Professional standards – Page 15

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”

Self development course contributes to a workplace suicide

What would you do if a work colleague strips, screams, acts “like a child having a tantrum”, starts to sing and then jumps out of a window to her death? That is the situation that was faced by staff at the Sydney office of the Royal Australasian College of Physicians in December 2005.

Only days earlier, 34-year-old Rebekah Lawrence, had participated in a self-development course called “The Turning Point” conducted by Zoeros P/L trading as People KnowHow. The course, according to one media report, the course included a session called “The Inner Child”

“in which those taking part were encouraged to develop a dialogue between their child and adult selves.”

Lawrence’s actions just before her death mirrored some of the course teaching.

PeopleKnowHow’s website has closed down with an announcement that all of its courses are under review. Other organisations that provide similar courses are running for cover. Transformational Learning Australia has said it

“…no longer has a professional relationship, affiliation or any other connection with People Knowhow.” [emphasis added]

TLA also says any relationship ended in 2005. That the company has felt it necessary to make a media statement about the end of the relationship shows the extent of the effect of Rebekah Lawrence’s death on this industry sector.

TLA goes on to say that

Our organisation does not accept participants who have a recent history of chronic mental illness, participants under the care of a treating professional who have not obtained that professional’s consent to participate, or people who demonstrate a propensity towards psychological fragility or a significant lack of cohesion during the introductory sessions of the program.”

The New South Wales Coroner found that in the absence of any history of psychosis in Rebekah Lawrence that,

The evidence is overwhelming that the act of stepping out of a window to her death was the tragic culmination of a developing psychosis that had its origins in a self-development course known as ‘The Turning Point’ conducted by Zoeros Pty. Ltd, trading under the name of ‘People Know-How” on the 14, 16, 17 and 18 December 2005.

The full coronial findings are difficult to read due to the personal details of Lawrence’s life, her relationship with her husband David and the general picture of her personality that comes through. An upsetting and enlightening interview with David Booth is available online from earlier in the investigation process.

The findings also provide considerable detail to the components of the course that Lawrence undertook. There is a greater level of detail than would be expected to be known by someone signing up for such a course and this is where the lessons can be learnt for the OHS professional and safety manager.

It has become common in many corporations who are trying to improve or introduce a positive workplace culture, to supplement their own efforts with “self-help” or “self-awareness” courses. Lawrence’s death has highlighted the lack of regulation or accountability in some sectors of this industry. This also highlights the need for people managers to thoroughly investigate such courses to ensure that good intentions are not likely to increase the risk of harm or damage to the employees who participate.

An audio report on the Coroner’s findings is available online.

Counselling Services

Many workplaces often provide access to counselling services through schemes such as Employment Assistance Programs. The Coroner’s recommendations have some direct bearing on the issue of “counsellors”.

“The Executive Director of the Australian Psychological Society, Professor Lynne Littlefield pointed out that there are no legal restrictions in Australia for practising under the title ‘psychotherapist’ or under the title ‘counsellor’ and therefore no public safeguards against untrained or incompetent practitioners in this field.

Professor Littlefield pointed out that although there were many skilled counsellors and psychotherapists, there were also many whose competence is questionable and without any regulating mechanisms to stipulate the required training and levels of competence, there was no way of protecting the public from these poorly trained practitioners.”

Rebekah Lawrence’s death is receiving considerable media coverage in Australia at the moment and the New South Wales Government is carefully considering the Coroner’s recommendations concerning the regulation of some areas of the self-development industry. Employers and safety professionals are going to have a very different set of criteria shortly from which such workplace-related courses need to be evaluated.

One media report has indicated the start of the ramifications of this unfortunate death:

“The NSW Health Minister, Carmel Tebbutt, said she had asked her department for ”urgent advice” on the case and would consider the coroner’s recommendations. A code of conduct for counsellors and psychologists had already been implemented and the Health Care Complaints Commission now monitored practitioners.

The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists called for closer monitoring and accountability of self-help and psychotherapeutic courses.”

Kevin Jones

The “suitably qualified” challenge on OHS

A quick survey of some of the public submissions on the development of Australia’s model OHS Act illustrates the challenges facing the government after it decided not to include a requirement for only people who are “suitably qualified” in OHS to provide advice to business on workplace safety.

Organisations across the political spectrum have spoken in favour of including “suitably qualified” but “suitably qualified” is in the eye of the beholder. Several labour and trade union organisations believe that health and safety representatives (HSRs) are “suitably qualified” or “suitable qualified” people should assist HSRs in their work.

The Queensland Council of Unions says

“The WRMC [Workplace Relations Ministers Council] committed itself to a Model Act of the highest possible standards. In order to achieve this, the appointment of suitably qualified persons based on the Queensland model should be reconsidered and the recommendations of the Review implemented.”

Queensland’s OHS legislation had a system of Workplace Health and Safety Officers who were required by every company that had over 30 employees.

The Australian Council of Trade Unions said a PCBU [person conducting a business or undertaking] should

“…employ or engage persons who are suitably qualified in relation to occupational health and safety to provide advice to the PCBU concerning the health and safety of workers of the PCBU.”

The Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union says there should be an “employer obligation to engage a suitably qualified person to assist in H&S”.

Others see “suitably qualified” as a criterion that limits who would qualify for an OHS Entry Permit and what their powers can be. Wesfarmers Industrial Safety wrote:

“We contend that OHS Permit Holders must be competent to provide OHS advice and must provide a valid reason to justify entry, the only valid entry criteria being to assist the resolution of a reasonably suspected, specified contravention of the Health and Safety Act. To be effective they must comply with and support site/organisational procedures to enhance site health and safety outcomes and must not intentionally and unreasonably hinder or obstruct any business/undertaking or intentionally intimidate or threaten any business/undertaking or employee.

Suitably qualified in this context must also contemplate that they must not disclose information obtained in accordance with the OHS permit for any purpose other than to assist the resolution of the suspected contravention and must not take copies of documents: if serious concerns exist the Regulator can be requested to attend the site, they will request copies of relevant documents if required.

Additionally, the OHS permit holder and any organisation they represent must be held accountable for the actions taken by the OHS Permit holder.”

There are several challenges for the Australian Government on this issue of “suitably qualified”. Firstly, it needs to decide whether it can reverse its decision not to include a “suitably qualified” element into the legislation. To do this it would need to acknowledge that the reasons for exclusion do not match the sensitivities of the community. This could be embarrassing but also indicate a flexibility and capacity to respond to community concerns.

The government also needs to determine where “suitably qualified” fits. Should and HSR be suitably qualified or should this only reflect the OHS professionals? In both cases it puts the governmental up against the commercial training organisations and the university educators (the OHS professional associations have far less clout).

Some academics see the lack of the inclusion of “suitably qualified” as providing a lower level of workplace safety. Many of these submissions see “suitably qualified” as existing well above the level of HSRs to the professional level.

Professor Mike Capra of the University of Queensland, and other tertiary educators made the following plea:

“We the undersigned Professors of Occupational Health and Safety strongly recommend that the words “suitably qualified”* be inserted as appropriate in the model legislation in relation to the acquisition of advice regarding the health and safety of workers.

Our recommendation is based on the continuing high cost to the community in dollar terms and human suffering in relation to both work place (sic) injury and workplace induced illness which often has long latency and serious medical consequences.

Addressing such serious issues requires properly qualified professionals. The professional practice of OHS management requires skilled professionals with a sound foundation in the physical and health sciences as well as a strong knowledge base in the core OHS areas of health, safety, ergonomics, law, hygiene and toxicology and OHS management systems.

The universities across the country are offering professional entry programs at undergraduate and post graduate levels that are developing the OHS workforce. To sustain this workforce and ensure continued reduction in the societal cost of workplace injury, illness and death there must be recognition of the professional basis of OHS practice and it is imperative that this recognition is reflected in the harmonised legislation.

* Suitably qualified to be determined, as in other professions, by the relevant professional association and industry standards.”

Mike is very committed to improving health and safety of the Australian workforce and it is clear that the moral imperative is king. But it must also be noted that education thrives on the recognition of qualifications and a legislative requirement for suitably qualified OHS professionals would strengthen the case for the viability of tertiary OHS courses which, according to some sources, are in a perilous state.

One submission questioned the sense or practicality of having an HSR trained in safety beyond the skills of the PCBU. Shaw Idea wrote

“….the Model Act should require PCBUs to obtain advice from suitably qualified advisers. It is inconsistent to require HSRs to be trained, but not require PCBUs to either be trained or be advised by those with competence in relevant areas. The OHS consequences of incompetent or ill-informed actions by employers are far greater than the consequences of HSR actions.”

The OHS training industry has done themselves a disservice for decades by not having a formal OHS management course for safety or business managers. There is a big difference between training an HSR to manage upward to the employer and training a manager to manage the safety of a workforce. Leaving executive training to the tertiary sector has exposed a large vocational hole in business management of workplace safety.

It must also be stated that the editor of SafetyAtWorkBlog also made a submission to the Australian Government in which “suitably qualified” was discussed. Below is the relevant section:

“Many safety professionals are concerned that “suitably qualified” has been omitted for the proposed legislation. I think the reason given for its omission is poor but I do not support those who advocate the inclusion of the concept. The push has been particularly strong from Victoria and through a couple of OHS professional associations. No evidence has been made publicly available for the need for such a concept. It is something Victoria has had and it is loathe (sic) to relinquish. Good OHS advice is available from good OHS advisers and caveat emptor should apply on OHS advice as with any other.

The “suitably qualified” advocates like to compare themselves to other professions like medicine yet it is recommended even from within the medical profession that second opinions be sought. The safety profession does not advocate this very sensible suggestion.”

Kevin Jones

How to make positive training programs attractive to OHS professionals

Yesterday’s article on positive training programs and behaviour-based safety (BBS) has generated a great deal of interest and attention.

The article’s title should maybe have specified the “OHS context”. Like with Return-To-Work, OHS professionals need BBS and positive training to be explained to their understanding so they see how it fits with their own safety management systems. They need to have their own “light-bulb moment on the relevance of the training not be convinced of the need by a sales person.

HR professionals may be more receptive to positive training concepts because they are more familiar with the psych babble but OHS still has engineering as the basis for the profession. Only in the last 10 years have OHS professionals accepted (not universally) the legitimacy of psychosocial hazards and that, primarily, because the OHS regulators released guidance on the hazards.

Don’t try to apply leadership and training to OHS through HR because the jargon confuses. Introduce yourself to some OHS people and listen to them talk of their profession. Research the attitudes of the OHS people directly. Do not rely on external research surveys as it is more important for you to understand OHS people than for a survey to report “47% of OHS professionals think resilience training programs are twaddle”.

Once you have listened, go personally to other OHS professionals and practitioners with training programs that can be readily integrated into safety management systems. Don’t expect your potential clients to exert effort to understand you, it’s your job to understand them.

And don’t expect a quick decision. Good OHS professionals will ask their colleagues and peers what they think of your programs and concepts before getting back to you. They may even approach their OHS associations for an opinion.

Past approaches to OHS professionals on BBS and similar training have been embarrassing. One notable BBS advocate from the US spoke around five years ago to about 400 OHS people in Australia. At morning tea time around half left the (expensive) seminar convinced that BBS was a crock. That advocate is still highly regarded in the US but Australians just didn’t “get it”.

Slapping up a couple of pictures of the Sydney Opera House in a presentation, or walking the room like an evangelist, does more harm than good. Come prepared and prepared to listen and the OHS professional may “get it”…..even just a little bit.

Kevin Jones

Safe Work Bill, suitably qualified and professional plans

Dr Geoff Dell of Protocol Safety Management and a prominent member of the

Safety Institute of Australia (SIA), believes that the most crucial issue facing the safety profession in Australia is the lack of the requirement to use a “suitably qualified” safety adviser.

The Australian Government was recommended to include such a requirement in its draft OHS model laws but rejected the recommendation because

“an unintended consequence could be that persons conducting a business or undertaking would be encouraged to delegate their responsibilities”.

This is odd because the Safe Work Bill includes seemingly clear duties:

“The person who has management or control of a workplace must ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that the workplace, the means of entering and exiting the workplace and anything arising from the workplace are safe and without risks to the health of any person.”

Unless the “suitably qualified” person (undefined in the Safe Work Bill) is also the “person who has management or control of a workplace” who has to ensure safety, it is hard to see how the Government’s concerns about abrogated responsibility are relevant.

Dr Dell wrote to the Workplace Relations Minister, Julia Gillard, on behalf of the SIA.

“Our motivation for urging you for inclusion of a “suitably qualified” requirement in the model OHS legislation should not be misinterpreted as any desire on our part to diminish or eliminate the equally important requirement for companies to consult their workers, or the workers’ elected representatives, on issues and decisions relating to the workers’ health and safety. Collaboration of employers and workers in the delivery of appropriate workplace health and safety outcomes is an essential precept.

Rather, it is our strong view that when those workplace collaboration processes need the OHS advice of others, there is an important need to ensure the persons providing that advice have the appropriate credentials to deliver that advice to the maximum benefit of those involved at the workplace.”

The argument is repeatedly expressed as a comparison between a suitably qualified safety advisor and doctors or plumbers or other licensed or registered occupations. But the Government has twice now indicated that it sees no the risks of abusing such a formalised position outweigh the benefits – the first in not accepting a review panel recommendation and second by omitting the issue in the Safe Work Bill.

Should the safety profession, as a whole, continue to push the issue with an unsupportive government or should it accept that the battle is lost and begin a Plan B? A plan where, perhaps, the market begins to demand certainty about the skill level of their safety advisors to such an extent that a scheme of accredited safety professionals is an indispensable business resource?

This may be the tactic of the SIA in its support of an elite level of safety professional who must have a tertiary OHS qualification. It is certainly devoting considerable resources to the program, supported by hundreds of thousands of dollars from WorkSafe Victoria. The caveat of this approach is that the SIA gets control of the profession.

This is not the case with the professions with which the SIA likes to compare itself. Those professions have independent assessment bodies, ethics bodies and sometimes industry/profession ombudsmen.

What the safety profession needs to counter is the argument that the Government has accepted from somewhere, that business is highly likely to push its OHS responsibility to others if it can. The profession, and the SIA, needs to convince the Government that business will accept its OHS duties.

Dr Dell told SafetyAtWorkBlog that the Safe Work Bill has been written for lawyers by lawyers and seems aimed at what to do after an incident has occurred. It is about harm minimisation and not safety. He says that the preventative aim of OHS legislation has been severely diluted. In this he echoes some of the SafetyAtWorkBlog position that the new laws are not about safety management but about safety law, and have little bearing on the shop floor where hazards are most often faced and controlled.

It is also important to remember that OHS law was intended to be a law that could be understood by the layman and implemented by the layman. The new Safe Work Bill will be incomprehensible to anyone other than lawyers and even then, as seen from recent blog articles about Mike Hammond, Michael Tooma and others, the lawyers are unlikely to agree on interpretation and application.

Kevin Jones

[Note: Kevin Jones is a Fellow of the Safety Institute of Australia]

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

Return-To-Work and OHS

Many OHS professionals do not understand the return-to-work (RTW) process. Many OHS professionals choose to avoid RTW like the swine flu. In Australia, rehabilitation and compensation come under different legislation to OHS so it is easy to delude one’s self that they are different beasts.

On September 15 2009 at the WorkCover SA Conference, it was possible to argue the same ideological isolation as above but from the RTW stance. RTW can be as isolationist as OHS. Admittedly, the conference was about workers’ rehabilitation and injury management but it was surprising how many speakers talked about integrated management without mentioning OHS.

Is this demarcation widening? Was it formalised by the different Acts of Parliament? By different training backgrounds and criteria? By the different work-related government departments (they often inhabit the same office, share the same board members, but report to government separately?!)? Is the demarcation between the human resource specialists and the safety engineers?

In most workplaces such a demarcation would be unmanageable. Most workplaces, certainly the smaller ones, have the official RTW Coordinator role as part of the duties of an existing staff member, whoever is already juggling the personnel duties and often payroll as well. It is often a luxury to have a full-time RTW Coordinator.

It is noted that the Australian conferences of the OHS professionals rarely include RTW, and vice versa. Isn’t is just possible that some bright spark may offer a safety management conference that unites the complementary disciplines, professionals and government departments so that business managers can receive a combination of information that matches the reality?

Kevin Jones

Kevin Jones attended the conference with the support of www.rtwmatters.org an (increasing prominent) online RTW website, and WorkCoverSA.

Category: Professional standards

Health Department bans all employees from smoking at work

Like this:

Self development course contributes to a workplace suicide

Counselling Services

Like this:

The “suitably qualified” challenge on OHS

Like this:

How to make positive training programs attractive to OHS professionals

Like this:

Safe Work Bill, suitably qualified and professional plans

Like this:

OHS law debate and Law Society position

Like this:

Return-To-Work and OHS

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Counselling Services

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this: