law – Page 241 – SafetyAtWorkBlog

CFMEU, IPA, Gretley Mine – political lessons

Readers outside of New South Wales may vaguely remember that in 1996 four miners died in a coalmine in the Hunter Valley 0f New South Wales. They may also remember that the was some press about the prosecution of some directors of the mining company. It was one of those incidents and court cases that should have gained broader attention that it did.

As OHS stakeholders in Australia ponder the ramifications of the Government’s proposed Safe Work Bill, it is important to also ponder the legal legacy of the Gretley mine disasater. It may provide non-NSW and non-mining readers with a better understanding of the resistance to the new harmonised laws from the mining industry in both New South Wales and Western Australia.

On 15 October 2009, Andrew Vickers of the Construction Forestry Mining & Energy Union used the Gretley saga as a justification to call for the harmoinised legislation and support systems to allow for variations to meet the special needs of the mining sector.

cover PHILLIPS 5.04925E-210RETLEY On the other side of political fence, Ken Phillips of the Institute of Public Affairs, a conservative thinktank, produced a document about the politics of the Gretley saga. The publication was supported by a video, available below. Phillips’ paper is a useful illustration of business’ opinions of the unions and New South Wales’ OHS legislation. This legislation is a centrepiece to the ACTU and union movement’s concerns and opposition to many elements of the current draft Safe Work Bill.

Prominent sociologist, Andrew Hopkins, has written about the OHS management issues raised by the disaster and its aftermath.

SafetyAtWorkBlog believes that these political and safety resources can provide a primer to many of the issues being discussed in the current debate on OHS laws.

Kevin Jones

OHS model law remains divisive

An article in the Australian Financial Review (not available on line) on 16 October 2009 provided some additional legal opinions on the implementation and aims of Australia’s draft Safe Work Bill.

Other than Michael Tooma’s well established thoughts on the draft law, Liberty Sanger of Maurice Blackburn, a law firm with strong trade union links, is said to support the capacity for jurisdictional variations in the harmonisation process. She is quoted as saying there

“need to be regional difference in a country as vast as ours and with such a different industry composition as ours…”

This position is supported by a call from the CFMEU’s General Secretary, Andrew Vickers. In a media statement released on 15 October 2009, Vickers uses the aftermath of the Gretley mining disaster of 1996 as an indication of the need for OHS laws specific to the mining industry. He says

“Under the Federal Government’s National OH&S Harmonisation Review, there is a growing view among lawyers and bureaucrats that industry specific safety laws – laws that protect coal and metalliferous miners for example – ought to be scrapped.

The trouble is miners and their families and their union have been left in the dark. We still do not know if the new laws will be tailored to meet the safety needs of our industry. Despite this, the Federal Government is pressing on with its changes.

Yet the reality remains that the safety of miners and their families and the future of our mining communities are too important to ignore. And we have fought too long and too hard for tough safety standards in our industry to give them up now.”

The AFR article also quotes Miles Bastick of Freehills. The article says Bastick believes that the jurisdictional changes that have so alarmed some are likely to relate to only peripheral issues. The article says that although Bastick generally supports to the Safe Work Bill

“….he said, that in practical terms, OHS laws were likely to be enforced differently across Australia, even if laws were nationally consistent because of the different prosecution policies of OHS authorities and the approaches of different courts and tribunals that would hear prosecutions.”

SafetyAtWorkBlog would argue that the variations Bastick identifies provide very strong reasons for the Government to take the big step forward of one national OHS law supported by a nationally consistent enforcement policy through a single national safety authority and a coordinated court system. This may be a fantasy but it remains an option for the Federal government. Some lawyers believe the Government has not dismissed the application of the Corporations Act in the OHS field as it has already unified the IR system through a similar process.

Such a national system would achieve many of the aims of the government by

reducing red tape across States, businesses and Courts,
reducing the number of OHS regulatory authorities saving considerable expenditure from many areas of duplication from administrative staff to publications and advertising,
providing a single focus to business for clarity and consistency of information; and
still allowing for industry-specific variations that can be coordinated consistently with the general OHS principles.

If Australia is looking for an OHS regulatory system that it expects to last as long as the previous system, all stakeholders may need to look in a slightly longer term and broader perspective than they are currently.

Kevin Jones

WorkSafe’s take on John Holland’s High Court failure

Further to the posting about John Holland Group’s failed bid to the High Court of Australia, WorkSafe Victoria has issued a media statement on the case which indicates what will happen in Victoria:

“WorkSafe charged John Holland Pty Ltd in relation to an October 2006 safety incident associated with the transport of concrete panels for Melbourne’s Eastlink tollway.

At the time, the company was operating under Victoria’s workplace health and safety laws, but several months later it became a self-insurer under Comcare and subject to the Commonwealth’s OHS law.

John Holland Pty Ltd argued in the High Court that since it transferred to Comcare before the charges were issued, under the Australian Constitution, the Federal OHS law should prevail.

In a unanimous decision, seven High Court judges on Tuesday upheld the right of the states and territories to take action where the incident occurred before the jurisdictional change and ordered John Holland Pty Ltd to pay WorkSafe’s costs.

Matters that have been on-hold in other states and territories are also likely to proceed now.”

Australian law firm, Allens Arthur Robinson also issued a background statement on the case.

Kevin Jones

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

Category: law

CFMEU, IPA, Gretley Mine – political lessons

Like this:

OHS model law remains divisive

Like this:

WorkSafe’s take on John Holland’s High Court failure

Like this:

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:

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: