union – Page 31 – SafetyAtWorkBlog

Mining fatalities and accountability

The 11 November 2008 edition of The Australian includes a page 2 story where the previous manager of the Beaconsfield Mine has been called on to be held responsible for the management failures that led to the death of Larry Knight in 2006. The call was made by counsel for Larry Knight’s family and the Australian Workers’ Union in a submission to the Tasmanian inquest into the fatality.

According to the media report, the wrong decision was made in trying to stabilise the working area of the mine and that the risk assessment process was inadequate. The latter comment should be of considerable interest to OHS regulators and safety professionals.

The importance of the Tasmanian Coroner’s findings are illustrated by comments in the submission by the counsel for the mine. The media report says that

“…Dr Neal tells the Coroner the mine had done all it reasonably could to guard against the risk of rockfall and to manage the mine’s notorious seismicity.” [emphasis added]

This is particularly important when considering the introduction of “reasonably practicable” into the OHS legislation throughout the Australian States being considered by the National OHS Law Review.

It is regrettable that the to-ing and fro-ing in the inquest is not getting as much media attention in the non-mining states, as there have been many risk management and accountability issues raised. The media is likely to wait until the findings of the Coroner, Rod Chandler, and focus on the result rather than the journey.

There was a similar experience in New South Wales with the inquiry that followed the drowning of four mine workers at the Gretley mine in November 1996. The information did not resonate to the rest of Australia except through the mining sector, yet there were important lessons from the inquiry. Most OHS professionals, if at all, would recollect the prosecution of Gretley mine managers on matters of culpability, rather than the death of the four workers.

When the Tasmanian Coroner hands down his findings in the near future, it will be very useful to consider them in the light of the earlier reports, assessments and papers, among many others, listed below.

SafetyAtWorkBlog is a strong advocate of learning new OHS management practices by looking beyond one’s field of expertise. OHS professionals, safety managers and risk managers need to watch the action in Tasmania and other jurisdictions for themselves and not rely on a small group of OHS lawyers to bring matters to their attention and advise them how to avoid their responsibilities. Accountability is a moral and legal responsibility.

Holding Corporate Leaders Responsible by Andrew Hopkins

The Impact of the Gretley Prosecutions by Andrew Hopkins

Mine Safety – Law, Regulation, Policy by Neil Gunningham

A submission by the Tasmanian Minerals Council on CRIMINAL LIABILITY OF ORGANISATIONS – ISSUES PAPER NO 9, JUNE 2005 to the Tasmanian Law Reform Institute

N Gunningham, ‘Prosecution for OHS offences: deterrent or disincentive?’ (2007) Sydney Law Review, 29 (3), pp 359-390.

R Guthrie and E Waldeck, ‘The liability of corporations, company directors and officers for OSH breaches: a review of the Australian landscape’ (2008) Policy and Practice in Health and Safety 6(1),
pp 31-54.

N Foster, ‘Mining, maps and mindfulness: the Gretley appeal to the Full Bench of the Industrial Court of NSW’ (2008) Journal of Occupational Health and Safety – Australia and New Zealand 24(2),
pp 113-129.

National OHS Law Review – First Report released

The first report of the National OHS Law Review panel was presented to the Australian Government yesterday. The best initial assessment of the report can be found at a safety blog operated by Deacons law firm. In that report by Michael Tooma and Alena Titterton, the following points are made:

there should be a general duty of care for health and safety
“worker” is defined more broadly as ‘person who works in a business or undertaking’
“the Report recommends that a defined ‘reasonably practicable’ be built into the offence in the model OHS Act which reflects the current approach taken in all jurisdictions except New South Wales and Queensland.”
“The prosecution will bear the onus of proof beyond reasonable doubt on all elements of an offence”
Offences could be indictable and heard in front of a Judge and jury.
Increased penalties in line with those for environmental breaches – Corporation = $3 million, Individual = $600,000 Imprisonment – up to five years
An appeals process where cases could be taken to the High Court of Australia

“Reasonably practicable” remains a concept with a floating meaning for most business owners and OHS professionals. For a type of legislation that is intended to be readily understood by a layman, this legalese is disappointing however it is likely that clarification will come from the OHS regulators as it has already in some States. The review panel supports this type of clarification.

Interestingly, the report says on “the primary duty of care” that it “should not include express reference to control” and that

‘Control’ should not be included in the definition of reasonably practicable.

The panel says that “control” will be discussed in the second report as will the definition of a “workplace”.

The Deacon’s authors remind us that reports of this type are not automatically implemented by governments and that the review process has several months to run.

The report needs to be read carefully by OHS professionals as the recommendations will set the scene fro OHS law in Australia for, perhaps, decades. Also, going beyond the list of recommendations allows readers to see which of the issues considered were contentious and which had uniform acceptance.

The trade union movement is yet to release public statements but according to one media report, Geoff Fary of the Australian Council of Trade Unions is

“disappointed that a qualified duty of care would continue to rest with the employer”.

That same report is headed “Prison time for unsafe bosses” raising the spectre of industrial manslaughter. That does not seem to be case and may say more about the readership of The Australian or the politics of the sub-editors. However, it will be interesting to see the responses of the employer associations over the coming days.

Unions question the targeting and success of graphic WorkSafe ads

One of the most popular recent postings at SafetyAtWorkBlog has concerned the graphic ads aimed at young workers by WorkSafe Victoria. Last week a safety group meeting was told that WorkSafe focus groups of teenagers had said that to get the attention of young people on workplace safety, advertisements needed to be graphic and confrontational.

However, other young workers tell a different story. According to the Victorian Trades Hall,

“Feedback from young workers taken recently indicates the message they are taking from the ads is that if you get injured at work it is your fault. They paint a very negative stereotype of young workers.”

Trades Hall also reveals that WorkSafe’s own research does not necessarily fit with some of the current WorkSafe language:

“Research conducted for WorkSafe by Sweeneys in April this year does not demonstrate that young workers are ‘apathetic’. Rather it advises that young workers:

lack knowledge of their rights at work, what to do if they got injured, and of IR and OH&S issues;

mimic the behaviour and attitudes they observe around them from older workers and supervisors;

had a general reluctance to speak up or ask question because they are intimidated and worried about losing their job or think their boss will think they’re stupid;

are perceived as apathetic or arrogant by employers, which the research noted was due to young workers being too intimidated and worried about looking stupid to speak up.”

UPDATE: ads are now available through Youtube – nailgun, bakery, kitchen

It seems that the WorkSafe Victoria ads are not available on Youtube but the Canadian WSIB ads are. It is worth reading some of the comments posted under the videos to see what a small section of Youtube viewers, presumably the “Youtube generation” the ads are aimed at, think of the ads.

Given that next week is Safe Work Australia Week and WorkSafe Victoria is likely to promote the young worker ads as a cornerstone of its safety promotions campaign, it is worth trying to listen behind, or between, the good news to determine if the campaign will, in reality, achieve the aims of reducing young worker deaths and injuries.

Recent satirical television shows, such as The Hollowmen, have shown a possible manipulation of focus groups in a similar way that the production of departmental reviews were shown to be politically influenced in Yes Prime Minister. Focus groups and market research may be the best techniques we have but that doesn’t mean that the findings should be uncritically accepted.

Australian Greens Senator speaks on OHS legislation

Senator Rachel Siewert spoke on Australia’s review of OHS law on 13 October 2008.The Senator summarised the statistical reason for OHS legislation (included here as statistics is a popular issue at SafetyAtWorkBlog), as well as the societal context.

Australian Greens Senator for Western Australia Rachel Siewert

“The importance of occupational health and safety is obvious from looking at even just a few key statistics. In 2004 Access Economics estimated that there were 4,900 work related deaths each year in Australia. The ABS calculated that 690,000 employees suffered from a work related injury or illness in 2006. The Productivity Commission found that, in 2004, workplace deaths, injuries and illnesses cost the economy over $30 billion a year. These figures go to the economic and, importantly, the personal and social costs of workplace injuries and deaths. Behind each of those numbers is a person with a family, workmates, friends and a community.”

Senator Siewert reiterates the timetable for the initial report of the National Review into Model Occupational Health and Safety Laws is due by the end of this month but also identified a plethora of inquiries, agreements and discussions that will also inform the Australian government’s ultimate decision on OHS law. She supports the concept of tripartism:

“We believe that building on best practice in OH&S in this country and around the world is to implement genuine tripartism and independence. On these criteria, this legislation is too skewed in favour of governments and to the detriment of other key stakeholders in OH&S regulation-that is, employees and employers. [The Robens report in the 1970s]. It went on to recommend that statutory recognition of joint consultative practices-including government, employees and employers-need to underpin the new approach.”

But also makes the pitch for broader representation:

“If you agree with this approach-and all of Australia’s OH&S laws are based on this concept-then you also have to acknowledge the importance of genuine participation of employers and employees through a representative structure. The NOHS Commission did recognise this and was established as a statutory corporation with a membership structure incorporating employee and employer representatives. Its functions included formulating policies and strategies relating to OH&S matters, reviewing and making recommendations for the making of laws relating to OH&S matters, researching OH&S matters and conducting inquiries into OH&S matters.”

My recollection of NOHSC was that representation remained the domain of employer associations, trade unions and the government. Independent OHS specialist were few and far between. Given the dreadfully poor rate of union membership in Australia, it would have been more progressive for the Senator to nominate independent OHS specialists and to propose a 25% ratio of represntation for each of the representative groups so that (hopefully) apolitical opinion could be provided on a subject that should be apolitical. (And I still think an OHS Ombudsman is a practical and useful concept.)

In 2004, in its report into national workers compensation and occupational health and safety frameworks, the Productivity Commission made a number of recommendations relevant to the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission, including having a specific objective of achieving national uniform OH&S regulation and joint funding from the states. We note that this bill does implement these recommendations. The Howard government, however, instead of implementing those recommendations, once it got its chance by taking control of the Senate, abolished the commission. Prior to being able to abolish the commission, the previous government had already reduced its funding significantly. Between 1996 and 2005 the then government slashed the budget by over $4 million. We believe OH&S was never much of a priority for the Howard government.

The Senator places the proposed Safe Work Australia authority in a particularly awkward position:

“Safe Work Australia fits somewhere in the middle of the NOHSC and the ASCC. It continues the practice of being tripartite-although inexplicably downgrading the representation of employee and employer representatives-and, while more independent of government than the ASCC, is significantly less independent than the NOHSC.”

Other Greens’ concerns are:

reduced representation
vague definitions on ‘authorising body” or those associations who become represnetatives
excessive and unnecessary ministerial control, including veto
two-thirds majority decisions
insufficient funding for research

It would be interesting to hear the thoughts of other minor parties although the position of Family First may change in line with varying economic situations.

Is consultation really a “two-way exchange”?

Talking about safety in the workplace is, by far, the best way to introduce and foster a healthy OHS environment. OHS regulators in Australia have been pushing this for sometime.

A colleague of mine has pointed out an apparent anomaly in relation to consultation posted by WorkSafe Victoria on their website earlier this week. In relation to Provisional Improvement Notices, WorkSafe says

“Consultation can still be said to have occurred even if:

* the duty holder does not respond to the HSR [Health and Safety Representative] in a reasonable time or at all. In this case, the HSR can take the failure to respond into account before deciding to issue the PIN. There does not have to be a two-way exchange – only the opportunity for this to occur;”

This sounds odd to me and I hope that one of the SafetyAtWorkBlog readers may be able to explain.

My colleague posed this question on the issue of consultation:

“If the duty holder generated an OHS issue and the HSR did not respond, would there still only need to be an ‘opportunity for this to occur’?”

It seems a far question when workplace consultation is supposed to be a “two-way exchange”.

Beaconsfield inquiry seems quiet but there’s conspiracy fodder

Several readers have asked for information about what is happening at the Tasmanian coronial inquest into the death of Larry Knight at Beaconsfield Mine in 2006. Since the return of Beaconsfield’s legal team, media reporting has been fairly quiet as expert opinions and risk consultant reports are argued over. There is considerable effort being expended to determine what the mining company knew and when.

Conspiracy theorists could benefit from reading about the late appearance of, apparently, important documents. The underground mine manager, Pat Ball, had taken notes at mine meetings where seismicity issues were discussed in 2005 and 2006. The notes were only presented to the inquest last week as Mr Ball had only just relocated them. As these notes were missing, the previous investigations, such as that by Greg Mellick, could not draw on the information.

This has lead the legal team for Larry Knight’s family and the Australian Workers’ Union to issue

“a request for all such documents, later defined to include all notes, memoranda, minutes and diary entries relating to daily head of department and weekly planning meetings between October 9, 2005 and April 25, 2006. This includes any such documents generated by Mr Ball, mine manager Matthew Gill and chief geologist Peter Hills.”

Conspiracy or stuff-up? Always go for the stuff-up first.

Construction industry bullies

Workplace bullying is a possibility in all workplaces but more so in the blue collar construction industry than elsewhere, it seems.

The front page report in The Australian confirms the blue-collar bully stereotype that the former conservative government tried to gain political mileage from, most noticeably in political advertising, but also in political rhetoric over the years.

The article reports threatening language and physical imposition towards inspectors from the Australian Building and Construction Commission (ABCC). There was verbal abuse and insults to both the male and female inspectors. John Lloyd, head of the ABCC, is quoted as writing in a letter to the building company Brookfield Multiplex, that his inspectors:

“”feared for their safety and believed they would be assaulted if they had left the vehicle”.

The article also says that John Lloyd believes the incident, being investigated by the police, to be

“the worst abuse encountered by his inspectors in 1400 building site visits.”

The ABCC has draconian powers and there is, obviously, tension between the ABCC and construction workers however there is no excuse for workers breaching their OHS obligations to visitors to their worksite, regardless of the organisation the visitors represent.

The industry and unions have tried to eradicate it for safety and political reasons but on some sites it persists. The Construction, Forestry, Mining & Energy Union says that no CFMEU employee or officer was involved in the incident. That is good news but it was very likely that many of the participants were CFMEU members. The union should remind its members that the ABCC inspectors have the right to carry on their work tasks in a safe and healthy manner even if their presence is objectionable.

The construction workers involved in this incident are doing their case against the ABCC no good at all by their threatening behaviour. Indeed it allows the Labor government the chance to use similar rhetoric to that used by the Liberal Party – construction industry bullies and union thugs. Let’s hear the CFMEU discipline their members on their OHS obligations to others.

Tag: union

Mining fatalities and accountability

Like this:

National OHS Law Review – First Report released

Like this:

Unions question the targeting and success of graphic WorkSafe ads

Like this:

Australian Greens Senator speaks on OHS legislation

Like this:

Is consultation really a “two-way exchange”?

Like this:

Beaconsfield inquiry seems quiet but there’s conspiracy fodder

Like this:

Construction industry bullies

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: