Category: Case discussion

I have read and understood ….. What is the value of providing safety documents to employees?

~ My safety thoughts ~ 3 Comments

A recent NSW Industrial Relations Court decision has agitated the question of whether an employer needs to provide written safe work procedures to its employees as part of their duty to provide a safe workplace.

In Inspector McCarthy (nee Shaw) v Siva & Jeya Pty Ltd [2015] NSWDC 15 a company and its director were prosecuted after an employee suffered severe burns while filling a burning pot used to heat food trays for a buffet style meal. The pots were filled using methylated spirits.

One of the allegations in the case was that the employer had not provided the employee with a “written safe work method” for the task. The Court found that the failure to provide the written information was not a breach of the employers obligations:

I do not think that the case for providing her with a written safe work method is made good. The written document for an immigrant such as Anisha may be difficult to comprehend and follow and may not necessarily be effective. A spoken direction is more likely to be effective.

This is not unprecedented, or unsurprising. In a 2013 South Australian decision, Moore v SD Tillett Memorials Pty Ltd [2013] SAIRC 47 it was alleged by the prosecution that the employer should have kept a record of a training document, and who that document was provided to. In relation to that allegation the Court said:

This is of course desirable but what would it have achieved against a background of constant verbal reinforcement? Recording who received the document had not been carried out in the past although there was a universal awareness of the document by the employees and former employees …

Another instructive case is Inspector Shepherd v Desiya Pty Ltd [2013] NSWIRComm 9. In that case workers were provided with “on the job” training in relation to operating machinery and traffic management in a work yard. An employee was killed when he was hit by a truck.

One of the allegations against the company (which was ultimately convicted) was:

The training and assessment of drivers of yard trucks was done via ‘on the job training’ and assessment.

One the job training is a legitimate training method, indeed, as illustrated by the Siva & Jeya Pty Ltd case, may be the appropriate method. In the case of Desiya, on the job training was a deliberate and legitimate strategy:

Verbal instructions were commonly used … as a control measure against employees with poor literacy skills not understanding the written instructions contained within training documentation.

The difficulty lay, not in the strategy, but the execution.

The competence of the trainee or trainer was not assessed against any documented objective criteria. After this ‘training’ process, if the driver was assessed as competent by the supervisor they were then permitted to operate the truck.

There are many appropriate and legitimate ways that an employer can discharge their obligations to ensure that employees are trained and competent to perform their work safely. These might include formal class room training, on the job training, computer based training, the use of written work instructions and so on.

The lessons from these, and similar cases, is that simply providing safe work procedures to employees is not sufficient to discharge and employers obligations. In all likelihood, simply providing training, no matter what its purported “quality” will not be sufficient either.

Documented safe work procedures should be developed and maintained, but they are not an end in themselves – they are simply the evidence of the “objective criteria” against which workplace safety will be judged.

To discharge obligations to ensure relevant training and competency in the workplace, employers need to be able to demonstrate that:

  1. Workers have been provided with the relevant information about how to do their job safely;
  2. Workers understand that information;
  3. Work is actually performed in accordance with the training; and
  4. There is ongoing supervision and enforcement of the training.

Equally importantly, this does not require dumbing everything down and treating workers like fools. Give workers the information they need to do their job safely, trust them and supervise them with respect – you might just be surprised by the results.

Boal V BHP – Zero Tolerance: Are your “systems” commensurate to your attitudes?

~ My safety thoughts ~ 1 Comment

I am not a fan of the language of “zero“, either as an aspiration or as a stated goal. It has never sat well with me, and seems so disconnected from day to day reality in both society and a workplace that people cannot help but become disconnected from, or dismissive of, the message behind the term. My view has always been that the language of zero actually undermines the objectives it is trying to achieve.

If you are interested in this topic (and if you are involved in safety you should be) there are far more passionate, learned and articulate critics of the language of zero than me – See for example, anything by Dr. Robert Long.

However, as a lawyer who specialises in workplace safety and health, I was very interested in a recent decision by the Fair Work Commission that demonstrates how an employers attitude of zero can be used against them.

In Mr Shannon Boal v BHP Coal Pty Ltd (U2014/5272), Mr Boal was dismissed for breaching mobile phone usage requirements when his mobile phone was found in the cabin of the truck he had been operating.

While the Fair Work Commission found that there was a valid reason to terminate Mr Boal’s employment, it found that the termination was unfair for a number of procedural reasons. In part, the Fair Work Commission relied on the level of training and information that Mr Boal had been provided about the relevant procedure.

The training documentation provided did not clearly demonstrate that employees were trained in this new procedure and signed accordingly, or that it was given a significant roll-out to employees commensurate with their ‘zero tolerance’ attitude to incidents of breaches, given how this case has been pursued (my emphasis added).

Whatever your view about zero as appropriate language for managing workplace health and safety issues, there is no doubt that it is strong, absolutist language. If you are going to frame your approach to safety in the rhetoric of zero, you need to be sure that your actions at work match the rhetoric. If you don’t, your workers will see your safety messages as nothing but “window dressing“, designed to look good but basically meaningless, and lawyers will use the term to undermine the efficacy of your systems.

Case discussion: Capon v BHP Billiton – Part 2 the appeal

~ My safety thoughts ~ 4 Comments

Early in 2013 BHP Billiton was convicted and fined $130,000 following a fatality at one of its facilities in Port Hedland. They were also ordered to pay $300,000 in legal costs.

Amongst the reasons for the conviction was BHP’s apparent failure to implement and enforce its own requirements for supervision and risk assessments by workers.

A video presentation and discussion about the case is available by following the link below:

Capon v BHP Billiton Iron Ore PH 1917/11

On 28 July 2014, the Western Australian Supreme Court allowed, in part, an appeal by BHP against the conviction. A key finding was that, while BHP did not enforce or supervise its own processes in relation to JHAs or Take 5s, that failure did not “cause” the fatality.

You can access a copy of the case here:

BHP Billiton Iron Ore Pty Ltd v Capon [2104] WASC 267

You can also see a video presentation and discussion about the case by following this link:

BHP Billiton Iron Ore Pty Ltd v Capon [2104] WASC 267 – discussion

(There is also an App available if you want to download the presentation to your device and view it later – iSpring Mobile Player)

A key question that comes out of the case – and one that I think has had some relevance for a number of years now is, what value does the JHA process add to our safety management system, and is there a case for removing them from our day to day processes?

At least, it seems that there is an arguable case that the JHA process should not be adopted with such lemming like dogma, and we can consider front line risk assessment processes that actually add value to our business.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Contractor Safety Management: Waco Kwikform Ltd v Perigo

~ My safety thoughts ~ 1 Comment

A recent NSW Court of Appeal decision has examined the very interesting (and vexed ) issue of how the actions of a Principal can create liability, by taking over responsibility for a Contractor’s safety system of work.

In Waco Kwikform Ltd v Perigo and Workers Compensation Nominal Insurer [2014] NSWCA 140, the Court found, in part, that by developing a Safety Work Method Statement, Waco had taken primary responsibility for the safe system of work out of the contractor’s hands.

You can see a video presentation about the case by clicking here.

And apologies, but there has been a little bit of a glitch in the sound quality – there is sound but you might need to turn it up.

I also need to let you know that there is a new app available to make watching these video updates easier. You can find it by clicking here.

The app will allow you to watch the presentation, or download it so you can watch it offline later.

Best Regards.

Paper Based Safety Systems in a Contract Environment

~ My safety thoughts ~ Leave a comment

Two recent cases have highlighted the focus that is put on documented safety systems following a serious workplace incident. The cases have also shown that despite the mountains of paperwork deployed in the name of safety, organisations still struggle to understand if health and safety risks are being controlled.

The cases are also instructive because they both arose in the context of contractor safety management.

The first case, Hillman v Ferro Con (SA) Pty Ltd (in liquidation) and Anor [2013] SAIRC 22, examined the perils of contractors creating safety management systems to meet the requirements of the client, rather than the risks of their work.

On 16 July 2010 a fatality occurred during lifting operations at the Adelaide desalination water plant. A rigger employed by Ferro Con (SA) Pty Ltd was killed when he was struck on the head by a 1.8 tonne steel beam.

The Company, Ferro Con, and its Director, Paolo Maione were prosecuted under South Australian health and safety legislation, and in June 2013 were handed fines of over $200,000.

The case has attracted a lot of attention because Mr Maione was able to call on an insurance policy to pay his penalty – effectively avoiding the punishment of the Court. However, the judgement also offers good insights into the weaknesses of “paper based” safety management systems, a compliance mentality and lack of assurance. The judgement also explores some issues in the Principal/Contractor relationship.

It seemed clear from the case that the “safety system”, such as it was, was designed to meet the need of the client, not manage the risk associated with the work:

No detailed JSA’s for different types of lifts, or lift plans, were required by Adelaide Aqua. Ferro Con took its cue for the level of safety planning it would use in its work from Adelaide Aqua, and not from the foreseeable hazards of its work activities. Ferro Con was more focussed on complying with contractual requirements than taking all reasonably practicable steps to minimise the foreseeable hazards its business created.

The inappropriate nature of safety documents in a contracting relationship was also looked at in Nash v Eastern Star Gas Ltd [2013] NSWIRComm 75, only this time, from a Principal’s perspective.

In August 2009, Bruce Austin a working director of a small business, The Saver Guys, died from head injuries after he was hit by a length of pipe that was being extracted from the ground.

There were many different entities involved in the contractual arrangements, and a number of parties were prosecuted. This case, however, looked at the safety arrangements in place between Eastern Star Gas Ltd (ESG) and Austerberry Directional Drilling Services Pty Ltd (ADD).

The case provides some useful insights into the expectations placed on businesses removed from the conduct of the physical work by a contractor. It also demonstrates how an organisations’ own, documented safety management systems (in this case a contractor safety management system) can be used to show that the organisation is not meeting its obligations.

The general “failure” in this case was that:

ADD did not have a documented safe work procedure or method (SWP) for the Activity and no job safety analysis or risk assessment for the Activity was conducted by ADD

However, the criticism of ESG, the defendant in the case, related to both ADD’s system, and ESG’s own system and conduct. The Court noted:

  • ADD OHS documents, including 42 SWPs, were from another job.
  • ESG did not require any documents specific to the job it was doing.
  • ESG did not check if the safety documents were appropriate.
  • No inquiries were made by ESG to check if the safety documents addressed the activities on this job.

The Court also noted that ESG operated in breach of its own contractor safety management system, for example:

  • ESG’s contract representative did not ensure the work was subject to Hazard identification and risk assessment, including that a safe work procedure approved and JSAs were done.
  • There was a requirement to assess contractor performance, but there was no program for that assessment, and no assessment was in fact done.

These were not things that the Court thought were a good idea – these were requirements set out in ESG’s own system.

The Court found that the:

… defendant had, in its paper systems, a roll (sic) for auditing and for checking. However, what it did not do was to comply with its own systems and that included a failure to carry out any checking of safety issues at the site.  If documented safety systems are not complied with, then that failure creates a significantly legal risk. More importantly, however, if the documented safety systems represents what should be done to create a safe workplace, non-compliance far from being a legal risk, means that our workplaces are not safe.

If documented safety systems are not complied with, then that failure creates a significantly legal risk. More importantly, however, if the documented safety systems represents what should be done to create a safe workplace, non-compliance far from being a legal risk, means that our workplaces are not safe.

Contractor safety management series Part 5: KCGM v Hanekom

~ My safety thoughts ~ 1 Comment

Hi again everyone. Apologies for the break in posting over the last month, but all is explained in the video presentation below.

Today I  am looking at another case in our contractor safety management series.

KCGM v Hanekom involved a fatality on a mine site, and looks at the very interesting question of the extent of a Principal’s obligations when they impose safety obligations on a contractor. There is also the vexing question of what “liability” does a principal take on when they “approve” a contractor’s systems?

The upshot of the case is, I think, that If we impose health and safety obligations on our contractors we are responsible for:

  1. The “quality” of those obligations;
  2. Ensuring that those obligations are complied with

You can access a video presentation about the case here.

Contractor safety management series Part 4: The Queen v ACR Roofing

~ My safety thoughts ~ Leave a comment

The Queen v ACR Roofing involved a fatality at a construction site, when a worker was electrocuted after a crane contacted overhead power lines. The worker was employed by a sub-contractor engaged by a 3rd party, and did not have any contractual relationship with ACR, the company that was prosecuted.

The case explores a number of interesting concepts, including whether a sub-contractor can be “engaged” when there is no contractual relationship. The case also explores the ongoing issue of “control” in a contracting relationship, and considers what role the relative “expertise” of the parties has in determining who has control.

You can access a video presentation about the case here.

Contractor safety management series Part 3: Nicholson v Pymble No 1

~ My safety thoughts ~ 1 Comment

Nicholson v Pymble No 1 (Inspector Nicholson v Pymble No 1 Pty Ltd & Molinara (no 2) [2010] NSWIRComm 151) is not strictly speaking a contractor safety management case. However, it does involve a contracting relationship, but more importantly, it builds on the issues of “control” that we looked at in the last presentations.

Pymble had engaged a contractor to carry out construction work at the premises, and there were a number of allegations that the construction site was unsafe. Mr Molinara was a director of Pymble and lived in South Australia.

Pymble and Molinara were effectively charged on the basis that they were both (relevantly) “persons” with control of a premises being used by people as a place of work, and they failed to ensure that the premises were safe and without risk to health.

The case turned on whether Pymble and/or Molinara had relevant control.

You can see a short video presentation about the case here.

Contractor safety management series Part 2: Stratton V Van Driel Limited

~ My safety thoughts ~ Leave a comment

Stratton v Van Driel Limited is the second case in our contractor safety management series.

It is a somewhat older decision, having been handed down in 1998, but useful in that it looks at a narrow issue that is very important in the context of contractor safety management: Control.

In 1995 Mr Baum, a roof plumber was seriously injured when he fell down a ladder. Mr Baum was employed by Signal & Hobbs, who in turn had been engaged by Van Driel Limited, to do work on the new Dandenong Club in Dandenong, Victoria.

The essence of the charges against Van Driel was that it had not done everything Reasonably Practicable to provide a safe system of work, in that it had not managed the risks associated with working on the roof.

Van Driel defended the charges on the basis that they did not have relevant control over the way an independent contractor did their work.

You can access the video presentation of the case here.