law – Page 213 – SafetyAtWorkBlog

Safe Work Bill, suitably qualified and professional plans

Dr Geoff Dell of Protocol Safety Management and a prominent member of the

Safety Institute of Australia (SIA), believes that the most crucial issue facing the safety profession in Australia is the lack of the requirement to use a “suitably qualified” safety adviser.

The Australian Government was recommended to include such a requirement in its draft OHS model laws but rejected the recommendation because

“an unintended consequence could be that persons conducting a business or undertaking would be encouraged to delegate their responsibilities”.

This is odd because the Safe Work Bill includes seemingly clear duties:

“The person who has management or control of a workplace must ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that the workplace, the means of entering and exiting the workplace and anything arising from the workplace are safe and without risks to the health of any person.”

Unless the “suitably qualified” person (undefined in the Safe Work Bill) is also the “person who has management or control of a workplace” who has to ensure safety, it is hard to see how the Government’s concerns about abrogated responsibility are relevant.

Dr Dell wrote to the Workplace Relations Minister, Julia Gillard, on behalf of the SIA.

“Our motivation for urging you for inclusion of a “suitably qualified” requirement in the model OHS legislation should not be misinterpreted as any desire on our part to diminish or eliminate the equally important requirement for companies to consult their workers, or the workers’ elected representatives, on issues and decisions relating to the workers’ health and safety. Collaboration of employers and workers in the delivery of appropriate workplace health and safety outcomes is an essential precept.

Rather, it is our strong view that when those workplace collaboration processes need the OHS advice of others, there is an important need to ensure the persons providing that advice have the appropriate credentials to deliver that advice to the maximum benefit of those involved at the workplace.”

The argument is repeatedly expressed as a comparison between a suitably qualified safety advisor and doctors or plumbers or other licensed or registered occupations. But the Government has twice now indicated that it sees no the risks of abusing such a formalised position outweigh the benefits – the first in not accepting a review panel recommendation and second by omitting the issue in the Safe Work Bill.

Should the safety profession, as a whole, continue to push the issue with an unsupportive government or should it accept that the battle is lost and begin a Plan B? A plan where, perhaps, the market begins to demand certainty about the skill level of their safety advisors to such an extent that a scheme of accredited safety professionals is an indispensable business resource?

This may be the tactic of the SIA in its support of an elite level of safety professional who must have a tertiary OHS qualification. It is certainly devoting considerable resources to the program, supported by hundreds of thousands of dollars from WorkSafe Victoria. The caveat of this approach is that the SIA gets control of the profession.

This is not the case with the professions with which the SIA likes to compare itself. Those professions have independent assessment bodies, ethics bodies and sometimes industry/profession ombudsmen.

What the safety profession needs to counter is the argument that the Government has accepted from somewhere, that business is highly likely to push its OHS responsibility to others if it can. The profession, and the SIA, needs to convince the Government that business will accept its OHS duties.

Dr Dell told SafetyAtWorkBlog that the Safe Work Bill has been written for lawyers by lawyers and seems aimed at what to do after an incident has occurred. It is about harm minimisation and not safety. He says that the preventative aim of OHS legislation has been severely diluted. In this he echoes some of the SafetyAtWorkBlog position that the new laws are not about safety management but about safety law, and have little bearing on the shop floor where hazards are most often faced and controlled.

It is also important to remember that OHS law was intended to be a law that could be understood by the layman and implemented by the layman. The new Safe Work Bill will be incomprehensible to anyone other than lawyers and even then, as seen from recent blog articles about Mike Hammond, Michael Tooma and others, the lawyers are unlikely to agree on interpretation and application.

Kevin Jones

[Note: Kevin Jones is a Fellow of the Safety Institute of Australia]

OHS is becoming criminal law in a social context

On 14 October 2009, Australian law firm Deacons hosted a breakfast seminar of the draft OHS model law proposed by the Australian Government. The speaker, Mike Hammond, expressed concern about many sections of the draft laws because they do not seem to fit how OHS law has been structured in Australia and the UK for over thirty years.

This is not to say the clauses and sections are worthless, useless or wrong, but the Government has not provided enough information on the rationale for the changes or the context for those changes so that those who need to use the law understand the law.

Hammond had five major concerns with the proposed law in the Victorian context:

Person conducting business or undertaking vs employer

Officers’ duty to exercise due diligence

Failure to acknowledge “Control” as issue of first principle

Abrogation of right to silence and privilege against self-incrimination for individuals

Unions able to cause work to cease

Hammond is, of course, looking at the laws from a lawyer’s perspective and not that of a safety professional or business operator but he raised some excellent points, some of which have been discussed previously in SafetyAtWorkBlog.

The coverage of the proposed OHS laws is so broad as to include anywhere where work is conducted. Tooma, a partner of Hammond at Deacons, touched on this impractical definition in some of his statements. The way some work is done in 2009 is radically different from 1985 for example, mainly due to technology.

This blog article could be written on a kitchen table, in a cafe, on a park bench or a desk in an office. Each of these would be workplaces because work is being undertaken however if the article is being written on a laptop in a cafe, at the moment, the cafe owner would have no OHS obligations on my actions. There would likely be public liability and safety issues, particularly if the laptop was also plugged into the cafe’s power supply, for instance, but the cafe is only a workplace for the employees of the cafe. Under the draft Safe Work Act (or Bill), if the customers are working there, the cafe owner would have OHS obligations for them. The customers, the workers, of course would have their own OHS obligations as they do now.

Hammond made the point that the new proposed laws dispense with the legal relationship of employer and employee. This fundamentally changes the coverage of OHS legislation. As I put it to Hammond at the seminar, the changes remove the “occupational” from the OHS law. It has become a criminal law in a social context.

Hammond sees no reason to change the employment relationship to the extent proposed if the aim is to encompass the new varieties of work activity and workplace. He believes that these circumstances can still be met specific provisions to deal with the new varieties of work whilst maintaining the fundamental employer- employee relationship. Business and society would then be able to better understand some of the changes because the context would be within what has been understood for decades as “work”.

The proposed Safe Work Bill is trying to be too much too quickly and will set back OHS gains a long way. OHS has accrued considerable social awareness and acceptance. The legal principles of a safe workplace and safe work have been largely embraced by the community. Australia has not experienced the “OHS has gone mad” campaigns waged in the United Kingdom but if this law proceeds as it is, government will not be able to manage it, business will dismiss it through frustration, and the community will think (rightly) that OHS is a joke. Safety professionals and OHS regulators will be seen as sucking the sense out of what used to be sensible.

Mike Hammond has seen criminal law reacting to changing social circumstances. He said that this proposed law is attempting to set a social agenda and a dangerous precedent.

Kevin Jones

Who is advising John Holland?

The person, Sir John Holland, died in May 2009. The company, John Holland Group (JHG), is in danger of a shortened life if it continues to make bizarre decisions.

John Holland Group has been widely criticized by the union movement, principally for its decision to jump out of State OHS jurisdictions to the Commonwealth (Comcare) structure. This was seen as a purely financial response to a politically sensitive opportunity that was presented by the Liberal government of then-Prime Minister John Howard. Comcare was seen as the insurer of the defence forces and public servants and, unions claimed, enforcement of OHS to an acceptable level was beyond the skills and resources of the administrative agency.

Due to union pressure, John Holland Rail was dropped from the finalists for a national safety award in early 2009. JHG probably came in for more criticism than other companies who also jumped because it is in the highly-unionised construction sector and their construction work is so public.

One of the advantages of moving to the Federal OHS scheme was that any prosecutions would occur in that jurisdiction and JHG has been prosecuted there. JHG had several OHS breaches in 2005 and 2006. It came under the Federal OHS law in March 2007. In September 2008, Worksafe Victoria charged the company over one of the 2006 breaches.

According to a report in The Age on 14 October 2009, JHG

“issued a High Court challenge, claiming the charges were ”incompetent” because it was not liable for conviction under Victorian workplace law for offences committed before it came under the Commonwealth jurisdiction.”

High Court challenges are not cheap and the wisdom of the decision to contest the State actions was always questionable, doubly so now the High Court unanimously decided against JHG’s arguments.

The High Court challenge confirmed for many the impression that John Holland Group will try to avoid safety obligations, if possible, and that the move to a “softer” regulatory scheme was one of the reasons behind the move to the Comcare scheme. The legal action undermines all of the positive safety culture messages that the corporation has issued.

JHG is involved with many new infrastructure and construction projects. Harmonised OHS laws are set for 2011 which include the federal OHS laws under which Comcare operates. Within a decade of taking up an opportunity for a “softer” regulatory regime, the advantage may be gone and the John Holland Group Board should ask themselves “was it worth it?”

Kevin Jones

Where is the human right to safe work?

Australia is in the middle of a debate about the possible introduction of a charter or bill of human rights. The debate has been invigorated by the presentation to the Federal Government of a consultation report on human rights.

Occupational safety is often said to be an issue of human rights but this seems to be a secondary action inferred from labor rights rather than a specific statement. Below are a selection of the articles in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights that may relate to safe workplaces:

Article 1 – All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 3 – Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Article 7 – All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Article 23 – 1. Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.

Article 24 – Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

The closest one would get to a specific right to “safety at work” would be Article 23 – 1 where there is a right to “favourable conditions of work”. Favourable is a term that is not seen in OHS legislation or discussions but may tie in with the Australian Government’s concepts of Fair Work.

Article 25 – 1 refers to “the health and well-being” but the following examples place this clearly in the social, non-workplace context.

Article 25 – 1. Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

One could argue that the right to a “standard of living” may include the qualitative elements of a safe working environment but a standard of living – usually income, education and, sometimes, access and quality of health care – is not the “quality of life” which includes safety.

The report referred to above again does not have an overt statement that people have a right to a safe workplace but it does say, in its summary, that introducing a Human Rights Act

“…. could generate economic benefits, reducing the economic costs associated with policies that do not protect the lives and safety of Australians.”

This language may get a sympathetic ear from the Government in its context of a review of OHS legislation.

But no-one is making the case for a right for a safe workplace.

The argument that a specific right is not required as the state and national OHS legislation places clear obligations on employers and employees does not hold water as similar obligations are in other legislation and some of those sectors are advocating for human rights.

It should be clear from this article that SafetyAtWorkBlog is not a lawyer or a human rights specialist. But what the Government is looking for is discussion on the potential impacts of a Human Rights Act and it is clear from much of the contemporary discussion on occupational health and safety that the overlap between OHS and social safety is increasing very quickly, in the opinion of SafetyAtWorkBlog, quicker than the legislations and laws can cope.

In the past the trade union movement would take the running on human rights as part of their social charter but, as has been said in other SafetyAtWorkBlog articles, the trade unions still remain focused on the material interests of work, primarily, and are currently lobbying on OHS in Australia, primarily, from an industrial base.

The labour lawyers are debating the intricacies of the proposed OHS laws rather than the big picture, the context of the OHS laws in the broader legal and social fabric. Perhaps this is considered a dead area of examination and discussion. Once a law is introduced or a precedent set, lawyers tend to adjust their analytical thinking to fit. Safety professionals and commentators have the luxury to think more broadly.

The safety professional associations are remarkably quiet on the whole idea, preferring to bow to their legal advisers while at the same wondering how they can find relevance in the evolving social context of OHS.

If readers of SafetyAtWorkBlog can shed any light on the human right for safe work, please submit comments below.

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

Contractor management in Australia’s new OHS laws

When reading the draft documents for Australia’s harmonised OHS laws, it is very useful to run various scenarios or hazards through one’s mind and see how these could be affected or managed. The most challenging hazards are the psychosocial hazards (or bio-psychosocial as they were referred to at the recent Comcare conference in Canberra) of stress, mental health and all their varieties. If the laws are truly to be for the modern world, they need to incorporate modern hazards and maybe suggest ways of managing them.

An older but often more persistent hazard involves the management of contractors on one’s site. Many hours are spent each year by companies on the selection of contractors, induction, monitoring, arguing and legal action (often in that order). Regardless of the quality of one’s experience, managing contractors can be challenging.

Will the new OHS laws proposed by the Australian Government make it easier to manage contractors?

According to Andrew Douglas, a workplace lawyer based in Melbourne, at the moment, the employer of contractors is directly responsible for the safety of the contractors. If the contractors work off-site, then that responsibility may extend to the principal.

Douglas believes that under the new national regime, based on the current draft papers, the relationship will be different. He says

“The key change is the imposition of broad, non-delegable and concurrent duties on persons who conduct a business or undertaking. The duty is owed to any persons or workers who the business or undertaking exercises control or influence over.

As a result, principals owe a primary duty to contractors and contractors’ employees working onsite. Further, directors and senior managers owe a positive duty to exercise due diligence to ensure the business complies with the OHS legislation.

By December 2011 , there will be no doubt that businesses will owe an identical duty to any worker on site as they does (sic) to their own employees.”

It may be well worth reading the draft document repeatedly with a different hazard group with each reading or, even better, use one’s colleagues or staff to read the drafts with a particular hazard in mind and then workshop the results.

Kevin Jones

Part of Andrew Douglas’ paper on contractor management is available HERE

Civil liability and work-related diseases

On 4 October 2009, Queensland’s Attorney-General Cameron Dick released details of his intentions to increase the compensation available for individuals and their relatives through his Civil Liability and Other Legislation Amendment Bill. Below is a table which shows the level of the increase.

It needs to be pointed out that this is not workers’ compensation but OHS legislation is blurring the demarcation between workers compensation and civil liability in the context of safety management. New Australian legislation is placing OHS obligations on workers and employers for the off-site effects of workplace activities.

The Attorney-General, who is also the Minister for Workplace Relations had this to say about the importance and breadth of the draft Bill:

“This legislation will increase the maximum caps, for the first time in six years, on general damages available under the Civil Liability Act 2003 for personal injuries,” Mr Dick said…. “These amendments will afford injured persons the monetary compensation they need to help them get on with their lives. The amendments also ensure a de facto partner of an injured person is now able to claim for loss of earnings.”

Dick goes on to discuss the good news concerning dust-related diseases as the amendments will also abolish the statutory limitation period for dust-related disease claims including asbestosis, mesothelioma and silicosis. It is unclear whether workers’ compensation insurance has similar limitations.

“The removal of the statutory limitation period for dust-relates (sic) diseases will deliver significant benefits to sufferers, by improving their access to justice and reducing the costs and stress associated with pursuing a claim,” Mr Dick said. “This amendment will have retrospective effect to ensure it captures current cases of dust-related disease originating from exposure during the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s.”

Dick said the amendments also ensure that the caps will be annually indexed to average weekly earnings.

These changes raise the possibility that a workplace may have an event that directly injures workers and also affects people outside the worksite. This could generate two processes for compensation – the workers and members of the public. The business operator would be involved in both processes, of course.

But Australian OHS legislation is moving towards one OHS “Act” that would involve the management of a hazard and its potential off-site effects. Why then split the compensation mechanisms? Would it not be easier for the business owner to manage the environmental, public and worker impacts of the one event in an integrated fashion?

The model OHS legislation deals with multiple parties affected by work processes surely the government should be looking at a single compensation process that also addresses multiple parties?

The workers’ compensation harmonisation review is still a couple of years away but potential changes should be anticipated. The table below perhaps should be compared to the Table of Maims used in workers’ compensation in the spirit of harmonisation to determine a broader social justice.

Perhaps in this period of public comment on draft OHS model legislation, the government and stakeholders should anticipate the social consequences of the OHS management obligations it is currently considering. If environmental legislation and management imposes a “cradle-to-grave” context, why should safety management legislation not?

Kevin Jones

Injury	Injury Scale Value	Currently worth	Maximum from 1 July 2010 will be worth
Serious Facial Injury	14 to 25	$16,600 to $35,000	$19,550 to $41,220
Loss of one eye	26 to 30	$37,000 to $45,000	$43,560 to $53,000
Loss of one testicle	2 to 10	$2000 to $11,000	$2360 to $12,950
Loss of both kidneys	56 to 75	$110,360 to $166,400	$130,000 to $196,000
Loss of one arm from the shoulder	50 to 65	$93,800 to $136,100	$110,500 to $160,300
Loss of one hand	35-60	$56,000 to $121,400	$65,950 to $143,000
Loss of a finger	5 to 20	$5000 to $26,000	$5900 to $30,600
Loss of one leg above the knee	35 to 50	$56,000 to $93,800	$65,950 to $110,500
Loss of one foot	20 to 35	$26,000 to $56,000	$30,600 to $65,950
Total loss of hair on head	11 to 15	$12,400 to $18,000	$14,600 to $21,200

Category: law

Safe Work Bill, suitably qualified and professional plans

Like this:

OHS is becoming criminal law in a social context

Like this:

Who is advising John Holland?

Like this:

Where is the human right to safe work?

Like this:

Perhaps a step too far on homes as workplaces

Like this:

Contractor management in Australia’s new OHS laws

Like this:

Civil liability and work-related diseases

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: