ERGONOMYS CONTRIBUTION TO THE STUDY OF RE PETITIVE WORK IN THE FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL SECTOR

Increasing frequency in skeletal muscle problems in sectors of employm ent where the work is repetitive is the cause of growing concern. A nu mber of agro-food businesses have participated in ergonomic studies ai med at a better understanding of repetitive work and its effects on he alth, as well as at improving work situations. Different issues relate d to the analysis of work and the contribution of the ergonomic approa ch were raised in these studies. In particular, the results of a study of a poultry processing plant were used to illustrate these issues. T he first part of this article deals mainly with the expectations of th ose within firms requesting service vis-a-vis the work of ergonomists and the characteristics of their approach. Even though the field of st udy of ergonomists is often restricted to the biomechanical aspects of the activity, they rather seek to obtain an overall view of work situ ations by examining not only the physical aspects but also the cogniti ve, perceptive, social and subjective aspects which cannot be disassoc iated from work efficiency. During an intervention, the reference data of the ergonomist are limited, especially those related to skeletal m uscle problems. It is observed that these references can only be used as pointers identifying occupational hazards, and only specific knowle dge of the work environment, continuously updated with each new study, can provide them with the elements of understanding and demonstration necessary for change. Furthermore, an ergonomic approach can lead to work situations being changed only if there are changes in the way tha t different participants, worker representatives and firm managers see their work. Thus, it is essential that various partners participate i n the ergonomic study. Partners can participate through a project comm ittee that brings together the key persons who will be trained in ergo nomy, who will follow the progress of the study and who will develop r ecommendations and their application. The second part highlights the i mportance of ergonomists using data from different sources in order to better understand the complexity of the work activity. Results from t he exploratory stage of a study of a turkey cutting production line ar e used, especially those related to the seventeen women working in rot ation at several stations on this line. Results obtained from three wo rkstations are compared, and analysis of accidents, observation of wor k activity, answers from individual interviews and group meetings are used to interpret results. Above all, the apparent lack of coherence o f the results was surprising. This workstation, which was the one most often mentioned in accident reports, is precisely where the women wor kers spend the least amount of time (5% of their working time), and wh ere a smaller number of workers reported feeling pain symptoms. It is also the most hated workstation. On the ether hand, the station which is best liked is the one with which most workers associate the develop ment of their pain symptoms. The third station is used for the tempora ry assignment of injured workers, and is where many workers report pro blems related to maintaining a static posture. These three stations wi ll be examined in turn in order to bring to light the demands of each one, the actual experiences of workers at these stations and the possi ble contributing factors to the development of skeletal muscle problem s. For example, we consider the possibility that reports of skeletal m uscle problems can be made more easily about a station where accident- type circumstances can be described (such as through pulling or hittin g) than about a station where the work is more static (such as visual checking of quality) in spite of considerable posture constraints. We also highlight the potential significance of pride in work well-done a nd pushing oneself, which makes workers seek a station where, apart fr om the physical constraints, they could take up a challenge and derive personal satisfaction from it. We discover the creativity developed b y workers in spite of the very repetitive nature of their work. In con clusion, these different, seemingly contradictory results demonstrate different aspects of the same reality and provide direction for discus sions about improvements to be made. The third part is devoted to the systematic analysis of the activity and its use for improving work sit uations. Firstly, we describe the methods used in two work environment s in order to obtain a more thorough understanding of the work activit y and its determinants, and to make recommendations. These methods all ow workers' know-how to be used profitably in order to better understa nd the work. Following the exploratory stage of the study of the turke y cutting production line, some of the stations were observed in more detail. The data are used to highlight the different operating methods developed by five workers at the same workstation, despite the fact t hat the work cycle only lasts twelve seconds. The differences show up in the order of operations and the movements and postures of work, thu s demonstrating that on-line work which seems very stereotyped can be performed in very different ways. These differences also imply differe nt physical demands as shown by the different skeletal muscle problems . Although the ways of doing things vary from one person to another, t hey can also vary in accordance with the conditions in which the work is performed. This fact was then demonstrated through the comparison o f strategies of ten workers at the same workstation following two work paces. These different strategies developed by workers to cope with t he demands for speed, given their physical capacity, have an impact on production. Complying with operating methods is of utmost importance since this involves the very identity of the people. However, the desc riptions of these operating methods lead to the discovery of know-how which, used in training, can prevent some problems from developing. It is therefore very important to stress on know-how in these work envir onments where automation has resulted in the occupation being devalued . To conclude, the work of ergonomists is performed on several levels. Not only do they have to observe how people work and understand why t hey work in different ways, but they also have to be able to be convin cing and create dynamics producing change in work. Moreover, given the importance of the approach of studying the multidimensional