Category: law

National OHS Law Review – First Report released

The first report of the National OHS Law Review panel was presented to the Australian Government yesterday. The best initial assessment of the report can be found at a safety blog operated by Deacons law firm.  In that report by Michael Tooma and Alena Titterton, the following points are made:

  • there should be a general duty of care for health and safety
  • “worker” is defined more broadly as ‘person who works in a business or undertaking’
  • “the Report recommends that a defined ‘reasonably practicable’ be built into the offence in the model OHS Act which reflects the current approach taken in all jurisdictions except New South Wales and Queensland.”
  • “The prosecution will bear the onus of proof beyond reasonable doubt on all elements of an offence”
  • Offences could be indictable and heard in front of a Judge and jury. 
  • Increased penalties in line with those for environmental breaches – Corporation = $3 million,  Individual = $600,000 Imprisonment – up to five years  
  • An appeals process where cases could be taken to the High Court of Australia

“Reasonably practicable” remains a concept with a floating meaning for most business owners and OHS professionals.  For a type of legislation that is intended to be readily understood by a layman, this legalese is disappointing however it is likely that clarification will come from the OHS regulators as it has already in some States.  The review panel supports this type of clarification.

Interestingly, the report says on “the primary duty of care” that it “should not include express reference to control” and that 

‘Control’ should not be included in the definition of reasonably practicable.

The panel says that “control” will be discussed in the second report as will the definition of a “workplace”.

The Deacon’s authors remind us that reports of this type are not automatically implemented by governments and that the review process has several months to run.

The report needs to be read carefully by OHS professionals as the recommendations will set the scene fro OHS law in Australia for, perhaps, decades.  Also, going beyond the list of recommendations allows readers to see which of the issues considered were contentious and which had uniform acceptance.

The trade union movement is yet to release public statements but according to one media report, Geoff Fary of the Australian Council of Trade Unions is

“disappointed that a qualified duty of care would continue to rest with the employer”.

That same report is headed “Prison time for unsafe bosses” raising the spectre of industrial manslaughter.  That does not seem to be case and may say more about the readership of The Australian or the politics of the sub-editors.  However, it will be interesting to see the responses of the employer associations over the coming days.

nationalreviewintomodelohslaws-cover1


“Suitably qualified” OHS professionals – who benefits?

For many years OHS regulators have been concerned about the quality of advice that OHS experts have been providing to businesses in Australia.  Some States have a regulated profession, others do not. Certainly there is no regime in Australia that compares to the “closed-shop” of Singapore.

I have seen no evidence of bad OHS advice to business.  Looking through legal databases doesn’t help, as cases are too difficult to find and the regulators say they have evidence but they usually don’t share.

For over thirty years, OHS legislation has stated that OHS management in a workplace is, principally, the responsibility of the employer.  This also means that an employer is responsible for any OHS decisions made based on their own assessments, which may involve advice from an external adviser.

As an OHS consultant I provide the best advice I can.  If the client needs advice in an area that I am not knowledgeable in, I contract a suitably knowledgeable colleague as part of servicing my client.  Any advice I provide is clearly specified as coming from the information provided by the client and my observations on the day.  What decision the client makes is up to them. This point is made in the WorkSafe Victoria paper mentioned below.  The paper says

“It is important to note that employing or engaging a suitably qualified person to provide OHS advice does not discharge the employer from their legal responsibilities to ensure health and safety as required under Part 3 of the OHS Act. This duty cannot be delegated”

This week WorkSafe Victoria released a position paper to clarify a section of the OHS Act.  According to the website

“This document sets out WorkSafe’s position on the meaning of section 22(2)(b) in the context of duty holders meeting their obligations under Part 3 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 (OHS Act).

Part 3 (sections 21 to 23) of the OHS Act places duties on employers to ensure health and safety.

Section 22(2)(b) provides that employers must, so far as is reasonably practicable, employ or engage persons who are suitably qualified in relation to occupational health and safety to provide advice to the employer concerning the health and safety of employees of the employer.”

My belief is that OHS consultants should be called in, primarily, for a second opinion.  This opinion is provided after the employer and worker representatives have “had a go” at identifying hazards.  In my experience, businesses have a fair idea of the workplace hazards present but are not sure how to prioritise the controls of those hazards, and may be unaware of new control measures.  This is where the OHS consultant comes in.

Few OHS professional associations in Australia provide their members with information on how to do your job, or how to apply your knowledge in a commercial context.  Until recently few tertiary institutions provided this service and I would like to hear of those OHS courses that now do teach business practices to graduates.

(I remember attending a Ergonomics Society conference in Sydney almost ten years ago.  It was the first time anyone had spoken on the issue of professional ethics to the ergonomists.  I would be surprised if other Australian professional associations have progressed this far)

According to the position paper, these are the elements that they consider “may” make a suitable qualified person:

  • Knowledge
  • Industry experience
  • Professional activity
  • Reputation
  • Professional association
  • Communication skills
  • Technical expertise
  • OHS legislative understanding:
  • Risk management strategies

From that basis, below is my plain English checklist for businesses to assess their OHS advisers. Comments are in brackets:

  • Knowledge: Does the professional have an educational qualification that is relevant for your needs? (I have never been asked to show my education qualifications by a client. Also, having an educational qualification does not equate to competence, in itself, no matter what the education evangelists say)
  • Industry experience: Do they know what they are talking about? (This is impossible to verify unless they have worked in an industry for a long time in a prominent role. One could ask for references but the references are always friendly to the adviser)
  • Professional activity: Can the person demonstrate recent professional activity in the relevant OHS field? (Activity does not mean that the quality of that activity was any good. A snake-oil salesman could have been in business for a decade but they still sell snake oil. This is also relevant to the educational evangelists – academic papers in peer-reviewed journals do not indicate competence in advising companies on the best hazard control measures)
  • Reputation: Have they been any good in the past? (This can be indicated by googling their full name. I recently found an OHS adviser with a criminal record and jail time for “failing to act honestly as a director of various companies”. However, an internet campaign can be used to unfairly discredit someone. The best way of checking their reputation is the talk with the adviser’s professional association, should they be in one and should that association know what it’s on about.)
  • Professional association: Do they belong to a relevant professional association? (This is a good move but many associations allow advisers to buy membership without any verification of their competence? The flaw in this criterion is the validity of the association, its disciplinary procedures and its criteria for membership. Do not over-emphasise this criterion)
  • Communication skills: Can they read and write?
  • Technical expertise: Do they know how to use their tools properly?
  • OHS legislative understanding: Do they know there is an OHS law? Have they read it? Do they understand it?
  • Risk management strategies: Does their advice control the hazard or simply reduce its impact?

 But then, this could all be tosh.  Seek a second opinion.

Australian Greens Senator speaks on OHS legislation

Senator Rachel Siewert spoke on Australia’s review of OHS law on 13 October 2008.The Senator summarised the statistical reason for OHS legislation (included here as statistics is a popular issue at SafetyAtWorkBlog), as well as the societal context.

Australian Greens Senator for Western Australia Rachel Siewert
Australian Greens Senator for Western Australia Rachel Siewert

“The importance of occupational health and safety is obvious from looking at even just a few key statistics. In 2004 Access Economics estimated that there were 4,900 work related deaths each year in Australia. The ABS calculated that 690,000 employees suffered from a work related injury or illness in 2006. The Productivity Commission found that, in 2004, workplace deaths, injuries and illnesses cost the economy over $30 billion a year. These figures go to the economic and, importantly, the personal and social costs of workplace injuries and deaths. Behind each of those numbers is a person with a family, workmates, friends and a community.”

Senator Siewert reiterates the timetable for the initial report of the National Review into Model Occupational Health and Safety Laws is due by the end of this month but also identified a plethora of inquiries, agreements and discussions that will also inform the Australian government’s ultimate decision on OHS law. She supports the concept of tripartism:

“We believe that building on best practice in OH&S in this country and around the world is to implement genuine tripartism and independence. On these criteria, this legislation is too skewed in favour of governments and to the detriment of other key stakeholders in OH&S regulation-that is, employees and employers. [The Robens report in the 1970s]. It went on to recommend that statutory recognition of joint consultative practices-including government, employees and employers-need to underpin the new approach.”

But also makes the pitch for broader representation:

“If you agree with this approach-and all of Australia’s OH&S laws are based on this concept-then you also have to acknowledge the importance of genuine participation of employers and employees through a representative structure. The NOHS Commission did recognise this and was established as a statutory corporation with a membership structure incorporating employee and employer representatives. Its functions included formulating policies and strategies relating to OH&S matters, reviewing and making recommendations for the making of laws relating to OH&S matters, researching OH&S matters and conducting inquiries into OH&S matters.”

My recollection of NOHSC was that representation remained the domain of employer associations, trade unions and the government. Independent OHS specialist were few and far between. Given the dreadfully poor rate of union membership in Australia, it would have been more progressive for the Senator to nominate independent OHS specialists and to propose a 25% ratio of represntation for each of the representative groups so that (hopefully) apolitical opinion could be provided on a subject that should be apolitical. (And I still think an OHS Ombudsman is a practical and useful concept.)

In 2004, in its report into national workers compensation and occupational health and safety frameworks, the Productivity Commission made a number of recommendations relevant to the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission, including having a specific objective of achieving national uniform OH&S regulation and joint funding from the states. We note that this bill does implement these recommendations. The Howard government, however, instead of implementing those recommendations, once it got its chance by taking control of the Senate, abolished the commission. Prior to being able to abolish the commission, the previous government had already reduced its funding significantly. Between 1996 and 2005 the then government slashed the budget by over $4 million. We believe OH&S was never much of a priority for the Howard government.

The Senator places the proposed Safe Work Australia authority in a particularly awkward position:

“Safe Work Australia fits somewhere in the middle of the NOHSC and the ASCC. It continues the practice of being tripartite-although inexplicably downgrading the representation of employee and employer representatives-and, while more independent of government than the ASCC, is significantly less independent than the NOHSC.”

Other Greens’ concerns are:

  • reduced representation
  • vague definitions on ‘authorising body” or those associations who become represnetatives
  • excessive and unnecessary ministerial control, including veto
  • two-thirds majority decisions
  • insufficient funding for research

It would be interesting to hear the thoughts of other minor parties although the position of Family First may change in line with varying economic situations.

When psychosocial hazards originate from poor management

There are still some OHS professionals who are uncomfortable with approaching workplace hazards that do not involve nip-points and energy-transfer.  In fact there are some who can’t cope with the industrial relations interplay with occupational health and safety. A major industrial relations problem ran for some time at Tristar Steering and Suspension.  The absurdity of this…

Subscribe to SafetyAtWorkBlog to continue reading.
Subscribe Help
Already a member? Log in here

OHS uniformity is looking unlikely

Michael Tooma, a lawyer with Australian law firm Deacons, has stated

“Despite the enthusiastic manner in which the harmonisation agenda has been pursued, and the appearance of progress in that regard, it is likely that the quest for uniformity in OHS laws across Australia will remain elusive.”

His reasons for this statement in a recent edition of Safety Solutions magazine (August/September 2008) are

  • The National OHS Review was set up to develop model legislation for implementation in each State jurisdiction;
  • Duty of Care is absolute in two States, Queensland and New South Wales;
  • “Reasonable practicable” is not applied in each State to the same extent;
  • The New South Wales right for unions to undertake prosecutions for OHS breaches;
  • Not each State has a legal forum dedicated to handling OHS prosecutions;
  • The level of enforcement of OHS law is inconsistent between States; and
  • The level of maximum penalty available.

Tooma is worth listening to for lots of reasons but principally he seems to be less wrapped up in political baggage compared with other OHS legal commentators.

Tooma seems to favour an industrial or OHS court because of the substantial jurisprudence that has been achieved through the New South Wales Industrial Commission.  I support the expansion of this type of court as NSW decisions, regardless of legislative differences, can be particularly useful is clarifying the most suitable OHS interventiosn for particular hazards.

He also says that enforcement must be consistent.  This is true or else, if given the chance, an employer could undertake certain hazardous tasks in the jurisdiction where enforcement or prosecution is less effective and active.

This relates, in a way, to Tooma’s last point on penalties.  An OHS offence in Victoria could lead to jail but in Tasmania, not.  A monetary fine of over $1 million could apply in some States with only $180,000 in another.

It seems that the fantasy of one OHS law for Australia will remain a fantasy.  The trick will be whether, after months of government review and hundreds of submissions, there will be sufficient consistency across the States.  The likelihood is that we will be slightly better off but still with State variations.  We have a little less red tape but red tape nonetheless. 

My question will be, was it worth it?

What does the government mean by “flexibility”?

Australian governments have all missed the solid, positive support that workplace safety can provide in pushing through useful OHS, and industrial, initiatives.  It would be a courageous employer who argued against any initiative that is intended to imporve the level of safety in any workplaces. 

The Deputy Prime Minister and IR Minister, Julia Gillard, reminded me of this when she spoke about the intoriduction of the government’s Fair Work Australia authority.  I have written elsewhere that the time is right for the Minister to also announce a “Safe Work Australia” authority which can arise out of ashes of the Australian Safety & Compensation Council. I would suggest that Safe Work Australia could also use the structure of the Workplace Ombudsman, have Comcare for the paperwork, establish a dedicated OHS stream in the justice system and use the moral authority of a new independent OHS Ombudsman.  This would be my mix for a strong, fair, independent and national OHS process for Australia.

In Gillard’s speech on Fair Work Australia though, she provided little hope of such an achievement.  This government continues to consider OHS as a separate discipline (or perhaps a subset) to Industrial Relations except when business accuses the unions of gaining IR advantage through OHS actions.  OHS could be legtitimately used to present consultation and consensus in a united IR strategy but there is little indication of that, indeed the gulf is widening. 

In Gillard’s speech on industrial relations she mentions “promoting workplace flexibility” as an important part of the platform.  This appears a couple of lines after a mention of “business flexibility”.  These are not interchangeable terms and seem to be included to soften the message, as there is no further mention, or expansion, of these concepts.

In HR and OHS terms we are looking at flexible work structures that can reduce workplace hazards, improve staff retention, increase career longevity and provide sustainable productivity.  Whether this is workplace flexibility or business flexibility seems to depend on which end of the management structure you come from but there should be no ambiguity in government statements on the issue of flexibility.  Then again maybe staff health, safety and welfare is only a distraction.

“Negligence” and salvation

SafeWork SA recently released details about the successful prosecution of MCK Pacific P/L (trading as Plexicor) over two injuries in a carpet manufacturing plant in South Australia that occurred in January 2006 and July 2007.

The company was fined a total of over $40,000.  The new management has been congratulated on its new OHS management program (to such an extent that it won a Safe Work Award in 2006) and for achieving a positive safety culture.

It’s a shame that the prosecution didn’t focus on the lack of a safety culture that had lead up to two injuries on the same machine at the same MCK Pacific plant both involving the trapping of a worker’s foot in exactly the same nip point.

Risk Assessment

According to the report from the SA Industrial Relations Tribunal a risk assessment had been undertaken after the first incident but the control measures were not undertaken:

“The recommendations involved re-wiring the machine and ensuring safe work practices were put in place. …… The defendant failed to act on the identified risk. Further there was no hazard identification or risk assessment done with respect to the particular issue of cleaning and maintaining the foaming press being the function Wilson was performing at the time he was injured.”

There are several issues raised in this prosecution that need discussing.  The first is that the company was able to save over $10,000 by “early guilty pleas, cooperation and contrition” assumably by the new management.  In other words, once you are caught, get an easy 25% deduction on the penalty by realising you’ve been caught and saying sorry.

What has happened to the previous management who allowed for a second injury from an unguarded machine 18 month’s after a serious incident?  Are those directors and executives excluded from managing a company unless they have had safety training?  Have they acknowledged that they were negligent?

Regardless of the argy-bargy over an executive’s personal accountability and what is a company’s “controlling mind”, this case seems to be a good example of business owners not being held accountable for their (in)action.  Once may be a mistake but twice is negligent.

It is also clear from the Tribunal findings that basic safety procedures were not followed and that workers were unaware of interlock devices.

“There was an isolation key but this was not common knowledge to all employees. Wilson and the other employees working on the machine at the time of the incident indicated that they were not aware of any lockout procedure. There was no documented lock out procedure with respect to the cleaning and maintenance of the machine.”

Following the second incident the company made substantial improvement:

Following the [second] incident … a lockout and isolation procedure was developed together with training for employees in relation to that procedure. Safe work practices were developed for all of the processes involved with respect to the foaming press. A space entry permit was required to be completed and signed prior to the entry of personnel into the press. Audible alarms were fitted. Hoses on the tool die were relocated to the front of the die which eliminated anyone standing behind the die and potentially out of sight of employees at the control panel.

Supplier Obligations

There is also a movement in OHS for contractors to meet the OHS standards of the commissioning company.  Plexicor lists the following companies as its clients – Chep Australia, Ford Australia, Holden, JC Decaux, Mitsubishi, Pacific Center Cyber Works, and Telstra.

In 2004, before the injuries mentioned above, Holden made this statement in its 2004 Community and Workplace Report:

“Supplier Management
GM’s Worldwide Purchasing Policy includes a number of practices that guide its suppliers in purchasing activities throughout the world. Suppliers and any goods or services supplied must comply with all applicable regulations or standards of the country of destination, including those relating to environmental matters, wages, hours, conditions of employment, subcontractor selection, discrimination, occupational health and safety and motor vehicle safety.” (my emphasis)

Holden doesn’t seem to have pushed this obligation with Plexicor.

Holden sets out its current expectations for its suppliers on its website.  One of the criteria, which seems a little contrary to well-resourced OHS management systems, is “Lean Manufacturing” – “the production of durable goods with a minimum consumption of capital investment, floor space, labour, materials, time and distance”.  Holden states that

“For Holden to be successful a a low cost producer of quality vehicles, Holden suppliers also must be committed to the lean ethic.”

Similar obligations are imposed by Ford Motor Company through its joint venture with Futuris Automotive (the new owners of Plexicor and the defendant in the SA IR Tribunal case).

The Magistrate was certainly optimistic about the safety future of Plexicor under the tutelage of Futuris.  If only Futuris had bought Plexicor earlier.

© Workplace Safety Services P/L (ABN: 68091088621) and SafetyAtWorkBlog, 2008-2024. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Kevin Jones and SafetyAtWorkBlog with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Concatenate Web Development
© Designed and developed by Concatenate Aust Pty Ltd