What is the OHS “public interest”?

On 7 May 2010 Judge Lacava of the County Court of Victoria increased the $A25,000 fine applied to A Bending Company to $A75,000.

WorkSafe’s Acting Director for Health and Safety, Stan Krpan, said in a media release:

“The fact that the Director of Public Prosecutions [DPP] found the original penalty inadequate, and the increase in the fine on appeal, demonstrates the courts’ attitude towards health and safety offences.”

The DPP made the appeal to the County Court after a request for review of the original fine was made by WorkSafe Victoria.  According to the judge’s decision (not yet available online):

“The appeal by the Director is made pursuant to section 84 of the Magistrates’ Court Act 1989. The section gives the Director the power to appeal to this Court “if satisfied that an appeal should be brought in the public interest“.” [emphasis added]

So how was the public interest served by increasing the fine by $A50,000? Continue reading “What is the OHS “public interest”?”

The politics of the insulation debacle become clearer

The debacle of the Australian Government’s insulation job creation scheme faded when the scheme was cancelled suddenly by the Government earlier in 2010.  Attention was always going to return at various stages as investigations into the deaths of young insulation installers begin but Parliament resumed earlier and the Opposition attacked.  The attack has led to the release of correspondence between the Minister responsible for the debacle, Peter Garrett, and the Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd. (A good example of the role of an effective Opposition in ensuring open government)

The newspapers on 28 May 2010 have focused on the fact that the Prime Minister was aware of the serious occupational health and safety deficiencies of the system months before serious action was taken on the scheme.  However, the correspondence also indicates that Garrett was not inactive on the safety risks in 2009 as many critics allege. Continue reading “The politics of the insulation debacle become clearer”

Important OHS court decisions go unreported

On 20 May 2010 a Victorian magistrate fined an employer over $A500,000 following a workplace prosecution.  Almost all of it went to charity, according to WorkSafe Victoria.

There are several issues raised by Magistrate Vandersteen’s decision:

  • Why to charity?
  • Why the particular charities?
  • Why not allocate the funds to OHS-related organisations or initiatives?
  • Why does the Magistrates’ Court not make court decisions publicly available?

The workplace incident that started this case was that in August 2008, a 40-year-old man had his arm ripped out of the socket when it became tangled in an unguarded post peeler.   He was taken to hospital by an emergency ambulance helicopter where his life was saved. Continue reading “Important OHS court decisions go unreported”

Workplace Bullying petition is now online

In February 2010, an Australian Facebook Group has put together a petition to call for a thorough review into issues associated with workplace bullying.  The initiative stemmed from the successful prosecution of four men who contributed to the suicide of Brodie Panlock through their bullying behaviours.  The petition, subtitled “Petition For Criminal and Workplace Reform In Australia For Psychological Abuse”,  has now been prepared and is seeking support.

The crux of the petition is:

“Your petitioners ask that the Parliament:

Workplace bullying questions to WorkSafe

Following the successful prosecution of four people for bullying 19-year-old Brodie Panlock, SafetyAtWorkBlog, with the assistance of a lawyer put several questions to WorkSafe Victoria about the case.  Most of the questions and their responses are below:

“SAWB: Could you please advise the reasons for the decision to prosecute the recent workplace bullying case in the Magistrates Court as opposed to the County Court?    My understanding is that this choice limited the potential fine for the individuals involved to 500 penalty points instead of 1800 , and for the company to 2500 instead of 9000.

WV:  In this case, we thought the Magistrates’ Court had the appropriate sentencing discretion to impose a proportionate and fair sentence.

In addition, Magistrates’ Court proceedings takes less time and produce more certain results than County Court proceedings – these charges were issued in July 2009 and resolved in February 2010.   Continue reading “Workplace bullying questions to WorkSafe”

Social networking and OHS

Less than two days ago, someone established a Facebook page in order to seek justice for Brodie Panlock.  At the time of writing the page has over 2,800 supporters, mostly young.  The page is being moderated very closely so that any inflammatory comments are jumped on very quickly.  The site has a maturity that is showing the best elements of social networking sites.

The moderators are referring to the site as a petition but this is not the traditional petition where reams of paper are presented to a politician on the steps of Parliament, although it may come to that.  What the Facebook page is showing is the modern (perhaps young) take on generating support for a cause through the technologies with which the supporters are most familiar. Continue reading “Social networking and OHS”

OHS and the death of Brodie Panlock from bullying

On 8 February 2010, four workers at Café Vamp, a small restaurant in Melbourne Victoria, were fined a total of $A335,000 for repeatedly bullying, or allowing bullying to occur to, 19-year-old Brodie Panlock.  Brodie jumped from a building in September 2006.  Her family watched Brodie die from head injuries three days later.  They were unaware that Brodie was being bullied at work.

Login or subscribe to SafetyAtWorkBlog to continue reading.
Concatenate Web Development
© Designed and developed by Concatenate Aust Pty Ltd