On February 2016, the New South Wales division of the Master Builders of Australia (MBANSW) launched a new mobile app that applies augmented reality (AR) to access safety information related to construction sites.  The software has the capacity to access safety information in the form of videos, text, documents and internet links that can put occupational health and safety (OHS) information into the hands of workers.

There is great potential in this software application and the MBANSW should be acknowledged for supporting a technology that is still in its early development but offers an additional way of accessing important occupational health and safety information at the place where may be most needed – in the hands of workers.

But the app is not the answer to everything and, thankfully, MBANSW never claimed it was.  There are technical and organisational limitations to the app but it is a very good start.

The app is called Pro-Vis AR and is available for Apple and Android products. It has evolved from the Provisual safety information posters that many Australian workplaces have.

John Hutchings displaying the AR

The augmented reality option allows a static poster, image or website, to be interactive by recognising markers that are included in the poster. For instance, a marker may be included in a working at heights poster or a website – the scenario presented at the launch. The app recognizes the marker and manifests the content.  That content could include a video of how to work safely and prevent falls from height. It may link through to the most relevant Code of Practice or a safety alert, a safety checklist or other safe working information.  The AR is a key to safety information that brings that information to your smart phone or iPad.

The limitations of the app are common to many safety apps.  Some, like Pro-Vis AR, are configured for the 4G network.  Anyone using the app through wi-fi or 3G will have very slow access to the content which will test the patience of a construction worker on site who needs to verify  a Safe Work Method Statement or work practice.

Many construction workers have smart phones but might prefer a simpler phone that, at best, offers reliable phone and text message access.  Modern smartphones are also notoriously fragile.

Advocates of these type of apps like to profess that a high percentage of young workers or Australians have smartphones and therefore they are open to accessing safety information.  Having a smart phone is different from using it for accessing safety information.

David Solomon, Executive Officer Safety, MBANSW

Like most apps Pro-Vis AR is limited by the content it accesses.  Existing OHS content is mostly available through the Internet with a bit of searching.  Pro-Vis AR accesses the same information but in a different way and allows for the information to be repackaged and personalised to meet the needs of specific workplaces, industry sectors or workforces.  This is a very attractive option but it has to compete against all the other distractions accessible through the phones such as compilations of Safety Fails.

Where the Pro-Vis AR app is most likely to succeed is:

• with safety alerts or other time-critical information being pushed out to those workers with the app;
• making a weekly toolbox talk available throughout the worksite or project by video-ing the toolbox and uploading it to the app’s servers. (Multiple toolboxes could be archived to create a safety library specific to a particular project or work activity);
• ensuring that the same safety information is available at the same time to multiple worksites (and remote locations if 4G is available);
• encouraging the provision of safety information to be truly multi-media, and or multilingual.

On that last point, imagine if a safety alert format was not limited to a single A4 piece of paper which is (assumed to be) posted on a safety noticeboard and people view, maybe, once.  Pro-Vis AR allows for the safety alert to include an audio description and, perhaps a video, of the focus of the safety alert be it a crane collapse, failed lifting lugs, poor quality or non-compliant personal protective equipment, or other issue.

Brian Seidler, Executive Director, MBANSW

The production of such content used to require a lot of professional video equipment but many smartphones allow for hi-definition video and the internet (even though 3G) allows for that video to be uploaded and shared.

Safety apps are not solutions.  They are tools used to support a company’s safety management system and the skills and efforts of the safety professionals.

The MBA, like many longstanding employer and industry associations, struggles to keep up with modern technologies, new approaches to workplace safety and the changing industrial demographics. MBANSW’s David Solomon and Brian Seidler (both pictured above) have been prepared to face these challenges/obstacles and support a new way of providing safety information, to, particularly, younger construction workers and apply media formats that are likely to be more engaging.

Kevin Jones

SafetyAtWorkBlog attended the event as a guest of MBANSW.

The Victorian Government has concluded the public hearing section of its inquiry into Labour Hire. Industrial Relations Minister Natalie Hutchins has said in a media release that

“Evidence has been put to the inquiry suggesting widespread  underpayment of award wages, tax avoidance, nonpayment of superannuation, poor occupational health and safety practices, maltreatment of workers and backpackers on visas, and, in some instances, allegations of illegal conduct.”

This article focusses on the occupational health and safety (OHS) evidence provided through the submissions to the inquiry.

Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry

OHS is clearly referenced in its Terms of Reference but many of the submissions illustrate that interested organisations do not “get” workplace safety or only see safety through Industrial Relations.

The Australian Chamber of Commerce & Industry (ACCI) says it does not

“… endorse poor health and safety practices. However, there are detailed and in many respects, complex laws in place to address improper or unlawful practices.” (page 5)

ACCI then references a suite of legislation including the Fair Work Act and migration laws.  This combination is complex, but in the context of safety, the OHS Act has clear safety and health obligations of employers and workers.  OHS laws have been purposely written to be clear and understood by the layperson and have copious amounts of plain English guidances, codes and handbooks.

Complex situations are often addressed by reducing the problem to its parts. OHS can be addressed as single component while being aware of the issues on the periphery.

Dr Elsa Underhill

The research work of Dr Elsa Underhill was repeatedly quoted, referenced and supplied by submissions to the inquiry.  Her research into the potential health and safety effects of precarious and insecure employment are readily available online with some as attachments to her inquiry submission. Dr Underhill herself made a submission which stated that:

“All studies of labour hire workers and occupational health and safety in Australia and overseas have found that labour hire employees are more likely to be injured at work, compared to direct hire workers in like occupations” (page 4)

“All studies of injured labour hire and other forms of temporary employment, in Australia and overseas, have found that those injured at work are less likely to be offered employment post-injury than permanent employees” (pages 4-5)

The Inquiry asked for evidence and Underhill provides local authoritative evidence on a range of labour hire issues including workplace safety. It is up to the Inquiry how much attention is given to OHS.

Australian Institute of Employment Rights

The Australian Institute of Employment Rights took the opportunity to promote The Australian Standard of Employment Rights which includes specific OHS issues.  For those advocating a holistic approach to workplace relations, safety and culture it is worth being familiar with, however this has existed since 2009 and still has a relatively low profile which may indicate its difficulty in cutting through into mainstream consideration (or political favour).

Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation

Those organisations from the health and medical sectors provided strong arguments, often because they focussed on the inquiry’s topic rather than dusting off an old agenda simply because the inquiry provided an opportunity. The Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation (ANMF) stated that labour hire produces negative effects on worker safety because there is:

“less access to training and less focus on these employees by host employers…” (page 2)

The ANMF uses this issue as part of their argument, echoed by many submissions, for a form of certification or accreditation for labour hire providers that provides:

• “occupational health and safety training and updates annually
• access to paid professional updates annually (in the case of nursing that they receive at least 2-3 paid days of mandatory clinical education at the expense of the agency)
• adequate induction into any new workplace (including a workplace the worker has not been placed in during the last three months) in respect to safety, technology and work systems.” (page 6)

This type of information or consultation is already a legislative obligation under the OHS Act for other workers and Health and Safety Representatives and should not automatically be seen as an additional cost burden to business.

Centre for Employment and Labour Relations Law & Gangmasters

The Centre for Employment and Labour Relations Law (CELRL) states that

“Currently, there is no legal obligation for host companies to inquire about the work practices of labour hire suppliers, save for the requirement under work health and safety legislation that both host firms and labour hire agencies have a duty to ensure the health and safety of labour hire workers so far as is reasonably practicable.” (page 20)

This is the case in Victoria but would have been different if the Victorian Government had signed up to the harmonised OHS laws that would have placed greater emphasis on the obligation for a due diligence on OHS matters.  To some extent the OHS due diligence obligations have bled across the borders through large multi-State organisations but it seems less prominent in Victoria than elsewhere and certainly seems not be used in the labour hire sector.

Significantly CELRL discussed the Gangmasters Licencing Authority (GLA) operating in the UK in the context of licencing the labour hire sector in Victoria.  It is useful to note that the GLA emerged as response to the deaths of 23 cocklepickers in Morecambe Bay in 2004.  These traumatic workplace deaths were too many to be ignored and the government responded.  Victoria has not had such a single disaster on the same scale but the revelation of an accumulated exploitation created the Victorian Labour Hire inquiry (as well as similar inquiries in other Australian States) and licencing will be hard to avoid.

Interestingly the GLA made a submission to this Victorian inquiry which provided a clear outline of the powers that such an authority would require over and above substantial inter-agency co-operation, such as:

• “Power of entry to premises, and to require the production of documents (section 16)
• Examine records in any form of media
• Enter under force to search and seize, with a court warrant, in criminal investigations (section 17)
• Power of arrest for those acting without a licence (in practice this is discharged through joint investigations with the police
• Authority to conduct surveillance, control informants, and obtain specific telephone data from mobile service providers under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000
• Initiate financial investigations
• Conduct IT forensic examinations” (page 2)

Such powers in a government-run licencing authority will be hugely unpopular with many employer groups as those groups and their members will be the collateral damage from this response to unscrupulous labour hire providers and their clients.

The UK has found that in this instance, like so many safety-related laws, laws require enforcement, and this is where any regulatory body can be neutered.  Opponents could allow such laws to come in but then constrain any authority through a lack of resources limiting its enforcement and influence.  Victoria’s Independent Broad-Based Anti-Corruption Commission could be considered a local example of this strategy.

The GLA also referenced the significance of focussing on the supply chain, an increasingly attractive opportunity that is banging heads against corporate ethics.  GLA wrote:

“Where workers are supplied the organisations in the supply chain have some specific responsibilities. Where they themselves provide accommodation or transport they will be responsible for its safety. They will also be responsible for negotiating with the labour hire company who provides the health and safety induction training at the site to which workers are provided, and agreeing who is responsible for the provision of personal protective equipment (PPE). Higher in the supply chain we would expect ethical auditors of the supermarkets, etc, to have an increasing awareness of the proper treatment of workers, so that they may identify any areas of concern and ensure they are referred to the appropriate authority for action.” (page 7)

The focus of any complaints from industry and employer groups about the “red tape” generated by introducing licencing should not be to the government that is simply responding to brutal exploitation of workers, but to the labour hire providers and clients who have been turning a blind eye to the abuse.

Master Builders Association Victoria

These submissions were made after the Inquiry released its background paper and the areas on which it required comment.  The Master Builders Association Victoria (MBAV) responded to one question  posed of OHS relevance:

“What role do labour hire companies play in supply chains for the provision of goods and services? Do other actors in those supply chains have responsibilities towards labour hire workers, whom they do not directly engage?
The major area in which other actors in the supply chain have responsibilities towards labour hire is in regard to occupational health and safety. Ultimately, this rests with the entity having control of the site, being the principle [sic] contractor. The role of labour hire companies in this regard is no different in practice to other subcontractors working on-site.” (page 11)

This is a concise response that fails to address the reason for the Inquiry.  How should these issues be addressed when the principal contractor chooses to ignore the law for its own financial advantage?  No one has much of an issue against labour hire as a concept and a viable labour supply structure but users exploit the system.  Several submissions, like the MBAV’s, fail to address the nub of the reason for the Inquiry, how can people be stopped from exploiting and injuring workers in labour hire arrangements?  Too often the response is to trust employers who, largely, do the right thing. But the “largely” is not where the problem lies.

The Future

Victoria’s Inquiry into the Labour Hire Industry and Insecure Work is not yet over.  As mentioned above, other States have, or are, conducting inquiries into similar labour hire issues.  The inquiries are independent but the Governments’ responses could be (forgive the word) harmonised.  This would be an effective countermeasure to those labour hire exploiters who operate across States and would allow for the sharing, if necessary, of resources, a particular advantage for those agricultural areas along the river boundaries of three States.

Coordination of responses would also allow for the enforcement to operate under the National Compliance and Enforcement Policy, administered by Safe Work Australia. Victoria is already reviewing its local policy.

The Victorian Government needs to decide whether a licencing authority is the way to proceed.  It is hard to argue against such an authority except on ideological grounds given the evidence produced by Four Corners last year and the submissions already received.  However, the introduction of another industrial inspectorate levels the (Labor) government open to accusations of not trusting employers, over-regulating, and creating an “unnecessary” bureaucracy.  Accusations the Victorian Labor Party seems to face every time it is in government.

The Victorian Government could introduce the licencing changes into WorkSafe Victoria’s operations as WorkSafe already has an inspectorate, it has recently located to the “rural” city of Geelong, and it should have been inspecting labour hire workplaces already under its OHS powers.  But WorkSafe seems far less keen to prosecute for legal breaches than in the past and the labour hire sector will need a great of attention, at least, in the first few years of operation.

The Victorian inquiry’s report is due on May 31 2016.

Kevin Jones

The 2016 Workplace Wellness conference in Melbourne has heard about the Workhealth Improvement Network (WIN) through a panel of WIN participants. The point of difference of this panel is that the participants are from a range of different sized and regional companies.  The significance of this difference should not be understated as conferences rarely include a representative who is the only safety resource in a company, as this conference and panel has.

Many of the panel members have been surprised at how receptive their workforce has been to the work health and safety surveys on which the program is based.

Some companies have already applied basic Healthy Choices food options and have some corporate support but it seems the integrated approach of WIN is more attractive to companies.  In some ways this is understandable as external resources and networks are provided to assist the existing occupational health and safety (OHS) resources develop a strategy beyond their daily workloads.

One health provider has introduced WIN through looking at fatigue management.  Fatigue is very much a hybrid hazard of safety and health but one that is often addressed through a safety or health strategy.  The hospital’s safety manager is using WIN to establish a measured tolerance level for fatigue for his hospital’s workforce.

OHS people often try to impose a level or system of fatigue management rather than developing a site-specific level even though  the site-specific level would provide better OHS compliance and safety.

WIN seems to be a useful conversation starter on safety health and wellbeing in those companies that are under-resourced on OHS.  But more importantly it seems to bridge OHS and health promotion.  The conference panel provided good examples of how this program has provided a revised or new health and safety strategy and gained executive attention.

Kevin Jones

Some people have accused me of writing for the converted through the SafetyAtWorkBlog and the majority of followers to this blog are OHS professionals and safety regulators, but everything on the Internet is able to be found by anyone who wants to, so the broad audience exists.  Sometimes, however, you need to push yourself in the media.

In February 2016, Andrew Barrett of Fidesa, was interviewed live on community radio in South Australia.  He was pushing himself in to the media and, hopefully, to a new audience.  As well as imparting some solid occupational health and safety information, the show, “For Buck’s Sake” – a business program on BBBFM 89.1, seems to show that even people conducting a business program are not as informed on OHS as one would expect.

OHS is described by the hosts as red tape and having “brown pants” moments; it is also “eating into profits”, and involving paper cuts, fire extinguishers and “little crazy things”.  Barrett tries courageously to get beyond such examples and explain the core business significance of OHS.

For those interested in both OHS and how OHS is communicated or understood by the general public, the podcast is educational.

Kevin Jones

On the eve of International Workers Memorial Day, I attended a seminar about the management of fatalities and serious injuries conducted by a group of risk management and insurance agents.  Prevention was not on the agenda which led to some surprising statements.

One speaker talked about the consequences of a workplace fatality listing the legal penalties and fines imposed on a supervisor, the company and the company director.  There was no mention of the impact on the deceased worker or the family, if there was one.  As an outsider to the post-incident world, the omission of the dead worker from the consequences was unsettling. Even when prevention is not part of the discussion or the theme of a seminar, some mention of the dead worker is at least a courtesy.

Some speakers emphasised that business owners needed to be active in OHS and this is a harm prevention measure but the motivation for this activity remained the avoidance of penalty rather than the elimination or minimization of harm.

One speaker advocated increased supervision and support for workers but in the PowerPoint slides in the background were statements headed “Common Sense” that included

“We cannot rely on our employees to make good decisions” and

“We cannot even rely on our employees to act in their own best interests”.

The “common sense” responses to these examples was:

“So we must make good decisions for our employees” and

“Additionally we cannot condone the poor decisions made by our employees, actively or passively”.

Current occupational health and safety (OHS) thinking is to closely engage with workers, to actively listen to their suggestions, to integrate their needs in the business decisions and to build a trust with the workforce. Some would say this as always so. The parochial approach to workers illustrated by the common sense examples above was surprising.

Later in the seminar, contemporary OHS perspectives were advocated and many of them contradicted the common sense examples.  One speaker answered a question from SafetyAtWorkBlog saying that it is possible to establish a safe workplace without an OHS professional but this would require a close, co-operative and trusting relationship with all the stakeholders in the business, particularly workers, with quick access to OHS expertise if needed.

It was a reminder that OHS thinking is very different from the OHS reality and that many business owners, particularly in the small- to medium-sized businesses, operate in a less informed state of knowledgeably workplace safety.  Even though I get out and about to a variety of workplaces and talk to a range of workers, unionists and safety professionals, parts of the seminar and the presentations surprised me and reminded me that OHS still has a long way to go in being understood and applied as it was intended.

Kevin Jones

There are several important lessons from a recent conviction of an occupational health and safety consultant (OHS) in South Australia for impersonating a SafeWork SA inspector on multiple occasions.

According to SafeWorkSA’s media release, Sam Narroway has been found guilty of impersonating a SafeWork South Australia Inspector and fined $A15,000.  Presiding Industrial Magistrate Lieschke stated that

“In my view these are serious offences – they involved risk to the community, damage to the credibility of SafeWork SA and to professional work health safety consultants”.

According to LinkedIn and as acknowledged in the Court judgement, Sam Narroway is now the Chief Executive Officer of Australian Workplace Safety Group.  Narroway has described this new company as a successful venture and indications are that he intends to restart his career.

According to the Industrial Court judgement  Narroway  “held out to staff” at a Target store, the head office of Yellow Cab, several private residences, and a Kentucky Fried Chicken outlet, amongst others, that he was a SafeWork Inspector when he was not appointed as one.  Narroway also presented an affidavit at a Police Station about a disturbance at a hairdressing salon that “stated he was a SafeWork Inspector”.

A manager at Target assumed that Narroway was an inspector “based on the way he dressed, spoke and presented himself”.  The manager at Yellow Cabs “observed Mr Narroway’s car to be a white commodore station wagon covered with green and yellow safety signs” and this, along with how Narroway “introduced and conducted himself” caused the manager to believe Narroway was an official inspector.  Narroway denies that he introduced himself as a SafeWork Inspector in many of the cases mentioned in the judgement.

SafeWork SA is understandably concerned about anyone falsely stating they are an inspector or misrepresenting themselves as one.  SafeWork SA Executive Director, Ms Marie Boland has stated that

“SafeWork SA Inspectors, readily identifiable by their uniform, always carry authorised photo identification and provide their full name on arrival at any worksite… We encourage people to ask for proof of identity of any unknown person seeking access to their work areas as well as to report suspicious behaviour.”

The challenge for any safety regulator or government agency is to encourage members of the public to police the identification standards of their representatives.  This difficulty is compounded by the fact that most people will never meet an OHS inspector so how do they know what one looks like, what one does and what protocols apply.  Glimpsing an inspector exiting an official car for only a few seconds in a TV advertisement encourages the assumptions of the general public.  The car looks sort of official so the person is official – the Narroway case illustrates the flaw in this thinking.

Regardless of how someone dresses, or the type of vehicle they drive, their should be some formal type of identification, ideally an identity card that includes a photo.  Some time ago Consumer Affairs Victoria produced strict rules on door-to-door salespeople that correspond, in some ways, to the activities of Narroway.

“Door-to-door salespeople must:

• tell you why they are visiting you and show identification
• leave if you ask them to
• provide their contact details
• give you a written copy of the sales agreement as soon as it has been signed
• inform you of your cooling-off rights and how you can end the agreement
• not attempt to get you to waive your cooling-off rights.”

It may be useful for some of the OHS associations to produce a “safety alert” based on the judgement to reinforce the identification protocols for their members.  A revision of the associations’ code of conduct would also be prudent.

As well as the identity issues mentioned above and SafeWork SA’s concerns, a major lesson for OHS professionals, and especially OHS consultants, is to understand how potential clients react to anyone cold-calling to discuss workplace safety issues.  They have been advised, through commercial, that the safety regulator can visit at any time but this does not mean safety consultants can visit at any time.  Perhaps the days of physically cold-calling over OHS matters are over and consultants will have to suffice with cold-calling by phone, or better yet, developing marketing strategies that operate through networks and avoiding cold-calling.

Industrial Magistrate Lieschke was at pains to point out that the impersonation of an inspector was a serious offence and rejected the plaintiff’s request for the Court to refrain from recording convictions for these offences.

Kevin Jones

Dolly Parton sang about working 9 to 5, asked “what a way to make a living” and asserted that it would drive you crazy if you let it.  Many workers would look on a shift of only 9 to 5 as a luxury.  ABC Radio in Brisbane played this song as an introduction to a series of radio interviews about workplace safety in which myself and Professor Niki Ellis participated on 9 May 2016.

Curiously the interview, part of their The Juggle series, occurs in the Drive time slot of 4pm to 6pm but the discussion was almost all about occupational health and safety  (OHS) in the office environment.  If 9 to 5 still exists anywhere, the audience for office safety information was busy.  It would have been interesting to talk about OHS and work vehicles.

ABC has broken the show into two parts, one with me and one with Niki Ellis.  The interviewer, Emma Griffiths, asked questions about OHS in offices, how OHS is often considered a nuisance, standing desks (of course), sedentary work, long work hours, and emerging risks.  Her discussion with Niki Ellis addressed stress primarily due to Niki having focussed on this workplace hazard in the past.  Niki also contextualised stress with organisational structures and practices, and the leadership levels of managers but points out that the level of action is not where one would expect for laws and obligations that have existed for decades.

Niki also provides a potted history of repetitive strain injury (RSI) in Australia.  If there is not a book about how RSI is misinterpreted and mismanaged, there should be.

It is almost always good to participate in radio interviews about OHS because even old safety information is new to someone and radio reaches the broad community.  Recently I have been interviewed on ABC radio in Brisbane and Western New South Wales, well away from my home base in Melbourne.  It is good to have anyone talking about safety.  We need more of it and more people doing it.

Kevin Jones

Australian law firm Minter Ellison has produced a useful article (not yet available on their website) on a recent workplace bullying prosecution. However the document displays a perspective that is becoming increasingly common in Australia labour law practices.

The type of abuse suffered by the apprentice is something that has not been prosecuted for many years.  In fact, many occupational health and safety (OHS) professionals had thought such bullying actions stayed in the previous century.  Minter Ellison seems to have forgotten that workplace bullying came to prominence through union lobbying of the problem as an OHS issue over twenty years ago for it says:

“While we are seeing more successful applications in the ‘anti-bullying’ jurisdiction of the Fair Work Commission, it is unusual for an organisation (or workers within an organisation) to be prosecuted under WHS laws for bullying. This conviction is only one of a handful of criminal convictions in Australia under WHS laws for bullying at the workplace.”

This is technically correct if one ignores that OHS laws have existed for decades prior to the Work Health and Safety (WHS) laws.  It is definitely NOT unusual for an organisation to be prosecuted under workplace safety laws, only, perhaps, under WHS laws.

The mention of the workplace bullying role of the Fair Work Commission is irrelevant as the FWC seems to have played no role in the prosecution of Quality Carpentry and Building Maintenance and its director, Wayne Allan Dennert.  However many employment relations law firms, or the OHS sections of the firms, have always felt more comfortable in the industrial relations tribunals than in the Magistrates’ and higher courts arguing on OHS principles and the prevention of harm.

This comfort is illustrated by part of Minter Ellison’s advice.. It recommends:

“Put in place measures to control the hazard – consider the appropriate control measures that could be put in place to minimise the risk – eg, train staff that bullying is unacceptable, introduce and communicate a bullying policy, provide a mechanism for staff to raise concerns about bullying, have a process for investigating bullying complaints;”

Introducing and communicating a bullying policy is good but ineffective if enforcement is not applied.

Minter Ellison also state:

“The best way to minimise any potential exposure under WHS laws is to treat and manage bullying like any other WHS risk in your organisation by applying the methodology required to assess and manage WHS risks.’

The OHS/WHS methodology they allude to, the Hierarchy of Control, has as its first principle the elimination of the risk or hazard.  It is important to “assess and manage WHS risks” but this is supposed to be done with the aim of removing and reducing the likelihood of a similar incident recurring.

The quote also illustrates the too common primary concern of law firms when addressing OHS issues:

“the best way to minimise any potential exposure….“.

Not “the best way to prevent employees being permanently psychologically damaged”.  WorkSafe Victoria’s media release on the prosecution includes the following details from the apprentice who was bullied:

“In a victim impact statement read to the court, the apprentice said that he continues to suffer from anxiety, depression, nightmares and insomnia caused by the bullying. But it was the emotional trauma that was the hardest to bear.

“I would rather be burnt, bruised, assaulted, drenched in glue, water, paint, weeks’ old coffee and spat on all over again than to relive a week of the psychological torment I endured,” he told the court.”

This was from a person who started their apprenticeship at 16 years old with this company.  Many young workers take on apprenticeships to learn a lifelong trade yet who knows what this young person will do now.

There is another context to the workplace bullying of apprentices.  Only this week, as part of the Australian election campaign, the Australian Labor Party made this pledge mirroring one from the Victorian ALP Party from 2014:

“A Shorten Labor Government will boost apprenticeships across the country, giving more Australians the opportunity to gain real skills and a good job. Labor will do this by ensuring a proportion of the jobs on major federally funded-projects are delivered as apprenticeships.”

There is nothing in this pledge that commits the potential Labor Government to ensuring these jobs are safe or to making sure that young workers will not be bullied and abused (an issue SafetyAtWorkBlog has been advocating for many years).  The ALP policy statement on OHS provided to the Safety Institute of Australia this week made no mention of apprentices.

Perhaps the most obvious indication that Minter Ellison has not thought sufficiently about the OHS elements of this prosecution is that it persists in referring to WHS laws when the prosecution has clearly occurred through the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004, as stated by WorkSafe Victoria.  Although the OHS and WHS duties are ostensibly the same, such an error reduces the authority of the advice.

Kevin Jones

On 10 June 2016, the New South Wales Minister for Innovation and Better Regulation Victor Dominello announced a $A2 million rebate program to improve safety associated with the use of quad bikes on farms.  According the media release (curiously released late on the eve of a national long weekend):

“The NSW Government will be offering rebates of up to $500 towards the purchase of compliant helmets, Operator Protective Devices, the purchase of a safer vehicle, such as a side-by-side vehicle, and undertaking training courses tailored to farmers.”

The rebate package seems to tick all the safety boxes and should make a difference.

$A500 may not seem much but, according to one online store, the price of one operator protection device (OPD), the Quadbar, is only $A697.  (A competitor’s device retails for over $NZ1,200) It is understood these are installed by the purchaser so it should be possible to reduce the injury risks of a quad bike rollover for less than $A200.  The value of $A500 off a side-by-side (SXS) vehicle seems less attractive as such vehicles can cost over $A15,000.

The timing of the announcement is understandable as it relates to the New South Wales Budget due to be announced on 21 June 2016. However May and June each year is the period prior to end of Australia’s financial year when, if there is unspent capital, companies can purchase reduced priced work-related items.  Minister Dominello’s announcement that the scheme commences on 1 July is likely to delay the potential purchase by some farmers into the new financial year’s budgets.

This timing is unfortunate but recent government rebate schemes and industry support programs, for instance the Home Insulation Program (HIP), are illustrative of the folly of rushing the implementation of these schemes.  Dominello’s political opponents will argue that “the devil is in the details” (one of the silliest clichés) and there are no details yet on how the rebate scheme will be introduced, who will manage it or what the processes for payments will be. However just as the HIP showed the risk of rushing, it showed there is always the risk that some people will see opportunities to exploit government schemes.

Exploitation did not seem to be an issue with the Roll Over Protection Structures (ROPS) schemes in the 1990s but then the ROPS rebate scheme was not introduced after years of industry argument, aggressive marketing, misrepresentation and hostility from the vehicle manufacturers and their lobbyists. In 1999 Monash University evaluated the ROPS rebate scheme and found

“The 1997/98 scheme was extremely successful when measured against a number of criteria. The scheme reduced the number of unprotected tractors in Victoria by 70% from an estimated 17,420 to 5,290. The proportion of unprotected tractors in Victoria is now approximately 7%, compared with an estimated 24% at the commencement of the scheme. The demand for the ROPS rebates was substantially higher than in any previous scheme.” (page 3)

SafeWork NSW should prepare for a similar evaluation strategy on the quad bike rebate scheme.

One issue that may come up in relation to the Government’s encouragement to purchase SXS vehicles could be whether vehicle sellers will accept quad bikes as trade-ins.  Given the increasing perception of quad bikes as unsafe, or at least less safe, what will the vehicle sellers do with quad bike trade-ins?  Will the quad bikes be sold as second-hand vehicles, and if so, would they need to be sold with an OPD already fitted?  One would expect that the market for second-hand quad bikes for work purposes would decline if it is not already doing so.

The New South Wales rebate announcement is a positive move on farm safety but such schemes have been expected for some time.  It is likely that the other Australian States will follow suit even though there may be some haggling (political one-upmanship?) over the amount of the rebate, the introduction dates or applicability.  If, as SafeWork NSW estimates, there are

“….around 200,000 quad bikes in operation across Australia in both a commercial and recreational capacity, and this program is a step forward to reducing injuries and saving lives”

there is plenty of room for improving the safety of Australian farms.

Kevin Jones

The 2^nd episode of the Cabbage Salad and Safety podcast is now available.

The theme of the podcast is “who is responsible for workplace safety?”. It is a simple question that can create complex answers, in practice.

This episode sometimes sounds like an interview rather than a conversation but as the question calls for a legal response more than a safety professional response, Siobhan Flores-Walsh provides some excellence guidance.

Occupational health and safety law provides pretty clear guidance on safety responsibility but there is often pushback on this as people don’t want to take on more responsibility than they have to. Responsibility also can become complex after an incident when responsibility is often equated with blame.

Cabbage Salad and Safety podcasts are still evolving and we have read all the feedback and comments that listeners have emailed in. Please have a listen and email me your thoughts for future episodes and please comment bleow if you prefer.

Episode 1 is available HERE.

Kevin Jones

The latest episode of the Cabbage Salad and Safety podcast is now available and includes a discussion on the perennial occupational health and safety (OHS) debate over Safety Culture.

Siobhan Flores-Walsh and I discuss the role of safety culture and its influence on contemporary safety management.  The definition is fluffy and this is part of the challenge in improving a company’s safety culture.  I think the podcast episode is a useful primer on the issue to those who are just making contact with the concept and of interest to those of us who are already dealing with safety culture and people’s expectations for it.

Cabbage Salad and Safety podcasts are changing all the time and we read all the feedback and comments that listeners have emailed in. Please have a listen and email me your thoughts for future episodes or please comment below if you prefer.

Kevin Jones

On November 15, 2016, the NSCA Foundation (NSCAF) and Westwick-Farrow Media (WFM) announced a new publishing deal for one of Australia’s few remaining occupational health and safety (OHS) publications, National Safety. The media release was very upbeat about the change but the reality is that Australian OHS professionals and business operators will lose a free, hard-copy source of safety information, Safety Solutions.

National Safety magazine is a good magazine that, although long promoted as the journal of the NSCA Foundation, has a good reputation for independent and informative OHS articles and seems to have had a loyal readership amongst OHS professionals. There had been no hint that the magazine was “in trouble” or that a change was warranted. Safety Solutions has more of an advertorial approach and seems to appeal more to the small business owner and OHS professional who is more focused on the manufacturing industry sector. The magazine has existed since 2002 and has been a consistent presence.

The volume of readership is confusing so it is hard to say how influential or important the publications are. The media release says

“From March 2017, Safety Solutions magazine will cease publishing, with all the content and resources from this brand channelled over to the new and improved National Safety magazine, which will include an industry-first total distribution of over 8,000 printed copies per issue (combined NSCA Foundation members and Safety Solutions magazine subscribers).”

8,000 sounds low, particularly when the Safety Solutions website claims

“Join OVER 40,000 fellow industrial and technology professionals across Australia & New Zealand who are members of the WF Media network and receive the following FREE benefits….”

Sure, Safety Solutions is only part of the WF Media network but it seems odd that less than 8,000 of these would read a free safety publication.

And that is also one of the complexities of this new publishing arrangement. National Safety is a subscription service, while Safety Solutions is free.

SafetyAtWorkBlog put some questions to Jamie Burrage, General Manager at NSCA Foundation, about the new arrangement to provide some clarity:

SAWB: Why offer National Safety in a digital format? Has this been in response to requests from readers or shown in any marketing surveys?

JB: I’ve asked most members I’ve met with or spoken to in the last year – and it’s around a 50/50 split of those that prefer having the magazine digitally to those that wish to continue receiving the print version. Of those that want digital it was because of the ease of being able to read on a tablet/laptop whilst traveling etc. Those that want print can display in reception areas and like to receive a tangible product. Being able to choose the format from 2017 means we can appease everyone and add value to those who would prefer the digital option.

SWAB: If subscribers choose the digital version, given that there will be no printing costs with this option, will it be cheaper than a subscription for the equivalent hard copy?

JB: No – cost will remain the same regardless of the option chosen. Choosing both will also be an option.

SAWB: Over the life of National Safety, its frequency has declined from monthly to bi-monthly to quarterly. Will the National Safety frequency remain quarterly or move to the Safety Solutions schedule of bi-monthly?

JB: It will remain quarterly, though the Safety Solutions weekly newsletter will continue to be published weekly (independently from NSCAF).

SAWB: Westwick Farrow’s media release says that National Safety magazine will be “improved” from March 2017.  Accepting that digital is only a change in format, not content, what improvements are planned?

JB: This is a commitment I’m expecting WFM to honour as part of NSCAF’s new relationship with them. I can’t speak on behalf of the Editor, but I imagine WFM will utilise the best received elements of Safety Solutions into National Safety.

Australia has very few OHS publications and even less that provide exclusive content or, and this is self-interest, pay commercial rates for articles for professionals and experts. That National Safety is continuing is the good news but the loss of Safety Solutions is a disappointment. Even though most of it was advertorials it brought all the information into a single point in a way and format that online ads will never match. And one was able to filter out the media release/advertorial fluff to identify a nugget of interest.

The publications seemed to serve two different OHS sectors, had different publication frequencies and had different editorial approaches.  Was Safety Solutions a magazine I pored over? No, but I did read it, keep it on the shelf and will miss it.  For a long time National Safety was obligatory reading, particularly when it was a more frequent publication. Whether it will be missed will rely on whether Westwick-Farrow Media can maintain the quality that it seems to have promised Jamie Burrage.

Kevin Jones

Note: I have been a paid contributor to National Safety magazine occasionally for over a decade.