1. Manual Material Handling and Ergonomics… Two Auto Assembly Case Studies CCOHS / CRE-MSD MMH Workshop March 4, 2008 Wyatt Clark, CAW National Ergonomic Coordinator / Chrysler

2. Objectives 1)Overview of systemic MMH barriers to ergonomic interventions in the auto industry. 2)Two quick Case Studies of ergonomic “solutions” to some systemic MMH problems 3)Some discussion around how we “Get ‘Er Done” 4)Q&A

3. Systemic MMH Problems Vast majority of MMH barriers have TWO basic driving forces with each of those having a couple of complicating factors 1.Racking / bin design Who owns the racking? Transportation Load density or ‘cubing’ of trucks 2.Real Estate 1.Drives capital and fixed costs 2.Affects productivity

4. Case Study 1 – General Part Delivery and Supply History lesson –The Old Days: parts arrive by truck in racks or bins where they are unloaded by jitney and delivered directly to the assembly line or storage. –The Not-So-Old days: JIT or Just In Time delivery attempted to solve real estate problems –Today: Small Lot Containers… an addition to JIT to squeeze more real estate out of the system More parts than ever are being shipped in including entire subassemblies

5. Case Study 1 – General Parts Delivery 43” 18.5” New problems  Small lot delivery adds a new level of human interface to a process done previously by machine  Some small lots can still have significant weight  How will this be managed?

6. Case Study 1 – General Parts Supply

7. New problems  Small lot presentation lends itself to an increased vertical configuration  Shelving creates hand access constraints  Have we simply shifted from a world of back postures to one of shoulder concerns  How will this be managed?

8. Case Study 1 - Final Resolve Ergonomics involvement led to: –Shelf height guidelines were determined based upon internal benchmarking and container sizes were standardized –Recommendations provided for: Generally: –Totes to be loaded within a 30 lb target –Totes requiring loading beyond 30 lb target automatically trigger further ergonomic analysis Delivery Side (delivery dolly & gravity feed racks) –Dolly shelves to be located at 19” and 43” –Dolly shelves to be no deeper than 25” –Maximum rack loading height is 62 in. –Totes which weigh >25 lb should be delivered to shelves no higher than 40” from the standing surface Supply Side (gravity feed racks) –Assembly operator interface should be tiered ‘away’ to facilitate easy hand access to tote parts –Bottom rack level is reserved for empty tote return only

9. Case Study 1 – Special Situations

10. Case Study 2 – Exhaust Assemblies

11. Problem –Reaches are unacceptable under ergonomic guidelines –The repetitive back postures to accomplish all the vertical lifting were problematic –Lack of foot clearance compounds both the above

12. Case Study 2 – Exhaust Assemblies Solution 1 –Easy… redesign the rack! –Sorry… can’t be done! –Why? –The supplier owns the racks. Solution 2 –OK… Easy… re-rack the parts in our own rack design –Added bonus… can schedule the exhaust assemblies while re-racking Minimizes long ‘carries’ of heavy parts Saves real estate Saves walking time

13. Case Study 2 - Final Resolve

15. Ergonomics joint involvement led to: –New rack design and incorporation of a lift table for in-plant parts presentation Exhaust assemblies are trucked from supplier to TDF Inc. where they are unloaded, re-racked in sequence, re- loaded and trucked to the assembly plant. –Pros New racks resolve ergo hazards Sequencing allows –Increased productivity… less walking –Decreased real estate needs –Cons Ergonomic hazards were simply transferred to TDF Inc. workers

16. Get ‘Er Done What negotiations were required to achieve the ergonomic resolves in the two case studies? Short answer – None! You don’t ‘negotiate’ unsafe… you solve it. Why don’t we negotiate?

17. Get ‘Er Done Part of the answer is legislation and part of it is contract. –Legislation by way of the H&S Act requires joint participation –Unions have always desired some control over their work environment and the decision making that goes on within it and have used labour contracts to achieve varying degrees of that. Part of the answer is “economies of scale

18. Get ‘Er Done In relative terms though, those things are the easy part… they simply create opportunities, nothing else The real answer to our question of “Why” is “Credibility” – the credibility of the people and processes involved our ergonomic program

19. Get ‘Er Done Now, if that’s all psycho-bable to you, try “cost / benefit”. Make the business case… works every time!!! Thank-You Q&A