law – Page 185 – SafetyAtWorkBlog

Consultation and issue resolution should be top OHS priorities

Labour law firms in many cities conduct free seminars on the legal issues of the day. These may involve union right-of-entry, OHS changes, privacy or right-to-know. The seminars are intended to generate custom by showing how informed and professional the legal firm is. Commercially for the firm, the seminars are a good idea. For safety consultants and small business operators, such seminars can be invaluable.

Recently in Melbourne, a prominent law firm, Freehills, conducted a breakfast seminar on “Tips on managing legal risk following a workplace incident” at which a short time was spent at the end discussing OHS harmonisation changes and the expected impacts of the legal changes on business. (Off-blog I received an email about this matter only last night as it relates to schools.) Freehills’ Senior Associate, Steve Bell, presented the following graph. Continue reading “Consultation and issue resolution should be top OHS priorities”

The intersection of OHS and public liability becomes more urgent

In mid-November 2010, a gymnasium in Queensland was fined A$70,000 following the death of a 19-year-old Michelle Maitland. Ms Maitland fell and hit her head on a part of the floor that was not covered by a safety mat. The case has been regularly reported in Queensland media since the death in June 2009 and the reports provide additional details of the fall and the hazard control measures that could be considered.

Workplace Health & Safety Queensland was unable to provide SafetyAtWorkBlog with details of the case or comment as the gymnasium has lodged an appeal against the judgement.

This tragic death is the latest illustration of a challenge that businesses and OHS regulators have faced regularly – the line between public liability and occupational health and safety law. Businesses have applied a rule of thumb where injuries related to work activities are OHS matters but risks presented to customers or visitors who are in the workplace have been dealt with through public liability insurance. The Maitland case shows that businesses may face an insurance payout as well as an OHS prosecution.

The significance of this demarcation will greatly increase with the introduction in Australia of new laws that redefine a “workplace” as wherever work is being undertaken. Continue reading “The intersection of OHS and public liability becomes more urgent”

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.

Asbestos prosecution highlights community risks

A recent asbestos-related prosecution by WorkSafe Victoria illustrates the prevalence of asbestos as an environmental, public and occupational problem.

According to a media statement on 5 November 2010,

“Joshua Luke Marshall, operating as Affordable Demolitions and Asbestos Removals, told two separate homeowners he was licensed by WorkSafe to carry out asbestos removal work, although he didn’t hold a licence….”

“…The first incident was in January 2009, when Mr Marshall was hired to remove asbestos cement sheeting from a house in Corio.

Mr Marshall was halfway through the job when a WorkSafe inspector arrived at the property in response to an anonymous complaint.

“What our inspector found when he walked onto the property was unbelievable,” Continue reading “Asbestos prosecution highlights community risks”

Lord Young OHS review welcomed by UK’s HSE

The latest podcast by the Health & Safety Executive includes an interesting interview with the chair of the HSE, Judith Hackitt.

Hackitt admits that any review of occupational health and safety needed

“someone who could look beyond the remit of the Health and Safety Executive and look at what the other factors are out there that create the problems that we all know only too well that create all the nonsense and the myths.”

Lord Young certainly looks at other factors such as over-enthusiastic legal firms but it is hard to not think that someone other than Lord Young could have undertaken the review and come out with a more constructive plan of attack. In many ways his report confirms the misperceptions of OHS. Lord Young says, in his report:

“…the standing of health and safety in the eyes of the public has never been lower, and there is a growing fear among business owners of having to pay out for even the most unreasonable claims. Press articles recounting stories where health and safety rules have been applied in the most absurd manner, or disproportionate compensation claims have been awarded for trivial reasons, are a daily feature of our newspapers.”

This says more about the UK media than it does about the OHS laws themselves. Lord young is very light on his recommendations to curb or counter the inaccurate reporting by the media. He recommends combining food safety and OHS:

“Promote usage of the scheme by consumers by harnessing the power and influence of local and national media.”

He should have gone further but that would require looking at issues such as accuracy in reporting and the UK media is notorious for beat-ups and entrapment. UK newspapers feed on the “Yes Minister” absurdities of bureaucracy and when health and safety relates to children, in particular, they go all out. Continue reading “Lord Young OHS review welcomed by UK’s HSE”

Delays in draft OHS harmonisation documents

Further to the blog post on the prioritization of draft Codes and Regulations by Safe Work Australia, SafetyAtWorkBlog has been advised that the release of these documents will no longer be around 10 November 2010. A December 2010 release is now being planned for.

Whether the Public Comment period will similarly be put back has yet to be decided.

Some involved with the harmonisation negotiations believe a January 2011 release is more likely.

Part of the reason for the delay is believed to the fallout from the dialogue between the New South Wales and Federal Governments that has been reported on extensively.

The challenge for the release of documents is whether to delay until the draft documents are the best they can be, particularly in relation to the Regulations which are considered crucial to the OHS harmonisation program, or to release incomplete drafts for the sake of meeting the reform schedule.

Kevin Jones

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?”

Category: law

Consultation and issue resolution should be top OHS priorities

Like this:

The intersection of OHS and public liability becomes more urgent

Like this:

Half price psychosocial hazard books

Like this:

Asbestos prosecution highlights community risks

Like this:

Lord Young OHS review welcomed by UK’s HSE

Like this:

Delays in draft OHS harmonisation documents

Like this:

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

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: