FortnightlyUpdate

Issue 10327 November 2009

HOT TOPICS

»» Adelaide»Rail»Freight»Movements»Study»

»» ARA»Industry»Report»2008

»» ATC»recommends»vital»rail»safety»reform»to»COAG

Australian Network Rules and Procedures » Stage 2 Risk workshop

The Rail Industry Safety and Standards Board (RISSB) offer the opportunity for interested stakeholders to participate in a risk workshop of the rules and procedures associated with Stage 2 of the Australian National Rules and Procedures (ANRP) Project or the National Rulebook Project as it is more commonly known. The Stage 2 Rules and Procedures predominately deal with “Train Operations”.

The workshop will be conducted over a 5 day period from Monday December 14th to Friday December 18th in Sydney. The workshop details are:

Venue: Australian Technology Park, Bay 9, Level 1, Locomotive Workshop, Henderson Road, EVELEIGH NSW (adjacent to Redfern Railway Station).

The conference facility’s website: http://www.atp.com.au/how-to-find-atp provides the appropriate directions.

Arrival time: 9.45am Monday 14th December 2009 Departure time: 4.00pm Friday 18th December 2009 Work Day timings: 8.30am (except Monday) to 6.00pm (except Friday).

The risk workshop is part of the RISSB ANRP development process and seeks to canvas and consider the views of a wider audience.

The risk workshop scope will:

» review draft risk assessments provided for each of the 33 rules and procedures;

» confirm the draft risk ratings for these rules and procedures, » identify any missing risks or controls associated with the 33 rules and

procedures; and » identify any additional controls required in the rules and procedures.

Please register your interest in the workshop by contacting contact Mark Felstead, RISSB Project Manager on 0412 938 425 or mdfelstead@optusnet.com.au

by Mark Felstead RISSB Project Manager mdfelstead@optusnet.com.au

FortnightlyUpdate

International Rail Safety Conference 2011

RISSB Board Outcomes

The International Rail Safety Conference (IRSC) Committee recently elected Melbourne, Australia to host the 2011 IRSC.

Exclusively devoted to rail safety issues, the IRSC is held annually in different host countries. It provides a global forum for senior rail safety practitioners and specialists to promote rail safety learning, experience rail safety developments and discuss international perspectives on rail safety.

Delegates from 30 countries and various rail organisations, accident investigation agencies, unions, safety regulators and associations representing rail organisations regularly attend the annual conference.

Organising Committee

The RISSB will host the event and is calling for nominations to be part of the organising committee for this international conference. The Grand Hyatt Melbourne has been secured for the event with V/Line and Puffing Billy on board to each host a delegate field day.

The committee will hold its first meeting in Melbourne on Tuesday 2 February 2010 to determine a planning schedule and begin organising the conference.

Individuals interested in being part of the IRSC 2011 organising committee should contact Emma Pettiford via email: epettiford@rissb.com.au or phone: 02 6270 4512.

Sponsorship Opportunities

To ensure maximum attendance from international delegates, conference costs must be kept to a minimum. Accordingly the RISSB is seeking sponsorship of the event.

Parties interested in IRSC 2011 sponsorship should contact Kevin Taylor, GM RISSB via email: ktaylor@rissb.com.au or phone: 02 6270 4521.

The RISSB Board met on Wednesday 18 November and agreed:

» that RISSB’s name will change, subject to the Australian Securities and Investment Commission endorsement, from Rail Industry Safety and Standards Board to Rail Industry Safety and Standards Bureau. The acronym RISSB will remain. The reason for this change is to eliminate dual use of the term ‘Board’ when matters are referred to the RISSB Board. In essence the RISSB Board is the Rail Industry Safety and Standards Board Board. With the name change the RISSB Board will now be known as the Rail Industry Safety and Standards Bureau Board;

» the project plans associated with three RLX projects, namely standardisation of RLX questions in State Road Driver Licence tests, inclusion of RLX education material in state based education curriculums, and updating the RLX incident costing model;

» to update the Industry RLX strategy and action plan in light of the recently released national RLX strategy by the Australian Transport Council;

» the project plan for the Rail Safety Worker reference checking code of practice. This code is necessary given the transient nature of the Australian workforce and in particular Australian Rail Safety Workers. The intent of this code is to detail the protocols to be used by the Australian Rail Industry in exchanging safety related information about rail safety workers joining organisations within the industry. The security, aviation, financial and health industries have protocols in place for reference checking their people involved in safety;

» to boost the membership of the RISSB Operations and Performance Standing Committee. At present membership of this important committee is limited;

» to the development of four new infrastructure standards namely, Earthworks, Track Geometry, Ballast, and Track Structures;

» that the ROA manual be updated to account for content that has been superseded by RISSB standards and other products. Changes will be marked up (by greying out the appropriate content) and the relevant RISSB document identified in the manual that superseded the content. This marked up version will be placed on the RISSB website for ARA/RISSB members use; and

» ‘in principle’ to the development of a technology strategy and a safety strategy subject to the RISSB providing additional information before a final decision is made.

The Australian National Rules and Procedures (ANRP) Project

The ANRP Project is on track to meet a Board directive to produce a suite of common ‘Train Operations’ rules and Procedures (Stage 2) by March 2010. The 33 rules and procedures have been subject to their first round of public consultation. Over 700 comments were received from various stakeholders on the 33 rules and procedures. The ANRP Development Group is working feverishly to address these comments before a risk workshop is undertaken on the modified rules and procedures 14-18 December 2009. A second round of public consultation will occur after this workshop. Subject to the comment received from this round the rules and procedures will be passed to an independent validator before RISSB board approval on 17 March 2010.

RISSB Activities

An update of other RISSB activities will be provided in the next fortnightly update.

by Kevin Taylor RISSB General Manager ktaylor@rissb.com.au

In thIs Issue: • LegislativeUpdate • SignificantCases

5283138

Welcome to the third issue for 2009 of the Australasian Rail Association OHS Briefing. This Briefing tracks significant legislative and case law changes which have occurred between 1 July and 1 October 2009 which may affect Australasian Rail Association (ARA) members.

Key Issues:

AcrossAustralia

ModelOHSlawsupdate:

• ThemodelOHSActwasreleasedforpubliccommentuntil6November2009.ThemodelActreflectsthemattersagreeduponbytheWorkplaceRelationsMinistersCouncil.

• TheSafeWorkAustraliaBillpassedthroughparliamentwithoutamendment.

• However,despitetheformalprogressionofthemodelOHSlegislation,variousunionsremainopposedtoelementsofthelegislationandtheACTUhaslaunchedaradiocommercialaspartofitscampaignagainsttheFederalGovernment’splannedharmonisationofOHSlaws.Thecommercialsays“Australianworkerscan’tlivewithsecond-ratesafety,butifbigbusinessgetsitsway,newworkplacehealthandsafetylaws willreduceworkers’rightsandprotections.”Businessshouldbeawareoftheanti-harmonisationpushbyunionsandengagewithGovernment,industrybodiesandunionsinrelationtothis.

• 15,000workerstooktothestreetsinMelbourneaspartofarallyurgingstateandfederalgovernments nottoweakenworkplacesafetystandardsunderharmonisation.Thousandsmoreattendedeventsin othercapitalcities.

FinancialconsequencesofpoorOHSperformance

• InvestmentAnalystDrIanWoodshighlightedthefinancialconsequencesofpoorOHSperformance.Woodssaysthataninjurywith$1,000directclaimscostswillalsobringabout$5,000ofindirectcostsand,assumingtheemployerhasaprofitmarginofapproximately5%,thiswillmeanthecompanymustearnabout$100,000inadditionalrevenuetorecoupthelossesoftheworkplaceinjury.

Significantcaselaw

• Judgementsinanumberofhighlysignificantcasesaddressingthefollowingmattershaverecentlybeenhandeddown:

– issuesconcerningthemeaningof‘control’(refertothesummariesbelowofMarkosvCommercialandGeneralProjectsPtyLtd[2009]SAIRC45(9July2009)andInspectorColinWallvOricaAustraliaPtyLimited[2009]NSWIComm146))

– theextentofaprincipalcontractor’sobligationto‘train’and‘instruct’specialistsubcontrators(refertothesummarybelowofLeightonContractorsPtyLtdvFox;CallidenInsuranceLimitedvFox[2009]HCA35)

– Theprovisionofsocialsupporttoemployees(refertothesummarybelowofCahillvStateofNewSouthWales(DepartmentofEducationandTrainingandDepartmentofJuvenileJustice)(No3)[2009]NSWIRComm97(26June2009)).DETwasfined$540,000.

– Therisksarisingfromchildren’sallergiesandtheattendantneedforriskcontrolsystems(refertothesummarybelowofComcarevCommonwealthofAustralia[2009]FCA700)

– AppropriatemanagementofliabilityforOHSissuesinthecontextofJointVenturearrangements(refertothesummarybelowofInspectorHowardvBaulderstoneHornibrookPtyLtd[2009]NSWIRComm92)).TheprincipalcontractorsontheCrossCityTunnelprojectwerefinedatotalof$840,000.

AUSTRALASIAN RAILASSOCIATIONOHSBRIEFING3rdISSUE2009

ARA OHS BRiefing 3rd iSSue 2009

AcrossAustralia(continued)

– MaintaininglegalprofessionalprivilegeinthecontextofOHSincidentinvestigations(refertothesummarybelowofInspectorAnthonyNicholson(WorkCoverAuthorityofNSW)vWacoKwikformLimited[2009]NSWIRComm123).

– LabourhireandhostemployerOHSresponsibilities,andresponsibilitiesforemployeesonclientsites(refertothesummarybelowofInspectorPattonvWesternFreightManagementPtyLtd(No2)[2009]NSWIRComm124

– Visitorsafety(refertothesummarybelowofInspectorMarieDavidsonvPlasserAustraliaPtyLtd[2009]NSWIRComm79(27May2009).

NewSouthWales • ChangestotheNSWOHSActtoclarifythedefinitionofan“authorisedrepresentative”commenced on1October2009.

AustralianCapitalTerritory • ThenewWorkSafetyActandRegulationscameintoeffecton1October2009.

Queensland • QueenslandIndustrialRelationsMinisterCameronDickhaslaunchedastate-wideOHSleadershipprogramthataimstohelpemployersstrivefor"zeroharmatwork".

WesternAustralia • TheWestAustralianGovernmentannouncedthatitwillimplementanewregulatoryframeworkforresourcessafety.

LegiSLATive updATe

COMMONWeALTH

AssentofSafeWorkAustraliaBill2008

TheSafeWorkAustraliaBill2008receivedassenton18September2009.TheActwillestablishSafeWorkAustralia(SWA)asanewindependentnationalOHSandworkerscompensationbody.

Specifically,theActdoesthefollowing:

• establishSWAandprescribeitsfunctionsandpowers;setoutmembershiprequirementsandprovideforthenominationandappointmentofvotingmembers,aswell asthetermsandconditionsoftheirappointment;

• setoutSWA'sstrategicandoperationalplansandauthorisetheMinisterialCounciltodirectSWAtomakealterationstothoseplans;

• provideforSWAdecisionmakingproceduresatmeetings;

• provideforthefunctionsofSWA'sCEO,staffandcommittees;

• establishanaccountformoneythatisallocatedtothefundingofSWAandprovideforhowitistobespent;and

• makeothermiscellaneousprovisions,includinginrelationtothedelegationofpowerbySWAoritsCEOandreviewsofSWA'sroleandfunctions.

AfterinitiallyinsistingonamendmentstoJuliaGillard’sSafeWorkAustraliaBill2008,theCoalitionhasagreedtosupporttheBillinitsoriginalform.

NeWSOUTHWALeS

Unionentryrightsrestored

TheOccupationalHealthandSafety(AuthorisedRepresentatives)Bill2009wasintroducedtoparliament,andassentedtoon1October2009,toclarifythedefinitionofan“authorisedrepresentative”undertheNSWOHSAct.

ThechangewaspromptedbyarecentFederalCourtcase,wheretheCourtheldthatunionrepresentativesmustbe“officers”toexerciserightofentryundertheNSWOHSAct.Theamendmentsrestorethedefinitionpreviouslyacceptedpositionwhereunionemployees,evenifnotelectedasofficersofaunion,wereauthorisedunderOHSlawstohavearightofentrytoworkplaces.

PAGE2

ARA OHS BRiefing 3rd iSSue 2009

AmendmenttotheOccupationalHealthandSafetyRegulation2001No.648(NSW)

On1September2009,theOccupationalHealthandSafetyRegulation2001wasamendedbytheOccupationalHealthandSafetyAmendment(NationalCodeofPracticeandNationalStandardforLicensing)Regulation2009No.443(NSW).

TheobjectoftheamendingRegulationistoimplementthenationalschemeforoccupationalhealthandsafetytrainingandassessmentsofcompetencyinrelationtoconstructionworkgenerallyandhighriskworkactivities.

Underthenationalscheme,personsnominatedbyapprovedregisteredtrainingorganisationswillprovidegeneraloccupationalhealthandsafetyinductiontraininginaccordancewiththeNationalCodeofPracticeforInductionforConstructionWork.Inaddition,suchpersonswillprovideassessmentsofcompetencytocarryouthighriskworkinaccordancewiththeNationalStandardforLicensingPersonsPerformingHighRiskWork.

Pleasecontactusifyouwouldlikefurtherinformationaboutthespecificamendments.

QUeeNSLANd

OHSleadershipprogram:Zeroharmatwork

QueenslandIndustrialRelationsMinisterCameronDickhaslaunchedastate-wideOHSleadershipprogramthataimstohelpemployersstrivefor"zeroharmatwork".

Theprogramwasdesignedtomotivateandencourageorganisationstovoluntarilystriveforzeroharmatworkby:

• providinganongoingforumtofosterandpromoteleadershipinOHSintheconstructionindustry;

• providingexamplesofgoodpracticesandlessonslearntthatcanassistotherworkplacestoimprove;

• promotingtheadoptionofa'zeroharmatwork'culturethroughcooperationandknowledgesharing;and

• providingpracticaladvice,support,materialsandtoolstoimplementazeroharmculture.

Afterthepilotforumfortheconstructionindustrywasheldearlierthisyear,morethan35organisationshadalreadysigneduptotheleadershipforum.

ViCTORiA

AmendmenttotheRailSafetyAct2006No.9(ViC)

TheTransportLegislationGeneralAmendmentsAct2009No.26of2009hasinsertedanewsection33AintotheRailSafetyAct2006.

Thenewsection33AenablestheSafetyDirectortogivedirectionsinrelationtosafearrangementsfortheconductingofworksonraillandincertaincircumstances.TheSectionalsoprovidesthattheSafetyDirectormaygiveawarningnoticetotherailinfrastructuremanagerandtheroadauthorityorVictorianRailTrackifitissatisfiedthatarrangementscanbemadeunderwhichtheproposedworkscanbeconductedsafely.Significantpenaltiesapplyfornon-compliance.Pleasecontactusifyouwouldlikefurtherinformationaboutthespecificamendments.

WeSTeRNAUSTRALiA

AmendmentstothedangerousGoodsSafety(explosives)AmendmentRegulations2009(WA)

On22August2009theDangerousGoodsSafety(Explosives)Regulations2007(WA)wasamendedbytheDangerousGoodsSafety(Explosives)AmendmentRegulations2009(WA),withminoramendments.

AmendmentstotheOccupationalSafetyandHealthRegulations1996(WA).

TheOccupationalSafetyandHealthRegulations1996(WA)wasamendedtwiceinAugust.

ThefirstsetofamendingRegulations(TheOccupationalSafetyandHealthAmendmentRegulations(No.4)2009(WA))commencedon1August.TheseamendingRegulationsomitandsubstituteanewPart3,Division11(Constructionindustryinductiontraining)intotheOccupationalSafetyandHealthRegulations1996(WA).

ThenewPart3,Division11imposesarequirementthatemployeesorself-employedpersonsengaginginconstructionworkataworkplaceholdconstructionindustrytrainingcertificates.Noncompliancewiththeinductiontrainingrequirementsispunishablebyupto$62,500forabodycorporate.

ThesecondsetofamendingRegulations(theOccupationalSafetyandHealthAmendmentRegulations(No.5)2009(WA))commencedon26August2009.TheseamendingRegulationsprovidethatallgascylindersusedwithatmosphericair,rather

PAGE3

ARA OHS BRiefing 3rd iSSue 2009

thansimplysinglehoseliquidpetroleumgascylinders,areexcludedfromtherequirementtofitaflashbackarresterinworkplaceswheregaswelding,heating,cuttingoranalliedprocessisdone.

“Shakeup”ofWesternAustraliaminesafetysystem

TheWesternAustralianGovernmenthasannouncedthatitwillimplementanewregulatoryframeworkforresourcessafety.

ThenewframeworkwillincorporatekeyrecommendationsofCommissionerStephenKenner’sstatutoryreview(theKennerReport),including:

• significantadditionalresourcesfortheResourcesSafetyDivisionoftheDepartmentofMinesandPetroleum;

• anindustrycost-recoverymodel,whichwillprovidefundingforanappropriatelyresourcedsafetyregulator–detailsofthemodelwillbediscussedwiththeindustry;and

• anewapproachtosafetymanagementfocusedonreducingthelikelihoodofaseriousincident.

TheDepartmentwillalsobeafforded37additionalfull-timestaffandapproximately$7.95millioninfundingforthefirst sixmonthsofreform.

TheGovernmenthasestimatedthatthereformprocesswilltakeabout2yearstocomplete.

ACT

WorkSafetyAct2008andWorkSafetyRegulation2009No.45(ACT)

TheWorkSafetyAct2008(ACT)andtheWorkSafetyRegulation2009No.45commencedon1October2009.TheRegulationhasbeenmadeundertheauthorityoftheWorkSafetyAct2008No.51(ACT)(theAct).TheRegulationcombinestheregulationsunderthepreviousOccupationalHealthandSafetyAct1989No.18(ACT)andwilleventuallyincludeallregulationsmadeundertheActinasingle,accessibledocument.

Specifically,theRegulationprovidesfor:

• injuryanddangerousoccurrencereportingandrecords;

• facilities,includingshower,toiletandwashing,aswellastheprovisionofamenitiesandfirstaidandsicknessarrangements;

• worksafetyrepresentatives,includingtheelectionprocess,conditionsofoffice,employer'sduties,provisionalimprovementnotices,emergencyproceduresandgeneralmatters;

• theestablishmentofworksafetycommitteesandtheirfunctions;

• authorisedrepresentatives,includingtraining,applicationandgroundsfordisqualification,andrevocationofdisqualification;

• particularsafetymeasures,includingentryandexit,personalprotectiveandsafetyequipment,electricity, fireandexplosionandemergencyprocedures;

• licensingofhighriskwork,includingthesuspensionandcancellationoflicences,traineesundersupervision,trainingandassessment,administrationandexemptions;

• constructionandinductiontraining,includingtherequirementtoholdaconstructioninductiontraining cardandcancellationofsuchcards;

• thegivingofappropriateinformationandinstructions toworkerswhocarryoutmanualtasks;

• inspectionandnotificationofcertainincorporateddocuments;and

• ascheduleofreviewabledecisionsfortheActandthisRegulation.

AsummaryoftheWorkSafetyActwasprovidedinan previousOHSBriefing.

SignificAnT cASeS

CASeLAWUpdATe

developerin“control”whilebuilderabsent–buildernotguiltyofOHSoffence

MarkosvCommercialandGeneralprojectsptyLtd[2009]SAiRC45(9July2009)

AbuildinganddevelopmentcompanyhasbeenfoundnotguiltyofanoffenceundertheOHSActafterapersonfellfromthefirstfloorofapartiallyconstructeddwellingwithinthedevelopmentsite,becausetherewasnobodyfromthecompanypresentatthesitewhentheincidentoccurred.

CommercialandGeneralProjectsPtyLtd(thedefendant)wasengagedbySouthShoresPtyLtd(SouthShores)toundertakethebuildinganddevelopmentofaproject.SouthShoresengagedarealestateagent,KateHill,toconduct

PAGE4

ARA OHS BRiefing 3rd iSSue 2009

instructionortrainingontheforkliftthatwasnewlyintroducedthatday.

TheCourtacknowledgedthatsincetheincident,Asixamadeimprovementstoitsassessmentandtrainingofforkliftoperators,introducednewriskassessmentsandinductionpolicies,anddevelopedtrainingforunsecuredorproblemfreight,howevertheCourtsaidthechangesshouldhavebeenmadesooner.Theworker’semployer,BlackandWhiteRecruitmentSolutionsPtyLtdwillbeprosecutedatalaterdate.

Inaseparateincident,labourhirecompanyGTEWPMPtyLtdwasconvictedandfined$32,000afterenemployeehadhisarmseveredbyapress.Thehostemployer,SouthernCrossRecyclingwasfined$50,000.

LessonforARAmembers:

Thedutytoensurethehealthandsafetyofworkersextendsbeyondthetraditionalemployer/employeerelationship.Labourhireandhostemployersalsooweadutytoensurethesafetyofworkers.Recentcasessuggestthatthefinesimposedforbreachofthatduty maybesignificant.

Failuretoenforcevisitorsafetyendsindeathand$95Kfine

inspectorMariedavidsonvplasserAustraliaptyLtd[2009]NSWiRComm79(27May2009)

PlasserAustraliaPtyLtdhasbeenfined$95,000afterpleadingguiltytoanoffenceoffailingtoeffectivelymanageitsvisitorsafetyprocedureafteracontractorwaskilledinanexplosion.

Thecontractor,KevinButlerwasanemployeeofStMary’sTyreService(NSW)PtyLtd.MrButlerwasinstructedto“inspect”thetyreandtocontacthissupervisorifthetyrewasstillonthecrane.However,afterarrivingatPlasser’spremises,MrButlerattemptedtoremovethetyre,whichexploded,throwinghimbackward6-7metresandkillinghim.

JusticeBackmanoftheIndustrialCourtheardthatPlasser’scontractormanagementsystemwaslackingbecauseitshouldhavehadaprocedureinplacebywhichincomingcontractorswereregistereduponarrivalatitspremisesandtheircredentialscheckedandthereasonsfortheirattendanceproperlyascertained.NosuchprocedurewasutilisedatthetimeMrButlerarrivedatthesite.Furthermore,theCourtheardthatwhiletherewasaplaqueontherearleft-handsideofthemobilecranewhichwarnedagainstlooseningtheboltsbeforethetyrewasfullydeflated,therewasnosuchwarningontherighthandsideofthecrane,whereMrButlerwasworking.

inspectionofthesiteonSundayafternoons.Onthedaytheincidentoccurred,thedefendantdidnothaveanypersonnelonsite.Therealestateagentallowedfourpeopleontothesite,unaccompanied.Oneofthepersons,MargaretKay,enteredahouseonthesite,climbedaladdertothefirstlevelofthehouseandthenfellthroughgyprockontothefloorbelow,sustainingmultipleinjuries.

TheCourtheldthattherewasnodoubtthattheriskandinjurytoMsKaywasforeseeable.However,theCourtfoundthatthesitewasnotunderthemanagementandcontrolofthedefendantwhentheincidentoccurred.TheCourtsaidthedefendantcouldonlyhavemanagementandcontrolwhenitwasphysicallypresentonthesiteandwhenithadtheactualabilitytodosomethingtopreventinjuryoccurringorriskstoheathfromarising.Atthetimeoftheincident,SouthShoreswastheonlyentitypresentwithanyauthoritytodirectKayastowhatshewastodoandwhereshewastogo.KateHillwasnottheagentofthedefendant–shewasretainedbySouthShoresandherpresenceonthesitewasattheinstigationofSouthShores.

Inthealternative,theCourtsaidifanobligationwasimposeduponthedefendant,thenitdidallthatwasreasonablypracticabletoensurethatKaywassafefrominjuryandriskstoherhealth.Thesitewasfencedarounditsentireperimeterandhadgatesatthefrontentrance.ThedefendanthaddischargeditsobligationbypromulgatingthissystemtopreventtheentryofpersonsontotheconstructionsitewithoutpropersupervisionandbycommunicatingthatsystemtoSouthShoresandSouthShores’agent.

LessonforARAmembers:

Thiscasedemonstratestheimportanceofcontractualandpracticalmeasurestolimitliabilityarsingfromhaving‘control’ofpremisesorpersonsundertheOHSlegislation.

Labourhireinjuriesandfinesawarningtoallemployers

TwoVictorianMagistrateCourtdecisionsshouldserveasaremindertolabourhireandhostemployersoftheirresponsibilitiestoensurethesafetyofalltheirworkers.

Hostemployer,AsixaPtyLtdhasbeenfined$250,000afteraworkerwascrushedbya700kgcrateofglass.Theworkerwasunloadingtheglassfromatruckusingaforkliftandwhenhegotouttoadjusttheload,itfellonhim.Theworkerremainsinavegetativestatenearlythreeyearsaftertheincident.TheCourtheardtheworkerdidnothaveacertificateofcompetencytooperateaforklift,norwashegiveninformation,

PAGE5

ARA OHS BRiefing 3rd iSSue 2009

LessonforARAmembers:

Thesizeofthepenaltyinthiscaseillustratestheimportanceofseniormanagementsupportingandcommittingtosafetyandenforcingrelevantpoliciesandthesignificanceoftheprovisionof‘socialsupport’toinjuredemployees.

Contractserviceemployersmustensuresafety atclientcontrolledsites:employerfined$200K

inspectorpattonvWesternFreightManagementptyLtd (No2)[2009]NSWiRComm124

TheNSWIndustrialRelationsCommissionhasfinedanemployer$200,000afteradeathonit’sclientspremises.Thisdecisionservesasareminderthatemployersareobligatedtoensurethesafetyoftheirworkers,evenwhiletheyareunderthecontrolofothers.

ThedecisionrelatestothedeathofanemployeeofWesternFreightManagement,whowaskilledafterhewascrushedbetweenareversingtruckandaloadingdockatthedepotofStarTrackExpress.StarTrackExpress,aclientofWesternFreightManagement,wasconvictedandfined$150,000inrelationtotheincidentin2007.

Incalculatingapenalty,PresidentBolandconsideredtheinadequatestepstakenbytheemployertoguardagainsttheriskfollowingtheincidentandtheemployer’sfailuretoenteraguiltyplea.Healsotookintoaccounttheemployer’s“goodindustrialcharacter”andlackofanypriorconvictions.PresidentBolandfinedtheemployer$200,000.

LessonforARAmembers:

Employershaveanobligationtoensurethesafetyoftheirworkers,evenwhiletheyareunderthecontrolofothers,suchasonaclient’spremises.

principalcontractorsofCrossCityTunnelfined$840Koverdeathofworker

inspectorHowardvBaulderstoneHornibrookptyLtd[2009]NSWiRComm92

TheNSWIndustrialCourthashandeddownafineof$840,000totheprincipalcontractorsofSydney’sCrossCityTunneldevelopment,followingthedeathofamachineoperatorin2004.

In2002,ajointventureofBilfingerBergerAGanditssubsidiariesBaulderstoneHornibrookPtyLtdandCrossCityTunnelPtyLtdwasengagedastheprincipalcontractorintheplan,designand

JusticeBlackmansaidtheseriousnessoftheoffencewashighlightedbythefactthattherisksassociatedwithworkingwithpneumatictyres–orsplitrimtyreassemblies–werewellknownwithinPlasser’sindustry.Plasserwasawareoftheriskbyreasonofthewarningsignaffixedtothecraneonthelefthandside,butthecontrolsputinplacebyitpriortotheoffencetoaddresstherisk,wereinadequateonthedayoftheoffence.Plasserwasfined$95,000.

LessonforARAmembers:

Thiscasehighlightstheimportanceofanadequateandeffectivelymanagedvisitorsafetyprocedure.Whererisksareknown,itisallthemoreimportanttoensurethattheyaremanagedeffectively.

educationdepartmentfined$540Kforfailuretoprovide‘socialsupport’

CahillvStateofNewSouthWales(departmentofeducationandTraininganddepartmentofJuvenileJustice)(No3)[2009]NSWiRComm97(26June2009)

TheDepartmentofEducationandTraining(DET)hasbeenfoundguiltyofbreachings8(1)oftheOHSAct2000afterateacherandtwoteacher'saides,employedbythePutlandEducationandTrainingUnitattheCobhamJuvenileDetentionCentre,experiencedviolentandanti-socialbehaviouratworkandsufferedpsychologicalinjuriesasaresult.

Theteachersandaideswerethreatenedbyadetaineeandwerelefttodealwiththesituationaloneaftertheirduressalarmwasnotrespondedto.Severaldayslatertheteacherhadachairthrownathim.

Insentencingtheemployer,JusticeSchmidtnotedthatoneofrealproblemswasthattheprincipalofthetrainingunitbelievedthattheirsafetywasnotherresponsibilityora matterfortheDET,buttheDepartmentofJuvenileJustice.

JusticeSchmidtnotedthattheDepartmenthaddevisednumerouswrittenpolicies,inadditiontopracticalsystems,toprotectstafffromtheriskofpsychologicalinjury,howeverpoliciesthatwerespecificallydesignedtoensurethatstaffdidnotsufferpsychologicalinjury,aswellasphysicalinjurywerenotenforced,andpracticalsafetysystemsthatwereinplacealsofailedincertainrespects.JusticeSchmidtsaidhadthesesystemsbeeninoperation,theprincipalwouldnothavebeenabletorefusetodealwiththerealandongoingconcernswhichstaffhadabouttheirsafety.

JusticeSchmidtconsideredtheDepartment'sculpabilityanditslackofsocialsupportprovidedtotheinjuredworkersfollowingtheincidentsandfineditatotalof$540,000.

PAGE6

ARA OHS BRiefing 3rd iSSue 2009

totheincident,andWacothereforeproposedtowithholdthedocumentsbasedonaclaimoflegalprofessionalprivilege.

Theproductionoffourdocumentswasdisputed,namely:

• ahandwrittenstatementoftheprojectsupervisor,datedthedayoftheaccident

• investigationnotespreparedbythenationalOHSmanager,aspartofthepreparationofthereportintotheaccident;

• astatementofthesalesrepresentative,datedsixdaysaftertheaccident;and

• aninvestigationreportpreparedbythenationalOHSmanager.

ThequestionofwhetherthedocumentsweregenuinelyprivilegedwasdealtwithonaninterlocutorybasisbyJusticeBackmanintheIndustrialCourtofNewSouthWales,andprivilegewasupheld.

Legalprofessionalprivilege

JusticeBackmanconsideredtheclaimbyreferencetocommonlawprinciples,includingthedominantpurposetestwhichprovidesthatlegalprofessionalprivilegewillnotapplyifobtaininglegaladviceisnottheruling,prevailingormostinfluentialpurposeforcreatingadocument.WorkCoverchallengedprivilegeonthebasisthatthedocumentswerecreatedformultiplepurposes,namely:

• compliancewithWaco’spolicy,whichrequiredall accidentsandinjuriestoberecordedandreported;

• todetectwhethertherewasanyfaultinthesystemof workatthetimeoftheincident;and

• toascertainwhethertherehadbeenanybreachbyemployeesorsubcontractorsofWaco’spolicies.

JusticeBackmanrejectedWorkCover’sargumentandupheldtheprivilegeattachingtothedocuments.

Whatactionsdidthesolicitorstaketocreateandmaintainprivilege?

• Fromtheveryfirstcommunicationonthedayoftheincident,thedirectiontopreparethereportwasexpresslyconnectedtotherequestforlegaladviceinrelationtotheaccident,andthepossibilityofproceedingsbeingcommencedagainstWacoundertheOccupationalHealthandSafetyAct2000(NSW).

• TheCommissionconsideredthepurposeofdocumentsatthetimetheywerecommissionedandsothefactthatthispurposewasexpresslystatedwascritical.

constructionofthetunnel.Twoyearslateramachineoperator,MrRonaldShores,sustainedfatalinjuriesafterbeingcrushedbyarockwhentheroofofthetunnelcollapsed.

Aninvestigationintotheincidentfoundthatinadequateroofsupportwasinstalledintheshaftandthat“warningsignals”–evidentinthegeologicalconditions–wereeithermissedorinadequatelyrespondedto.In2007,theNSWcoronerfoundthedeathwaspreventable.

BilfingerBergerandCrossCityTunnelwereeachchargedwithtwooffencesoftheOHSActandBaulderstoneHornibrookwaschargedwiththreeoffences.Allofthechargesrelatedto:

1 permittingpersonstoworkincircumstanceswhereadequateroofsupportwasnotinstalled;

2 failingtoprovideafallingobjectsprotectionsystem;and

3 failuretoinstallguardrails.

TheCourtnotedthatalthoughthedangerinthiscasewasoccasionedbythegeologicalconditionsfoundintheparticularareaofthetunnelandtheabsenceof“appropriatetechnicalintervention”fromprojectdesigners,theprincipalswereobligedtoproactivelysearchforandidentifyallpossibleriskstosafetyintheworkplace.Performanceofthisobligationshouldhaveextendedtointerrogatingthedesignersastotheadequacyoftheroofsupport.

TheCourtfinedBilfingerBerger$257,400;BaulderstoneHornibrook$380,437;andCrossCityTunnelPtyLimited$203,775TheCourtconsideredtheculpabilityofthejointventuredefendantstobeequal,butimposedalargerpenaltyonBaulderstoneHornibrookbecauseofitsthreepreviousconvictions.

LessonforARAmembers:

ThiscaseillustratesthehighstandardofsafetyrequiredunderOHSlawsandtheimportanceofclarifyingthenatureofeachparty’sresponsibilitiesregardingOHSatthecommencementofacomplexconstructionprojectinvolvingaconsortiumofcompanies.

MaintaininglegalprofessionalprivilegeinthecontextofOHSinvestigations

inspectorAnthonyNicholson(WorkCoverAuthorityofNSW)vWacoKwikformLimited[2009]NSWiRComm123

WorkCoversoughtproductionofcertaindocumentsbyWacoKwikform(Waco)inthecontextofinvestigatingaworkplacefatality.ThedocumentshadbeencreatedinresponsetoarequestbyWaco’ssolicitorstoprepareareportinrelation

PAGE7

• Incidentresponsesystemsshouldreflectthefactthatwheredocumentsarecommissionedbyanexternalsolicitorthedominantpurposetestwillinvolveconsiderationoftheintentionofthesolicitor,notsimplytheauthorofthedocument.Ithelpstoengagelegaladvisersatanearlystageandonafootingwhichacknowledgesarequestforlegaladviceorthecontemplationoflegalproceedings.

• Considerwhetheryourincidentresponsepolicieswillbeconsistentwiththepreparationofreportsforthepurposeoflegaladviceorwhethertheywillshowthatthereisacompetingpurpose.Forexample,ifyourpoliciesstipulateanexplicitrequirementtoprepareareportforgeneralbusinesspurposes,itwillbemoredifficulttoclaimprivilegeatalaterstage.

• Whereappropriate,adoptascrupulousapproachtoannotatingdocumentswithappropriatereferencestoprivilegeandconfidentialityandlimitingthecirculationofthosereports.

Companyfined$260,000:Failuretoriskassessevidentof“laxapproachtosafety”

inspectordugdalevSaraLeeAustralia&NZptyLtd[2009]NSWiRComm133

SaraLeeAustralia&NZPtyLtdhasbeenfined$260,000afterfailingtoremedyasafetyriskthatcausedseveralincidentssince1997.

SaraLeewasprosecutedbyWorkCoverinrelationtotwoincidentsinvolvingapackingmachine’s“kickerarm”,whichwasasteelrodoperatedbypneumaticpressuretocloseboxflaps.Inthefirstincidentaworkersufferedgrazingtoherheadafterbeingstruckonthesideoftheforeheadbythekickerarm.Inthesecondincident,whichoccurredsixweekslater,aworkersufferedafracturedcheekbonerequiringreconstructivesurgeryandopticnervereconnectionswhenshewasstruckbythekickerarm.

PresidentRogerBolandheardthatthekickerarmhadalsocausedinjury(andexposedworkerstoriskofinjury)ontwopreviousoccasions.

AttheNSWIndustrialRelationsCourt,SaraLeeconcededthatatthetimeoftheincidentsithadnotconductedadequateriskassessmentsonthepackagingmachineandthekickerarm,andthatithadnosufficientsystemtoensurethattheriskidentifiedwasappropriatelyassessedandstepsweretakentoremoveit.

• Theimmediateinstructionfromthesolicitorswastopreparethereportforthepurposeofthemprovidingadviceandtomarktheoriginalreportandanydocumentsproducedforthepurposeofpreparingthereportas“Privilegedandconfidential–preparedsolelyforthepurposesofobtaininglegaladvice”.Thisannotationclearlyshowedthedocumentswereintendedtobeconfidentialandprivileged.

• Thesolicitorscautionedthatanycopiesofthereportshouldbecarefullylimitedandshouldincludetheannotationabove,whichreinforcedtheintendedconfidentialityofthedocuments.

• Becausetherequestforlegaladvicewasspecificallyidentifiedinthesolicitors’letter,thecasewasconductedonthebasisthattheprivilegerelatedtoobtaininglegaladvice,howeverJudgeBackmancommentedthataclaimbasedonanticipatedorcontemplatedlegalproceedingswouldalsohavebeenavailablebecauseoftheseriousnessoftheincident.Althoughthesolicitors’letterreferredtothe“possibility”oflitigation,thefacttherewasafatalitymeantthatlitigationcouldreasonablyhavebeenanticipated.

WhatactionsdidWacotaketocreateandmaintainprivilege?

• Legaladvicewassoughtonthesamedayastheincidentsothatallthedocumentswerecreatedaftertherequestbythesolicitorstoprepareareport.Assuch,Wacocouldmoreeasilyestablishthatthedocumentswerepreparedforthedominantpurposeofobtaininglegaladvice.

• WacohadapolicyforrecordingandreportingallaccidentsandinjuriesbutWorkCoverwereunabletotenderanyevidencethatshowedthedocumentsunderdisputewerecreatedforthepurposeofcomplyingwiththatpolicy.JusticeBackmansaidtheexistenceofthepolicydidnot,withoutfurtherevidence,pointtoacompetingpurposeforthepreparationofthedocuments.

LessonsforARAmembers

• Thedecisionhighlightsanumberofprinciplestokeepinmindwhenmanagingprivilegeinthecontextofinvestigations.Attimesstepstomaintainprivilegecanseemartificialandcumbersome,butthisdecisionshowsthatcarefulandimmediatesystemstocreateandmaintainprivilegewillbeeffectiveandwillprotectyourlegalpositioniflitigationislatercommenced.

• EmployersshouldanticipatethattheOHSregulator (orunion)maychallengeaclaimforprivilege.

ARA OHS BRiefing 3rd iSSue 2009

PAGE8

ARA OHS BRiefing 3rd iSSue 2009

pipethatwasnotproperlysecured.Theworkerwasengagedasanindependentcontractor.Proceedingswerebroughtagainsttheprincipalcontractor,LeightonContractorsPtyLtd;itssubcontractor,DownviewPtyLtdandthecompanythatsuppliedtheservicesofaconcretetruckdriver,WarrenStewartPtyLtd.

Atfirstinstance,WarrenSteweardwasorderedtopaythefulldamagesawardtothecontractorbutclaimsagainstLeightonandDownviewweredismissed.IntheCourtofAppeal,thatdecisionwasoverturned,andLeightonandDownviewwerefoundtohavebreachedtheirdutyofcareinfailingtoproperlyinductthecontractor.OnfurtherAppealtotheHighCourt,theconvictionsofLeightonandDownviewwereoverturned.

TheHighCourtheldthatLeighton,astheprincipalcontractor,wasnotsubjecttoadutyofcarerequiringittoprovidetrainingtospecialistsubcontractorsonsafeworkmethodsintaskswithintheirexpertise.TheCourtsaidLeighton’sonlyobligations,undercl213(1)oftheNSWOHSRegulation,wastobesatisfiedthatapersoncarryingoutconstructionworkonthesitehadundergoneOHSinductiontraining,ratherthanprovidingthattrainingitself.

TheCourtalsofoundthatDownviewhadengagedtheworkerasa“competentindependentcontractor”andDownviewwasthereforenotsubjecttoanongoinggenerallawobligationwithrespecttothesafetyoftheworkmethodsemployedbythecontractororthosewithwhomthecontractorsubcontracted.TheCourtnotedhowever,thathadDownviewfailedtoengage acompetentcontractor,itmaynothaveavoidedliabilityin thisway.

TheCourtallowedtheappeal,dismissingthecontractor’sappealstotheCourtofAppealandsettingasideitssubsequentorders.

LessonsforARAmembers:

Thiscasehighlightsthatemployersthatengageexpertcontractorshavenocommonlawdutytoprovidesafeworkmethodtrainingfortaskswithintheirspeciality.However,thiscasealsonotesthatliabilitycanonlybeavoidedinthiswayif“competent”independentcontractorsareengaged.Itisthereforenecessarytoconsidertheskillsandexpertiseofindependentcontractorstodeterminethescopeofdutiesowedtothem.

employerscouldberesponsibleforsafetybeyondtheirworksites

inspectorColinWallvOricaAustraliaptyLimited[2009]NSWiComm146

TheCourtheardthatthekickerarmhadbeeninspectedbyanareasupervisorandmaintenanceengineerintheperiodbetweenthetwoincidents,butthatfollowingtheinspection,nomodificationsweremadetothemachineortothesystemsofwork.HisHonoursaidtheemployer'sfailuretoundertakeanadequateriskassessmentduringthatperioddemonstratedits"laxapproachtosafety"andincreasedtheseriousnessoftheoffencerelatingtothesecondincident.

HisHonouralsosaiditwas“difficulttounderstandwhythekickerarmremainedforsomanyyearsapotentrisktosafety”giventhattheAustralianStandardforSafeguardingMachinerywarnedoftheverydangerconstitutedbythekickerarm.

PresidentBolandheardthatafterthesecondincident,theemployerconductedawrittenriskassessmentofthemachine,andinstalledanewvalvesystemwithsignageandwarninglights.PresidentBolandsaidthesesimpleandstraightforwardremedialstepscouldhavebeentakenbytheemployerearlier.

HenotedthatSaraLeedidnotenteraguiltypleaattheearliestopportunity.Regardless,heconsideredtheutilitarianvalueofthepleatobehighandallowedita22.5percentpenaltydiscount.

SaraLeawasfinedatotalof$260,000forbothoffences.

LessonsforARAmembers:

Thiscaseemphasisestheneedforemployerstoimplementapromptandeffectiveriskassessmentwhensafetyincidentsarise.Employer’swhofailtoimplementchangestosystemsorproceduresfollowingasafetyincidentwillfacemoresignificantpenalties,because a“laxapproachtosafety”increasestheseriousness oftheoffence.

Thiscasealsoservesasareminderoftheopportunityforemployer’storeceiveadiscountinpenaltybyenteringaguiltypleaattheearliestopportunity.

HighCourtfindsthatemployersarenotrequiredtotrainspecialistsubcontractors

LeightonContractorsptyLtdvFox;CallideninsuranceLimitedvFox[2009]HCA35

TheHighCourthasruledthatemployersthatengageexpertcontractorshavenocommonlawdutytoprovidesafeworkmethodtrainingfortaskswithintheirspeciality.

Thisrulingfollowsalongrunningcaseregardingaworkerwhowasseriouslyinjuredafterbeingstruckontheheadbya

PAGE9

SYdNeYGovernorPhillipTower1FarrerPlaceSydneyNSW2000

Tel+61292106500Fax+61292106611

MeLBOURNeBourkePlace600BourkeStreetMelbourneVIC3000

Tel+61396723000Fax+61396723010

BRiSBANeWaterfrontPlace1EagleStreetBrisbaneQLD4000

Tel+61732289333Fax+61732289444

peRTHWoodsidePlaza240StGeorge’sTerracePerthWA6000

Tel+61894601666Fax+61894601667

©CorrsChambersWestgarth,2009

Thisnewsletterprovidesinformationabouttopicallegalissues.Informationcontainedinthisnewsletterisintendedasanintroduction onlyandshouldnotbereliedoninplaceoflegaladvice.

IfyoudonotwishtoreceivefurtherinformationofthiskindfromCorrs,pleaseprovideuswiththenameofthispublication,yournameand contactdetailsviamail:c/oDatabaseAdministrator,MarketingDepartment,CorrsChambersWestgarth,GPOBox9925MELBOURNEVIC3001; Tel+61396723505;oremailprivacy@corrs.com.au.

ARA OHS BRiefing 3rd iSSue 2009

LessonsforARAmembers:

EmployerscanbeliableforabreachesofOHSobligationseveniftheOHSincidentarisesoutsideoftheemployers’worksite.Ifanemployerhasadegreeofcontroloverabuildingandcouldhavetakenstepstocontrolentrytothatbuilding,itwillbeliableforabreachoftheOHSActshouldanOHSincidentarise.

Oricawasfined$110,000foranOHSincidenteventhough theincidentoccurredinabuildingthatOricahadnoauthoritytoaccess.

AnOricaemployeewasonhismorningteabreakinanunusedbuilding12metresawayfromtheworkplacewhenhefellfourmetresandsufferedseriousinjuriestohislowerback.Theemployerhadleasedcertainbuildingsinthepremises,butnotthedisusedbuilding.Theemployerwasnotallowedaccesstoortoundertakeanyworksinthedisusedbuilding.

TheCourtheardthatpriortotheincident,Oricahadaffixedawarningsigntothedoorofthebuildingandasafetybarriertapeacrosstheentrancetothestepsleadinguptothesecondstorey.Howeveratthetimeoftheincident,thewarningsignwasnotattachedtothedoorandthetapehad“fallenintodisrepair.”

TheemployerwaschargedwithabreachoftheOHSActforfailingtoprovideinformation,instruction,trainingandsupervisionandpreventitsworkersfromenteringandusingthebuilding.

JusticeBackmansaidthefactthattheemployerconductedsafetyauditsanderectedasafetybarriershowedthatithadadegreeofcontroloverthebuildingandcouldhaveapproachedtheownertotakestepstoprevententrytothebuilding.HoweverherHonourallowedapenaltyreductiononthebasisthattheinjuredworkerdidnotenterthebuildingforaworkrelatedpurpose.Oricawasfined$110,000outofamaximum$825,000.

Forfurtherinformation,pleasecontact:

Stephenpricepartnerstephen.price@corrs.com.auTel +61 2 9210 6236

JackdeFlaminghpartnerjack.de.flamingh@corrs.com.auTel +61 2 9210 6192

KatherineMorrisSeniorAssociatekatherine.morris@corrs.com.auTel +61 2 9210 6173

ValGostencnikpartnerval.gostencnik@corrs.com.auTel +61 3 9672 3093

RosemaryRochepartnerrosemary.roche@corrs.com.auTel +61 3 9672 3044

PAGE10