workplace safety, safety products, materials handling, safety news

A hindrance or a help? - obtaining details of pre-existing injuries from prospective employees

online@safetyinaustralia.com.au (Administrator) — Mon, 02 Dec 2013 10:12:23 +0000

DibbsBarker

The recent amendments to the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) (WCRA) allow an employer during the hiring process to:

Request that a prospective worker disclose pre-existing injuries or medical conditions.
Ask the Regulator for a copy of a prospective worker's claims history summary, with the prospective worker's consent.

While the amendments appear to benefit employers and workers' compensation insurers at first glance, employers should proceed with caution in making changes to the way they approach the hiring process.

Requesting disclosure from a prospective worker

An employer's request for disclosure must:

be in writing
include the nature of the duties the subject of the employment
state that, if the prospective worker knowingly makes a false or misleading disclosure, then the prospective worker will not be entitled to compensation or to seek damages for any event that aggravates the pre-existing injury or medical condition, and
give the prospective worker a reasonable opportunity to comply with the request.

What is a 'pre-existing injury or medical condition'?

'Pre-existing injury or medical condition' is defined as "... an injury or medical condition existing during the period of the employment process that a person suspects or, ought reasonably to suspect, would be aggravated by performing the duties the subject of the employment."

The term 'existing' is not defined, although it seems to suggest an injury or condition that, at the very least, has not resolved prior to the employment process. The explanatory memorandum seems to contemplate a broader interpretation which does not distinguish between suspicion of a live injury/condition, and a resolved injury/condition, being aggravated.

What is false or misleading disclosure?

'False or misleading disclosure' is defined as "... any disclosure that would lead a prospective employer to reasonably believe that the duties the subject of the employment would not aggravate the prospective worker's pre-existing injury or condition."

The issue of false or misleading disclosure is likely to be highly contentious given the consequences. It is to be expected that a review body or a court will not deprive a worker of his or her rights to compensation and/or damages lightly, with disputes likely to be concerned with:

The worker's awareness of the pre-existing injury or condition during the employment process and whether he/she 'knowingly' made 'false or misleading disclosure'. Proving the subjective knowledge of an individual is always difficult.
Whether the injury was 'existing' during the employment process. Proof that the injury was 'existing' might require proof that the injury or condition was symptomatic during the employment process.
Whether the worker was given enough information about the duties to enable the worker to make proper disclosure. This will require sufficient detail about the critical demands and requirements of a role to be given to enable the prospective worker to make a properly informed decision regarding disclosure.
Whether the injury the subject of the claim is an aggravation of a pre-existing injury or condition, or a new injury. Medical opinion can vary on these types of issues.

The workers' compensation insurer will bear the evidentiary onus, and each of the above requirements may be difficult to meet.

Knowledge of a relevant pre-existing injury or condition

There are two variations to the standard of care which flow from pre-existing injuries or conditions:

If a worker has a particular vulnerability which is not reasonably foreseeable, then a system of work or plant or equipment which would not have harmed a person without the vulnerability will not be the basis for a finding of breach of duty for an injury arising from that vulnerability, provided the employer was not aware of it.
However, if the employer knew that the worker suffered from a particular vulnerability, a special or higher duty is then owed because of that knowledge.

Employers should be mindful of the potential for increased exposure in common law negligence in circumstances where disclosure has been made of pre-existing injuries or conditions.

Discrimination legislation

Further, employers must also be careful not to contravene the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) and the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld), all of which have prohibitions on employers taking discriminatory action against prospective employees on the basis of disability or impairment.

For instance, if an employee discloses a pre-existing injury and it can be established that an employer has discriminated against or otherwise treated that employee less favourably based on their pre-existing injury, the employer may be liable for compensation.

Some key points employers should consider are:

Simply requesting information about a worker's pre-existing injury or medical condition does not make it lawful for an employer to then take discriminatory or adverse action against a worker based on that information.
If a prospective employee establishes that an employer has taken adverse action against him or her on the basis of a pre-existing injury, the employer will then bear the onus of proof to show that it did not take adverse action against the employee because of that injury.
Employers should be reconciling the changes in the WCRA with their hiring policies, and should be making detailed records of interviews and application processes where a worker discloses a pre-existing injury.
Employers should ensure that requests for information about pre-existing injuries and medical conditions strictly comply with the WCRA and discrimination legislation.

Conclusion

In summary, before implementing any changes to their hiring process, employers should bear in mind that:

The evidentiary requirements for an insurer to establish that a worker has no entitlement to compensation or damages are particularly onerous, and are likely to only be satisfied in the clearest of circumstances.
Knowledge at the outset of an employee's pre-existing vulnerabilities may lead to a higher standard of care for the employer at common law, and a greater liability exposure.
Care must still be taken not to contravene the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) and the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) when using information obtained under the changes to the WCRA.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Managing a mentally ill employee brings its own unique challenges

online@safetyinaustralia.com.au (Administrator) — Mon, 02 Dec 2013 10:10:58 +0000

Article by Michael Byrnes

Clayton Utz

Key Points:

When dealing with a mentally ill employee, an employer must balance various considerations and avoid assumptions, speculation and urban myth.

A recent decision of the Fair Work Commission has highlighted the significant challenges and risks facing employers when seeking to terminate employees suffering from mental illness.

In Applicantv Respondent [2013] FWC 7421, the Fair Work Commission found that a public hospital had unfairly dismissed an employee from his audio-typist position on the basis of his mental illness.

An employee's conduct causes concern

Following repeated complaints by other employees about what they described as the Applicant's "weird'' and "disturbing" emails, the Respondent's Employee Relations Manager met with the Applicant on 16 March 2013.

The Applicant was asked whether he would be willing to undertake a psychiatric assessment. This would determine what, if any, condition he suffered from, his capacity for work, and what steps, if any, he could take to safely return him to the workplace. The Applicant agreed.

Ten days later the Respondent received a copy of the independent medical report prepared by Associate Professor Doherty, which said the Applicant had a disorder of the mind – paranoid schizophrenia – for which he was neither seeing a psychiatrist nor taking medication.

According to Associate Professor Doherty, the Applicant had no current capacity for work, would be an unreliable and inconsistent worker and engage co-workers in mistaken beliefs about himself, and had a strong potential to be disruptive in the workplace.

Significantly, in answering the third question of his brief ("should any conditions be imposed on the worker to facilitate his return to work?") Associate Professor Doherty stated:

"In my opinion, your employee needs to be in psychiatric treatment... In my opinion your employee should provide a certificate by a treating psychiatrist certifying that he is fit to return to work before he so returns to work."

Two days later the Respondent terminated the Applicant's employment on the basis of the psychiatric report and his inappropriate emails to co-workers.

Was the termination harsh, unjust or unreasonable?

The Fair Work Commission said it was – and that there was no valid reason to sack the Applicant.

Crucially, Commissioner Ryan found that the Respondent on its own evidence ignored Associate Professor Doherty's advice on the Applicant's return to work:

"Associate Professor Peter J Doherty did not say that the Applicant had a permanent incapacity to perform work for the Respondent.

Rather, Associate Professor Peter J Doherty described the Applicant as not having a current capacity to work. "

The Applicant'sweird and disturbing emails were not a valid reason for dismissal either, as they were sent before the Respondent asked the Applicant be psychiatrically assessed. There was also no evidence they affected the health and safety of other employees:

"It would appear to be indefensible to dismiss an employee who has a mental disorder for conduct which occurred when the employee was unaware that he had a mental disorder and for which he had not yet received any treatment."

So what happens now to the Applicant?

The Fair Work Commission ordered the Applicant be reinstated with continuity of service and lost earnings. Commissioner Ryan stressed that, while reinstatement restored the employment relationship, it did not automatically mean that the Applicant immediately returned to the workplace.

Both the Applicant and the Respondent agreed that he suffered from a mental disorder (although not on what it actually was, with the Applicant contending it was Autism Spectrum Disorder, not paranoid schizophrenia).

Commissioner Ryan accordingly required the Applicant to get a clearance from a treating psychologist and a treating psychiatrist that he was fit to return to work before he could go back to the hospital and his job.

The challenge for employers with mentally ill employees

Managing employees with any illness or injury is often a vexed issue for employers, with competing considerations to be balanced, such as discrimination, adverse action or unfair dismissal.

Mental illness adds another layer of complexity. Not only is it a distressing and challenging medical problem which is often poorly understood, but it can be a difficult legal issue for employers, especially if its symptoms pose a perceived or actual risk to the health and safety of fellow employees, or the sufferer.

Employers should take a bespoke approach, fashioned to the individual employee's circumstances and based on cogent evidence, not assumptions, speculation and urban myth:

a current diagnosis is important but by no means determinative;
general "capacity assessments" will almost invariably not suffice;
an expert prognosis, particularly one that specifically assesses the employee's future capacity to perform the inherent requirements of his or her position, is an important foundation upon which to base decisions on the management of the employee; and
employees must be given a reasonable time for treatment and their condition to improve.

If the employee's illness does not improve upon treatment, or the employee refuses to seek or continue treatment, then an employer can take steps that might lead to termination. Likewise, if an employee's behaviour raises a genuine risk or threat to others' welfare, then an employer must take steps to protect them, which could include termination. In taking any of these steps, however, the employer must not lose sight of the importance of making decisions based on evidence, not speculation or assumptions.

Clayton Utz communications are intended to provide commentary and general information. They should not be relied upon as legal advice. Formal legal advice should be sought in particular transactions or on matters of interest arising from this bulletin. Persons listed may not be admitted in all states and territories.

Workplace bullying guides in place - replacing proposed Code of Practice

online@safetyinaustralia.com.au (Administrator) — Mon, 02 Dec 2013 10:09:56 +0000

Article by Andrew Ball and Donna Trembath

DLA Piper Australia

After two years, two drafts and two rounds of public consultation, Safe Work Australia has determined to release its draft Code of Practice on Preventing and Responding to Workplace Bullying in the form of a Guide (Bullying Guide).

While the Bullying Guide will not have the same legal force as a Code of Practice, it will set a national benchmark for managing workplace bullying that is likely to have a strong impact on, not only work health and safety law, but on applications to the Fair Work Commission under the new anti-bullying laws that apply from 1 January 2014.

Safe Work Australia will also issue a separate 'Workers Guide' to workplace bullying (Workers Guide). The Workers Guide can be expected to have a strong influence on employee expectations around how organisations should respond to bullying complaints.

Background

Safe Work Australia is an independent statutory agency responsible for improving occupational health and safety arrangements across Australia. It has presided over an occupational health and safety harmonisation process that was agreed by all jurisdictions in principle in 2008 and which has led to the Commonwealth and six of eight states and territories (other than Victoria and Western Australia) legislating close to 'mirror' Work Health Safety Acts from 1 January 2012 onwards.

Who is covered by the new bullying laws

The new anti-bullying laws under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act) apply to all Australian workers unless they are bullied at work in a business that is not a 'constitutionally covered businesses'. This excludes sole traders, partnerships, state public service departments and agencies, as well as state government entities and councils (unless they can be characterised as constitutional corporations). The FW Act also restricts coverage of the new laws insofar as they might pertain to matters involving Australia's defence, security or the Australian Federal Police. Volunteer associations with no employees are also excluded.

Excluded organisations could potentially still be drawn into applications under the anti-bullying laws. For example, a contractor (employed by a company and therefore covered by the new laws) working in a state government department (not covered by the new laws) may bring an application under the new laws that includes allegations against members of the Department.

Content of the Bullying Guide

The content of the Bullying Guide, when it is published at the end of November 2013, is likely to include many features of Safe Work Australia's draft Code of Practice on Preventing and Responding to Workplace Bullying (Draft Bullying Code).

The Draft Bullying Code defines workplace bullying as 'repeated and unreasonable behaviour directed towards a worker or a group of workers that creates a risk to health and safety'. This is consistent with the FW Act, under which a worker is 'bullied at work' if, 'while the worker is at work in a constitutionally-covered business an individual or a group of individuals repeatedly behaves unreasonably towards the worker, or a group of workers of which the worker is a member, and that behaviour creates a risk to health and safety'.

The Bullying Guide is likely to provide a useful accompaniment to the FW Act by providing examples of behaviours that could potentially be considered workplace bullying. In the Draft Bullying Code examples included not only overt behaviours, but behaviours that are more subtle and likely to be more difficult to prove, such as unjustified criticism or complaints, withholding information vital for effective work performance, setting unreasonable deadlines or constantly changing deadlines, setting tasks that are unreasonably below or beyond a person's skill level and excessive scrutiny at work.

Content of the Workers Guide

The draft Workers Guide includes a section titled 'What To Expect From Your Organisation' that encourages workers to expect that their employer will:

Respond to a bullying report quickly and reasonably
Maintain confidentiality
Remain neutral and impartial to everyone involved
Provide ongoing support for the employee even if the matter is resolved
If the matter is investigated, appoint a suitably qualified, neutral internal investigator or a suitably qualified external investigator.

Legal and other effects of the Bullying Guide and Workers Guide

Once the Bullying Guide and the Workers Guide are finalised it will be up to the relevant state and territory regulators to adopt the Guides in their jurisdiction.

Because the Guide is not a Code of Practice it does not have the status that is conferred under section 275 of the harmonised work health and safety legislation, which makes a Code of Practice admissible in prosecution proceedings under the legislation.

However, the Guide could still be used in legal proceedings. For example, a WorkSafe Victoria Guidance note on Prevention of Bullying and Violence at Work dated February 2003 was cited in a recent civil case on psychological injury: Brown v Maurice Blackburn Cashman [2013] VSCA 122 (22 May 2013). The worker in that case submitted that the court should apply the definition of bullying in that guide. Osborn J of the Supreme Court of Victoria, Court of Appeal, with whom Harper JA and Macaulay AJA agreed, observed:

As [the Judge in the proceedings at first instance] noted this definition of workplace bullying does not have legislative force but he accepted that it was a reasonable working definition of workplace bullying against which to objectively analyse the allegations made with respect to [the accused's] behaviour.

Further, as the judgment makes clear, during the course of the trial, the managing partner of the law firm that employed the applicant was cross-examined by reference to the guidance note .

The Bullying Guide should be seized upon by in-house employment lawyers and human resources managers as it carries the imprimatur of work health and safety law and will create a national standard for best practice management in relation to workplace bullying in Australia. It will also assist organisations to prepare to defend applications under the new anti-bullying laws from 1 January 2014.

Modifying behaviours to prevent bullying complaints
We consider the Bullying Guide, the Workers Guide and the new bullying provisions in the FW Act will be a catalyst for modifying behaviours in the workplace.

For example, to avoid bullying claims:
By employees who say they have been subject to unjustified criticism or complaints, managers should think carefully before criticising or complaining about an employee and consider doing so in a structured meeting with the employee rather than making ill thought out remarks in front of the employee and others.
Based on employees' being set tasks unreasonably below or beyond their skill level, employees should be provided with job descriptions when employed, and written performance reviews on an annual basis, that confirm the expected skill level and typical tasks (including mundane tasks like photocopying, or, at the other end of the spectrum, difficult tasks) required of the role.
Based on over-scrutiny, managers who are scrutinising employees in relation to legitimate concerns about issues such as late arrival at work or lack of attention to detail should consider elevating these issues to formal performance management with an agreed monitoring process so that the employee is aware of the process.

In our view, these trends are likely to lead to a shift in the thinking of many organisations about the importance of actively managing employees.

This publication is intended as a general overview and discussion of the subjects dealt with. It is not intended to be, and should not used as, a substitute for taking legal advice in any specific situation. DLA Piper Australia will accept no responsibility for any actions taken or not taken on the basis of this publication.

NTC releases proposed options for 2014 heavy vehicle charges for consultation

online@safetyinaustralia.com.au (Administrator) — Mon, 02 Dec 2013 10:06:22 +0000

The NTC has released today a range of options for heavy vehicle charges to apply from 1 July 2014, for public consultation.

The 2014 Heavy Vehicle Charges Determination Draft Regulation Impact Statement outlines proposed options for heavy vehicle registration and road user charges (RUC - also known as the fuel charge) and builds upon the findings of the Heavy Vehicle Charges Review conducted during 2012 and 2013.

“In May 2013, the NTC completed a review of the current charging system for heavy vehicles in collaboration with stakeholders, and identified opportunities to improve the manner in which charges are determined. The Standing Council on Transport and Infrastructure (SCOTI) endorsed the NTC proceeding with the determination based on these recommendations,” said Paul Retter, NTC Chief Executive and Commissioner.

“One of the key recommendations was to explore ways to raise the road user charge above its current level to allow for a reduction in the registration charge.

“Industry feedback suggests that this may reduce an operator’s fixed costs and address problems currently being experienced by low mileage operators.”

The draft Regulation Impact Statement (RIS) proposes several options for calculating heavy vehicle charges:

Updated status quo uses the current charges methodology with updated road expenditure and vehicle usage data. In addition, this option would use the most recent vehicle numbers from state/territory road agency registration databases to estimate registration revenue, rather than the current method of relying on survey data collected every two years.
Option A would incorporate the range of technical improvements to the current system resulting from the review, and maintain the current split in revenue between RUC and registration charges (62.1% raised through RUC, 37.9% raised through registration charges).
Options B and C include the same technical improvements as Option A, but recover a higher proportion of revenue through RUC than is currently the case. Option B represents a moderate shift (71.7% raised through RUC, 28.3% raised through registration charges) whereas Option C represents the most significant shift (79.2% raised through RUC, 20.8% raised through registration charges).

These options, together with details of proposed heavy vehicle charges, are provided for public consultation.

Options A, B and C incorporate technical improvements to the current system resulting from the review.

“This includes using more up-to-date road expenditure and vehicle usage data, the adoption of axle grouping charging to better reflect how industry uses heavy vehicles and improving the accuracy and transparency of heavy vehicle related expenditure reporting,” said Mr Retter.

“The NTC used a collaborative co-design approach involving both governments and industry participants in order to develop the proposed options for heavy vehicle charges. The consultation period aims to facilitate further discussions and input.”

Mr Retter encouraged those in the heavy vehicle industry to provide feedback by attending the upcoming consultation forums in various regional and urban locations or by making a submission on the draft RIS via the NTC website, before 17 January 2014.

For more information about the consultation forums and to register to attend, visit the online registrations website at www.emgregistrations.com.au/ntc/ or call toll free 1800 907 834.

Following the public consultation process, the NTC is required to finalise recommendations on heavy vehicle charges in order to present to SCOTI for approval in February 2014.

Further information about the heavy vehicle charges determination is available here.

an NTC release

NTC Annual Report 2012-13 – A New Era

online@safetyinaustralia.com.au (Administrator) — Mon, 02 Dec 2013 10:05:14 +0000

The National Transport Commission (NTC) today (26/11) released its annual report for the 2012-13 financial year.

NTC Chief Executive and Commissioner, Paul Retter, said that 2012-13 marked the beginning of a new era for the Australian transport industry.

“The commencement of the new National Heavy Vehicle Regulator and new National Rail Safety Regulator in January 2013 means that for the first time since federation, Australia will have a single set of heavy vehicle and rail safety laws,” said Mr Retter.

“We are proud of our role in leading the development of the Heavy Vehicle National Law and Rail Safety National Law in collaboration with our reform partners and the NTC is committed to continuing to support their successful establishment.

“In addition, emerging technologies such as Cooperative Intelligent Transport Systems and Electronic Work Diaries will fundamentally change the landscape in which the NTC will lead future reforms,” said Mr Retter.

Mr Retter said that in accordance with the outcomes of the 2012 Review of NTC and other transport bodies, during 2012-13 the NTC have also placed high priority on reforms such as the delivery of the heavy vehicle charges determination.

“Formal working relationships with the regulators are also being established as a priority, together with changes to the NTC’s strategic planning process and performance reporting. These changes will strengthen the NTC and ensure we continue to deliver value to our stakeholders into the future,” added Mr Retter.

Key highlights from 2012-13 financial year include:

The NTC adopting a ‘co-design’ approach with stakeholders to explore a range of improvements to the current heavy vehicle charging system to ensure it is more practical and fair. The NTC’s collaborative approach to this work will continue throughout the next stage of the project which will include making specific recommendations on what the charges should be.
The NTC’s work on new and emerging technologies, such as Electronic Work Diaries and Cooperative Intelligent Transport Systems, including how to harness the productivity and safety benefits these technologies present. The NTC will continue to work collaboratively with our reform partners as we further develop regulatory reform options in this ‘game-changing’ policy area.
The revision of the National Standard for Health Assessment of Rail Safety Workers in consultation with industry, rail unions, rail safety regulators and health professionals to ensure that it reflected best practice and the latest knowledge in the field.
Working with the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator, industry and governments to revise the National Driver Work Diary. These changes, also informed through public consultation, are expected to enable drivers to fill out the daily sheets more rapidly, as less information is required and some duplication has been eliminated. The revised diary will be administered by the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator when the fatigue laws come into effect.
The Performance Based Standards (PBS) scheme reaching a significant milestone in October 2012, with the approval of more than 1000 heavy vehicle combinations since its inception in 2007.

“I am excited by the opportunities ahead and I am looking forward to continuing to work in collaboration with our stakeholders to develop and deliver effective transport reforms,” said Mr Retter.

A copy of the NTC’s Annual Report 2012-13 can be downloaded from the annual report section of the website.

An NTC release

Updates from the IAF/ILAC Committee

online@safetyinaustralia.com.au (Administrator) — Mon, 02 Dec 2013 09:28:25 +0000

Since the General Assembly in Rio de Janeiro, October 2012, the MLA Committee met in Seoul in October this year. The MLA MC met twice (Frankfurt, April 2013 and Seoul, October 2013) and the JMC (IAF MLA MC and ILAC AMC) met twice in Frankfurt in April 2013 and in Seoul in October 2013.There are now 58 AB signatories to the IAF MLA from 52 countries/economies. The IAF has also recognised three Regional Group MLAs. The 57 signatories and three Regional Groups have the following scope:
Main scope:
Management Systems ISO/IEC 17021: 3 Regional Groups and 52 accreditation bodies
Product ISO/IEC Guide 65: 3 Regional Groups and 49 accreditation bodies
Sub Scope:
ISO 9001: 3 Regional Groups and 52 accreditation bodies
ISO 14001: 3 Regional Groups and 47 accreditation bodies

The IAF MLA MC manages the peer evaluations of three regions (EA, PAC and IAAC) and two unaffiliated bodies (EGAC and SANAS). With the exception of PAC, all peer evaluations are arranged jointly with ILAC. The peer evaluation of PAC that commenced in 2009 has not been finalised and is a priority item for the MLA MC. The next re-evaluation of PAC will commence in February 2014.
At the JMC meeting in Seoul, members agreed on a joint approach to peer evaluation report review, which should improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the post on-site peer evaluation process. Prior to this agreement, IAF and ILAC undertook post on-site activity separately incurring unnecessary work for the team and evaluated body or region.

The MLA Committee at their meeting in Seoul made some significant advancement in relation to the expansion of the IAF MLA. The MLA Committee agree to announce to Members that the IAF MLA MC is now in a position to receive applications for the Main scope of Certification of Persons ISO/IEC 17024, and a sub-scope of Medical Devices under the Main scope of ISO/IEC 17021. The MLA Committee also agreed that once the IAF MDs being developed by the FSMS and ISMS WGs are published, the MLA MC will be in a position to receive applications for the sub-scopes of FSMS (ISO TS 22003 & ISO 22000) and ISMS (ISO/IE 27006 & ISO 27001).

Another significant event in relation to the IAF MLA was the signing of an agreement between FoodPLUS and the IAF. The Agreement finalises the IAF endorsement of the GLOBALG.A.P Integrated Farm Assurance (IFA) certification scheme. The Agreement was signed between IAF and FoodPLUS by Mr Randy Dougherty, the Chairman of IAF and Mr Andras Frekete on behalf of Dr Kristian Moller, the Secretary of GlobalG.A.P. and the Managing Director of FoodPlus GmbH, on the 25th October 2013. The endorsement of the IFA certification scheme introduces the IFA certification scheme into the IAF MLA as a sub-scope (level 4 and level 5) under the Main scope of ISO/IEC Guide 65/17065. The MLA Committee will develop an evaluation protocol for the extension before advising Members on how and when they can submit applications.

The MLA Committee with the assistance from Fei Yang from CNAS has been developing a database for the oversight of foreign critical locations for the past two years. Fei provided the MLA Committee with a demonstration of the new database, which will hopefully be commissioned by 1 January 2014. The new database has been populated with the information that had been received using the old spreadsheet tool. Members will be asked to update the information once the database is commissioned.

A JAS-ANZ release

Union urges workplace safety probe into all trucking deaths

online@safetyinaustralia.com.au (Administrator) — Wed, 27 Nov 2013 07:37:51 +0000

The Transport Workers Union says workplace health and safety officials should investigate all trucking fatalities.

Assistant secretary Scott Connolly says currently only police investigate crashes involving trucks, like Monday's fatal rollover at Kogan.

However, he says only workplace health and safety officials can provide a more thorough investigation.

"These accidents are treated as road accidents as opposed to workplace accidents and so they don't get the full scrutiny of the workplace health and safety authorities that is required to actually start really making improvements in the state of fatality rates in our industry and on our highways," he said.

He says police investigations do not look into the driver's history or workplace pressures.

"Who was the load allocator, who didn't check the driver's log book and realise he worked 14 hours or 12 hours before he'd gone out and done that extra six, seven, eight-hour trip?

"So there's some fundamental mechanisms that health and safety laws have in place that aren't applied to these accidents."

Workplace Health and Safety Queensland says it investigates transport crashes that have a work-related component.

An ABC release - orginal article

Asbestos awareness month

online@safetyinaustralia.com.au (Administrator) — Wed, 27 Nov 2013 07:30:15 +0000

Asbestos Awareness Month, 1 - 30 November 2013 aims to educate Australians about the dangers of - asbestos in and around homes because Australia has one of the highest rates of asbestos-related diseases in the world.

With asbestos-related diseases continuing to increase among Australians as a direct result of exposure to asbestos fibres during home renovations and maintenance, the importance of raising awareness about the dangers of asbestos and how best to manage it in and around homes, cannot be overstated!

During Asbestos Awareness Month 2013 we aim to educate as many Australians as possible about the dangers of asbestos and how best to manage it.

Many wrongly believe that ONLY fibro homes contain asbestos. Asbestos products can most likely be found in ANY Australian home built or renovated before 1987 even brick, weatherboard, fibro and clad homes.

Asbestos can be found under floor coverings such as carpets, linoleum and vinyl tiles, behind wall and floor tiles, in cement floors, internal and external walls, ceilings, eaves, garages, around hot water pipes, fences, extensions to homes, outdoor toilets, dog kennels, chook yards and backyard sheds it could be anywhere!

Its vital that Australians take the warnings seriously, that they stop playing renovation roulette and protect themselves and their families from exposure to asbestos fibres during renovations and maintenance.

Australians need to think smart, think safe, think asbestosawareness.com.au - its not worth the risk!

During Asbestos Awareness Month Australians can host a 'Blue Lamington Drive' to raise awareness of asbestos in homes and help raise vital funds for the Asbestos Disease Research Institute by visiting www.bluelamington.com.

Reaping contractor fatality

online@safetyinaustralia.com.au (Administrator) — Wed, 27 Nov 2013 07:18:26 +0000

SafeWork SA regrets to inform of a workplace fatality in which a reaping contractor died at Cockaleechie, near Tumby Bay, on Tuesday, 26 November 2013.

While performing a maintenance task on the header, the man received fatal crush injuries when he became trapped between the feeder house and the under-side frame of the

harvester cabin during an uncontrolled raising of the header comb assembly.

SafeWork SA work health and safety inspectors have commenced their investigation into this tragic incident.

SafeWork SA Executive Director Bryan Russell said the incident was a tragedy for the man, his family, friends as well as his local and the wider West Coast community.

“We know that farming is a high-risk occupation. The importance of working safely and managing known risks cannot be overstated,” Mr Russell said.

“People working on properties in regional areas face unique challenges, including risks arising from heavy equipment, machinery, fatigue and working alone,” he said.

“The most effective way to eliminate the risk of potential injury is to put safety first and consider the consequences of an injury, or worse, the loss of life,” Mr Russell said.

This is the second farming fatality on the West Coast in two weeks and brings this year’s work-related fatality toll to 14 compared with 17 for 2012.

A SafeWork SA release

Employees honoured for outstanding work

online@safetyinaustralia.com.au (Administrator) — Wed, 27 Nov 2013 07:15:21 +0000

The brightest and best from the five insurance agents committed to supporting and serving Victoria’s injured workers were honoured at a ceremony in Melbourne last night.

WorkSafe’s annual Injury Support and Service awards showcased the outstanding performances of employees from Allianz Australia, Gallagher Bassett, CGU, Xchanging and QBE.

Awards were presented for excellence in the fields of personal injury management, client performance, service delivery, return to work, innovation and premium management.

There were also awards for outstanding contributions made by an individual, a team and a new starter.

WorkSafe Chief Executive Denise Cosgrove said every finalist had demonstrated extraordinary skill and passion in their field and deserved to be recognised.

“Whether they’re a case manager, an injury management adviser or a return to work specialist, all the finalists and winners should be proud of their achievements. Their hard work and dedication is exemplary,” Ms Cosgrove said.

During the evening, scholarships for postgraduate studies with the Personal Injury Education Foundation were also awarded to four agent employees.

“In partnership with our agents, we want to make this industry one where all of our people can have a rewarding career, with opportunities for development and progression,” Ms Cosgrove said.

The awards ceremony was attended by executives from all five agents, board members and executives from WorkSafe and TAC, and representatives from the Victorian Government, unions, employer groups and other stakeholders.

2013 INJURY SUPPORT AND SERVICE AWARD WINNERS:

Excellence in Personal Injury Management:

Lauren Ryan (Allianz Australia)

Improving Client Performance:

Danny Benjamin (Gallagher Bassett Workers Compensation Victoria)

Excellence in Return to Work:

Don Ayers (CGU Workers Compensation Victoria)

Excellence in Service Delivery:

Kellie Salmon (Allianz Australia)

Excellence in Innovation:

Impairment Benefits Risk Streaming Model (CGU Workers Compensation Victoria)

Excellence in Premium Management:

Neetu Girdhar (Xchanging)

Outstanding Contribution by a Team:

N2 – National Claims Team (Allianz Australia)

Outstanding New Starter:

Brentton Peacock (Xchanging)

Outstanding Contribution by an Individual:

Pauline Stebbing (QBE Workers Compensation Victoria)

a WorkSafe Vic release

- See more at: http://www.worksafenews.com.au/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=357:employees-honoured-for-outstanding-work&Itemid=117#sthash.TYr14njf.dpuf