Category: death

ROPS and Quad Bikes – the failure of ATV manufacturers and OHS regulators

The Hierarchy of Controls has some questionable OHS applications to psychosocial hazards but it applies very well to “traditional” hazards, those involving plant.  The Hierarchy also emphasizes that the first step in any hazard control is to consider whether the hazard can be eliminated.  But what happens when the designers of equipment and plant know that a design can be made safer but do nothing to improve it?

For almost two decades some Australian OHS regulators have provided rebates to farmers to fit roll over protective structures (ROPS) to tractors to prevent deaths and injuries to the drivers from rollover or flips.  In 2009, one would be hard pressed to find a tractor that does not have its safety features emphasised as a sales benefit.  ROPS on tractors have been compulsory since 1998 in most States.

On 17 November 2009, Workplace Standards Tasmania issued a safety alert which, like the New Zealand ATV guidelines, advocates helmets and not ROPS even though OHS legislative principles say that elimination of hazards is the aim. The Tasmanian safety alert outlines the reasons for the safety alert

“Recent information shows there are, on average, 15 fatalities a year associated with using quad bikes in the Australian rural industry sector. Many more people are injured.

A recent coronial inquest into seven fatal incidents involving quad bikes (two in Tasmania and five in Victoria) has sparked a renewed call for improved safety on quad bikes.

As a result, Workplace Standards Tasmania has adopted a policy of zero tolerance of breaches of duty of care responsibilities with quad bikes.”

“Zero tolerance of breaches of duty”?  The Tasmanian OHS Act places this duty on the designers of plant

(1) A person who designs, manufactures, imports or supplies any plant or structure for use at a workplace must so far as is reasonably practicable –

(a) ensure that the design and construction of the plant or structure is such that persons who use the plant or structure properly are not, in doing so, exposed to risks to their health and safety;…..

SafetyAtWorkBlog is awaiting comments from Workplace Standards Tasmania on the elimination of ATV rollover hazards.

As a terminological aside, there is a growing movement to rename All Terrain Vehicles as Quad Bikes because the fatality and injury data clearly shows that the vehicles cannot be driven in “all terrains”.

Five recent fatalities involving quad bikes, mentioned in the safety alert, should spark some investigation into whether the design of the plant contributed in any way to the fatalities.  Yet the safety alert makes no mention of design other than, tenuously, encouraging farmers to make sure

“…your quad bike is properly maintained and used according to the manufacturer’s specifications.”

This is a reasonable statement but if it was possible to make the vehicle safer, to save one’s own life and livelihood, by adding a ROPS, why wouldn’t you?

The manufacturer’s specifications are certain to be suitable to that quad bike but what if the quad bike design is itself not “fit for purpose”?  Plenty of other machines and vehicles are being redesigned to accommodate poor or inappropriate driver behaviour.  What makes quad bike so sacrosanct?

Victoria had a major opportunity for reform in this area through a parliamentary inquiry into farm deaths and injuries in August 2005.  Many farm safety advocates had high hopes for major change on ATV safety but design changes were not recommended.

According to the farm safety report

“Some witnesses suggested that roll over protection structures for ATVs should be made compulsory. Others, particularly representatives on behalf of the ATV industry, argued that fitting of a roll over protective structure to an ATV would adversely affect the handling and utility characteristics of these vehicles.”
Extensive research was undertaken by the Monash University Accident Research Centre which found
“…that, in the event of an ATV accident, “if the occupant is adequately restrained [with a suitable safety harness] within a protective roll over structure, the severity of [injuries caused during] the roll over event is dramatically reduced.”
Contrary evidence on ROPS was presented on behalf of the vehicle manufacturers.  The Parliamentary Committee understandably found
“To the Committee’s knowledge, there is no existing example of a roll over protective structure device that satisfies requirements for driver protection without substantially reducing the handling characteristics of ATVs. This report cannot, based on available evidence, make any recommendations concerning the fitting of roll over protective structures to ATVs.”
The UK’s Health & Safety Executive in 2002 undertook a detailed survey on the issue of ROPS and, among many recommendations said
“The use of the “safe cell” technology offers a number of imaginative approaches as alternatives to traditional structures, particularly for smaller machinery, and should not be overlooked.  Their contribution could be invaluable if relevant techniques were validated and became legally acceptable.”
Farmers, equipment manufacturers and OHS advocates are understandably confused when there is conflicting information (but then uncertainty breeds stagnation which is likely to advantage those who do not want change).
An investigation into ATV safety funded by the New Zealand Department of Labour in 2002 provided the following conclusion

“… it appears that the risk of using ATVs is significant, however there are some possible measures that could be put in place to reduce injuries, particularly those that are more severe and/or fatal. It seems that appropriate training is the most promising factor particularly because of the strong impact human behaviour has on the outcomes of the accidents.

In addition, the high risk for a fatal outcome when ATVs are rolled over, pinning the driver Reducing Fatalities in All-Terrain Vehicle Accidents in New Zealand underneath, suggests that further consideration and research is needed regarding the use of ROPS and/or any other measures that can prevent an ATV from rolling over.”

One Australian manufacturer accepted the challenge and has designed a ROPS for ATVs that shows enormous promise. QB Industries has developed the Quadbar, a passive roll over protection structure.  A demonstration video is available to view online.
It is understood that the Australian distributors of ATVs are not supportive of the safety innovation of QB Industries.  Apparently the distributors believe that the Quadbar increases the risk to the rider and that the safety claims are misleading.  The distributors are also concerned that the Quadbar may jeopardise the manufacturer’s warranty.
These concerns may be valid but surely these need to be independently tested and, if the device saves the lives and limbs of farmers and other riders, incorporated into the design in such a way that the vehicles become safer, regardless of the actions of the individual.  After all, the safer design of motor vehicles has progressed substantial from the days of Ralph Nader’s investigations in the 1960’s to such an extent that safety is a major sales strategy.
One independent test conducted for QB Industries by the University of Southern Queensland reported this about the QuadBar:
  1. The Quad Bar did not impede rider operation of the quad bike during normal operation (based on limited riding by the Chief Investigator).
  2. In low speed sideways roll over, the Quad Bar arrests the roll over and prevents the ATV from resting in a position that could trap and asphyxiate the rider.
  3. In higher speed sideways rollover, the Quad Bar impedes the roll over and prevents the ATV from resting in a position that could trap and asphyxiate the rider. In all tests the Quad Bar provided some clearance between the ground surface and the ATV seat so the rider would be unlikely to be trapped in this space.
  4. In all back flip tests, the Quad Bar arrested the back flip and the quad bike fell to one side.
  5. There were no conditions where the ATV with the Quad Bar fitted rested in a position that was more detrimental to rider safety than the ATV without protection.
If this device did not exist, the advocacy of helmets as the best available safety device  may have been valid but this design has the potential to eliminate the hazard and not just minimise the harm.  Surely it is better to have a farmer walk away from an ATV rollover that to break a neck or have a leg crushed.
The battle that QB industries has had, and continues to have, with quad bike vehicle manufacturers is beginning to reveal tactics by the manufacturers that are reminiscent of those of James Hardie Industries with asbestos and the cigarette manufacturers over lung cancer.
The approach of the OHS regulators to ROPS for ATVs must be reviewed because the dominant position seems to be that helmets are good enough, that no one is striving to eliminate the hazard or and that the Hierarchy of Controls does not apply.
QB Industries has followed the OHS principles and has designed a ROPS that warrants investigation, and the support and encouragement of OHS regulators.  The longer this investigation is ignored, the more people will be killed and injured when using these vehicles.  To not investigate this design would be negligent.

Work-related suicides in Europe

The Irish Times has reported on a speech made by Dr Jukka Takala, Director of EU-OSHA, in Spain in November 2009.

“[Dr Takala] said since the publication of a recent study showing a very high level of work-related suicides by French Telecom workers, there was an urgency about getting this information. “Personally, I favour a system such as they have in Japan where the families are compensated for the suicide of a relative, and the debate has already started in this organisation and in the commission and some of the member states,…”

It is not uncommon in OHS to hear calls for further research and more research on work-related suicide is definitely needed.  (Australia has some very good work in this area.)

Caution has to be voiced on the risk that suicides be seen as the mental health version of workplace fatalities.  Research and OHS statistics often focuses on fatalities for various reasons including that the statistics are easy to quantify.  If a worker dies from being crushed by a machine, its a workplace fatality.  There is a trap in terms of suicides where the cause and effect is not so clear, or mechanical.

Only recently have workplace fatalities begun to be investigated with consideration of the social or non-work contributing factors.  If the machine operator was pulled into the machine because they were inattentive, why were they inattentive?  In terms of suicides, the agency of injury will be fairly obvious but the contributory factors could be far more complex.  And if the suicide victim has not left a note explaining the reasons for their action, it is even harder to determine “cause”.

Looking at suicides runs the risk of  not paying enough attention to the mental health issues that have not reached the suicide level.  The focus should not be researching suicides but researching the combination of issues leading to suicide.  It is a much greater challenge but is likely to have more long term benefits.

Takala’s comments about family compensation and the need to acknowledge the reality of work-related suicides gained the attention of The Irish Times because they meet the imperatives for a newsworthy angle.  Takal’s speeches at the Healthy Workplaces European Summit 2009 covered much greater territory than the Irish Times article and should be read to better understand the comment’s context.

There are hundreds of work risks that require assessment and psychosocial hazards is one of those areas.  A full list of speakers at the conference is available by looking at the program.  Abstracts of most presentations are available for download.

Kevin Jones

The personal cost of surviving a major hazard explosion

As one gets older, the “where are they now?” columns in the newspapers or the summer magazine supplements become more interesting.  The articles of faded pop stars and political one-time wonders are diverting but every so often one makes you stop and think.

OHS is not renowned for “where are they nows?”.  The discipline and the profession has few celebrities but there are important people.  One such person is Jim Ward.  Jim’s story is long and involved but he came to the public’s attention as a survivor of the 1998 gas explosion at the Esso gas plant in Longford Victoria.  The blast, which killed 2 workers, crippled the State’s gas supply for almost 2 weeks.  A Royal Commission was held into the disaster.

Usually a worker’s evidence may be reported on for a day or two in such an investigation but Jim Ward became more than that primarily due to the attempt, according to some, by Esso Australia (a subsidiary of ExxonMobil) to scapegoat Jim.  This attempt was roundly condemned in the Royal Commission.

Pages from AMS_Post_Traumatic_StressIn the Australasian Mine Safety Journal, Jim Ward has written a short personal account of what happened that day but, more importantly, how that day has changed his life.

After the failure of steel exchanger and before the fatal explosion, Ward writes:

“I raced to a doorway and looked out into the gas plant where I saw a thick white fog rolling down the walkway. This white fog was a cloud of vaporised hydrocarbon. Gas – highly flammable gas.

Out of the fog stumbled two zombie-like creatures. Two men – blackened from head to toe. They were covered in soot which had been blown from the inside of the huge steel exchanger when it violently ruptured. They had their arms out in front of them trying to feel their way through the fog, blinking as if trying to catch some daylight to help guide them to safety.

Over the roar of the jet–engine–like sound of gas spewing into the atmosphere I yelled – I yelled at them to get into the control room. Into the control room and to relative safety. Ninety seconds later the gas found a source of ignition and a second, much louder explosion shook the control room building again.

What followed from that moment on was sheer unadulterated terror.”

In his article he goes on to explain the psychological impact of that day and the diagnosis of his post-traumatic stress syndrome.  Ward rightly points out that mental health is poorly understood in the workplace.

Many employers are satisfied if they get through a single day without a problem or complaint but silence is not compliance and there may be mental health issues that require attending to even though they are difficult to identify.

Ward’s article is a timely reminder that the measurement of a successful OHS management system or a more personal “safe system of work” has changed and that business needs to scrutinise OHS auditors on the mental health assessment criteria.

Perhaps, most particularly to Australia, it is necessary to gauge OHS laws through contemporary hazards, such as mental health.  The law will exist for decades and need to be able to adapt to emerging hazards, many of them not coming from the physical.

His article also means that workers need to consider colleagues as more than just colleagues and look to their humanity.  In the past many of us are inclusive and dismissive when we refer to someone as a work mate.  People are more than that.

It may be, as this article is written on 9 November 2009, that Jim Ward’s message has already been learnt by the survivors and emergency workers of the World Trade Center from 2001.  But for many outside the United States it is also two days before Armistice Day, the end of the World War which really brought  shell-shock or combat stress reaction and post traumatic stress disorder to the public mind.

When remembering the fallen in war and work we should also ask “where are they now?”

Kevin Jones

New coronial approach should lead to greater safety information

The Australian State of Victoria has been in a fortuitous position with a Coroner, Graeme Johnstone, who was a staunch advocate of safety in the public and workplace spheres.  Johnstone was a strong and physical presence at many conferences and in the media.  Indeed, it would be difficult to find a more obvious and influential safety advocate in Australia over the last twenty years.

Johnstone retired recently due to ill-health.  From 4 November 2009, his successor, Jennifer Coate, will be sitting in an official Coroners Court and the supportive legislation should provide even greater support to safety advocates.

According to a media release issued in support of the Court, there are several important legislative changes.

  • The power of the court to make recommendations to any Minister, public statutory body or entity relating to public health and safety and the administration of justice. Previously recommendations could only be made to Ministers.
  • Importantly, any Minister, public statutory body or entity either receiving or  [sic] the [sic]of a recommendation must now respond in writing within three months stating what action will be taken (if any) as a result of the recommendations. This has never been required before and is an Australian first.
  • All inquest findings, coronial recommendations and responses to recommendations will be published on the internet, unless otherwise ordered by a coroner. This is the first time in Victorian coronial history that a requirement to publish inquest findings has been enshrined in legislation.
  • A new power for coroners to compel witnesses to testify without the risk of self incrimination. The court will now be able to issue a certificate excusing evidence heard by the court from being used to incriminate witnesses in other court proceedings.”

On the first point, how much different would have been the approach to level crossing safety with this authority?  Would the faulty design of some level crossings have been changed more quickly?  Of course, recommendations are still only recommendations but by referring to statutory authorities and others, there is likely to be less direct political spin and, perhaps, greater accountability.

This leads to the second point, timelines.  Any meeting, action item, control measure or even correspondence, should have a timeline for response.  This will allow the families of victims a hook on which they can hang their dissatisfaction with government inaction.  Of course, there is usually no guarantee that correspondence is publicly accessible but to bullet point three.

Not only will inquest findings now be easily accessible to the public, the government responses mentioned above will be made available on the Coroner’s website.

Around ten years ago I was writing a book on occupational health and safety in the sex industry in Australia.  I requested details form the Coroner’s office of deaths in this industry.  I received many pages of decisions which helped considerably in determining whether deaths occurred at work or in relation to work.

Several years later, I put in a similar request for information on dairy-related deaths in support of a WorkSafe Victoria guidance with which I was assisting.  The level of detail provided then was a line or two on each incident.  It was enough to prepare a rough data table but was woefully unhelpful in the preparation of case studies of work-related fatalities.  The accessibility allowed under the new laws will allow for a greater, and more public, understanding of the contributing factors to death which should lead to greater options for elimination or control.

The Coroner is clearly enthusiastic about her new powers.  In the media release Coates says

“This new legislation will better enable the court to thoroughly examine and investigate the different types of deaths reported to us so we can help prevent similar deaths from occurring.  Of real significance is the requirement that any body or entity receiving a recommendation must respond to us. This will be a real mechanism for change to public safety and we expect enormous benefits for the Victorian community to follow,” she said.

Judge Coate said publishing inquest findings, recommendations and responses on the internet would make public statutory authorities and entities more aware of their responsibility to respond to coronial findings.

“The new response requirement means the recommendations of a coroner cannot be selectively pursued or ignored. This is an important gain for the public safety and administration of justice for our community”

She said the publication of inquest findings, recommendations and responses on the internet would also make the coronial process more accessible to families who experience the death of a loved one investigated by the court.

“We have gone to great lengths to ensure our new practices under the Act recognise and have regard for the families and friends of a loved one who has died.  That includes acknowledging the distress of families and their need for support and a recognition that different cultures have different beliefs and practices surrounding death.”

SafetyAtWorkBlog wishes Coroner Coates all the best and will be keenly watching the progress.

Kevin Jones

Management – the importance of what comes before

A special guest for the Safe Work Australia events in Queensland was Matthew Gill, former Beaconsfield Gold mine manager.  According to a media statement from the Government

“Matthew Gill who was the public face of the Beaconsfield mine rescue will speak about how he immediately took control of the emergency and then implemented rescue operations for the three missing miners,” [Workplace Health and Safety Queensland Executive Director, Dr Simon Blackwood] said.  “Mr Gill maintained an unwavering commitment to the safety of the people conducting the rescue and to the trapped miners.

“He oversaw the rescue teams which battled 24 hours a day for 14 days to release the two miners trapped almost 1km underground. Mr Gill will relive the emotional story of finding Larry Knight’s body and having to talk to his family afterwards.

“Previously he has been involved with mine rescue at rock falls at Mt Lyell in Tasmania and in Papua New Guinea, but Beaconsfield was the first time that he had such ‘hands on’ involvement.”

Matthew Gill has a lot of skills to share on disaster management and media handling but a lot of that skill seems to come about after the rockfall in 2006 that killed Larry Knight.

Cover KNIGHT,_Larry_Paul_-_2009_TASCD_25Prior to that time, in 1995 to 1997, Matthew Gill was the Responsible Officer for the mine.  From 1997, Gill appointed other people to undertake the role that is required by legislation.  Sometimes there were three people in the role at the same time.  Professor Michael Quinlan was quoted in the Coroner’s report saying that

“……….the very notion of appointing a Responsible Officer would have little meaning unless that person so appointed exercised overall control of the workplace and could therefore make critical decisions in relation to OHS not simply recommend them, be part of them, or make decisions but not others than might affect safety. For example, as Responsible Officer Mr Ball was a participant in decisions on mine design and mining methods – decisions that have a critical effect on the safety of underground workings – but he was not the only or final decision maker.”

The Tasmanian coroner Rod Chandler,agreed that there should be only one Responsible Officer and that the legislation be amended to reflect this.

Media reports of the inquest into Larry Knight’s death reported that after rockfalls in October 2005 and various risk consultants’ reports Matthew Gill undertook some remedial work on the mine and in February 2006, Gill declared the mine safe to restart mining.  The decisions made on the basis of those consultants’ reports came under close scrutiny in the coronial inquest.

On 10 November 2008, AAP’s Paul Carter reported the following:

Lawyer Kamal Faroque [representing the Knight family and the Australian Workers’ Union] told Coroner Rod Chandler in Launceston that Allstate’s management failures contributed to Mr Knight’s death…. Mr Faroque said mine manager Matthew Gill was ultimately responsible for deficiencies in the mine’s ground supports.  “It is submitted that deficiencies in ground support contributed to the Anzac Day rockfall which killed Mr Knight,” he said.

He also said there was no reasonable basis for Allstate to conclude that it was safe for workers to return to the area after two earlier rockfalls.

“Mr Gill accepted responsibility for the decision to recommence stoping in the western zone following the October (2005) rockfalls,” Mr Faroque said.  Stoping is a mining method in which underground chambers are opened up deep beneath the surface.

Mr Faroque said the risk management process conducted following the October 2005 rockfalls was inadequate.  “It is submitted that these failures are a sound foundation for a finding that Allstate contributed to the death of Larry Knight,” Mr Faroque told the court.

There is no doubt that Matthew Gill was integral to the successful rescue of Brant Webb and Todd Russell but Gill had been employed at the mine for over a decade before the fatal rockfall and therefore was also involved with the decision-making leading up to the rockfall.  The decisions made by the company over many years should be analysed to see the combination of bad, poor, or short-term decisions that ultimately led to Larry Knight’s death and the entrapment of his colleagues.

The rescue of Webb and Russell is an exciting tale with a happy ending and at least one book and several long articles (even a school lesson plan) have been written about this.  The most lasting lessons for safety professionals, mine managers and business operators would be what contributed to the bad decisions leading to Larry Knight, Brant Webb and Todd Russell being in an unsafe working environment during a rockfall.

This is a more complex story that requires knowledge of geology, the stock markets, corporate accountability, OHS and mine safety regulations.  If this story had been Matthew Gill’s presentation during Safe Work Australia Week, it would have been worth travelling to Queensland to hear.

Kevin Jones

Gov’t responds to insulation installer’s death

Recently SafetyAtWorkBlog reported of the death of a worker installing insulation in a domestic home.  A staple for the foil insulation apparently pierced an electrical cable and electrocuted the worker.

The Queensland Government has introduced mandatory provisions to avoid the hazard in the future.  In a media release on 1 November 2009, the Industrial Relation Minister, Cameron Dick,

“… issued a ministerial notice under the Electrical Safety Act 2002 to prohibit the use of metal fastenings for ceiling insulation.”

The ban is effective from 1 November 2009.

It may already be the case, elsewhere in the world, that non-conductive fasteners are used for installing metallic insulation.  If not, the rules introduced by the government should prove useful references.

“The ministerial notice means that installers will have to use nylon or plastic fasteners (which are already in use within the industry), glue or tape to fix foil insulation in ceilings.

As well as banning metal fasteners, the notice also:

  • forces insulation installers to comply with the Wiring Rules with respect to the placement of any type of insulation near recessed downlights
  • makes electrical safety risk assessment training mandatory for all installers
  • forces installers to document their on-site electrical safety risk assessments and keep a record f or five years.”

Such a mandatory rule is clearly a necessary short-term fix but it does little to address the concerns of the Master Electricians Association.  Training and enforcement are the long-term solutions but policymakers must also anticipate the applications of their policies more closely.  New policies should not be announced in an industry that does not have the resources to meet the policy’s aims.

Kevin Jones

New approaches on OHS fines and penalties

At the moment Australian OHS professionals, lawyers and businesses are preparing submissions to the Government on the harmonisation of OHS laws.  One of the areas that the Government is seeking advice on is penalties.  The Discussion Paper asks the following

Q17. Are the range and levels of penalties proposed above appropriate, taking account of the levels set for breaches of duties of care by the WRMC?

Q18. What should the maximum penalty be for a contravention of the model regulations?

Q19. The intention is that all contraventions of the model Act be criminal offences. Is this appropriate or should some non-duty of care offences be subject to civil sanctions e.g. failure to display a list of HSRs at the workplace, offences relating to right of entry?

The amount of  any fixed financial penalty is not a big issue in my opinion.  There is an assumption that the threat of a large financial penalty imposed on one company will encourage other companies to improve safety.  Is anyone seriously saying that all of the financial penalties imposed over the decades are in some way responsible for an improving level of safety in workplaces?  The motivation to improve safety comes from elsewhere.

The threat of large financial penalties send companies to seek ways of insuring against having to pay a fine.  Often it is cheaper to pay an insurance premium on the slim chance of being prosecuted and fined.  I acknowledge that this has been a corporate and risk management approach primarily but there are cases where such options are being offered to small business.

Large financial penalties, such as the then record fine to Esso over its Longford gas explosion, are easily paid with little OHS improvement resulting from the fine.  It can be argued that the negative corporate exposure from the resulting Royal Commission, a reulting class action and the media coverage resulting from its unforgivable treatment of Jim Ward were stronger motivators for improvement.

In most Australian States, there is not a crime of industrial manslaughter.  This issue has faded from the political agenda but it remains very much alive in England.  On 27 October 2009, the Sentencing Guidelines Council wrote the following:

“Companies and organisations that cause death through gross breaches of care should face punitive and significant fines, a consultation guideline published by the Sentencing Guidelines Council proposes today.

Fines for organisations found guilty of the new offence of corporate manslaughter may be measured in millions of pounds and should seldom be below £500,000.

The new sanction of Publicity Orders forcing companies and organisations to make a statement about their conviction and fine introduced under the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act should be imposed in virtually all cases.

The consultation guideline proposes that the publicity should be designed to ensure that the conviction becomes known to shareholders and customers in the case of companies and to local people in the case of public bodies, such as local authorities, hospital trusts and police forces.  Organisations may be made to put a statement on their websites.”

The Council recommends a minimum financial penalty and a publicity order that has teeth. More on the publicity order is below.

Council member Lord Justice Anthony Hughes clearly states the purpose of financial penalties and it is not preventative.  He said in a media statement

“Fines cannot and do not attempt to value a human life – compensation will be payable separately in these cases.  The fine is designed to punish and these are serious offences so the fines imposed should be punitive and significant to reflect that.”

Penalties as a Percentage of Turnover

Hughes says that the Council rejected a Sentencing Advisory Panel proposal that I believe should be floated in the current debate on penalties in Australia, even though it is likely to be similarly rejected.

The Panel recommended the following

“In order to achieve an equal economic impact on offending organisations of different sizes, the proposed starting points and ranges for offences of corporate manslaughter are expressed as percentages of the offending organisation’s average annual turnover during the three years prior to sentencing.  The relevant turnover is that of the company convicted of the offence or, where the offending organisation is a holding company, the consolidated turnover of the group of companies of which it is the holding company.”

Here is the penalty table

Manslaughter table

Lawyers argue extensively about the use of manslaughter in relation to deaths in workplace but the public jumps across the legalese by repeatedly asking how the death of their loved one is not manslaughter when the actions of a director or company led directly to the death?  No level of legal explanation is going to counter this need for accountability, some would say revenge.

Similarly the penalty rate listed in the table above is easier for the public to understand conceptually compared to a judge’s or lawyer’s explanation of why a financial penalty for a workplace death was less than the maximum.

Sentencing options are complex and SafetyAtWorkBlog has no legal contributors but on 30 October 2009 within a public discussion period on national OHS laws and at the end of Safe Work Australia Week, it seem thats penalties imposed from a percentage of turnover may be an attractive concept to many safety advocates and one that needs to be considered in the Australian context.

Publicity Orders

On the issue of publicity orders, many Australian jurisdictions have had this option for a while.  Indeed, the issue of enforceable undertakings is getting a broader hearing after some of the recent actions by Comcare against John  Holland Group and others.

It is always important to look at the most recent actions and decisions in OHS law and regulation from outside one’s own jurisdiction so that innovations are not overlooked.  It seems that the Sentencing Advisory Panel has looked at lots of  jurisdictions in making the following requirements.

The Sentencing Advisory Panel listed specific requirements of a publicity order to be applied within a specified timeframe:

  • a quarter-page advertisement in a local or regional newspaper, in the case of an organisation operating in one area; or
  • an eighth-page advertisement in three specified national daily newspapers, in the case of an organisation operating nationally; and
  • an eighth-page notice in a relevant trade publication; and
  • a prominent notice in the organisation’s annual report (also in electronic format where applicable); and
  • where applicable, a notice on the homepage of the organisation’s website for a minimum period of three months.

The panel also closed a possible (out) for offending companies.

” The making of a publicity order does not justify a reduction in the level of fine imposed on an organisation for an offence of corporate manslaughter.”

The ads on home pages, local newspapers and trade publications (if there are any) seems very reasonable but the media option that may be most influential is the inclusion in the company’s annual report.  Acknowledging a workplace death and expressing regret in an annual report is admirable but “a prominent notice in the organisation’s annual report” goes straight to the shareholders who often have the ear of the corporation.  Just look at the influence being applied by them at the moment on executive salaries.

Now is the right time for Australia to consider alternative OHS penalty options.

Kevin Jones

© Workplace Safety Services P/L (ABN: 68091088621) and SafetyAtWorkBlog, 2008-2026. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Kevin Jones and SafetyAtWorkBlog with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Concatenate Web Development
© Designed and developed by Concatenate Aust Pty Ltd