politics – Page 149 – SafetyAtWorkBlog

What is the OHS “public interest”?

On 7 May 2010 Judge Lacava of the County Court of Victoria increased the $A25,000 fine applied to A Bending Company to $A75,000.

WorkSafe’s Acting Director for Health and Safety, Stan Krpan, said in a media release:

“The fact that the Director of Public Prosecutions [DPP] found the original penalty inadequate, and the increase in the fine on appeal, demonstrates the courts’ attitude towards health and safety offences.”

The DPP made the appeal to the County Court after a request for review of the original fine was made by WorkSafe Victoria. According to the judge’s decision (not yet available online):

“The appeal by the Director is made pursuant to section 84 of the Magistrates’ Court Act 1989. The section gives the Director the power to appeal to this Court “if satisfied that an appeal should be brought in the public interest“.” [emphasis added]

So how was the public interest served by increasing the fine by $A50,000? Continue reading “What is the OHS “public interest”?”

The politics of the insulation debacle become clearer

The debacle of the Australian Government’s insulation job creation scheme faded when the scheme was cancelled suddenly by the Government earlier in 2010. Attention was always going to return at various stages as investigations into the deaths of young insulation installers begin but Parliament resumed earlier and the Opposition attacked. The attack has led to the release of correspondence between the Minister responsible for the debacle, Peter Garrett, and the Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd. (A good example of the role of an effective Opposition in ensuring open government)

The news papers on 28 May 2010 have focused on the fact that the Prime Minister was aware of the serious occupational health and safety deficiencies of the system months before serious action was taken on the scheme. However, the correspondence also indicates that Garrett was not inactive on the safety risks in 2009 as many critics allege. Continue reading “The politics of the insulation debacle become clearer”

“We will trust but we will verify” – upcoming lessons from the Gulf of Mexico

The mass media is full of reports on legal action being taken on behalf of shareholders in BP over the continuing oil spill from the former Deepwater oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico.

An Australian video report was broadcast on 25 May 2010 and a composite article has appeared in The Australian on 26 May 2010 as well as elsewhere. Many outlets are mentioning the law suit (Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority and Robert Freedman v Anthony B Hayward et al, Court of Chancery for the state of Delaware, No. 5511) but no details of the suit are publicly available at the moment.

Although safety is mentioned as one of the bases for the suit, it is likely that environmental impact will get prominence over occupational safety and that impact on stock value will be of the most concern. The shareholder outrage mentioned in some of the articles seems to focus mostly on the financial impact on BP share value rather than any moral outrage on environmental impact or dead and injured workers.

BP CEO Anthony Hayward has acknowledged the substantial “reputational risk” but his comments are almost always reported surrounded by financial bad news. Continue reading ““We will trust but we will verify” – upcoming lessons from the Gulf of Mexico”

Australian roundtable podcast on workplace bullying

On 21 May 2010, Boardroom Radio (BRR) released a podcast on workplace bullying that includes opinions from some worthy speakers.

Andrew Douglas, Managing Director at Douglas LPT;

Wayne Blair, Fair Work Australia Commissioner;

Gail Hubble, Barrister; and

Anna Palmer, HR Consultant, at Provenio Consulting

Some of the questions are a little peculiar such as whether current generations are more “vulnerable” to bullying. Speakers responded that there are more opportunities for bullying now due to new technologies Continue reading “Australian roundtable podcast on workplace bullying”

Harmonising bullying terminology extends well beyond OHS

In May 2010, Workplace Health & Safety Queensland uploaded a Workplace Harassment Assessment Tool. The curious element to the information is that Queensland does not mention the word “bullying” even though the assessment criteria cover this hazard.

As Australia moves to harmonised legislation on workplace safety issues, the harmonisation of terminology is going to be important and probably subject to lively discussion. Continue reading “Harmonising bullying terminology extends well beyond OHS”

Lack of separation of pedestrians and forklifts results in $A24k fine

SafeWorkSA has released details of a successful OHS prosecution concerning forklifts, yet again. But the full judgement has more management information than is usual and deserves to be read in full.

The circumstances, according to a media release (not yet available online) are

“…an incident… in August 2007 in which a 56 year old delivery driver tripped over the tines of a forklift which was about to exit the curtained doorway of a cold-room.”

The judgement in the South Australian Industrial Court expands upon the charge:

“… that Kerafi, being the occupier of a workplace, had failed to ensure so far as was reasonably practicable that means of access to and egress from the workplace was safe. Continue reading “Lack of separation of pedestrians and forklifts results in $A24k fine”

Workplace bullying – more of the same

In November 2009, a New South Wales Government committee reported on issues concerning bullying. Much of it concerned school-related bullying but there was some evidence and recommendations concerning workplace bullying of apprentices and trainees. On 12 May 2010, the Government responded to the recommendations.

By and large, the responses to the work-related bullying recommendations are uninspiring with the Government exploiting the loopholes left for it in the recommendations. For instance, the Committee recommended:

“That the NSW Attorney General examine the adequacy of the existing legal framework for bullying related offences, and identify any legislative changes that could enhance the legal protection provided to victims of bullying and cyberbullying.”

The long-winded response is that there is a lot of activity but with no definitive aim. But then the recommendation did not call for results, only “examine” and “identify” opportunities.

The Committee report is more interesting than the Government’s response due to the access to various submissions on school, work and cyber-bullying but it has quickly become only of historical interest and added to the pile of missed opportunities.

Kevin Jones

Category: politics

What is the OHS “public interest”?

Like this:

The politics of the insulation debacle become clearer

Like this:

“We will trust but we will verify” – upcoming lessons from the Gulf of Mexico

Like this:

Australian roundtable podcast on workplace bullying

Like this:

Harmonising bullying terminology extends well beyond OHS

Like this:

Lack of separation of pedestrians and forklifts results in $A24k fine

Like this:

Workplace bullying – more of the same

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this: