OHS debate is over, says Deputy PM

Deputy Prime minister and Workplace Relations Minister, Julia Gillard, has told the Australian Financial Review (only available online to subscribers) that the OHS law changes were finalised at the recent Workplace Relations Ministers’ Council.

Gillard again rejected the trade union movement’s concerns about weakened worker protection.  The Minister emphasised that substantial economic benefits would flow to business as a result of increased administrative efficiencies.

However, the likelihood of a nationally harmonised OHS system seems as far away as ever with the West Australian Government continuing to refuse to apply the new laws which it sees as too friendly to the unions.

Significantly, the Australian Government has backed down from its earlier threat to penalise any governments that do not support the changes.  This lets the WA Liberal Government off the hook and provides the New South Wales Liberal Party with an easy platform option for the 2010 State election.

The conservative forces in Australia can take heart but Minister Gillard’s position has the union movement facing difficult decisions.  It has strongly funded a campaign against elements of the OHS laws and branded the laws as “second-rate safety”.  It now needs to decide whether to give up the campaign totally as a lost cause or to pare it back so that, over time, the campaign fades away, as did the industrial manslaughter campaign of around five years ago.

The ACTU has expressed disappointment but must have realised, privately at least, that some union powers, considered to be extreme by business and industry groups and over which the business complaints have been load and long, were going to be sacrificed in any harmonisation process.

Former Prime Minister and ACTU President Bob Hawke achieved many industrial relations reforms in the early 1980’s by pushing “consensus”.  This negotiation process had strong similarities to the current OHS harmonisation however big C Consensus is now rarely spoken by the Australian trade union movement.  One of the few contemporary outings was when current ACTU Secretary Jeff Lawrence, who expressed the disappointment above, speaking about industrial relations said on 14 June 2007:

“I’m tough enough but I’m also a person who likes to work by consensus”.

To operate constructively at the big tripartite table of OHS, the unions will need to accept a defeat and gain whatever they can from the new rules.  This is doubly important in the lead-up to the planned harmonisation of workers compensation.  Australia will see some fiery union rhetoric when harmonisation threatens to reduce the income and entitlements of workers who are already injured.

Kevin Jones

“Suitably qualified” looks dead

In many submissions to the Australian Government’s development of a Model OHS Act, there was a request, sometimes passionately made, for the inclusion of a legislative provision for “suitably qualified” OHS advisers.

This week’s Communique from the Australian, State, Territory And New Zealand Workplace Relations Ministers’ Council (WRMC) included no mention of “suitably qualified”.  So where does this leave the safety professionals?  What is the future of the WorkSafe-promoted Health & Safety Professionals Association?

For those safety professionals who wish to pursue the “suitably qualified” matter below is a list of the members and attendees of the latest WRMC meeting  (taken from the Communique) for you to follow-up.  However, it may be quicker to accept the reality and plan for professional credibility with the legislative crutch.

Kevin Jones

• The Deputy Prime Minister the Hon Julia Gillard MP, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations (Cth)
• The Hon John Robertson MLC, Minister for Industrial Relations (NSW)
• The Hon Michael Daley MP, Minister for Finance (NSW)
• The Hon Tim Holding MP, Minister for WorkCover (VIC)
• The Hon Cameron Dick MP, Minister for Industrial Relations (QLD)
• The Hon Paul Caica MP, Minister for Industrial Relations (SA)
• The Hon Troy Buswell MLA, Minister for Commerce (WA)
• The Hon Lisa Singh MP, Minister for Workplace Relations (TAS)
• Ms Katy Gallagher MLA, Minister for Industrial Relations (ACT)
• Ms Laurene Hull, Executive Director, NT WorkSafe (NT proxy)
• Mr Simon Finn MP, Parliamentary Secretary for Industrial Relations (QLD)

Apologies:

• The Hon Martin Pakula MP, Minister for Industrial Relations (VIC)
• Dr Christopher Burns MLA, Minister for Public Employment (NT)
• The Hon Kate Wilkinson MP, Minister of Labour (NZ)

OHS law and safety management

Regular readers will be aware that SafetyAtWorkBlog holds the belief that OHS legislation is not the same as managing workplace safety.  Safety can be managed without recourse to law (this is what many mean when they say that “safety is just common sense”) but legislation provides some parameters in which that management occurs.

The Australian Council of Trade Unions has issued a call for tougher OHS laws and used workplace fatality statistics as the basis.  Tying the two issues together serves a political purpose but avoids the fact that a range of economic, political, social and even environmental issues can affect how workplaces manage safety.

The media statement issued on 11 December 2009 says:

“A sharp rise in work-related fatalities last year shows that proposed new workplace health and safety laws need to be strengthened, not watered down, say unions.

There were 177 fatal injuries in workplaces in 2008-9, according to newly released statistics from the national regulatory body, Safe Work Australia. This is an 18% increase from the previous year…. [hyperlink added]

ACTU Secretary Jeff Lawrence said the increase in fatalities was disturbing at a time when proposed changes to Australian workplace safety laws would result in a weakening of protections and rights.

“A double-digit increase in workplace fatalities in one year is shocking,” Mr Lawrence said. “Each of these victims is someone’s partner, parent, son, daughter or friend.  The Federal, state and territory governments will make significant decisions about new national health and safety laws today.  If any evidence was needed that requirements for employers to provide a safe workplace need to be toughened, this is it. We urge the federal and state governments to make workers’ safety their highest priority.”

The ACTU is doing what it should by serving the needs of its members but the push for union prosecutions of OHS breaches is only one part of its social charter.  The aim of improving safety can be best achieved by motivating union members and establishing a dialogue with the general community, which includes business, small and large.

Is the day far off when we may see joint statements from unions and employer groups on the issue of workplace safety?  Can politics be put aside for the benefit of improving safety?  Comments welcome.

Kevin Jones

Crushed finger leads to claim and Court

Regularly in OHS  submissions to the government and on OHS discussion forums, safety professionals state that industrial relations should be kept separate from workplace safety issues.  In a perfect world ? Possibly, but there was a court decision on 13 November 2009 in Australia that shows that this separation is not possible in the modern world.

According to a media statement from WorkSafe Victoria:

Concrete panel supplier, The Precast Company, pleaded guilty in the Dandenong Magistrates Court on Friday 13 November to failing to provide an injured worker with suitable employment as required under Victoria’s workers compensation legislation.

The Court heard that the injured worker was employed as a crane operator when he suffered a crush injury to his finger. He attended Dandenong hospital and 5 days later was certified as being fit for alternative duties.

Two weeks later, he left work early on a Friday to attend his doctor. When he returned to work the following Monday he was informed that he had abandoned his employment and had no right to be there.

At the time, the company defended its action stating the worker had not been dismissed, but instead had walked out of the workplace half way through the day without reason.

As the injured worker had an accepted workers compensation claim, The Precast Company, in dismissing the injured worker, had failed to provide suitable employment despite the worker being certified as fit for alternative duties. Under the State’s workers compensation laws, an employer is required to provide employment to an injured worker who has a capacity for work.

The company pleaded guilty to one charge of failing to provide suitable employment and was fined $2,500 without conviction and agreed to pay costs of $1,500.

WorkSafe’s own summary of court action provides more details:

The defendant company operates in the building and construction industry. It has declared annual remuneration of about $2 million and has 45 full-time employees.  An employee working as a crane operator suffered a crush injury to his finger on 1 April 2008 and was issued with a certificate of capacity certifying him ‘unfit for all duties’ from 2-4 April and fit for alternative duties from 5-16 April. The worker returned to work on 7 April on light duties.  He left work early to attend a doctor’s appointment and returned to work on 14 April and continued light duties. He saw his doctor on 17 April and was issued a further alternative duties certificate from 17 April -1 May.

On 18 April the worker left work around midday to attend his doctor’s later that afternoon when he was issued with another certificate. At this stage he had still not submitted a claim form. When he arrived for work on 21 April he was told that he had abandoned his employment and had no right to be there. He went home and soon after sought legal advice. He lodged a claim for compensation that day which CGU accepted.

The defendant company’s director wrote to WorkSafe stating that the worker was not dismissed but had abandoned his employment on 18 April 2008. The director was overseas on that date and his explanation is based on what other staff have told him. The foreman provided a statement to a circumstance investigator that on 18 April the worker “just walked out of the workplace half way through the day. He would not provide a reason. As far as I was concerned he was abandoning his employment at this time.”

On 23 June 2008, the date that the worker’s claim was accepted, he was issued with a certificate of capacity certifying him fit for alternative duties until 21 July. By dismissing the worker the defendant company failed to meet its obligation to provide him with suitable employment once his claim had been accepted.

These are the only public details available at the moment but clearly effective communication was not occurring between the employee and the company.  Sometimes circumstances that involve safety become a more complex industrial relations issue which may lead to Court, no matter how hard you try to compartmentalise them.

Coincidence or unique perspective?

Since the end of the end of the public comment phase on Australia’s national model OHS laws, Safe Work Australia has been daily uploading submissions to their website.  Within the last lot of uploads was a block of around 100 submissions, all of which are marked confidential and have, apparently, been submitted by individuals.

One confidential submitter shares his name with a person who has been associated with some peculiar industrial relations behaviour.  In August 2009, during a heated industrial dispute concerning work on the West Gate Bridge, a trade unionist pleaded guilty to dangerous driving and to carrying a piece of pipe without lawful excuse, according to one media report.

A person with the same name is also listed in an order issued by the Federal Court of Australia in March 2009 that places restrictions on several people in relation to the West Gate Bridge project and the premises of contractor John Holland.

It is not possible to determine if this is a coincidence because the submission is confidential and submissions do not include contact details.  But if it is the same person, it is a shame that the OHS submission is not publicly available because a person who may have been involved in an intense industrial dispute and who may have been legally restrained would surely provide an interesting perspective on the relationship between OHS and industrial relations.

It is relatively easy to determine the politics of organisations that make submissions but when lodged by individuals political perspectives or professional connections cannot be determined, even when the submission is not confidential.  That such a large number of confidential submissions have been lodged is curious but due to due process, it is likely to remain so.

Kevin Jones

Working remotely does not mean it has to be unsafe

Australia is a big country and people work in very remote locations.  However OHS obligations do not apply only when it is convenient.  The law and duties apply equally wherever work is undertaken.

One example of safety improvements for remote work has been illustrated by the Community & Public Sector Union (CPSU).  On 10 November 2009 CPSU informed its members of amendments to the “Remote Travel Standards Operating Protocols”.  Some of those changes include

“Travel is twin engine aircraft is usual practise, but staff may be required to fly in single engine aircraft from time to time.  Employees will have the choice not to fly on a single engine aircraft if they have legitimate concerns for their personal safety.”

This acknowledges that in the Outback there are not always options but that union members can exercise whatever is available.  This also supports the individual’s OHS obligation to keep themselves safe.

Vaccinations for Hep A and B will be offered to employees before their first field trip, during orientation to remote servicing.

This is a standard travel safety option but often applied only for international travel.  To offer this domestically is sensible.

The union has also managed to introduce a

Dedicated section in the post trip report for all OH&S issues, including issues in office accommodation, and living quarters.

Traditional wisdom is “be seen, be safe” but this also applies to reporting an OHS matter.  If a form does not state that OHS is included, then it is increasingly likely that an incident or issue will not be reported.  Organisations also cannot be seen as deterring the reporting of hazards and incidents.

The next option is curious and a trial seems appropriate

Management agreed to a 3 week trial beginning the 6 December 2009 for the use of personal alarms in case employees are confronted with acts of customer aggression, or other dangers in the field. Management will be asking staff for feedback on this, which will inform their decision on whether to provide or not provide personal alarms to employees into the future.

The issues of safety when travelling remotely have been negotiated for many months and the CPSU website posted regular updates on negotiations.

CPSU members and public servants need to travel to remote locations to provide a range of services.  For instance, Centrelink’s Annual Report for 2008-09 says that

“Centrelink Mobile Offices, including the Murray-Darling Basin Assistance Bus, continued to travel around rural Australia to provide information and assistance to farmers and small business owners, their families and rural communities.”

These mobile offices covered 40,000 kilometres in one year.

Australia is a big country and urban safety professionals and policy makers need to be regularly reminded that a desk in an office is not a default workplace.

The “Remote Travel Standards Operating Protocols” are not publicly accessible by SafetyAtWorkBlog will provide a link, whenever possible.

Kevin Jones

Where is the evidence of OHS misuse for IR purposes?

The mainstream press has dipped into some of the submissions to the Australian Government on its harmonisation of OHS laws.  Kirsty Needham reports on the submissions in the Sydney Morning Herald.

Needham reports on basically the submissions of the Australian Chamber of Commerce & Industry and the Australian Council of Trade Unions – the ideological opposites on safety regulation.  She quotes ACCI’s David Gregory:

“There is no doubt that health and safety has been used as an industrial relations issue on plenty of occasions … we want to put reasonable boundaries around those entitlements.”

This position is always attached as a myth by the unions but it is an accepted fact in the minds of employers, OHS professionals and many workers.  The Royal Commission into the Building and Construction Industry in 2003 found that

“in the building and construction industry throughout Australia, there is…..widespread use of occupational health and safety as an industrial tool.”

“The types of inappropriate conduct which exist throughout the building and construction industry include….the use by a union of occupational, health and safety (OH&S) issues as an industrial tool, intermingled with legitimate OH&S issues;”

“Occupational health and safety is often misused by unions as an industrial tool.  This trivialises safety, and deflects attention away from real problems.  Unions have a legitimate interest in the safety of their members.  This should not be altered.  However, the scope for misuse of safety must be reduced and if possible eliminated.”

“Misuse of non-existent occupational health and safety issues for industrial purposes is rife in the building and construction industry.  Genuine occupational health and safety hazards are also rife.”

A major source of evidence for the repeated statement of fact is mentioned in the final report from February 2003 was an “OH&S case study (Tas).”.  SafetyAtWorkBlog is trying to obtain more details on this.

One example of the evidence that is readily available relates again to the Royal Commission.  The Commission undertook an investigation into industrial disputes a the construction site of The Age newspaper in Tullamarine.  The Commission reports

“the evidence from Mr Judson [Wayne Judson is a Director of Probuild] will be that during the negotiation of the project agreement (which was a period where any industrial action between Probuild and the unions would have been unprotected) there were many occasions when safety walks and OH&S issues were used as a device by the unions to pressure Probuild and Fairfax to agree to the project agreement and nominated shop stewards.

The potential misuse of OH&S raised, not of course for the first time in this Commission, is a very serious matter. To misuse OH&S debases the currency of safety. ‘Crying Wolf’ often enough on enough sites creates the risk that no one knows whether a safety claim is about something real and important or whether it is simply a means of supporting the latest industrial demand.”

Some of Commissioner Cole’s comments on the debasement of safety are sound but the “evidence” is from the builder and may not constitute the reality, only opinion in a submission to an investigative body.  The Commissioner carefully labels the issue “a potential misuse”.

SafetyAtWorkBlog would say that the fact of misuse of OHS issues for industrial purposes may be an example of the establishment of a fact through “crying wolf”, to use the Commissioner’s term.  The frequent statement of a belief does not establish a fact.

Also, to some extent, the construction industry hogs the OHS limelight in much of the tripartite consultation.  This is because of the industrially charged nature of construction in Australia and the fact that construction sites are usually highly visible to public.  The construction industry is an important economic driver but perhaps this prominence is masking some of the other OHS issues that the Government needs to consider.

As the Australian Government proceeds in its harmonisation of OHS laws and as it reads the hundreds of public submissions, there should be a red flag on each mention of the misuse of OHS for industrial purposes so that assertions are not misread as facts.

Kevin Jones

Australia’s employers’ thoughts on OHS law

The public submission period for commenting on the Australia’s OHS model laws has closed and the submissions are gradually being made available on the Safe Work Australia website.

At the time of writing there are around 15 submissions listed and Safe Work Australia has indicated that there are many more that are being sifted through at the moment.

Each submission had the option for the comments to be confidential.  Confidential submitters told SafetyAtWorkBlog that one reason for confidentiality was so that their comments did not reflect on their current employer.  This is understandable but also adds an allure to the submission.  It will be interesting to note which of the large associations apply confidentiality to their submissions.

One employer association who is “loud and proud” of their submission is the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry.  The ACCI submission is currently available only from its website.  Below is what the ACCI’s Director of Workplace Policy, David Gregory,  says in a media statement that accompanied the release of the submission

“…[Gregory ] has rejected union claims that business groups are pushing for changes that would reduce health and safety rights for workers.

ACCI also urged Australia’s governments to work towards a truly uniform national OHS system with respect to the approach by OHS inspectors, regulators and the courts.”

“Employers want a model Act that delivers both improved workplace safety outcomes and an effective legislative framework that will encourage employers and workers to be proactive and collaborative in improving the safety of their workplaces.  Unnecessary prescription will ultimately serve only to distract and discourage both employers and employees from delivering safer workplaces.  ACCI has provided some positive suggestions in its submission that should be adopted to improve the operation of the Act.”

ACCI has strongly backed the reinstatement of a definition of ‘due diligence’ in the model Act, as the absence of a definition will mean that company officers will be unclear about their duty and how compliance may be achieved.

Employers have also identified a number of aspects of the model OHS Act which are open to potential misuse such as union right of entry, persons assisting health and safety representatives, and procedures for establishing multi-employer workgroups, which require redrafting to ensure that they are fair and balanced and do not undermine the safety objectives of the Act.

ACCI in its submission advocates that the maximum penalty for a corporation under the Act should be set at the current Australian maximum of $1.65 million, arguing that the proposed $3 million maximum will simply fuel a litigious and compliance-based approach to OHS.

Gregory’s first point addresses ideology more than anything else.  The trade union movement will always be suspicious and uncomfortable with any organisation that is willing to put productivity before safety.  The introduction of  the ACCI submission makes it clear that the focus of the submission is not on improving safety but on improving the management of safety, two very different OHS approaches.

Recently a new book from Federation Press, “Work and Strife in Paradise“,  a history of labour in Queensland illustrated how industrial harmony existed in that state for decades prior to the introduction of Robens-style legislation.  For a long time unions and employer groups knew where they stood ideologically and therefore could anticipate responses and could negotiate from stable philosophical platforms.  The industrial relations changes from the 1960s onwards complicated negotiations which did have some impact on OHS in that State.

[For the first time, to SafetyAtWorkBlog's knowledge, a chapter is included in a labour relations book on research into employer associations.]

One would have to expect a definition of “due diligence” to be included in the upcoming OHS Act is the employers are in favour of this.  The consensus in many OHS seminars is that such a definition is required.

The concerns over union rights is a hoary chestnut that has not been seen as a problem in Victoria where many of the suggested legislative features have originated.

The issue of penalties is a little hollow.  Many corporate executives are covered by Directors’ & Officers’ Liability insurance as much as is possible.  And fines do not generate litigation. The neglect of obligations and duties lead to prosecution and then penalties.

The ACCI submission states more clearly that

“…OHS breaches should generally be subject to civil rather than criminal penalties. Such an approach should be taken for the entire model OHS Act and not just selectively applied to aspects such as breaches in relation to union right of entry.”

It would interesting to know what ACCI’s position is on non-financial penalty options.

The impression obtained from the ACCI statement and submission is that they were principally intended for the audience of the ACCI membership.  ACCI has a seat at the Safe Work Australia Council discussion table through its representative Annette Bellamy.  It is suggested that it is here where the conservative and capitalist arguments on OHS laws will be put.

Kevin Jones

Gov’t responds to insulation installer’s death

Recently SafetyAtWorkBlog reported of the death of a worker installing insulation in a domestic home.  A staple for the foil insulation apparently pierced an electrical cable and electrocuted the worker.

The Queensland Government has introduced mandatory provisions to avoid the hazard in the future.  In a media release on 1 November 2009, the Industrial Relation Minister, Cameron Dick,

“… issued a ministerial notice under the Electrical Safety Act 2002 to prohibit the use of metal fastenings for ceiling insulation.”

The ban is effective from 1 November 2009.

It may already be the case, elsewhere in the world, that non-conductive fasteners are used fro installing metallic insulation.  If not, the rules introduced by the government should prove useful references.

“The ministerial notice means that installers will have to use nylon or plastic fasteners (which are already in use within the industry), glue or tape to fix foil insulation in ceilings.

As well as banning metal fasteners, the notice also:

• forces insulation installers to comply with the Wiring Rules with respect to the placement of any type of insulation near recessed downlights
• makes electrical safety risk assessment training mandatory for all installers
• forces installers to document their on-site electrical safety risk assessments and keep a record f or five years.”

Such a mandatory rule is clearly a necessary short-term fix but it does little to address the concerns of the Master Electricians Association.  Training and enforcement are the long-term solutions but policymakers must also anticipate the applications of their policies more closely.  New policies should not be announced in an industry that does not have the resources to meet the policy’s aims.

Kevin Jones

Safe Work Australia Week podcast

Today, 1,500 union health and safety representatives attended a one-day seminar in Melbourne concerning occupational health and safety.  The seminars were supported by a range of information booths on issues from support on workplace death, legal advice, superannuation and individual union services.

Kevin Jones, the editor of SafetyAtWorkBlog took the opportunity to chat with a couple of people on the booths about OHS generally and what their thoughts were on workplace safety.

The latest SafetyAtWork Podcast includes discussions with the Asbestos Information and Support Services, the AMWU and TWU.

The podcast can be downloaded HERE