law – Page 222 – SafetyAtWorkBlog

Tooma takes aim at the Environment Minister over accountability

Participants at the 2010 Safety In Action conference and the 2010 ASSE Conference will be familiar with lawyer, Michael Tooma‘s faith in due diligence to improve safety management in Australia. In the lead-up to his appearance at another Australian OHS conference in October 2010 he has again restated his faith but this largely ignores the changed political context of OHS harmonisation on which the new Work Health and Safety laws are based.

I have mentioned Australia’s current peculiar political position elsewhere. The uncertainty of Federal politics overlaps and could greatly affect the OHS harmonisation process, or rather, its application. It seems even more likely that the Labour Governments in Queensland and New South Wales will fall at their next State elections rendering the fast becoming an ideal of OHS harmonisation dead.

Tooma (pictured right) makes no mention of the changed political reality in a recent media release concerning his upcoming conference appearance although he is willing to take a pot shot at the Federal Environment Minister, Peter Garrett, over the lack of accountability over the deaths, fires and injuries that resulted from the botched home insulation scheme. Continue reading “Tooma takes aim at the Environment Minister over accountability”

Only an OHS expert can deal with the problem

Occupational health and safety(OHS) is supposed to be a skill that anyone can obtain and apply but it is often complicated by experts. This is not to say that OHS is “common sense”. The notion of common sense is a nonsense.

Several years ago, Laurie Anderson performed in Melbourne, Australia. Her show was “Homeland” and the song that I most remember from her performance was “Only an expert“. There is a wisdom in the song that remains as topical as much now as it did when I heard it at the start of the international banking crisis and the US home lending crash. Anderson has been able to update the lyrics of the song to include the BP Gulf of Mexico oil spill.

Confusion over bullying and sexual discrimination on display in air traffic controller media reports

The Australian media is providing considerable coverage to the legal claim by two female workers against Airservices Australia over bullying and sexual discrimination. Airservices Australia is a government organisation that control aircraft movement over Australian airspace.

The details of the harassment mentioned in the media are quite offensive and have no place in the modern workplace.

There are a couple of OHS related issues that pertain to the legal action and the media articles. Firstly, the media struggles to differentiate between sexual discrimination, sexual harassment and workplace bullying. Bullying has the most direct relationship to occupational health and safety but the others generate stress in the workplace and therefore the impacts, if not the actions, fall within the OHS purview. The Australian Financial Review (AFR) (page 7, not available online) has a headline “Flight controllers sue for sexual discrimination” yet the article reports on bullying. Continue reading “Confusion over bullying and sexual discrimination on display in air traffic controller media reports”

Australian PM mentions OHS harmonisation in election debate

On Sunday 25 July 2010, during the first debate of Australia’s election campaign, Prime Minister Julia Gillard used OHS harmonisation as an example of an achievement that she has been able to introduce that has benefited the Australian people.

The process is in a public hiatus at the moment that began before the election was called. Much of the public discussion on harmonisation has concluded and now the stakeholders are developing drafts regulatiosn, codes and guidances behind the scenes in Canberra.

Prime Minister Gillard’s mention of OHS harmonisation should reassure that the government leaders have not forgotten that the process is occurring. However it is highly unlikely that this issue resonates with the general public but, on this issue, that was not the audience. Harmonisation was one of the few policy issues that is focussed on business concerns, business costs and has the wide support of the business community. It does not involve taxes. It does not (directly) involve industrial relations. It does not rely on unions for implementation.

The fact that harmonisation has been mentioned in an election campaign debate is reassuring but nothing more than that. It is an issue that could be used and that few would argue against because if one did, one would be arguing against the safety of people, at least in the understanding of the general public.

The mention is a footnote in the debate and is unlikely to get any mention in the press on Monday morning. Indeed it is unlikely to get another mention in the election campaign, but it was, and we need to be content with that small win.

Kevin Jones

OHS law reform should not rely on Courts for clarification

Since the early 1970’s OHS law has been “de-lawyer-fied”. The intention of the law is to empower workers and employers to manage safety in the workplace to meet basic human rights – the right not to be injured at work, the obligation not to hurt others. Good law allows for the basic legislative tenets to be readily understood. Poor law is difficult to understand and leads to increased business and personal costs in order to determine compliance.

I would argue that Australia’s recent aim of the national harmonisation of OHS laws will lead to complexity and cost – the opposite of what was intended – and a disempowerment of the workforce as the legal imperative overrides the safety management obligation. The major weakness in the law is its seeming reliance on the Courts to clarify the laws, their application and their relevance.

Legal commentators on the laws have stated publicly that the impact of the law will not be clear for several years and that many questions about the laws will only be answered when prosecutions are brought and the Courts hand down decisions. This process is sloppy, should not be accepted unquestionably by OHS professionals and does almost nothing to help the vast majority of Australian businesses to comply. Continue reading “OHS law reform should not rely on Courts for clarification”

BHP Billiton receives minimal OHS penalty – time for a new approach

Some time ago a penalty concept circulated in Australia where OHS penalties were implemented as a percentage of as company’s revenue or profit. The concept gained renewed topicality in mid-July 2010 as BHP Billiton was penalised $A75,000 after the death of a worker, Scott Rigg. (Video report available)

The fine seems paltry for a fatality and more so when the company’s OHS record is taken into account. As the video report states, BHP Billiton could have been penalised $A200,000 but even this is a relatively small fine for such a company.

The Australian Government has been willing to apply a 40% tax on the mining industry’s profits but is unlikely to apply a percentage penalty in relation to OHS. Continue reading “BHP Billiton receives minimal OHS penalty – time for a new approach”

Psychological advice on handling people that is broadly applicable

The latest edition of Lawyers Weekly includes an article ostensibly about managing bullies in the legal profession written by psychologist, Dr Chris Day. The article provides some general tips, though, that are useful to any of us who need to make decisions refreshingly she reflects two options that I offer to my OHS clients on safety matters that do not include bullying. Dr Day says that any problem can be solved by these actions

“Leave…

Change the situation…

Accept the situation…

Do nothing….”

Leave and change are included in the OHS Hierarchy of Control under different terminology. Doing nothing is advice that few OHS consultants will give but is a strategy that many small businesses apply. Their risk management strategy is to press their luck and in some cases this can work. Continue reading “Psychological advice on handling people that is broadly applicable”

Category: law

Tooma takes aim at the Environment Minister over accountability

Like this:

Only an OHS expert can deal with the problem

Like this:

Confusion over bullying and sexual discrimination on display in air traffic controller media reports

Like this:

Australian PM mentions OHS harmonisation in election debate

Like this:

OHS law reform should not rely on Courts for clarification

Like this:

BHP Billiton receives minimal OHS penalty – time for a new approach

Like this:

Psychological advice on handling people that is broadly applicable

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: