Category: guidance

Australian politician jumps on possible OHS concession from Government

Politics has again entered the OHS harmonisation debate in Australia.  Federal Workplace Relations Minister, Chris Evans, issued a statement on 10 November 2011, part of which that has been pounced on by the Opposition and slightly twisted by the online media.

“Senator Evans also announced that transitional arrangements for the model OHS laws have been developed by Safe Work Australia to assist businesses to move to the new harmonised arrangements.

“The transitional arrangements will apply to the model OHS Regulations and provide delayed commencement of up to 12 months or more where the new laws result in a new or significantly different set of duties,” Senator Evans said.

“The developments of sensible transitional arrangements are part and parcel of any new laws.”

The Shadow Minister for Workplace Relations, Eric Abetz, quickly responded with a media release of his own.

“Minister Evans has today conceded that businesses will be able to delay implementing new national health and safety laws by up to 12 months if the regulations result in them having to undertake significant change.  Given that almost every business will have to make significant change, this is the Minister’s back door way of delaying the laws implementation.”

It is important to read the entirety of Senator Evans statement as it reiterates some of the points that SafetyAtWorkBlog reported on several weeks ago.   Continue reading “Australian politician jumps on possible OHS concession from Government”

Australia inactive on environmental tobacco smoke

Safe Work Australia has released a couple of packages of draft codes of practice in line with the Australian Government’s OHS harmonisation strategy but where is the code that addresses the established risk of environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) or second-hand smoke?  This is a question that was asked during the recent Safe Work Australia week by Smoke Free Australia, an alliance of employee and health groups.

Smoke Free’s media release stated that

“….thousands of Australians are working in areas contaminated by highly toxic, carcinogenic tobacco smoke – and Safe Work Australia has done nothing to prevent it”

Stafford Sanders, the coordinator for Smoke Free Australia, was struggling to understand why ETS had not been given prominence in the new draft codes of practice given that second-hand smoke is a known killer. Continue reading “Australia inactive on environmental tobacco smoke”

Bullying has many causes and too many avenues of appeal

On 18 October 2011, there was a brief discussion on workplace bullying in the ACT Legislative Assembly of the Australian Capital Territory (ACT).  The question to Chief Minister Katy Gallagher, stemmed, ostensibly, from a recent WorkSafe ACT assessment of Canberra restaurants and food retailers.  The assessment identified that:

“… only 66 per cent of food outlets were compliant with workplace bullying regulations.”

Such a statement needs considerable explanation to be of use in safety management but it led to a further question from Greens MP Meredith Hunter, one which indicates the confused status of workplace bullying control options.

“Minister, what consideration has the ACT government given to bullying as a ground for discrimination under the ACT’s Discrimination Act, which would give complainants and respondents to bullying complaints access to the Human Rights Commission’s investigation and conciliation functions and clear remedies for victimisation of a person making a complaint?”

It is unreasonable to expect that a Code of Practice on workplace bullying drafted under OHS laws would have the capacity to control the hazard, or provide sufficient guidance, when there are other avenues for restitution that are far more involved, such as discrimination and human rights commissions and tribunals. Continue reading “Bullying has many causes and too many avenues of appeal”

OHS reviews need to leap forward to relevance

Several times recently people have suggested that common sense is an adequate control measure for some workplace hazards.  The United Kingdom’s politicians have been talking about common sense and OHS for several months but perhaps we can apply the broad concept of commonality, implicit in the UK’s advocacy of “common sense”, to OHS information so that people and businesses feel empowered to educate themselves on how to work safety and without risks to health.

Australia’s (seemingly) derailed review of OHS legislation is based on removing red tape but a major focus of OHS reviews in England is

“…putting common sense back at the heart of Britain’s health and safety system…”

Even though reducing bureaucracy is part of the UK review, common sense is certainly the political mantra being applied to the review, being under taken by Professor Ragnar E Löfstedt for the Department of Work and Pensions, as seen by a recent speech by Prime Minister David Cameron to the Conservative Party conference, when discussing the empowerment of local councils:

“…one of the biggest things holding people back is the shadow of health and safety.  I was told recently about a school that wanted to buy a set of highlighter pens. But with the pens came a warning.  Not so fast – make sure you comply with the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002.  Including plenty of fresh air and hand and eye protection.  Try highlighting in all that.”

According to an audio interview with one of the members of the Löfstedt review, Andrew Bridgen MP, the report is due to go to the Minister, Chris Grayling, at the end of October 2011.

In the interview, Bridgen states that people:

“…use health and safety as an excuse not to do things they don’t want to do.”

But the UK is struggling with what to do in response.  There has been a strong campaign by the OHS regulator, Health and Safety Executive, to tackle the “elf ‘n’ safety” myths but this will take a long concerted effort and is likely never to succeed completely.  Many in the media like reporting about seemingly silly local government and regulatory decisions.  This helps depict government as the “fun vampires“.

However the current situation in England, and its echoes in Australia, illustrates the importance of planning for the long term.   Continue reading “OHS reviews need to leap forward to relevance”

Nail gun incident results in $25k fine and lifelong blindness

Western Australia recently prosecuted a company over an incident where a worker was blinded in one eye by a nail that ricocheted from a nail gun.  According to a WorkSafeWA media release:

“The injured contractor was using a nail gun to attach steel holding straps to roof timbers. The nail gun had been purchased 12 months earlier, and came with an operating manual that provided safety instructions.

One of the safety instructions was that the nail gun was “for use with timber to timber fixing or materials of similar or lesser density”, but Mr Vlasschaert and the contractor had been using the nail gun to attach steel straps for 12 months without incident.

On the day of the incident, the contractor had experienced several ricochets where the nail had failed to go through the steel straps and instead flew into the air. Mr Vlasschaert asked him if everything was alright, and contractor said it was, so he had been left to carry on the work.

Soon after this conversation, the contractor was struck in the eye by a nail that had ricocheted, resulting in the permanent loss of sight in his left eye.”

The worker mistook his sunglasses as safety glasses.  Protective eyewear was available in the employer’s car at the domestic building site.

This prosecution, which resulted in a $A25,000 fine, highlights several relevant OHS issues. Continue reading “Nail gun incident results in $25k fine and lifelong blindness”

Bullying Code of Practice illustrates the huge challenges of OHS in Australia

Australia has released a draft Code of Practice on “preventing and responding to workplace bullying“.  As it is the latest publication on this issue by an OHS authority, it deserves some analysis.

The draft code has applied the established definition of workplace bullying as:

“repeated, unreasonable behaviour directed towards a worker or a group of workers, that creates a risk to health and safety.”

It covers direct and indirect bullying and includes the new communications technologies through which stalking and cyberbullying can occur.

Unintentional bullying

Curiously the draft Code also includes “unintentional bullying”:

“Bullying can also be unintentional, where actions which, although not intended to humiliate, offend, intimidate or distress, cause and should reasonably have been expected to cause that effect.  Sometimes people do not realise that their behaviour can be harmful to others.  In some situations, behaviours may unintentionally cause distress and be perceived as bullying.”

This section has generated some discussion already.  Professional colleagues today explained to me how inappropriate acts may be construed by the recipient as bullying even through the proponent does not see the actions as such.  The quote above importantly emphasises the role of perception, a concept that is not traditionally associated with OHS, where facts, figures and engineering solutions are more comfortable.  Perceived bullying, injustices and abuse have been more often dealt with through human resources networks.  It is difficult to see any way of investigating workplace bullying without substantial support from an HR professional.  It is similarly difficult to see any way of preventing bullying without access to this resource. Continue reading “Bullying Code of Practice illustrates the huge challenges of OHS in Australia”

Working Alone gets regulatory boost

Over many years OHS regulators in Australia have produced guidance notes and Codes of Practice to assist businesses in addressing the hazard of workers working alone.  The new model Work Heath and Safety (WHS)  Regulations due to be released with several Codes on 26 September 2011 brings the serious hazard of working alone to the front of business’ workplace safety considerations with a specific regulation on control the hazards of “remote or isolated work”.  The inclusion of this hazard overtly in these regulations will mean that addressing the hazard of working alone becomes a legal requirement.

Division 6 of the model WHS Regulations defines “remote or isolated work” as being:

“…in relation to a workers, means work that is isolated from the assistance of other persons because of location, time or nature of work.”

It is worth considering some of the occupations this might apply to:

© Workplace Safety Services P/L (ABN: 68091088621) and SafetyAtWorkBlog, 2008-2024. 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