As I write this, hundreds of workers’ memorial services are taking place around the world. I usually attend the Melbourne, Victoria, event and wish I could have been there today because one speaker, Lana Cormie, transcended the usual politics and platitudes to outline a broader strategy for occupational health and safety (OHS) reform.
Most countries and regions seem to have a sport of cultural significance. Australia has several, but all professional sports are played in workplaces, the players are employees, and the sporting clubs are employers. Most have a supervisory and administrative body. Recently, an Australian Rules Football player, Elijah Hollands, displayed signs of a mental health condition during a match. Some spectators noticed that “something was wrong”; some players noticed this at the time, but Hollands played three-quarters of the game, offering only one direct contribution to play, before he was taken off, to only return later in the last quarter. The ABC and 7News provide a good background to the situation
The questions that remain unanswered are why Holland’s employer did not remove a clearly unwell player earlier, and whether the Carlton Football Club breached its duty of care.
By now, SafetyAtWorkBlog readers are well aware that the ways to prevent psychosocial hazards and manage psychological harm and safety are well established. A brand-new global report from the International Labour Organisation in support of next week’s World Day for Safety and Health at Work provides excellent information on psychosocial hazards, but I wanted to know more. I wanted to know why these hazards exist and thought the ILO report may offer some answers or clues.
The most effective way to prevent psychological harm at work is to redesign work and its systems, especially the workload. What is often overlooked is the need to redesign the workload of and the expectations we have for senior executives. The Australian Financial Review published an article on this issue, drawing on the personal experience of marketing executive, Roni Millard.
A post written by Wade Needham (April 15, 2026), and reproduced with permission.
Two judgments totaling 75,000 words were handed down across 2024 and 2026. Not everyone will read them. Everyone should understand what they establish.
Years ago, during commissioning work at Port Hedland for the Roy Hill project, someone asked me how I knew the night shift crew were following the isolation procedure for livening the sub stations. I could name the critical risk. I could point to the training records, the procedure, the sign-off sheet, the safety advisor on shift. And when they asked how I knew it was being followed at 2am when nobody was watching, I paused. Long pause. Then I said something like “Well, the reports don’t show any issues.”
I have never forgotten that pause. Because I knew, in that moment, that I was describing paperwork. Not reality.
That is the most dangerous sentence in safety governance. The reports don’t show any issues. It is the sentence that sat underneath everything that went wrong at the Port of Auckland. I wanted to distil down elements of the judgement I found insightful.
But first, a too-long, don’t-want-to-read summary for those short on time.
Continue reading “A Workplace Death. An Upheld Conviction. And a Standard Every C-Suite Officer Should Understand.”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.
It still surprises me that treating work‑related mental harm as something prevented through job design, rather than as a personal failing, is seen as a revelation. Humans are infinitely variable, if not from genetics, then from our socialisation. Humans may still be considered as little more than interchangeable parts in a production process, but only if one denies their humanity.
[Editor’s Note: This article uses blunt language to describe a reality many workers experience but struggle to name. It does not encourage impulsive resignations or dismiss the importance of organisational duty under OHS law. Rather, it recognises that when employers refuse to address psychosocial hazards, workers may be forced to prioritise their own health. Leaving a job should never be the first control considered—but for some, it becomes the only effective one available.]
