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.
Filed under: accountability, evidence, Inspectors, law, OHS, safety, SafeWork, small business Tagged: consultant, crime, independent regulatory agency
