Duty of Care – Page 83 – SafetyAtWorkBlog

Annual holidays get a TV makeover

Regardless of concerns over the veracity of data, Tourism Australia’s “No Leave, No Life” campaign is continuing to develop its media presence.

The Seven Network announced this week that “No Leave, No Life” will form the basis of a television program to be broadcast from 5 December 2009. As is the nature of TV shows, when a new successful format is found, it can travel around the world. So, be warned.

The rationale of the “No Leave, No Life” tourism campaign is that employees hold on to their annual leave entitlements and amass many weeks’ leave. The employer groups have supported this campaign, principally, because this reduces the salary reserves each company must carry to cover the entitlements.Individually, employees can convince themselves that they are indispensable. The risk, from the workplace safety perspective, is that the individual is not accessing the mental health and stress relief that can come from being away from a workplace for several weeks.

Having no break from work mode can unbalance one’s life and put considerable strain on personal and family relationships. Just like adequate sleep can have productivity benefits, so can taking annual leave on a regular basis

There is also the organisational benefit that can come from breaking the routine. Just as individuals may come to believe they are indispensable, so an organisation can come to rely too heavily on individuals. A healthy corporate system should be able to cope with the absence of any staff member or executive for a short period of time (the period of annual leave).

Business continuity would dictate that a business can continue without key people permanently. Coping without these people for a short period each year can be considered a trial run of continuity.

In relation to the new television program the Seven Network advised SafetyAtWorkBlog that each episode is structured around the removal of a worker who has a large amount of annual leave from their workplace for a holiday within Australia (hence the Tourism Australia support). The viewer appeal, other than watching someone else have a good time, is that a comedian is used to fill the role of the holidaying staff members. The show is likely to illustrate several points – no one is indispensable, a regular holiday is an important individual activity, and, although not indispensable, the employee and their effort is valued by the organisation.

The show will follow people from these occupations:

a paediatric nurse in a cardiac ward;
a sales manager in a brewery
an ambulance paramedic; and
a charity events manager.

The OHS role and benefits of regular leave are not as overt in the program as they could be but that is not he purpose of the program. It is clearly a program that would not have existed without the Tourism Australia campaign. It has been designed to encourage Australians to take holidays and to holiday within Australia.

It is hoped that if and when people return to work refreshed they may realise how important regular leave is to their own wellbeing and mental health but having stress management or career burnout as a motivation for the employees themselves to take leave would have been more instructional.

Of course, it should be pointed out that businesses are doing themselves no good by allowing for the accumulation of excessive leave in the first place. In fact, it could be argued that by not enforcing the taking of leave the companies are increasing the stress of their employees and contributing to the social dysfunction that can result from such a work.life imbalance.

Kevin Jones

OHS must raise its profile in the debate of directors’ liability and accountability

The global financial crisis has highlighted many business management issues. Probably one of the most contentious is executive remuneration which is based on the question “should executives receive performance bonuses when the company is not performing well, ie. not returning profits to shareholders?” But underpinning even this question is one of accountability.

Business leaders, commentators, lawyers and politicians are comfortable in discussing financial and corporate accountability but extend that discussion to other areas of business and they respond with a confused stare or outright dismissal of the proposal.

This week, the Australian Financial Review newspaper ran a page one story: “Revealed: directors face harsher liability penalties.” [None of the AFR articles are freely accessible online] The article revolved around Australian Government plans to “break an impasse between state governments over proposals to harmonise conflicting commonwealth and state directors’ liability laws.”

As should not be surprising from a business paper, the discussion centred on financial and corporate governance issues but OHS obligations were floating behind all of the business-speak. This was particularly obvious with this paragraph:

“Federal ministers have expressed concerns that onerous directors’ liability rules increase the cost of directors’ insurance and discourage them from taking board seats.”

This paragraph shows that the first response to any corporate trouble is insurance. This cowardly response is short-sighted and contributes to the unnecessary growth in litigation which the directors regularly complain and which increases the cost of liability insurance premiums.

It is also an acknowledgement that the introduction of new rules does not address the behaviour intended, it leads to investigating ways of avoiding accountability for one’s actions.

The second point of that paragraph is that people are more likely to refuse to participate than to undertake sufficient education that would allow them to perform the job better and with less risk. The response should not be “it’s too risky so I won’t do it” but “let’s get better informed so that my decisions are more valid and the risk is reduced”.

It is clear that lawyers are running the agenda when semantics enter the argument. The AFR article goes one to say “there are fears about confusion over the distinction between executive and non-executive directors”. This confusion comes from the main concern of directors being to cover one’s arse rather than focusing on the job at hand and the corporate purpose.

The AFR article makes no mention of OHS but the accompanying article “Duty weighs heavily” by reporters James Eyers and Annabel Hepworth does. Eyers and Hepworth look back through several decades of law reform investigations and reviews to show the history of similar director concerns.

But it is a more recent statistic that is the nub of the article. A Treasurysurvey of directors from top Australian listed companies, in conjunction with the Australian Institute of Company Directors, found that

“…71 per cent of those surveyed had declined taking board seats mainly because of their fears of personal liability, while 46 per cent had resigned from a board position because of the issue.”

These concerns largely deal with false market rumours, manipulating securities prices, criminal cartels, consumer protection laws and others. It is this company that the importance of taking responsibility for OHS should be pushed by the safety advocates but it seems that the business and corporate contexts of OHS are only ever discussed by the corporate lawyers. And yet, OHS professionals complain about not getting heard at Board level. Perhaps what is needed is one of these OHS professionals to take a business degree so that OHS can be described in terms business understand.

Of course the risk is that OHS may be found to be contrary to all the basic capitalist concepts and that the only way it can be applied in a business is for the application of legal “wriggle room” from the concept of reasonably practicable.

On 6 November 2009, Bob Baxt (a partners with law firm Freehills and the chair of the law committee with AICD) responded to the Eyers and Hepworth article with a personal opinion describing directors and senior managers already in the “firing line” from the corporate regulators. He seems to see this as unfair but those executives are in the “firing line” because they are suspected of doing the wrong thing.

Baxt describes the “reverse onus of proof” as an “obnoxious device” and he may be right but he needs to consider why such a provision was introduced in the first place – business managers were not complying with their legislative obligations, they were avoiding responsibility, taking short cuts for personal wealth, having workers die and then winding up the company to avoid prosecution.

Too many business professionals focus on “cause and effect” and see injustice. Yet if they looked a little further back and analysed the “causes” a bit more carefully they may just see that in many cases the regulatory changes have come about as a result of their own misdeeds.

The analysis of capitalism that resulted from the global financial crisis has faded very quickly as the markets rebound. Companies are applying the same behaviours that led to that crisis. Most business analysts and executives talk about leadership as the be-all and end-all but we should not be lead in the same direction as in the past as we are likely to end up in the same place. True leadership is about accepting mistakes and heading in a fresh direction where such mistakes cannot be repeated.

Those who are bleating about how corporate executives are being bludgeoned by regulation and accountability need to get out of the leafy middle-class suburbs and the office buildings with bayside views and take some time to reflect on how we came to be in such an economic mess and why workers continue to get injured, maimed and killed. It may just be that accepting responsibility is the new foundation required to build a humaneand profitable future.

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_25 Prior 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

Australian AGMs mention workplace deaths

Australia’s corporations are busy releasing their annual reports in October 2009. The outgoing managing director and CEO of Boral Limited, Rod Pearse, provided his comments on the company’s safety performance to shareholders on 28 October 2009.

“Since demerger [January 2000], Boral’s safety outcomes have delivered steady year-on-year improvements and compare well with both ASX100 and industry benchmarks. Employee lost time injury frequency rate of 1.8 and percent hours lost of 0.06 have both improved by 80% since 2000 and are better than those of our competitors in like industries and in the top quartile of companies in the ASX100.”

Boral is, according to the executive statements, “a resource based manufacturing company with low cost manufacturing operations.” Continue reading “Australian AGMs mention workplace deaths”

Nice comparison on Directors’ complaints

In the Australian Financial Review in October 2009 there was an opinion piece (not available online) from the CEO of the Australian Institute of Company Directors (AICD), John Colvin, expressing concerns about the accountability of directors under legislation including the proposed OHS laws in Australia.

According to a report by Adam Schwab in the Crikey newsletter of 23 October 2009 (also not freely available online), Colvin wrote in the AFR:

“There are more than 660 state and territory laws which impose personal liability on individual directors for corporate misconduct. That is, a director is liable because he is a director, even when he may not have had any personal involvement in the breach…”

Schwab writes

“The AICD noted, the NSW courts have taken a hard-line enforcing the deemed liability laws. According to AICD data, between 2004 and 2008, 144 company directors were found guilty of OHS offences, of which 115 of those prosecutions occurred in NSW.”

Schwab then provides a comparison of risk that I wish I’d thought of:

“That means the proportion of directors convicted over these so-called onerous laws is 0.0068%. To compare, there is roughly a 0.04% chance of someone being struck by lightning. Therefore, based on the AICD’s own data, company directors are six times more likely to be hit by lightning than to be prosecuted. It also shouldn’t be forgotten, directors’ liabilities are almost always covered by indemnity insurance and most prosecutions result in a mere financial penalty.

While the NSW OHS laws result in occasional harsh results, to extrapolate one set of allegedly ill-advised laws across the country is much like a cry of wolf.”

This perspective will be an important one to remember when considering the submissions being lodged with Safe Work Australia on the OHS model laws by 9 November 2009. The corporate submissions particularly but also those from the OHS law firms that spruiker the exposure of company directors ruthlessly whenever OHS and accountability is discussed.

Some of us remember the “glory days” when industrial manslaughter was widely considered in some Australian States. (There is a noticeable absence of controversy of the industrial manslaughter law that is operating in the Australian Capital Territory)

Also important is the point that Schwab makes about indemnity insurance for Directors and Officers, a matter that has been discussed elsewhere in SafetyAtWorkBlog.

The amount of “get-out-jail-free” options available for directors should encourage more attention to alternative, non-financial penalties for breaches of OHS law. Over the last 24 hours the United States has been talking about replacing executive cash remunerations with stocks so that director’s incomes are reliant on the share price of the corporation which, in turn, relates to the quality of leadership from the director.

As long as Australia’s principle OHS penalties involve money, directors can buy their way out of trouble. If Australia’s Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, can face an entire country and apologise for the bad behaviour of others, and the bad policies of other governments in relation to the interaction with indigenous peoples, why should company directors not have a similar obligation when their poor management of a workplace kills someone? If corporate executives are that keen on leadership, let’s see them apply some of the leadership that Rudd showed, and accept responsibility when they should.

Kevin Jones

Independent Aussie politician forecasts “near riots” on OHS

Rob Oakenshott is an independent politician in the New South Wales parliament, He was formerly a representative of the National Party. Oakenshott is one of the first Australian politicians who are not directly involved in the program of OHS law harmonisation to raise any concerns.

What spurred him to speak was a recent case in the High Court of Australia centring around NSW’s absolute OHS duty of care. Comments from the Allens Arthur Robinson newsletter say:

“The matter will present an opportunity for the court to determine whether the interpretation of the duties under the OHS Act is so restrictive that it makes it impossible for an employer to comply with them and practically removes the benefit of the statutory defences. The issue of the difficulty of complying with the legislation is something that the defendants have submitted runs counter to the rule of law and the Constitution.”

Oakenshott stated in a media release (not yet available on his website):

“I am also concerned that aspects of NSW state legislation such as the absolute liability elements are being considered by the Federal Government,” he said. “Having been involved in state politics for fifteen years, I can assure the government they will have near riots on the streets from the small business community of Australia if they mirror NSW legislation in the quest for harmonious national laws.”

This would be the first time that OHS would ever have raised the passion of Australian small businesses to this extent. A survey produced for the ACTU (considered to be representative of the general population by the research company) quoted the following statistics:

67% believe that workplace safety is important, but only 40% see it as “very important”.

Kevin Jones

Perhaps a step too far on homes as workplaces

According to an AAP report released on 8 October 2009, Australian homeowners could be liable for the injuries of workmen on their premises. According to Michael Tooma of Deacons law firm, the breadth of the proposed OHS model laws could cause big legal problems for homeowners (as if interest rate rises and balcony collapses were not enough).

“..if I call out a tradesperson to do some work at my home, my home is their workplace and I would be a person at their workplace. As such, I would have a duty to take reasonable care for my own safety and the safety of others and to cooperate with their reasonable instructions in my own home. If I breach that duty I could be liable for a criminal offence.”

The duty of care applied regardless of whether the worker was injured or not, Mr Tooma said. “If the person is exposed to risk, then potentially you’ve committed a criminal offence. Previously, there were clear boundaries around a home that really made it sacrosanct.”

The crux of Tooma’s argument is that

“The definition of a workplace in the legislation is so broad that any place where a worker works is deemed a workplace”.

Many corporations have struggled with their OHS obligations for staff who telecommute. Home-based businesses have a clearer legislative responsibility even if many of them are unaware of the responsibility.

The Model Safe Work Provisions Exposure Draft’s defines a workplace as follows

“(1) A workplace is a place where work is carried out for a business or undertaking and includes any place where a worker goes, or is likely to be, while at work.
(2) In this section, place includes:

(a) vehicle, ship, boat, aircraft or other mobile structure; and
(b) any installation on land, on the bed of any waters or floating on any waters.”

In the Discussion Paper there is an example provided of what is not a business

“A householder hiring an electrician to repair a faulty electrical socket in their home (however the electrician will either be a worker for a business or undertaking or a business or undertaking in their own right if they are self employed).”

Tooma’s point would be what if the electrician was undertaking the work in a home office (if designated) or the whole house/workplace.

Of all the “modern working arrangements” listed in the Discussion Paper, working from home is not listed. If it had been, Tooma’s comments would have seemed less alarmist, probably because their would have been more general alarm as perhaps hinted at in the AAP article.

In that article, Tooma also says

“We’re talking about the Occupational Health and Safety Act intruding on the family home and imposing criminal liability on individual home owners under legislation that is supposedly aimed at safety in the workplace.

“It’s really a quirk of the way the definition works in that everywhere a worker goes, so goes the workplace.”

AAP does not treat the issue as “a quirk”. Not with a headline in The Canberra Times of “Home owners ‘could be liable'”.

Tooma may have raised a valid point but the AAP article shows how the media can “ice the cake” of an issue. It may have been better to present this quirk to the Government through the Public Comment process (and I am sure Tooma will) but it is also on all OHS advocates to bring the relevance of OHS matters to the attention of those who may not understand the risks they could be exposed to. This blog article could be considered an example of this.

The Public Comment phase on the draft documents is still young. If Tooma’s intention was to stir debate (and not alarm) he has raised an interesting issue that should be discussed. Whether the wider community of homeowners, home-based businesses and telecommuters take this perspective, we’re yet to see.

Kevin Jones

Category: Duty of Care

Annual holidays get a TV makeover

Like this:

OHS must raise its profile in the debate of directors’ liability and accountability

Like this:

Management – the importance of what comes before

Like this:

Australian AGMs mention workplace deaths

Like this:

Nice comparison on Directors’ complaints

Like this:

Independent Aussie politician forecasts “near riots” on OHS

Like this:

Perhaps a step too far on homes as workplaces

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this: