law – Page 222 – SafetyAtWorkBlog

2006 interview with Dr Jukka Takala of EU-OSHA

In October 2006, I interviewed Dr Jukka Takala for the SafetyAtWork podcast. Jukka had just taken over as director of the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work from Hans-Horst Konkolewsky.

The agency has continued its important work but seems since 2006 to focus more on the EU internal requirements rather than reaching out globally as before. This is understandable given the influx of new EU member states over that time but it is disappointing when an OHS “regulator’s” website has so many dead links to its former international partners.

The 2006 podcast is available for download.

The transcript of an earlier interview I conducted with Jukka in his ILO days is available by clicking the cover image below.

Kevin Jones

Level crossings and safety management

Regular readers will know that SafetyAWorkBlog believes that there is little justification for road/rail crossings, particularly in metropolitan areas, and that grade separation should be the aim of any crossing upgrades. Too often governments dismiss grade separation without serious consideration because it is usually the most expensive control option. Regardless of expense, elimination of hazards must be considered in public safety policy and OHS. It is only after the elimination of a hazard is seriously considered that lower order control measures are seen to be valid.

At the moment in Victoria, there is community outrage because the truck driver involved in the deaths of 11 train passengers at a level crossing at Kerang has been cleared of any legal responsibility for the deaths. Several relatives of victims are pursuing civil action against the driver, Mr Christiaan Scholl.

The wisdom of civil action against the driver is debatable as any potential financial “win” will come from the insurance pockets of the Transport Accident Commission and not Mr Scholl. Compensation may be gained but any hope that the action could be seen as a “penalty” is false.

The Kerang rail crossing illustrates some basic OHS issues:

Worker responsibility

The Kerang level crossing had design deficiencies that had repeatedly identified by a number of government authorities, local companies and the public. The court case heard that the crossing was known to be dangerous.

In OHS, known hazards are controlled in a number of ways. Clearly the rail and road traffic was not separated and engineering controls were not introduced at the time of the incident. The owners of the crossing (and this is debated also) determined that signage was appropriate (or even perhaps “as far as is reasonably practicable”?).

Clearly signage was not adequate but there is also the issue of driver (worker) responsibility. It was mentioned in court and repeatedly in the media that the level crossing was known to be dangerous. Why then, would drivers continue to treat the crossing as if it was not? The legal speed limits remained at 100kph, at the time of the incident. The road laws clearly state that road traffic must give way to rail traffic and yet drivers have admitted to complacency.

This is perhaps the source of a lot of the community outrage in relation to the Kerang incident. The findings in favour of the driver place all the responsibility for the incident on the inadequate design of the crossing.

Working environment

As employers have responsibility to ensure a safe and health work environment, so government has a social and legal obligation to make public areas safe. Victorian governments for decades have neglected the hazards presented by inadequately designed or controlled level crossings. Governments must take responsibility for inaction just as much as taking credit for action and infrastructure improvements.

Infrastructure spending had started to increase prior to the incident but the need was sharply illustrated through the unnecessary deaths of 11 rail passengers. Many Australian governments are spending millions of dollars on rail/road crossing upgrades as a result of the Kerang incident.

Road Safety and OHS

Many OHS professionals illustrate OHS by drawing on road safety. The correlation is very poor but the attempt is understandable – most people drive, they drive within strict laws that were learnt in training (induction), and the road laws are enforced by an external body (police = WorkSafe. However, this relationship has no corresponding role for employers, who have a workplace responsibility. The road user has a direct relationship with the regulator. In OHS the role of the employer is crucial.

Perhaps the Kerang incident and other level crossing incidents could be used in brainstorming to illustrate personal accountability, employer accountability and government responsibility. It would be a worthwhile exercise to discuss whether road safety and workplace safety could share as many educative elements as some of the advocates suggest.

As with most posts on SafetyAtWorkBlog, these thoughts are a work-in-progress and debate and commentary are welcome.

Kevin Jones

Note: SafetyAtWorkBlog is not privy to any of the court evidence and must rely on media reports. More information will be presented when available.

Environmental tobacco smoke, workplace stress – podcast 2006

In 2006, one of the earliest editions of the SafetyAtWork podcast featured several speakers on issues that remain topical. The podcast is available for download

Anne Mainsbridge, currently a Solicitor with the Public Interest Advocacy Centre talks about her report on environmental tobacco smoke.

This is followed by Associate Professor Tony LaMontagne of the University of Melbourne talking about a systematic approach to managing workplace stress. This was a report that was published by the Victorian Health Department and, as such, slipped by many OHS professionals. The report is now available for download

The audio production is rough for such an early podcast, and I apologise, but I think you will find the content of interest.

Kevin Jones

Charges laid on swing stage collapse

SafetyAtWorkBlog reported on a scaffolding incident in Queensland in mid-2008. Charges have now been laid but not manslaughter charges as were called for at the time by the unions.

The workers were fatally injured on 21 June 2008 when the swing stage scaffold they were using to carry out concrete patchwork on the Pegasus high-rise, then under construction at Broadbeach, failed and fell 26 levels to the ground.

According to Workplace Health and Safety Queensland

Allscaff Systems Pty Ltd, which erected the swing stage, is charged with failing to ensure the plant was erected in a way that ensured it was safe when used properly.

Ralph Michael Smith, director of Allscaff Systems Pty Ltd, is charged with failing to ensure the company complied with its obligations under the Act.

Karimbla Construction Services Pty Limited, which built the high-rise, is charged with breaching obligations as a person in control of a workplace and as project manager.

Pryme Constructions Pty Ltd, which undertook the concrete patching, is charged with breaching its obligations to ensure workplace health and safety.

SsfetyAtWorkBlog will be following this case over the next few months.

Australian Minister’s latest comments on OHS law reform

Last week the Deputy Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, spoke at the ACTU Congress for 2009. Industrial relations was clearly the principal agenda issue but Gillard did mention OHS. The relevant OHS text of her speech is below.

For those wishing more information about her rowdy reception, coverage is available at several Australian news sites.

The OHS content got no mention in any of the mainstream press and some of the political websites also ignored it.

Prior to the Deputy PM’s speech, the congress held a minute’s silence for all those who lost their lives through traumatic injuries at work. The Deputy PM was presented with a petition (details to come).

During the silence, two relatives of young construction workers in Queensland who had died, were on stage. On screen a role call of the dead scrolled slowly as a backdrop.

Occupational Health and Safety

Friends, as representatives of working Australians you know that nothing is more important to them than safety at work.

Recently State Ministers for occupational health and safety and I reached a vital reform milestone: agreement for the creation of a uniform national occupational health and safety regime.

This is a massive advance for workplace safety. As you will recall, the first, but ultimately unsuccessful steps towards a uniform occupational health and safety regime were taken by the Hawke Government in 1984. 25 years is too long to wait for better laws to cut preventable workplace deaths and accidents. But we are now primed to achieve a great outcome for Australian workers and businesses alike.

Under current occupational health and safety laws, only four jurisdictions allow workers to stop unsafe work – Western Australia, Tasmania, the Northern Territory and the ACT. This represents approximately 14.5% of Australian workers. The new occupational health and safety laws will extend this right to all Australian workers.

For too long employers have thought that they could cut costs by cutting corners on health and safety. Under these new laws every employer will understand that cutting corners comes at a huge price.

The penalties under the new occupational health and safety laws will far exceed existing penalties in today’s legislation in Australia. Currently, the highest maximum fine for a corporation is $1.65 million. In some jurisdictions the maximum is significantly less. Under the new laws, the maximum will be increased to $3 million, almost double the largest penalty in the country today.

Through the tripartite body, Safe Work Australia, you will be partners in developing the model laws for this new national system.

Kevin Jones

Harmonising workers compensation

Gabrielle Lis raised an issue in an article for Return To Work Matters that deserves to be seriously considered. The Australian Government is set on a path of harmonising OHS laws through the coordination role of Safe Work Australia. One of the key policies for Safe Work Australia is also to

“develop proposals relating to… harmonising workers’ compensation arrangements across the Commonwealth, States and Territories…”

Wow, this is more of a challenge than harmonising OHS laws. As Gabrielle writes

“Workers and employers don’t always see eye to eye on the issue, not to mention the differing interests of big businesses and small and medium enterprises, and the entrenched positions of the states and territories, who all tend to prefer “how we do things” to how things might best be done.”

Safe Work Australia is going to be dealing with over a dozen worker’s compensation insurers, around half a dozen workers’ compensation bureaucracies and thousands of stakeholders in the compensation, insurance, healthcare and return-to-work sectors.

This challenge is phenomenal and will not fit into any short-term schedule. This challenge differs from OHS in that it directly involves money, millions of it. The negotiations on OHS between government, unions and employer groups will be nothing compared to when the insurance companies move in on workers compensation.

Kevin Jones

(Disclaimer: Kevin Jones is a regular columnist for www.rtwmatters.org)

Legal opinion on Australia’s model OHS laws

The comments on the Australian Government’s response to the report into Australia’s model OHS laws have been pretty muted. There were the obligatory compliments from those in favour and the obligatory criticisms from those against but both types of response were in the immediate aftermath of the Workplace Relations Ministers’ Council meeting in mid-May 2009.

Going from the institutional and media quiet, there must be few changes that are expected to have any great impact. Law firm Blake Dawson released their take on the government’s response. Here is their advice to employers – pretty much “wait and see”:

Lessons for employers

The decisions made by the WRMC on the proposed national model OHS Act will bring changes to virtually all areas of OHS in all Australian jurisdictions.

All employers and other duty holders should carefully review the model OHS Act upon its release and consider whether changes need to be made in advance of the laws being enacted.

Particular areas of focus are likely to be:

ensuring all duty holders have a clear understanding of the nature and scope oftheir duties and obligations;

ensuring that officers of corporations are taking proactive steps to promote health and safety;

in respect of some Australian jurisdictions (eg NSW) preparation for the introduction of health and safety representatives and the role that HSRs may play in an organisation;

thorough preparation for regulator investigations.

It is strongly recommended that their full “alert” be read for interest.

Kevin Jones

Category: law

2006 interview with Dr Jukka Takala of EU-OSHA

Like this:

Level crossings and safety management

Like this:

Environmental tobacco smoke, workplace stress – podcast 2006

Like this:

Charges laid on swing stage collapse

Like this:

Australian Minister’s latest comments on OHS law reform

Like this:

Harmonising workers compensation

Like this:

Legal opinion on Australia’s model OHS laws

Lessons for employers

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:

Lessons for employers

Share this:

Like this: