Peter Arthur, a Partner with Australian law firm, Allens Arthur Robinson, spoke on Boardroom Radio on 1 April 2010 about new duties that national OHS laws will place on Directors.
Although there are six elements in the new general duty, Arthur says that they all can come under the category of “information flow”. Continue reading “Information flow is critical for sound Board decisions on OHS”
A link to an article of sound ergonomic advice was emailed to SafetyAtWorkBlog in early April 2010 suggesting readers may be interested. The article is entitled “The Ultimate Guide to Ergonomics: 50 Tips & Tricks for Serious Students” and contains some good suggestions but it seems to be based on some assumptions that are not necessarily present in the real world of students. Continue reading “Good ergonomics advice but prevention should have been emphasised”
“Certain occupational exposures appear to increase the risk of developing postmenopausal breast cancer”, is a conclusion reached by Canadian researchers and released in April 2010 edition of the Journal of Occupational & Environmental Medicine.
The researchers acknowledged that “some findings might be due to chance or to undetected bias some findings might be due to chance or to undetected bias”, but there is enough evidence to generate concern in occupational sectors and, often, the media shows increased interest in breast cancer research.
Several Australian scientists have advised caution on interpreting the research findings. Continue reading “Canadian research shows occupational link to breast cancer”
One of the most powerful motivators for behavioural change in workplaces is the legislative obligation on employees to not put themselves at risk of injury nor to act in such a way as to place others at risk.
Reported in the Australian media on 31 March 2010, Fair Work Australia has ruled that employees in the fruit-picking industry may volunteer for work beyond the standard 38-hour week without receiving penalty rates or overtime. The union movement is understandably concerned about how this financially disadvantages workers and how this ruling may spread beyond the fruit-picking industry.
The ruling allows fruit-pickers to choose to work beyond their regular shifts. Will they be able to work safely? Will they not be fatigued? Will they have sufficient daylight to undertake the tasks safely? Will there be sufficient downtime for workers to recover from a long work day and be fit for work? Could the workers’ choice to undertake additional fruit-picking tasks be a breach of their OHS obligations to look after their own safety, health and welfare?
The employees may choose to ignore their own occupational health for the sake of additional dollars but should they then be eligible for workers’ compensation if the effects of those longer hours are found to have contributed to an injury or illness? Continue reading “Employees’ OHS responsibility and working beyond the maximum hours”
On 25 March 2010, the International Labour Organization released an updated list of occupational diseases. On the ILO website, it is stated that
“Mental and behavioural disorders have for the first time, been specifically included in the ILO list.”
All occupational diseases, including psychosocial hazards, had to satisfy the following criteria in order to be considered:
The exact text from the revised List of Occupational Diseases Recommendation R194 is
“2.4. Mental and behavioural disorders
2.4.1. Post-traumatic stress disorder
2.4.2. Other mental or behavioural disorders not mentioned in the preceding item where a direct link is established scientifically, or determined by methods appropriate to national conditions and practice, between the exposure to risk factors arising from work activities and the mental and behavioural disorder(s) contracted by the worker”
What this means in practice is unclear and is likely to vary from country to country in relation to recognition of UN and ILO recommendations. What it does establish is that an international authoritative OHS body has acknowledged the existence of psychosocial hazards.
“The Eagle has landed” however there will remain some organisations who will always believe that occupational causes of psychosocial problems belong on the same sound-stage as the Apollo moon landings.
Continuing SafetyAtWorkBlog’s belief that the best advice on workplace safety often comes from people outside the OHS discipline, Professor Barry Schwartz of Swarthmore College was interviewed in the Australian Financial Review on 30 March 2010 (only available by subscription). Schwartz was talking about the social and regulatory impact of the global financial crisis but his take on the obeying of, and dominance of, rules seems equally applicable in OHS.
“Schwartz says the common response to crises…..is to reach for more regulation. But the problem is that these people who run these banks are smarter than any set of rules we can come up with. So what will happen is that [the rule] will work for a while, and then people will find a way to subvert them.”
He goes on:
“I think a lot of the trouble that we have is that you’ve got these people who run institutions, the CEOs, make speeches about how ethical they are and they may even mean it, but the people who are actually making the day-to-day decisions know that unless they make their targets, they are going to lose their jobs. Continue reading “Can OHS achieve “practical wisdom”?”
The current edition of Lawyers Weekly includes some thoughts from Australian lawyers on the impact of the harmonisation of Australia’s OHS laws.
Michael Tooma of Norton Rose believes that the new positive duty of officers has sparked interest in improving corporate governance.
Graeme Smith of Freehills has seen an improved recognition of lawyers’ roles in developing commercial contracts. He also sees OHS as being better accepted as an element of risk management. According to the article entitled “OHS shrugs off the GFC”, Smith believes
“…national harmonisation will raise the profile of OHS, and in the long-term, OHS will find itself established as a discrete but integral aspect of corporate governance, compliance and risk management…”
He sees this as a golden opportunity for lawyers. OHS law seems now to be dependent on lawyers where, before, it used to be a law that workers, managers and the layperson could read, understand and implement. Safety professionals need to use legal experts when required but should have the confidence to manage safety through the harmonised framework first. Crucial to whether the lawyers dominate will be the quality of guidance provided by OHS regulators and the authority of the voices of the OHS profession.