On 24 February 2016 findings were handed down in the prosecution of another company officer under the due diligence provisions of the WHS legislation.
In WorkCover Authority of NSW (Inspector Moore) E&T Bricklaying Pty Ltd  NSWDC 369, Mr Kose, a company officer and on site representative of E&T Bricklaying was prosecuted for failing to exercise due diligence in breach of the New South Wales WHS Act.
It is not clear in what “capacity” Mr Kose was a company officer, whether he was a director, CEO or performed some other role. It also seems implicit in the judgement that Mr Kose was involved in the day-to-day work. At paragraph 10, the judgement states:
There were five personnel involved in the laying of the blocks. They were Mr Kose, Mr Rahimi …..
There is nothing particularly instructive about the case, and it certainly does not add anything to the body of knowledge about who is or is not a “company officer”. However, the case does raise an interesting question about whether these were the sorts of cases that changes under WHS legislation to create positive obligations of due diligence on company offices were designed to address.
It appears clear that in whatever capacity Mr Kose was acting, he was a hands-on company officer involved in the day-to-day operations of the business. A typical, small business working director.
Safety and health legislation around Australia has always had provisions enabling the prosecution, and the reasonably easy prosecution, of people in that position. In his excellent paper Personal Liability of Company Offices for Corporate Occupational Health and Safety Breaches: Section 26 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000 (NSW), Neil Foster points out that the vast majority of prosecutions against directors and managers involved officers who were directly involved in making specific decisions that led to the injury or fatality, and that the majority of companies whose offices were prosecuted were small (page 114).
This pattern seems to be repeating itself given the short history of due diligence prosecutions to date, and that despite all of the hoopla and razzmatazz attached to WHS legislation, in practical terms absolutely nothing has changed.
To the extent that due diligence provisions make it easier to prosecute company offices and increases the penalties against them, those provisions continue to be used against hands-on, working directors in small businesses. Senior executives and boards of large organisations who are not involved in the day-to-day operations of their businesses have nothing personal to fear from health and safety prosecutions.
I am not sure that was the point of the changes to WHS legislation, and it is certainly not what was sold – and continues to be sold – by the safety industry.
3 thoughts on “Is this really what due diligence was designed for?”