justice – Page 17 – SafetyAtWorkBlog

Neglect by company directors found to have contributed to death of worker

It is always fascinating to hear of directors of companies being found personally guilty for workplace health and safety breaches because it seem to happen so rarely.

The latest instance in Australia occurred on 3 December 2010 following a 2007 death of a 22-year-old rigger named Luke Aaron Murrie. Below is WorkSafe Western Australia‘s media release on the case.

“A Malaga hoist and crane company has been found guilty of failing to provide and maintain a safe workplace and, by that failure, causing the death of a worker.

Two Directors of the company were also found guilty of breaching a section of the Occupational Safety and Health Act dealing with offences that occur with the consent or connivance of a Director or are attributable to the neglect of the Director. Continue reading “Neglect by company directors found to have contributed to death of worker”

WorkSafe’s Homecoming Advertisements

‘Why is the most important reason for good workplace health and safety standards not at work at all?’ asks the Homecoming advertisement by implication. Because the injured or killed worker will leave his/her family behind, or harm them if they are injured or killed. S/he needs to think about them and the workplace H&S standard; about their pain and the OHS standard. About them and his/her possibly unsafe behaviour at work so s/he can return home in one piece; return to them. And the imagery is of a patiently waiting young boy, waiting for his father at the front of the house holding a ball. How desperate, lost and lonely that little boy would be if his father (in this case) was killed at work. Your heart goes out to him and thereby an emotional driver has been activated. And, in truth, tragically, such occasions do happen, too often.

Then the father appears and the boy smiles from ear to ear, we can feel the happiness permeating the ambrosia of human wellbeing. Father has come home safe and sound, boy is happy, family is whole, healthy and safe. I can’t remember, does mother peak smilingly from behind the corner as dinner simmers in the kitchen? Your heart swells. Good advert wouldn’t you say?

It’s very hard to change people’s behaviour. It’s hard to get people to effectively achieve sustained improvements in anything. Therefore, haven’t the marketers achieved a lot with this series of advertisements?

Let’s see: first, are there likely to be any OHS improvements at work as a result of any of these ads? I haven’t seen any, have you? Think hard, what exactly has changed?

Secondly, have managers been touched by these ads so that they will now rush out and make dramatic OHS improvements? Continue reading “WorkSafe’s Homecoming Advertisements”

Half price psychosocial hazard books

Rarely does SafetyAtWorkBlog recommend the purchase of books but Federation Press is offering 50% off any Willan Publishing titles through to 17 December 2010. For those unfamiliar with this publisher, below are some of the titles that are relevant to occupational health and safety:

Safety Crimes by Steve Tombs and David Whyte

Workplace Violence by Vaughan Bowie, Bonnie Fisher and Cary L Cooper

Violence at Work by Martin Gill, Bonnie Fisher and Vaughan Bowie

There are many other titles concerning social issues which may be of relevance to some industrial sectors.

Kevin Jones

Note: SafetyAtWorkBlog occasionally receives review copies from Federation Press but with this special offer, a selection of books have been purchased.

Australian business is outraged over OHS changes but is it all piss and wind?

Australian business groups have written an open letter to the New South Wales Government protesting about the decision to continue with some OHS processes specific to New South Wales regardless of previous commitments to support the harmonisation of OHS laws. As the letter was published as an advertisement (Page 6 of The Australian on 20 October 2010), it is not readily available online but the letter needs a little bit of deconstruction to better understand the politics and ideologies behind the letter and the business associations.

The letter says Australian industry signed on to the national harmonisation process because of the need for an effective way of improving safety, fair legal processes and national consistency. Yes, to some extent but more often industry groups have been calling for a reduction of red tape for the purpose of reducing administrative costs. Reducing the injuries and fatalities of workers is not the same as “improving the safety of Australia’s workplaces”.

The ideological gap is shown in the argument against the national imposition of “reverse onus of proof”. The letter uses Victoria as an example of a jurisdiction without the reverse onus of proof and says

“Victoria, which was used as the model for the new national laws and which does not have union prosecutions or reverse onus, has between 30% and 50% better safety outcomes than NSW depending on the measurement used“. (my emphasis)

What is a “better safety outcome”? Less deaths? Less cost to business? Is it fair to compare NSW to Victoria? And can the variation in “safety outcomes” be directly related to reverse onus of proof? Continue reading “Australian business is outraged over OHS changes but is it all piss and wind?”

Harmonious fragility or fragile harmony – OHS and politics in Australia

Less than 24 hours after mentioning the fragility of Australia’s OHS harmonisation process, confirmation comes from an unexpected source, Kristina Keneally, Premier of New South Wales (pictured right). It would seem that Keneally’s decision to change her stance on OHS is more to do with a general package of industrial relations and, union-friendly, reforms, as reported in the Brisbane Times on 14 October 2010 (video available HERE). Yet she has stated that

“”We will not therefore introduce the model OHS legislation as it is currently drafted.”

The media has been quick of highlighting this new tension between State and Federal agendas. Prime Minister Julia Gillard was asked about Keneally’s statements and responded:

“….I think the Keneally Government should honour the agreement it made. It had an extensive period of time to raise issues of concern – and indeed it did, through its Minister at the Workplace Relations Ministerial Council table. Issues were raised, issues were discussed. When you are reaching uniform laws, it is obvious that states and territories come with different perspectives. They’ve got their own laws. If no-one moves then you never get national uniformity.

So, yes, New South Wales raised issues along the way, but it accepted the outcomes and it signed the deal. We require the deal to be delivered.” Continue reading “Harmonious fragility or fragile harmony – OHS and politics in Australia”

Australian unions are being distracted from OHS

The Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) has illustrated several matters in a recent media release – the safety of migrant labourers and the unacceptable rate of fatalities in the Australian Construction industry. Sadly these issues were mentioned in a media release protesting about the continuation of the Australian Building and Construction Commission (ABCC).

The media release was published on the eve of a new head of the ABCC and clearly wanted to piggy-back on media attention of the appointment. The new head has been announced to be a lawyer, Leigh Johns, who has a political pedigree that should make him more palatable to the union movement. (Johns is the author of several published legal articles including one in 1998 on “the obligation of mutual trust and confidence” and a 2002 article on “Bribery and Networking“) His appointment could be interpreted as part of the Labour Government’s plan to gently ease the ABCC into an inspectorate that is integrated within the government structure. The trade union ideology seems to require a continued animosity to this strategy, particularly as there is no resolution yet on ABCC action against Ark Tribe. Continue reading “Australian unions are being distracted from OHS”

Radio National OHS program

On 21 September 2010, Radio Australia’s regular program Australia Talks conducted a live interview concerning occupational safety and health.

For those who have been listening to the show for some time would have been surprised that the program covered much of the same old OHS ground. Similar statistics, similar questions of what are the most dangerous occupations, similar assumptions and the same misunderstanding that discussions about OHS law are the same as discussions on safety management. Continue reading “Radio National OHS program”

Category: justice

Neglect by company directors found to have contributed to death of worker

Like this:

WorkSafe’s Homecoming Advertisements

Like this:

Half price psychosocial hazard books

Like this:

Australian business is outraged over OHS changes but is it all piss and wind?

Like this:

Harmonious fragility or fragile harmony – OHS and politics in Australia

Like this:

Australian unions are being distracted from OHS

Like this:

Radio National OHS program

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: