Category: lawyers

Health Department bans all employees from smoking at work

Most of the Australian media have reported on a memo to staff of the Australian Department of Health that only allows smoking while on meal breaks.  Health Department employees are not permitted to smoke while undertaking departmental duties or “when representing the department in any capacity”.

Government authorities have long participated in smoking reduction campaigns which have succeeded in minimising smoking.  Workplaces in Australia already have workplace smoking bans.  So what’s caused the memo (a copy which has not been seen by SafetyAtWorkBlog) to be issued?

The principal reason seems to be to improve the “professional reputation of the department”.  It has always been a ridiculous image to see Health Department employees crowding around departmental doorways smoking cigarettes.   Continue reading “Health Department bans all employees from smoking at work”

Legal professional privilege and safety management

The Safety Institute‘s OHS Professional magazine for December 2009 included an article (originally published in an OHS newsletter from Piper Alderman for those non-SIA members) about the application of legal professional privilege using a New South Wales Industrial Relations Commission decision as its basis (Nicholson v Waco KwikForm Limited).  The case received considerable attention by OHS law firms. Continue reading “Legal professional privilege and safety management”

Quad bike safety sensitivities

The quad bike safety issue is hotting up on a range of fronts in Australia with the trade unions taking an active interest,  meetings between bike manufacturers and safety designers, and the SafetyAtWorkBlog email box filling up with background content and opinion.

One of these emails reminded me of some court action that was taken in 2005 by Honda against the Victorian State Coroner, Graeme Johnstone.  Johnstone only recently retired from the position after many years and over that time there were fewer more ardent safety advocates, particularly not any that had the same broad audience and media attention.

In 2005 Johnstone was conducting an inquest into several quad-bike related deaths.  At one point he approached a witness outside of the Coronial process to seek their assistance in a training course.  Representatives from Honda took exception to this and began court action in the Supreme Court of Victoria to have him dismissed from conducting the inquests.

Justice Tim Smith found Johnstone remained open-minded and impartial throughout the inquest but the unreported judgement available online illustrates some of the tensions of the time and continue to exist to this day.

The judgement mentions the purpose of the inquest:

“The major disputed issues in the inquest relevant to the present application were the following:

  • whether the lack of roll-over structures on their ATVs caused the death of Mr Crole and Dr Shephard
  • whether roll-over structures should be installed on ATVs
  • whether the question of the provision of roll-over structures for ATVs should be investigated further.”

In describing the context of Johnstone’s contact with the witness, Dr Raphael Grzebieta, the judgement hints at the Coroner’s inquest findings (which are not available online)

“In addition, notwithstanding Dr Grzebieta’s conclusion that Dr Shepherd and Mr Crole [the deceased] would have been saved by the fitting of the roll bars and that this would be sufficient to justify a recommendation that they be fitted, the coroner expressed a provisional view that:

“My view at the moment is that it does not give me enough to recommend roll-over protection.””

The Victorian Coroner continues to be active in investigating quad-bike related deaths as seen in this newspaper article from earlier in 2009.  A related article quotes John Merritt, WorkSafe’s executive director as saying:

“This inquest came about as a result of a terrible spate of fatalities in the past two years… WorkSafe’s position on this is clear. It believes that a quad bike is like any piece of farming equipment and those who use them need the appropriate training to be able to use them safely.”

If a quad bike is like any other piece of farming equipment, the equipment designers would be reviewing their designs to minimise the risk of injury as the field bin and silo manufacturers have, or the milk vat designers have or the windmill manufacturers have or, indeed , as have the tractor manufacturers who actively promote the safety features of their new tractors.

The unreported Supreme Court judgement provides a good indication of the major players in the quad bike safety discussion, particularly the expert witnesses for and against.

Many of the issues are resurfacing because safety and work practices continue to change and the only satisfactory resolution is when hazards are controlled and harm is reduced and, hopefully, eliminated.  2010 in Australia looks set to be a year when quad bike safety gets a good going over once more.

Kevin Jones

Barry Sherriff talks about the Work Health and Safety Act

Boardroom Radio often has interesting speakers on topical issues.  On 11 December 2009,  they interviewed Barry Sherriff who recently joined the Australian law firm, Deacons.  The interview is of general interest and reflects many of the issues raised by Australian labour lawyers elsewhere.

Barry is an OHS law expert and was a member of the panel that reviewed Australia’s OHS legislation in 2008/09 in order to steer the development of  a model OHS law.  That process was completed in mid-2009 and the Government took on most of the recommendations.  Effectively the Government started a second separate process – the development of legislation based on a range of information, advice and public submissions.

Many recent submissions to the Government in this second phase harked back to earlier findings.  Many issues raised in the Model OHS Act Review, such as the issue of “suitably qualified” OHS advisers, are dead.  As Barry’s interview shows, contemporary thinking provides forward momentum and it is up to all of us to keep our state of OHS knowledge current.

Kevin Jones

Legal advice and safety management

The legal commentaries have begun to appear following the release of Australia’s draft Work Health & Safety Act.

One of the first, as usual, is a response from law firm Deacons.  It should be noted before discussing the suggestions that in the last couple of months Australia’s OHS legal brains are now concentrated in this law firm since Barry Sherriff jumped ship from Freehills.  A month or two earlier, Sherriff’s protegé, Penny Stephens, left the firm and took several others with her to Hall & Willcox.  This brain drain sets Freehills’ OHS practice back considerably.

However, Deacon’s first missive on the new OHS laws has been released, under the bylines of Sherriff & Tooma, and identifies several issues.  The first, and very useful to know, is the definition of due diligence that is now included in the Act under Duty of Officers:

“…due diligence means to take reasonable steps:

(a) to acquire and keep up to date knowledge of work health and safety matters; and

(b) to gain an understanding of the nature of the operations of the business or undertaking of the body and generally of the hazards and risks associated with those operations; and

(c) to ensure that the body has available for use, and uses, appropriate resources and processes to enable hazards associated with the operations of the business or undertaking of the body to be identified and risks associated with those hazards to be eliminated or minimised; and

(d) to ensure that the body has appropriate processes for receiving and considering information regarding incidents, hazards and risks and responding in a timely way to that information; and

(e) to ensure that the body has, and implements, processes for complying with any duty or obligation of the body under this Act; and

Examples

A body’s duties or obligations under this Act may include:

  • reporting notifiable incidents.
  • consulting with workers.
  • ensuring compliance with notices issued under this Act.
  • ensuring the provision of training and instruction to workers about work health and safety.
  • ensuring that health and safety representatives receive their entitlements to training.

(f) to verify the provision and use of the resources and processes referred to in paragraphs (c) to (e).”

This should provide more tips to OHS professional associations about where their services fit in general business obligations but it also sets the bar much higher for professionals in how they must upgrade their own OHS skills to match expectations.

Curiously, Deacons continues with issues of concern with the Act which have little to do with improving worker safety.  Several items hark back to the OHS Model Act Review Panel which has little more than historical interest nowadays but may reflect the fact that Barry Sherriff was a Review Panel member.  The list of concerns further supports SafetyAtWorkBlog’s position that safety law often masquerades as safety management.

Deacons concludes its update with the following “7 steps”:

“There are 7 steps that every business needs to undertake to prepare for this new era in Work Health and Safety regulation:

  • Legal risk analysis…
  • Review contracts …
  • Implement interface coordination plans …
  • Develop robust consultation processes …
  • Develop dispute resolution processes …
  • Develop processes on right of entry and regulatory rights and obligations …
  • Develop an OHS Corporate Governance Statement …”

Unsurprisingly, the first two involve assistance from one’s legal advisers.  SafetyAtWorkBlog recommends that businesses wait and see what support documentation is supplied by the OHS regulators first as it is they who determine the parameters for OHS compliance.

Businesses need to remember that the Work Health & Safety Act is not yet law and, in fact, has a long way to go before States introduces this law into their own jurisdictions.  Western Australia is still objecting to the law so it is unclear if this Act will ever be introduced without substantial change.  So until then keep following the local OHS legislation but keep both ears open in anticipation of the future.

Managerial federalism?

There are some OHS professionals in Australia who follow the harmonisation of the country’s OHS laws closely.  The current status is that the various public submissions are being analysed and discussed by the Government.

But for those who are hankering for some pre-Christmas reading the New South Wales Parliament has released a report called “Managerial Federalism – COAG and the States” written by Gareth Griffith.  This is not a report about OHS, although the topic does get a brief mention on page 25.

OHS harmonisation is perhaps one of the simpler reform processes compared with tax or the legal sector.

The report provides a very good summary of the various consultative structures that the Federal and State Governments operate within as the country changes to a process of “managerial federalism”.  The report summary defines “managerial federalism” as

“…defined to be administrative in its mode of operation, pragmatic in orientation, concerned with the effective and rational management of human and other resources, and rich in policy goals and objectives.  The States play a creative and proactive part but are, to a substantial degree, service providers whose performance is subject to continuous scrutiny and oversight.”

(“Rational management”?  Has everyone in the Australian government been told to read the book by Kepner and Tregoe?  Let’s hope it’s not the 1965 edition.)

Being familiar with some of the concepts and rationales in the report may help those lucky enough to be consulted on government decision-making to know their place in the wild scheme of bureaucratic policy-making.  It may even prove invaluable if you are the safety coordinator on one of the Governments’ many infrastructure projects.

Kevin Jones

How much does poor safety management cost?

In late November 2009, the Victorian State Emergency Services (SES) was convicted of OHS breaches over the death of one of its volunteers and was fined $A75,000.  The SES has chosen to allocate $A150,000 to a review of its safety management after strong criticism from the Mildura Magistrate, Peter Couzens.

In answer to the title of this article, a minimum of $A225,000 and one person’s life.

In May 2007, a volunteer with the SES a, 54-year-old Ron Hopkins drowned on a training exercise in the Murray River.  WorkSafe Victoria provides the following scenario:

“A boat took the four volunteers doing the [swimming] test out into the river and they got in to the water but Mr. Hopkins soon got into difficulty.

An oar was extended to him from the safety boat but he soon disappeared below the water.

Despite the efforts of the SES personnel to find him, his body was recovered the next morning by NSW police divers.

WorkSafe’s investigation found the safety boat had life jackets for the two assessors who were in the boat, but there were no other buoyancy devices which could be used in an emergency.

Some other participants involved in the swim test also experienced difficulties in the cold water and after swimming to the centre pylon of the George Chaffey Bridge, they held on to bolt heads extending from a rubber buffer attached to the pylons at water level. They were later picked up by the safety boat.

At the time of Mr Hopkins’ death the SES had no rule against carrying out swim tests in water where there was limited visibility or where a rescue could be difficult to carry out if someone got into trouble.

As a result, lakes and rivers were sometimes used as well as local swimming pools.

At the time of this incident there were a number of swimming pools with the facilities to help anyone one (sic) who got into difficulties in the Mildura area that could have been used for the test.”

Hopkins had been a member of the SES for seven years and had participated in searches associated with drownings previously, according to one AAP report.  The SES expressed regret and sympathy at the time of the incident in a media statement.   A short report of Hopkins funeral is available online.

As the Murray River runs on the boundary between Victoria and New South Wales a NSW coronial inquest was planned until the Victorian prosecution was announced.

At the committal hearing in June 2009, the magistrate allowed Hopkins’ widow, Meryl, some input in the Court procedures.  And in the November 2009 hearing, Mrs Hopkins’ victim impact statement is reported to have said that:

“… since the incident Mrs Hopkins had felt her life had lost meaning and she sometimes wished she had drowned with him.  The court heard she had experienced mental and physical health issues, including post traumatic stress, panic attacks, exhaustion and sleep disturbance.”

In 2003/04 Chris Maxwell undertook a review of the Victorian OHS Act and was critical of the special treatment provided to government authorities at that time and advocated that any organisation that breaches OHS law should be treated equally.  Maxwell told the Central Safety Group in 2004:

“I have to address a meeting next week of the Heads of Department to talk to them about the chapter entitled “The Public Sector As An Exemplar”.   They need it explained a little more fully. It is good that the Public Sector wants to grapple with the issue “what does that mean for us?”   It is a theme of the Report that the public sector should be treated exactly the same as the private.  It shouldn’t be otherwise but the history of prosecutions tends to make you wonder about that. I know John Merritt, the Executive Director is absolutely committed to that principle. It is interesting to note that the Education Department has recently received an Improvement Notice.”
In his actual report he advocated that government departments should not only be treated the same but that they should become OHS role models.  When comparing the Victorian situation with a UK review he wrote:
“I would go further, however, and suggest that government (as employer and duty holder, and as policy maker) can, and should, be an exemplar of OHS best practice.  By taking the lead in the systematic management of occupational health and safety, government can influence the behaviour of individuals and firms upon whom duties are imposed by the OHS legislation.”
If this had been embraced by the OHS regulator and government departments agencies imagine the state of OHS compliance on matters of workplace stress and manual handling in health care and other public service hazards.  And maybe, the SES OHS program would have been further advanced than it was in 2007 when Ronald Hopkins died.
© 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