lawyers – Page 35 – SafetyAtWorkBlog

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

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

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

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: lawyers

OHS model law remains divisive

Like this:

OHS is becoming criminal law in a social context

Like this:

Perhaps a step too far on homes as workplaces

Like this:

Contractor management in Australia’s new 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: