law – Page 242 – SafetyAtWorkBlog

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

NSW contractor representative talks bluntly about the politics of OHS laws

Ken Phillips, executive director of Independent Contractors of Australia, wrote an opinion piece in The Australian on 6 October 2009 that demands attention.

Phillips supports the Federal Government’s program of harmonisation of OHS laws in that it will remove what he sees as the injustices of the OHS legislation in New South Wales.

“The situation is different in NSW, which has OHS laws unlike any other in Australia. OHS prosecutions elsewhere are criminal matters, but in NSW prosecutions are conducted in industrial relations courts, not criminal courts, with no right to a jury or to appeals……

This has led to the layering of gross injustices on top of workplace tragedies in NSW. Take one example. A NSW plumber has a criminal conviction against him after a hot water valve he installed in an aged nursing home failed. An elderly woman was scalded and tragically died. The court found the plumber had properly installed and maintained the valve. The valve failed because of a microscopic fracture in an internal sealed component. Yet NSW OHS law required that the plumber be declared guilty.”

Phillips sees the union movement’s response to harmonisation as short-sighted. He describes the union advocacy of the NSW laws in terms of class, a concept rarely voiced in Australia outside academic sociological circles or the basements of Trades & Labour Councils.

“It’s a law and process based on old-fashioned political notions that employers always put profits above worker safety and that employers must be threatened with harsh legal retribution to make them heed safety regulations. This is class obsessed, hate-filled labour at its worst, embedding its hatred in law. It selectively destroys the application of criminal justice to achieve its tribal ends.”

The language is inflammatory but reflects the level of concern felt by many business operators in New South Wales who are fearful of OHS rather than engaged in positive safety management. The absolute level of safety demanded by the OHS law is indicative of what can happen when an aspirational concept is realised.

It is not so long ago that one employer association director in New South Wales stated on national television that OHS laws are not needed because employers do the right thing.

The harmonisation process, as SafetyAtWorkBlog has said previously, is intended to be a process of negotiation towards a common goal of safer workplaces. The union movement is undoubtedly in the ascendant having helped the Australian Labor Party (ALP) break the conservative governments of the 1990s, and believes that the ALP owes it.

Trevor Cook, writing in The Australian, estimates that the union campaign in the 2007 election generated a 2% swing to the Labor Party. He succinctly describes the achievement after years of the Left’s political parties placating the business sector:

“They treated unions as just another interest group. Against that background, the 2007 election in Australia was a rare and remarkable event. It had been decades since a social democratic party anywhere in the world had fought and won an election where industrial relations was a leading issue.”

From the union perspective, the Minister for Workplace Relations, Julia Gillard, needs to “pay the piper” after the unions rid the country of the conservative rats. The substantial challenge for Gillard is to avoid the second phase of the Hamelin story, before the entire union movement rescinds its support and takes her “children” – the future industrial relations structure.

Kevin Jones

Harmonised OHS laws – winners and losers

Andrew Douglas, an Australian OHS and employment relations lawyer, has followed up some his points made in a podcast on 2 October 2009 in an article available on his firm’s website.

Part of the article says

So what is different about the Model Act and how will it be interpreted? When interpreting an Act you always turn to the objects of the Act. Courts look at the provisions in dispute through the lens of the objects. For example, the Victorian OHS Act merely looks towards providing a safe place of work for workers and the public and makes it clear that interpretation should be directed by the principles of OH&S. It includes an object to work together without specific mention of the unions. Contrast this with the Model Act (MA). The objects include:

The primacy of a safety management system

Consultation including unions

Rather than being compliance focussed the objects are expansively drafted to include:

“The principle that workers…should be given the highest level of protection.”

As a result – all interpretations of the MA should be considered “aspirationally” rather than “compliance focused”.

The third dot point will be manna for those “best practice” advocates but clearly it will be very difficult to “comply” with this legislation. That raises the question of whether one of the major political aims of the harmonisation processes – to cut red tape and thereby reduce compliance costs – can really be achieved. Or is the compliance cost being made easier for the corporate few at the cost of the small business “many”?

A small but significant omission in the MA aims is “to eliminate hazards, at the source…” This aim in the Victorian Act was extremely useful in advising companies to keep analysing risks in order to get to the core contributory factors on incident and hazards. This motivation disappears in the MA with its focus on “reasonably practicable”.

“Reasonably practicable” allows business operators to consult on whether the control measure reaches what stakeholders feel is adequate and then stop. “Close enough is good enough and, if not, WorkSafe will tell us. If it is way off, WorkSafe may prosecute.” This is lazy safety management.

Looking for the source of the hazard to eliminate it keeps business improving its state of knowledge on safety, looking for new solutions for difficult hazards.

Douglas identifies the winners and losers with this new proposed legislation:

Winners

“Business that crosses borders will have one regime to comply with. That is simpler, cheaper knowledge and easier to train operational staff/increased flexibility.

Unions – expanded rights of entry, locked into consultative mechanisms and cheaper to train in OH&S – across Australia flexibility.

Regulators – shared knowledge, resources, and training.

Losers

Small to middle size businesses who cannot afford the new documentation boom that follows duty compliance and whose officers will lack the knowledge and time to positively comply.”

It will be interesting to see the submissions from the small business sector, if available, over the next few weeks. Similarly, the employer and industry associations will need to show how they represent the range of business interest of all their members and not just the multi-state companies.

The recent stats quoted by SafetyAtWorkBlog that showed a high degree of ignorance on harmonisation changes by most businesses are understandable because if you operate in only one State, why would harmonisation bother you? Now the MA is out, the state impacts of the national program are becoming clearer and more worrisome.

Kevin Jones

[Please note that in this article WorkSafe is used as a generic term representing OHS regulators across Australia]

Queensland take on Model OHS laws

Cooper Grace Ward is another Australian law firm who has issued a brief alert on the proposed OHS model laws in Australia. As a Queensland-based firm it has a slightly different take on the draft Safe Work Act

Duty of Care

Cooper Grace Ward see the introduction of “reasonably practicable” as a new duty of care for employers, although the concept is well-established in other States. It describes “reasonable practicable” below

“What is reasonably practicable will be determined by taking into account and giving appropriate weight to:

the likelihood of the hazard or risk occurring;

the degree of the harm that might result from the hazard or risk;

what the person concerned knows, or ought reasonably to know about the hazard and the risk and ways of eliminating or minimising the hazard or the risk;

the availability and sustainability of ways to eliminate or minimise the hazard or risk; and

the cost of eliminating or minimising the risk.”

The firm says this may be “a more sensible approach than the current Queensland standard.”

Lawyers tend to like “reasonably practicable” because it is a difficult concept to define in practice and often OHS lawyers are asked for opinion. Employer associations like it because it can provide some larger business operators with the flexibility to minimise safety costs by tweaking the OHS management so that after an incident “what we thought was reasonably practicable, obviously isn’t, and we sincerely apologise” – not a lot of comfort to the grieving widow or widower.

The concept is also contrary to the dominant (if flawed) attitude of the small- to medium-sized business owner who wants simply to know if they comply. Most businesses in this sector just want to avoid the unnecessary complication and cost that a workplace injury would cause or a visit from an OHS inspector could cause. “Reasonably practicable” removes certainty from the business operator and leaves a large grey area of OHS compliance. This can lead to increased OHS costs by needing to go outside to a lawyer or OHS professional where, before, there was enough skill in-house to achieve a safe level of compliance (if such a think ever existed).

Cost to employers

Cooper Grace Ward should be congratulated for thinking ahead to how the new rules will affect businesses rather than just legal opportunities.

Employer’s will have new OHS obligations “for example, imposing a positive obligation on all employers to engage employees in a consultation process when implementing and monitoring any risks within the workplace.”

“Contrary to the Government’s claims this process may result in a decrease in business efficiencies as more time is spent negotiating methods of improving safety than actually doing so, and by reducing employee efficiency as more work time is spent assisting and negotiating the manner in which workplace health and safety systems will be improved instead of conducting their usual duties.

Costs will also be incurred to business as employers will be expected to provide those employee representatives who are acting in safety roles with adequate facilities and external training to adequately perform their role. Whilst employee representatives currently exist in Queensland, the proposed scope of their powers will be increased by the proposed Act.”

Cooper Grace Ward’s article also discusses union right of entry.

The public comment phase is only one week old, with another five to go. The legal fraternity has various approaches to the proposed OHS law that most often reflect their client base. The first law firms discussing the draft laws were those with a National coverage, understandably. Many Victoria-based law firms have come out sounding a little smug as it is largely the Victorian OHS Act which has been used as the skeleton for the National legislations.

Cooper Grace Ward is an example of a smaller, more localised firm that, in some ways, is closer to its clients or, at least, clients in the smaller business sector which, OHS regulators agree, is the sector where OHS incidents can cause greater proportional damage and where the greater business risks are taken.

Kevin Jones

OHS law debate and Law Society position

Boardroom Radio has hosted a very interesting podcast between two labour lawyers, Andrew Douglas and Michael Tooma, with the participation of Barry Silburn, the National President of the Safety Institute of Australia.

Andrew Douglas speaking at one of his firm's regular breakfast seminars

The SIA National President’s contributions were quite narrow, dominated by the issue of “suitably qualified” in the new model OHS laws (but he did struggle to get a word in edge ways).

It will be disappointing if the SIA’s submission to the Federal Government on the new laws focusses on this single and, to most, secondary issue, when the institute could achieve better results through other mechanisms and more creative thinking.

The only expansive comment from Silburn was the fact that harmonised plant regulations that were introduced over 10 years ago still resulted in different legislation in each State even though they reflected a common core. The high likelihood of this happening to the general OHS legislation was supported by the over panel members.

It is possible that the argy-bargy occurring now and at least for the next 6 weeks of public comment, will not achieve harmonisation as it was initially intended, and tried in a half-hearted way in the early 1990’s. The Federal Government could still end the debate by applying its powers under the Corporations Act, as it has in industrial relations. Some lawyers believe that this is the ace up the sleeve of the Federal Government.

The Law Council of Australia issued an interesting media statement on 30 September 2009. Below are the comments from that statement by John Corcoran, the Council’s President:

“The model laws strike the correct balance and adhere to fundamental criminal law principles. Governments must set aside jurisdictional differences and enact a uniform model OH&S law.”

“Despite the substantial differences in OH&S legislation across Australia, there is little evidence to suggest that the imposition of harsher penalties and evidentiary burdens in some jurisdictions has improved workplace safety performance. Nor has it been improved by the extension of prosecution powers to unions or other organisations.”

“There are undeniable benefits, both to workers and employers, in a uniform national OH&S system, but there is no evidence that workers in any jurisdiction will be worse off if a model law is adopted uniformly.”

These quotes give one of the clearest indications that the OHS harmonisation process about law and not safety management.

It could also be asked that if there is “little evidence to suggest that the imposition of harsher penalties and evidentiary burdens in some jurisdictions has improved workplace safety performance” what alternative strategies and penalties would the Council suggest for consideration? We will need to wait for their submission to the government for that.

Richard Johnstone, a leading academic and researcher into OHS law and enforcement polices argued in his 2003 book, “Occupational Heath and Safety, Courts and Crime”

“…that the court is an institution which, while appearing to dispense justice, is actually part of a broader process which decontextualises social issues. Courts, inspectors, prosecutors and defence counsel are involved in filtering or reshaping OHS issues during the prosecution process, both pre-trial and in court.”

Johnstone says that the process leads to a focus on the “event” rather than the broader context which includes the workplace management systems.

Johnstone succinctly lists the five key principles of effective OHS management, based on his work and that of his colleagues:

“demonstrated senior management commitment to OHS;

the integration of OHS management into core management and work activities;

the adoption of a systems approach to OHS management, involving risk assessment processes and an audit system to identify all risks and to determine which require urgent attention;

the ability of the OHS management system to accommodate to change, particularly changes to work methods, systems and processes, changes to substances, plant and equipment, and changes to the workforce; and

valuing worker input to the OHS management system.”

This is the context in which the new draft Model OHS laws should be considered. If the law does not support these principles than the law is being written for the lawyers and not for the improvement of safety for workers in Australia.

Much of the podcast discussion was about how one deals with what went wrong rather than providing guidance of how to manage to avoid the risk in the first place – the perpetual dichotomy between lawyers and safety professionals.

Kevin Jones

Category: law

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:

NSW contractor representative talks bluntly about the politics of OHS laws

Like this:

Harmonised OHS laws – winners and losers

Like this:

Queensland take on Model OHS laws

Duty of Care

Cost to employers

Like this:

OHS law debate and Law Society position

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Duty of Care

Cost to employers

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this: