Australian lawyer Michael Tooma is always worth listening to, and he recently participated in a webinar titled “When AI Watches Work: Monitoring Workers and Psychosocial Risks!” hosted by the Global Initiative for Industrial Safety. Tooma reinforced warnings about overreliance on artificial intelligence (AI) in occupational health and safety.
A hugely popular radio show in Australia, hosted by Kyle Sandilands and Jackie O (Henderson), has been offensive for a long time, but offence can also be entertaining and economically lucrative. Last month, the host clashed on air, resulting in Jackie O leaving. Now there is legal action on several fronts, and psychological health and safety at work is being considered to some extent, and could/should be considered more.
The risks of not managing psychosocial hazards at work were heightened when SafeWorkNSW issued a prohibition notice to the University of Technology Sydney (UTS) following allegations of potential psychological harm to staff associated with a restructuring strategy in September last year. The reactions included confusion and outrage at an occupational health and safety (OHS) regulator entering territory that has traditionally been ruled by Human Resources. Well, welcome to the new world of work and OHS.
A recent radio forum on working from home reinforced the political motivation behind promoting it as a legal right and also highlighted the knowledge gaps we have about it. Occupational health and safety (OHS) was mentioned in the discussion, but its core significance was again downplayed.
Recently, occupational health and safety (OHS) lawyer Steve Bell issued a challenge to all those who provide leadership training to executives.
At the annual breakfast for the Australian Health and Safety Institute, supported by Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer, Bell shared this leadership training scenario with his panel of experts:
“[Psychosocial hazards] is not coming, it’s arrived, and prosecutions will happen unless [employers] take serious steps to address the issue.”
Recently, I had the opportunity to interview Ian Neil SC on some occupational health and safety (OHS) matters related to psychosocial health.
Non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) are a contentious device used by lawyers, often as part of the settlement of a legal dispute. These came to the fore in the context of sexual harassment several years ago. The Victorian government has proposed a bill to Parliament that, according to the Australian Financial Review (AFR), will increase transparency. This should assist in determining changes to work processes that are as low as is reasonably practicable.
NDAs have been an insidious tool, especially in relation to sexual harassment at work.
