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

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 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.

Non-resident workers: A comparison of family support services for resource, health, and defence communities

Non-resident workforces experience high labour turnover, which has an impact on organisational operations and affects worker satisfaction and, in turn, partners’ ability to cope with work-related absences. Research suggests that partner satisfaction may be increased by providing a range of support services, which include professional, practical, and social support. A search was conducted to identify support available for resources and health-industry non-resident workers. These were compared to the supports available to families of deployed defence personnel. They were used to compare and contrast the spread available for each industry. The resources industry primarily provided social support, and lacked an inclusion of professional and practical supports. Health-professional support services were largely directed towards extended locum support, rather than to Fly-In Fly-Out workers. Improving sources of support which parallel support provided to the Australian Defence Force is suggested as a way to increase partner satisfaction. The implications are to understand the level of uptake, perceived importance, and utilisation of such support services.