Public sector union capitalises on WorkSafe bullying campaign

Through March 2010, WorkSafe Victoria is running a series of seminars on the issue of workplace bullying throughout Victoria.  In support of the campaign, the OHS regulator has a series of ads in the newspapers (pictured below left)

Cheekily the Community & Public Sector Union has “piggybacked” on the promotional campaign emphasising that the Victorian Government is changing the law to make it more difficult to claim workers’ compensation Continue reading “Public sector union capitalises on WorkSafe bullying campaign”

Industrial Manslaughter mentioned in Australia’s Parliament

Earlier in February 2010, the recently appointed leader of the conservative Opposition, Tony Abbott, said in Parliament that the Minister for the Environment, Peter Garrett could have been charged with industrial manslaughter over the deaths of four insulation installers funded indirectly by the Government.  It was all oratorical bluster with little legal credibility.

However, it did remind some that industrial manslaughter laws are a reality in some Australian jurisdictions and remains a policy objective of some political parties.

In the Australian Senate on 25 February 2010, the Green Senator, Bob Brown, moved

“That, with regard to the comments made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Abbott) on industrial manslaughter, the Senate accepts the need for strong national industrial manslaughter laws.” Continue reading “Industrial Manslaughter mentioned in Australia’s Parliament”

Workers’ compensation for travel time injuries will need resolving

Following on from BHP Billiton‘s shift to employees over contractors, a media report on 21 February 2010 illustrates changes in shift lengths that one union says may increase fatigue in the workplace.

BHP Billiton says the company has a fatigue management policy and procedure that can allow for the flexibility of the new shift options but the CFMEU is very concerned about the safety impacts of the shift options.  The Mining Industry Road Safety Alliance illustrates a major flaw in the process that is often reflected in issues of shiftwork and fatigue management  in other industries – increased risk in travelling to and from work. Continue reading “Workers’ compensation for travel time injuries will need resolving”

Unsafe worker gets his job back

The front page story in the The Australian newspaper has generated many emails and phone calls to SafetyAtWorkBlog from irate safety professionals.

The nub of the story is that Fair Work Australia has reinstated a worker who was sacked because of consistently unsafe work practices.

It is important to remember that the decision by Fair Work Australia is undertaken under the Fair Work Act 2009 and not occupational health and safety regulations.  In the case of Norske Skog Paper Mills (Australia) Ltd the relevant OHS legislation would have been New South Wales.

The story revolves around the dismissal of an employee not the unsafe actions of that worker. Continue reading “Unsafe worker gets his job back”

Australian employer groups are out for blood

For some reason several Australian newspapers on 16 February 2010 carried articles about the possibility of prosecuting the Federal Environment Minister, Peter Garrett, over recent deaths associated with an insulation rebate scheme, he launched and his Department administers.

The employers are drawing a long bow to support their calls.  They are linking several related OHS issues in order to score political points the recent High Court decision on New South Wales (NSW) OHS laws, the Federal Government’s programs for harmonising OHS laws and the insulation installer deaths. Continue reading “Australian employer groups are out for blood”

PPE can be a lazy OHS solution

One of the occupations with the clearest need for personal protective equipment (PPE) is that of a firefighter.  There are few other industries where PPE has such a high priority in workplace safety but sometimes PPE can still be forgotten.

A report on ABC radio and online  in Australia on 11 January 2010 shows that even in firefighting PPE may be forgotten.  The firefighter was the first one to take a fire hose to a shop fire and did not have on any breathing apparatus (BA).  His fully suited colleagues caught up with him and began fighting the fire.  It appears from this one media report that the firefighter kept his attention on fighting the fire rather than taking a break and putting on his BA.  Shortly after he began feeling unwell.

Research

On 4 January 2010 the Australasian Fire and Emergency Service Authorities Council (AFAC) released a firefighting information package, based on an early September 2009 workshop, that includes some interesting information about firefighter health and safety.   Continue reading “PPE can be a lazy OHS solution”

John Holland prosecution

The John Holland Group has featured several times in the SafetyAtWorkBlog in 2009.  Any organisation as large as this Australian conglomerate who promotes their commitment to safety and whose Board Chair, Janet Holmes a Court, has such a high profile is going to draw media scrutiny.  In fact, the evolution of the John Holland safety culture and the struggle to maintain such a culture as a company grows in profitability and complexity would make a fascinating case study.

On 18 December 2009, Comcare released details of its latest successful prosecution of John Holland.  This time the company was fined $A180,000 over the death of a worker, Mark McCallum, at the Dalrymple Bay Coal Terminal in Queensland in May 2008.  According to the media statement:

“Justice Collier stated that “It is clear that, despite the efforts taken by the respondent to implement a safe working environment, the operation involving the transportation unit was flawed in its original conception. The dangers were obvious from the start, relatively simple to avoid, but unrecognised and unaddressed in a manner which raises the objective gravity of the offence in these proceedings towards the higher end of the scale.” [emphasis added]

When a judge determines that the process was flawed from the very start, one’s expertise in managing an established practice safely should be critically reviewed.  Such fundamental failures in a safety management system should cause any company to realise something is wrong in the way it is addressing safety needs, particularly in an economic climate that is bursting with new infrastructure projects for which one is competing.

The circumstances of the fatality are that

“A team of five John Holland workers were involved in moving large precast concrete decks to the end of a jetty under construction.  The precast concrete decks were being transported on two jinkers that were being pushed by a front end loader.  During this procedure, a worker’s foot became trapped under wooden scaffolding planks on the jetty, and he was fatally injured when he was run over by the wheels of the jinker.”

The Federal Court judgement listed the safety deficiencies that John Holland acknowledged

“The respondent acknowledges that:

(a) its work method statement did not adequately identify the risks associated with the relevant work process, and did not adequately identify suitable control measures to remove or minimise those risks; and

(b) it did not carry out a plant hazard assessment with respect to the front and rear jinkers, which may have identified a requirement for a remote braking system or other controls on the jinkers for use by spotters and others; and

(c) it did not have in place a formal system whereby employees were certified as being competent in the use of jinkers; and

(d) it did not have in place a formal protocol or procedure for the use of radios to ensure that the transmitter of a radio message was able to be informed that the message had been received by its intended recipient and understood; and

(e) it did not have sufficient communication mechanisms in place to ensure that employees working out of sight of the loader operator and the rear spotter were able to communicate directly with spotters and the loader operator; and

(f) it did not ensure that an observer of a trainee jinker operator was also issued with a radio to directly communicate with the other members of the transportation crew responsible for the propulsion of the load; and

(g) it did not provide workers who were working out of sight of the loader operator or rear spotter with any form of alarm or safety device, other than a radio to alert other workers of the occurrence of an emergency situation; and

(h) it did not ensure that the clearance of obstacles in the path of the loader was done in a timely or effective manner, thereby requiring the front jinker operator to perform that duty during the progress of the transportation unit and whilst out of the line of sight of the loader operator.”

Mark McCallum’s death gained even greater media attention when unions challenged John Holland’s nomination for a safety award shortly after McCallum’s death.

Kevin Jones

Concatenate Web Development
© Designed and developed by Concatenate Aust Pty Ltd