in relation to FIFO health, so we can begin to plan for the health and safety of

future FIFO workforces. The challenge is while some employers may be encouraging a

healthy lifestyle or meals for FIFO workers, is industry as a whole focused on health and

healthy eating, to encourage employees continue to adopt a healthy lifestyle at work and at

FIFO SAFETY & HEALTH 15

home, and would it improve the health and weight of the FIFO workforce. It will also be

important to understand how an aging workforce will begin to pose additional risks in the

workplace and to ensure workers continue to be “fit for work” through the provision of

industry and government health initiatives.

In addition to the health concerns of FIFO workforces, the issue of mental health continues

to be an important topic. Australia is working towards improving the nations views towards

mental health and mental health disorders [43]. Mental health is still stigmatised within the

construction and mining industries, with many FIFO/DIDO workers unwilling to seek

assistance in relation to mental health issues [44]. Research investigating the strengths

associated with coping mechanisms for adjusting to a FIFO lifestyle, thus increasing coping

and satisfaction with FIFO has been conducted [41, 44, 45]. It is suggested that effective

communication and making informed decisions regarding electing to undertake FIFO

employment contributes adapting to the FIFO lifestyle [9, 41, 45, 46], along with support

from partners, social support websites and work colleagues [20].

The challenge for employers and recruiters is to explore possible links and to understand

the stressors associated with the FIFO lifestyle are communicated effectively and individuals

are making informed choices regarding undertaking FIFO employment [9, 47]. In addition

evaluation of Employee Assistance Programs (EAP’s) should also be conducted, in particular,

comparisons made with organisations who do not have access to existing assistance programs

to determine their level of effectiveness.

1.6 Turnover

It is no surprise with a culmination of issues impacting on the FIFO workforce, the

industry is experiencing turnover issues [48]. Very few researchers have collected data on

turnover in FIFO operations. An exploration of turnover on three Western Australian mines

and six Queensland mines found turnover was influenced by roster design, commitment to

FIFO SAFETY & HEALTH 16

employee training, and workplace culture. Additionally, the average turnover rate was

approximately 21% and within the sites, the highest turnover was associated with

professional, managerial staff and employees in the mining operations areas [19]. The data

did not include contractors. The authors noted while managing turnover is an important task

cited by many sites, the implications of costs and productivity losses were often not

considered or monitored [19]. In their report Watt and colleagues describes the leading

concerns for industry include turnover and attraction and retention of talent, resulting in

losses in efficiency and productivity for organisations with a FIFO workforce [48]. In

addition, the report also explore a range of factors which may assist organisations to improve

conditions associated with turnover including – roster design, training and development,

communication, lifestyle and support mechanisms.

The challenge for industry is the need to conduct exit interviews preferably by third parties

to capture accurate on information on reasons for exiting the organisation, or for leaving

FIFO employment [19]. Additionally, comparison rates of turnover for contracting staff and

FIFO versus non-FIFO workforces in mining and construction sectors would need to be

compared for differences in turnover within similar industries. Future research should also

focus on costs associated with turnover, training, development and cultural improvements,

along with retention improvement strategies [19, 48].

2 Social and Community Impacts

The influences of FIFO/DIDO operations also extend to issues outside the immediate work

environment, these areas include a range of social, relationship and community issues for

both the employees normal community of residence, and the community in which they are

temporarily part of while away at work.

FIFO SAFETY & HEALTH 17

2.1 Psychosocial, Relationships and Family

Coping mechanisms and informed decisions about undertaking FIFO employment may aid

in adjusting with these extended absences and disruptions, increasing employee mental

wellbeing, and the same is true for coping with partner absences [41, 45]. The FIFO lifestyle

often means workers forfeit family and social events, and increases the at-home partner

responsibility which may have a negative effect on the FIFO experience [46], as the FIFO

lifestyle is associated with long periods of leave from family and friends, employees often

reported concerns regarding feelings of missing out on home life [41, 49]. In investigating

support resources, it was reported FIFO employees have preferences for seeking support from

colleagues rather than accessing resources available through EAP’s [49].

In investigating spousal experiences of off-shore workers in UK operations, it was

concluded spouses often had more positive than negative experiences, with the majority of

spouses experiencing difficulties adjusting to partner absences [50]. The authors did state that

long-term relationships may have been overrepresented and those participating in the study

may have adjusted well due to being survivors of the lifestyle, which is often cited as a

limitation to many other FIFO studies [15, 45, 50]. Further, high levels of family coping and

functioning were found to be related to high levels of communication and cohesion in

Australian FIFO employees, and suggest those families experiencing difficulties adjusting to

FIFO lifestyle should consider relationship counselling [45].

In comparing psychosocial wellbeing in primary children of mining and military fathers

who often had extended leave periods with a community sample of non-extended leave

fathers, no significant differences in wellbeing were found [51]. In an Australian national

survey of varied non-standard work employment it was found parents generally reported

neutral feelings towards non-standard work conflicting with family life [52]. An important

factor which may have been overlooked are the changing demographics of Australian

FIFO SAFETY & HEALTH 18

families. Increases in dual income and single-parent families, changes to fertility rates and

shared-parenting arrangements may become a concern for FIFO employees, particularly

women[53].

The challenge presented for industry is the need to begin to capture data on non-surviving

FIFO families in order to piece together variables which may be affecting these relationships

and reasons for departing FIFO. With changing family demographics how do FIFO

employees and their families cope with increased responsibility, shared custody, and what is

the impact on the away-parent in terms of relationship and bonding and how do these differ

from other families. How can employers support changing family patterns, particularly with

the rise of single and shared-parent families, and to understand the influences FIFO

employment may have on children when compared with the general community and other

non-standard forms of employment. With increasing pressures on equality within the

workforce and more women participating in the labour force [54, 55] and with mining

industries actively promoting for the recruitment and retention of females in the industry [56],

how will employers and policy makers attract, retain and support women in FIFO careers

when they elect to become parents within, or outside of a dyadic relationships.

2.2 Community (Home and Host)

Pressures on local resources and infrastructure are increased as a result of FIFO operations

aiming to become more economically viable [6]. Regional community strain becomes more

evident as local governments push to discourage the use of FIFO work practices as the

pressures on local resources (such as health, emergency services, roads and other facilities)

increase due to temporary and permanent population growth [57, 58]. Integration, cohesion,

safety, community contribution and the environment appear to be important issues among

host community members [5]. A survey of Queensland mining communities regarding their

perceptions on the effects of non-resident workers found a negative view towards mining

FIFO SAFETY & HEALTH 19

developments within their communities [59]. Very few respondents saw any value brought

by mining projects to their communities, with the majority supporting only those projects

expecting to use FIFO force that made up a maximum quarter of the total workforce. The

view is that mining creates a negative externality, where the social cost to the host

communities is high – resulting in reduced trust between residents and workers, pressures

placed on housing and accommodation, increased use in community resources and

infrastructure with very little spending and reciprocity by the workers [6, 59, 60]. It has been

recognised that very little research has been conducted to fully understand the influence FIFO

has on host communities [61]. What has been discussed, is the need to raise awareness and to

foster and build community/employee relationships [60, 62, 63]. The Chamber of Minerals

and Energy of Western Australia recognises these concerns and provides guiding principles to

assist with their management, which include conducting research into economic, social and

environmental impacts and opportunities, planning to optimise performance strategies,

integrating workers and communities and building trust among those actions necessary [9].

Issues which have been raised for the home communities of FIFO employees also vary,

with the most prevalent concerns being raised in relation to the inability to regularly

participate and feel a sense of belonging with their own communities, due to extended

absences while on work periods [41, 59].

The challenge for FIFO operations is the need for improved practices for integration,

resource sharing, the understanding and fostering of relationships between operations and

their host communities [63]. Challenges for communities in which FIFO workforces are

based require education on understanding unique FIFO family lifestyle and to foster and

encourage community understanding, may encourage FIFO employees to contribute to their

community. The challenge is fostering this relationship and learning how communities,

government and industry and support and promote these needs [41].

FIFO SAFETY & HEALTH 20

Conclusion

Operations in regional communities utilising a FIFO/DIDO workforce are exposed to a

myriad of concerns which are not only limited to their economic prosperity and survival, but

also include the welfare of their contractors, employees, their families, and the communities

in which they operate. As FIFO/DIDO workforces become more prevalent, it becomes

increasingly important for government and industry to manage the risks associated with the

lifestyle which these operations introduce. Being informed of current research into the effects

of roster scheduling, hours of work, fatigue, wellbeing, turnover and relationships and the

limitations, gaps and challenges associated with existing research is a key step in assisting

operations to continue growth, success and utilisation of these workforces into the future.

These challenges specifically related to the employment of a FIFO workforce includes

understanding the management of optimal roster designs for performance and employee

satisfaction [16, 19, 20]. In addition, there is a need to capture data to better understand the

at-risk days and times to best manage tasks, hours of work including start and finish times to

minimise sleep debt and fatigue, and the need for data on fatigue related work incidents and

road accidents [26, 28, 29]. In relation to safety, the improvement of contractor management

process and vigilance on regulators to enforce monitoring and auditing of contractors is also

required.

Challenges in relation to health and wellbeing for FIFO employees is ensuring the FIFO

lifestyle is properly communicated and understood before engaging in FIFO work [9, 47].

The importance of a health promotion framework to be implemented and adopted for this

increasing workforce is also needed [7]. Additionally, information on employee turnover and

comparisons between non-FIFO industries as well as the costs associated with productivity

loss and turnover is necessary to aid in understanding how to attract, retain and satisfy FIFO

employees and their families [19, 48]. Adding further to the impacts on families a range of

FIFO SAFETY & HEALTH 21

factors is required including data on non-surviving FIFO families [15, 41], comparisons of

satisfaction between control groups [45], and the impacts on changing family patterns.

The final challenge is between FIFO workforces in their home and host communities,

relationships and educational programs for their inclusion and integration, and for

communities, government and industry to support and promote the growing needs and

concerns for operations, communities and workers [41].

FIFO SAFETY & HEALTH 22

References

[1] Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). Australian social trends: Towns of the mining

boom 2013 [December 4, 2013]. Available from:

http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Lookup/4102.0Main+Features10April+2013.

[2] Australian Bureau of Statistics. Mining statistics | news: Australia's production and

trade of minerals Canberra2010 [13 February 2014]. Available from:

http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/mf/8418.0.

[3] Australian Bureau of Statistics. Year book Australia, 2012. Mining. Mining industry:

Economic contribution 2012 [18 December 2013]. Available from:

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/by%20Subject/1301.0~2012~Main%20Fea

tures~Mining%20Industry~150.

[4] Carrington K, Hogg R, Scott J, McIntosh A. Inquiry into the use of ‘fly-in, fly-out’

(FIFO)/Drive-in, Drive Out (DIDO) workforce practices in regional Australia. Submission

Number: 95. 2011.

[5] House of Representatives Standing Committee on Regional Australia. Cancer of the

bush or salvation for our cities? Fly-in, fly-out and drive-in, drive-out workforce practices in

Regional Australia. Canberra, ACT: Commonwealth of Australia, 2013.

[6] Storey K. Fly-in/Fly-out and Fly-over: mining and regional development in Western

Australia. Australian Geographer. 2001;32(2):133-48.

[7] Weeramanthri T, Jancey J. Fly-in, fly-out (FIFO) work in Australia: the need for

research and a health promotion framework. Health Promotion Journal of Australia.

2013;24(1):5-6.

[8] Validakis V. FIFO report 'gathering dust' 2013 29 January 2014. Available from:

http://www.miningaustralia.com.au/news/fifo-report-gathering-dust.

FIFO SAFETY & HEALTH 23

[9] The Chamber of Minerals and Energy of WA Inc. A matter of choice: Capturing the

FIFO opportunities in Pilbara communities. Perth, WA: Creating Communities; 2012.

[10] Peetz D, Murray G, Muurlink O. Work and hours amongst mining and energy

workers. Centre for work, organisation and wellbeing, Griffith University, 2012.

[11] Paech GM, Jay SM, Lamond N, Roach GD, Ferguson SA. The effects of different

roster schedules on sleep in miners. Applied ergonomics. 2010;41(4):600-6.

[12] Construction Forestry Mining Energy Union. Submission 133 to the House of

Representatives Select Committee on Regional Australia inquiry into "Fly-in, Fly-out" and

"Drive-in, Drive-out" work practices. 2011.

[13] Muller R, Carter A, Williamson A. Epidemiological diagnosis of occupational fatigue

in a fly-in–fly-out operation of the mineral industry. Annals of Occupational Hygiene.

2008;52(1):63-72.

[14] Baker A, Heiler K, Ferguson SA. The impact of roster changes on absenteeism and

incident frequency in an Australian coal mine. Occupational and environmental medicine.

2003;60(1):43-9.

[15] Clifford SA. The effects of fly-in/fly-out commute arrangements and extended

working hours on the stress, lifestyle, relationships and health characteristics of Western

Australian mining employees and their partners: University of Western Australia; 2009.

[16] Peetz D, Murray G. ‘You get really old, really quick’: Involuntary long hours in the

mining industry. Journal of Industrial Relations. 2011;53(1):13-29.

[17] Caruso CC, Hitchcock EM, Dick RB, Russo JM, Schmit JM. Overtime and extended

work shifts: recent findings on illnesses, injuries, and health behaviors. Cincinnati, OH: US

Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health; 2004. Available from:

http://198.246.124.22/niosh/docs/2004-143/pdfs/2004-143.pdf.

FIFO SAFETY & HEALTH 24

[18] Queensland Government. Guidance note for management of safety and health risks

associated with hours of work arrangements at mining operations. QLD: Natural Resources

and Mines; 2001. Available from: http://mines.industry.qld.gov.au/guidancenotes.pdf.

[19] Beach R, Brereton D, Cliff D, Safety MI. Workforce turnover in FIFO mining

operations in Australia: An exploratory study Brisbane, QLD: Centre for Social

Responsibility in Mining; 2003 [6 December 2013]. Available from:

https://www.csrm.uq.edu.au/publications/workforce-turnover-in-fifo-mining-operations-in-

australia-an-exploratory-study.

[20] Voysey W. Satisfaction with a fly-in/fly-out (FIFO) lifestyle: Is it related to rosters,

children and support resources utilised by Australian employees and partners and does it

impact on relationship quality and stress? : Murdoch University; 2012.

[21] Bjorvatn B, Stangenes K, Oyane N, Forberg K, Lowden A, Holsten F, et al.

Subjective and objective measures of adaptation and readaptation to night work on an oil rig

in the North Sea. Journal of Sleep. 2006;29(6):821-9.

[22] Belenky G, Wesensten NJ, Thorne DR, Thomas ML, Sing HC, Redmond DP, et al.

Patterns of performance degradation and restoration during sleep restriction and subsequent

recovery: a sleep dose-response study. Journal of Sleep Research. 2003;12(1):1-12.

[23] Hossain JL, Reinish LW, Heslegrave RJ, Hall GW, Kayumov L, Chung SA, et al.

Subjective and objective evaluation of sleep and performance in daytime versus nighttime

sleep in extended-hours shift-workers at an underground mine. Journal of Occupational and

Environmental Medicine. 2004;46(3):212-26.

[24] Sallinen M, Kecklund G. Shift work, sleep, and sleepiness - differences between shift

schedules and systems. Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health. 2010;36(2):121-

33.

[25] Guide for managing the risk of fatigue at work, (2013).

FIFO SAFETY & HEALTH 25

[26] Tiernan G. Fatigue and the mining industry. Queensland Government Mining Journal.

2009;Spring:46-7.

[27] Williamson A, Lombardi DA, Folkard S, Stutts J, Courtney TK, Connor JL. The link

between fatigue and safety. Accident Analysis and Prevention 2011;43(2):498-515.

[28] DiMilia L, Bowden B. Unanticipated safety outcomes: Shiftwork and drive‐in, drive‐

out workforce in Queensland's Bowen Basin. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources.

2007;45(1):100-12.

[29] Scholtz J, Nieuwoudt R. Medical services in Moranbah and the impact of non-resident

workers - Submission number 2 APH inquiry 2011 [30 January 2014]. Available from:

http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/House_of_Representatives_Com

mittees?url=ra/fifodido/subs.htm.

[30] Queensland Government Department of Natural Resources and Mines. Commissioner

for mine safety and health: Annual performance report 2012-13. Queensland: Creative

Commons; 2013.

[31] Department of Mines and Petroleum. Safety performance in the Western Australian

mineral industry - accident and injury statistics 2011-12. East Perth, WA: Resources Safety;

2013.

[32] Department of Mines and Petroleum. Safety performance in the Western Australian

mineral industry - accident and injury statistics 2010-11. East Perth, WA: Resources Safety;

2013.

[33] Allonby P. Use of contractors for mining operations. Coal Operators Conference; 18-

20 February 1998; Woollongong, New South Wales1998.

[34] Queensland Government. Queensland mines and quarries safety performance and

health report: 1 July 2012 - 30 June 2013. Queensland: 2013.

FIFO SAFETY & HEALTH 26

[35] Muzaffar S, Cummings K, Hobbs G, Allison P, Kreiss K. Factors Associated With

Fatal Mining Injuries Among Contractors and Operators. Journal of Occupational and

Environmental Medicine. 2013;55(11):1337–44.

[36] Parkes KR. Psychosical aspects of stress, health and safety on North Sea installations.

Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health. 1998;24(5):321-33.

[37] Carrington K, McIntosh A. A literature review of wellness, wellbeing and quality of

life issues as they impact upon the Australian mining sector. Brisbane, QLD: 2013 5 February

2013. Report No.

[38] Joyce SJ, Tomlin SM, Somerford PJ, Weeramanthri TS. Health behaviours and

outcomes associated with fly-in fly-out and shift workers in Western Australia. Internal

Medicine Journal. 2013;43(4):440-4.

[39] Jancey J, Croager E, Cotton R. Report on the 2012 FIFO forum: Understanding the

impacts of fly-in fly-out work on health and wellbeing. Curtin, ACT: 2012.

[40] National Institute of Aging. Global Health and Aging. Bethesda, MD: 2011 Contract

No.: 11-7737.

[41] Sibbel AM. Living FIFO: the experiences and psychosocial wellbeing of Western

Australian fly-in/fly-out employees and partners: Edith Cowan University; 2010.

[42] Parkes KR. Mental health in the oil industry: a comparative study of onshore and

offshore employees. Psychological Medicine. 1992;22(04):997-1009.

[43] National Mental Health Commission. A Contributing Life: The 2013 national report

card on mental health and suicide prevention. Sydney: 2013.

[44] Henry P, Hamilton K, Watson S, Macdonald N. Lifeline WA FIFO/DIDO mental

health research report 2013 2013. Available from:

http://www.lifelinewa.org.au/blog/2013/06/13/ground-breaking-research-into-fifodido-

mental-health-findings-revealed/.

FIFO SAFETY & HEALTH 27

[45] Taylor JC, Simmonds JG. Family stress and coping in the fly-in fly-out workforce.

The Australian Community Psychologist. 2009;21(2):23-36.

[46] Grow M. FIFO and DIDO: Be aware of the risks 2013. Available from:

http://search.proquest.com/docview/1416419734?accountid=13380

[47] McPhedran S. Mining, fly-in, fly-out workers and the risk of suicide: Australian

Mining; 2013 [5 February 2014]. Available from:

http://www.miningaustralia.com.au/features/mining-fly-in-fly-out-workers-and-the-risk-of-

suic.

[48] Watt A, Carles E, Allen S, Ashby N. FIFOWELL: Unlocking FIFO productivity

seminar findings report, June 2013. 2013 5 December 2013. Report No.

[49] Torkington AM, Larkins S, Gupta TS. The psychosocial impacts of fly-in fly-out and

drive-in drive-out mining on mining employees: A qualitative study. Australian Journal of

Rural Health. 2011;19(3):135-41.

[50] Parkes KR, Carnell SC, Farmer EL. 'Living two lives' Perceptions, attitudes and

experiences of spouses of UK offshore workers. Community, Work & Family.

2005;8(4):413-37.

[51] Kaczmarek EA, Sibbel AM. The psychosocial well-being of children from Australian

military and fly-in/fly-out (FIFO) mining families. Community, Work & Family.

2008;11(3):297-312.

[52] Hosking A, Western M. The effects of non-standard employment on work—family

conflict. Journal of Sociology. 2008;44(1):5-27.

[53] Australian Institute of Family Studies. Australian households and families: Australian

family trends no. 4. In: Studies AIoF, editor. 2013.

FIFO SAFETY & HEALTH 28

[54] Workplace Gender Equality Agency. Gender workplace statistics at a glance 2013 [23

January 2014]. Available from: http://www.wgea.gov.au/sites/default/files/2013-10-10-Stats-

at-a-Glance_0.pdf.

[55] Workplace Gender Equality Agency. Compliance and reporting 2014 [23 January

2014]. Available from: http://www.wgea.gov.au/report.

[56] Trembath B. Australian Mines and Metals Association seeks to boost the number of

women in resources industry. ABC News. 2013.

[57] Isaac Regional Council. FIFO/DIDO Enquiry: Isaac Regional Council submission

number 81 2011.

[58] Regional Economic Development Corporation. FIFO/DIDO enquiry: Regional

submission number 82. 2011.

[59] Carrington K, Pereira M. Assessing the social impacts of the resources boom on rural

communities. Rural Society. 2011;21(1):2-20.

[60] Hanley P. The FIFO conundrum. Australian Journal of Rural Health. 2012;20(1):48-.

[61] Burns S. The fly-in, fly out debate: what happens to the communities? Health

Promotion Journal of Australia. 2013;24(2):158-.

[62] Guerin P, Guerin B. Social effects of fly-in-fly-out and drive-in-drive-out services for

remote Indigenous communities. The Australian Community Psychologist. 2009;21(2):7-22.

[63] Walton AM, McCrea R, Leonard R, Williams R. Resilience in a changing community

landscape of coal seam gas: Chinchilla in Southern Queensland. Journal of Economic and

Social Policy. 2013;15(3):2.

FIFO SAFETY & HEALTH 29

Table 1

Proportion of visitors to identified mining regional communities on 8 August, 2011

Community

2006 Census

population (total)

2006 Usual

residence population

2006 Difference

2011 Census

population (total)

2011 Usual

residence population

2011 Difference

Karratha 13,257 11,727 1,530 20,061 16,475 3,586

Roxby Downs 4,037 3,847 190 5,817 4,702 1,115

Newman 4,746 4,246 500 4,746 5,476 -730

Moranbah 8,258 7,133 1,125 8,258 8,628 -370

Port Headland 12,912 11,557 1,355 12,912 13,773 -861

Weipa 3,140 2,831 309 3,140 3,331 -191

Middlemount 2,530 2,040 490 2,530 1,914 616

Emerald 11,471 10,999 472 11,471 12,894 -1,423

Clermont 1,991 1,853 138 1,991 2,175 -184

Dysart 3,625 3,136 489 3,625 3,005 620

Adapted from “Towns of the mining boom” by Australian Bureau of Statistics (2013)