Hypothetical Scenario:

Mr Benjamin William Jones is the CEO of MAGIC, a large, state based organisation that provides a diverse range of services including security services, administration, storage and delivery, and training. This organisation has been established for some twenty years and provides a range of services to the public and private sector. The majority of workers are fulltime with support being provided from some part time employees, and some contractors.

MAGIC has four (4) regional centres with a Regional Manager and an appropriate number of workers. Each Regional Manager provides quarterly written reports on productivity, performance and HR issues. The CEO reports to the Board on a quarterly basis.

A recent workplace death resulted in a detailed investigation being conducted by the police and the Division of Workplace Health and Safety. Reports prepared for the Coroner have indicated that workplace bullying was a contributing factor in the death.

 The Inquest heard from the police and the Division of Workplace Health and Safety investigators, along with two witnesses who gave evidence that the deceased said words to the effect that „

 he said he was going to kill himself because he just couldn’t take it anymore’

 As a result of the Inquest, the Coroner has recommended that a number of persons from MAGIC be prosecuted in relation to criminal offences and workplace health and safety breaches.

 Mr Jones has now been called to give evidence in relation the organisation?s risk management policy and procedures as they relate to workplace bullying.

 Mr George Train, Barrister-at-Law is appearing to represent the interests of the deceased, Graham Thomas Bones.

 INTRODUCTION

 The Crown Prosecutor has opened the Crown case by indicating that they will produce witnesses and other evidence that Mr Bones was responsible for his own death and that Mr Jones and others had taken all reasonable action to prevent a workplace death from bullying.

 The Defense will argue that Mr Jones and others by their inaction and failure to prevent the death of Mr Bones were directly responsible for his death.

 Opening comments have been made by the judiciary. The legal representatives have introduced themselves and outlined their roles.

 Mr Jones has taken the stand and taken the Oath. The Crown has lead Mr Jones through his evidence in chief and Mr Train the defense barrister is now cross examining him.

 Note: For ease of reading, a Question and Response approach has been taken.

 Mr Train commences.

 Question:

“Mr Jones, can you tell this Court what is your role with MAGIC?”

Response

: “Yes, I am the CEO and I have been in that position for the last two years. I worked my way up in MAGIC.”

Question:

“Thank you Mr Jones. Now, prior to becoming the CEO, what was your role?”

Response:

“Yes, as I said before, I started on the front line working in security, and over the years, moved through various areas including storage, training and administration. About ten years ago, I was promoted to Regional Manager”.

Question:

“Good. Now can you tell the Court what you did as a Regional Manager?”

Response:

“Well, I was responsible for making sure that decisions from head office were implemented. This meant hiring and firing at a local level, generally managing the workers and making sure they complied with all our policies and procedures, and making sure our reputation was maintained”.

Question:

“Yes, that?s good. Now can you tell me about some of the specific policies that you have had dealings with as a Regional Manager?”

Response:

“Um, most of the time it was fairly straight forward hiring people and sacking some, but generally it wasn?t a problem. Any time I was in doubt, I used to contact the HR Director. Most of the time though, one of the line managers would sack someone and then tell me what they had done. I would just sign off and send the paper work through to head office”.

Question:

“Interesting. Now, did you receive any formal training in relation to procedures for hiring or firing?”

Response:

“No, not really. From time to time though, we did get some documentation from head office outlining the key points to consider. It was pretty easy to follow.”

Question:

“Okay. What can you tell me about the risk management policy and procedures?”

Response:

“Head office appointed a risk management coordinator a few years ago and people rotate through that position. Not long after I was appointed as the Regional Manager, the risk management coordinator did a State tour. He came to our Regional Office and spoke for about an hour on the policy and left copies of the documentation and told us that if we had any problems, to give him a ring.”

Question:

“Did you ever have to give him a ring?”

Response:

“No, but what happened was that the auditors came through about three months later and found that we were not complying with some areas”.

Question:

“Can you tell the Court what those areas were?”

Response:

“Yes, it seemed that we were completing too much paperwork when doing the reports, and reporting on every hazard and risk. Apparently, we were only required to report the high risks.”

Question:

“I see. Did you have some concerns with this?”

Response:

“Well, yes. When the risk management coordinator came around he told us that we had to report on every risk and hazard and this is also in the policy.”

Question:

“I see. What can you tell the court about your knowledge of the workplace bullying policy?”

Response:

“I knew there was a policy and it was on the intranet but it was a HR issue that was generally handled by the HR area.”

Question:

“I see. Can I ask you to look at this document?” (Mr Jones is handed a copy of Workplace Bullying Policy dated September 2001).

Mr Jones looks at the document.

Question:

“What can you tell the Court about that document?”

Response:

“Well, it is the Workplace Bullying Policy for our organisation. It is dated September 2001.”

Question:

“Can I refer you to page 7?”

Mr Jones turns to page 7.

Question:

“Can I ask you to read out what it says in paragraph 6.4?”

Response:

“Yes, it says Regional managers are to ensure that they apply the risk management policy in all areas of the organisation. This includes operational, finance and HR.”

Question:

“Thank you Mr Jones. Now can you tell the Court how you as the Regional Manager applied the risk management policy in relation to workplace bullying?”

Response:

“Yes, I remember the previous Regional Manager coming back from head office where she had attended a meeting of the executives. She told us that a decision had been made that workplace bullying was not a high risk and that the usual systems and processes would apply.”

Question:

“Okay. What did you think was meant by that?”

Response:

“Well, I knew we had a support system in place, you know contact officers, and we had a network of safety officers. I knew there was a policy in place at that time so I thought that if the executive had made that decision, they would accept the risk if anything went wrong.”

Question:

“Mr Jones, you are now the CEO of your organisation. Can you tell the Court what changes you have made since you were promoted?”

Response:

“Yes, I have been busy. The Board wants us to increase our production levels in all areas, and we have had to make a number of changes because of Fair Work Australia as well as trying to do something about carbon tax.”

Question:

“Yes, I see. Now, have you made any changes in relation to your risk management policies and procedures?”

Response:

“Well, not long after I was promoted, I asked the risk management coordinator for a briefing in relation to industry trends and directions regarding risk management. He recommended that we review our policy and procedures as the process for updating them had started some 6 years ago. He also recommended that we have a Risk Management Committee and that we follow ISO 3100 for all our risk management. I also spoke to our Corporate Safety Manager and he told me that we should use the work health and safety risk management framework for all safety issues including bullying”.

Question:

“So you asked for some advice about 2 years ago. Is that correct?

Response:

“Yes, just after I was promoted so that would be about 22 months ago I suppose.”

Question:

“Can you tell the Court what is the current status in relation to your risk management policy and procedure?”

Response:

“Yes, I am waiting for the risk management coordinator to present a final draft to the executive so that we can sign off and have the new policy implemented.”

Question:

“Do you know when you will get the final draft?”

Response:

“Well it was supposed to be three months ago, but then the floods hit us.”

Question:

“I see. What can you tell me about your current workplace bullying policy?”

Response:

“Yes, I had a briefing from the HR director about a month ago. The Corporate Safety Manager had prepared a draft for discussion but somehow there was a virus in the computer system and the draft has been lost. There was a backup and that has been sent around for comment.”

Question:

“I see. Can you tell the Court when your current workplace bullying policy was issued?”

Response:

“I am not sure. I haven?t seen it recently.”

Question:

“Well, Mr Jones, can you look at this document and tell the Court when it was issued?

Mr Jones looks at the document.

Response:

“It was issued in November 2003.”

Question:

“Can you tell the Court whose signature appears on that document?”

Mr Jones looks at document.

Response:

“It is my signature.”

Question:

“Can you tell the Court why you signed the policy?”

Response:

“Yes, at that time, all the Regional Managers had to relieve the then CEO when he went on holidays. We would do everything that he would do, including sign policy”.

Question:

“I see. Can you turn to page 8, and look at paragraph 9.4?”

Mr Jones turns to page 8.

Question:

“Mr Jones, can you read out paragraph 9.4?”

Response:

“Yes, it says – The CEO or any person acting as the CEO is to ensure that the workplace bullying policy is reviewed annually or at any time when a Court, Commission or Tribunal is such that the decision may impact on this organisation. When changes are made, the CEO or any person acting as the CEO is to ensure that these changes are communicated to all workers.”

Question:

“Thank you Mr Jones. Now, you said that you signed the policy in November 2003. Is that correct?

Response:

“Yes”.

Question:

“Can you tell the Court how many times the policy has been reviewed since 2003?”

Response:

“Well, I haven?t signed off any changes. There may have been some changes, but I wasn?t aware of them.”

Question:

“Mr Jones, can you tell the Court how the CEO gets to sign off on policies?”

Response:

“Well, there would be a draft document sent around for consultation and when that had been finished, a final draft would be discussed by the Executive. If the executive was happy, the CEO would sign off.”

Question:

“So then, what you are telling the Court is that the risk management policy and the workplace bullying policy are still in the process of being finalized. Is that correct?”

Response:

“Yes”.

Question:

“In effect, the risk management policy and the workplace bullying policies have both been in existence for some time. Is that correct?”

Response:

“Yes”

Question:

“Mr Jones, do you read every policy before you sign it?”

Response:

“If I have time. We have a good process for developing policy, and sometimes I just sign what is put in front of me, especially when I see the word policy in the heading.”

Question:

“Thank you Mr Jones. Now can you tell me how many risk management workshops have been conducted in your organisation in the last two years?”

Response:

“After the initial round of training when risk management first came into the organisation, we developed a system of online training and all workers are expected to complete a refresher every year.”

Question:

“Mr Jones, when is the last time that you completed risk management training?”

Response:

“I am not sure. I have been busy trying to run the organisation. Probably not in the last two years”.

Question:

“I see. When did you last attend a workplace bullying training session?”

Response:

“We had a quick presentation at our last Executive conference three months ago, but nothing in the last two years.”

Question:

“Mr Jones, can you tell the Court how many workplace bullying incidents have been reported in the past two years?”

Response:

“Yes, there have been three”.

Question:

“What can you tell the Court about those three incidents?”

Response:

“Yes, in the first one, one of the workers was complaining about being put into a performance management plan. There was an investigation that supported what we were doing. In the other two, one involved some issues regarding assaults so the alleged bully was sacked and that matter is still going through a Tribunal hearing. In the other case, the victim lodged a WorkCover claim which was rejected. She lodged a Review and the WorkCover decision was overturned. We are still trying to sort that out.”

Question:

“Are you aware of any other incidents that may not have been reported?”

Response:

“No. There are always some rumours. If there was anything happening, workers could always report the matters to a support person”.

Question:

“Mr Jones, in relation to this matter involving Mr Bones, when did you first become aware of the bullying?”

Response:

“I hadn?t heard anything specific. I knew that he worked in an area where there was a bit of banter and teasing, but nothing really serious. Most of the blokes that work can handle a bit of rough and tumble.”

Question:

“Have you ever visited that particular workplace and spoken about your workplace bullying policy?”

Response:

“No, I have been there but no, I haven?t spoken about the policy”.

Question:

“When you were last in that workplace, did you see any copies of the brochures that your policies talk about?”

Response:

“No”

Question:

“Did you see the names of the Contact Officers displayed anywhere?”

Response:

„No”.

Question:

“Do you know who the Contact Officers are in your organisation?”

Response:

“No, I would have to look them up.”

Question:

“Do you know where you would find their names?”

Response:

“Yes, they would be on the intranet”.

Question:

“How often is that list updated?”

Response:

“Every time there is a change”.

Question:

“Mr Jones, can you look at this list and tell the Court what it is?”

Mr Jones looks at a list. “It is the list of Contact Officers.”

Question:

“Mr Jones, can you tell the Court whether that is a current list?”

Response:

“As far as I know it is”.

Question:

“Mr Jones, what can you tell the Court about Mr Green, Miss Jones, and Mr White?”

Response:

“Oh, they no longer work for us”.

Question:

“So Mr Jones, it appears that your risk management policy is not current. Is that correct?”

Response:

“Yes”.

Question:

“Mr Jones, your workplace bullying is out of date. Is that correct?”

Response:

“Yes”

Question:

“Your list of contact officers is out of date. Is that correct?”

Response:

“Yes”

Question:

“Mr Jones, what can you tell the Court about changes that your organisation is making as a result of the harmonization of workplace health and safety laws?”

Response:

“Yes, we had a presentation about 12 months ago from our Safety Manager. We have been waiting for the Government to finalise the regulations”.

Question:

“Mr Jones, would you be surprised if I told you that the regulations were finalized six months ago”.

Response:

“I will have to follow that up with the Safety Manager.”

Question:

“Mr Jones, the harmonization process resulted in some significant changes about due diligence for officers. What can you tell the Court about those changes?”

Response:

“Well, the Safety Manager did cover that during the presentation, but so far, I have been busy running the business. The Board wants MAGIC to increase the productivity in all areas.”

Question:

“Mr Jones, can you tell the Court about how you keep up to date with health and safety knowledge and information?”

Response:

“Well, we have a Safety Manager and a network of safety officers. I expect the Safety Manager to let me know about anything specific”.

Question:

“I see. Can you tell the Court about the last time you left your office to do some work health and safety checks?”

Response:

“I don?t go out specifically to check on work health and safety. I have been busy in the last six months. I rely on the Safety Manager and the Regional managers to tell me about any issues”.

Question:

“I see. Can you tell the Court when it was that you last attended a work health and safety training session of any kind?”

Response:

“Sometimes I have opened some sessions, but because it has been busy, I haven?t been able to stay.”

Question:

“Mr Jones, I want you to think about you answer to this question. You earlier told my learned colleague Mr Ducklove, the Crown Prosecutor that you were committed to safety leadership and that the safety of all workers was the number one concern of yours. Is that correct?”

Response:

“Yes”.

Question:

“Mr Jones, you have given evidence that you have been busy running the business, that you only opened some health and safety sessions, that you don?t keep up to date with safety changes, that your risk management policy is not current and that your workplace bullying policy is out of date. Is that correct?”

Response:

“Yes, I suppose that is true.”

Question:

“Mr Jones, it seems that you are saying that nobody told you all the specifics about the problems with your systems and processes? Is that correct?

Response:

“Well, not completely correct. I did ask some questions along the way”.

Question:

“Mr Jones, can you tell the Court, how you demonstrate your commitment to workplace health and safety if your risk management and your workplace bullying policies are not current?

Mr Jones sits there without responding.

Mr Train concludes by saying “I have no further questions of this witness, Your Honour.”

COMMENTS

Whilst the Crown will try and show that the worker contributed to their own death, responses provided by witnesses and through the production of exhibits such as corporate records, could show the opposite, or at least show that the actions or inactions of a range of people created an environment that was conducive to workplace bullying.

In a case like this, the Crown will try and show that there are systems and processes in place. For example, the following systems and processes should be evident and supported through documentation:

Risk management policy and procedures

-  Copies of risk management plans, directives, instructions, training records

Workplace bullying policy and procedures

-  Copies of documentation, evidence of consultation, risk assessment

Clearly defined responsibilities for Officers

Clear understanding of due diligence requirements

Training for all workers including executives

Commitment to work health and safety – evidence that the CEO and other executives do site inspections – safety leadership

Good support networks

-  Current list of Contact officers, training, brochures, contact numbers

Regular reviews of policies and procedures that take into consideration changes to legislation, Court/Commission or Tribunal decisions, and Review findings

Investigation processes

Management and Supervisory training in relation to conflict management/resolution

Management reviews and audits regarding effectiveness or otherwise of various policies and procedures e.g. risk management and workplace bullying

The defense will try and prove that those systems and processes identified above were sub standard, out dated, or did not exist, and that these were issues that contributed to the workers death.

This scenario has been written in such a way to highlight the problems that can exist for organisations when inappropriate responses are provided. In a case like this, the defense would have no doubt been seeking to put other workers and managers into the witness box prior to cross examining Mr Jones.

The responses provided in this scenario highlight how not to respond. Self incrimination can occur when a business owner or CEO has not conducted any research into systems or processes, or cannot demonstrate a reasonable understanding of policies and procedures.

As the due diligence requirements under the harmonization process now indicate, officers need to make themselves familiar with the health and safety systems and processes. A lack of understanding can result in inappropriate responses being provided during a Court, Commission or Tribunal hearing.

It might be a reasonable ploy or strategy to demonstrate to the Court that whilst there may have been some documentation, the actual workplace culture showed a lack of commitment and understanding of work health and safety.

LESSONS TO BE LEARNED

Prepare for a day in Court

Practice responses

Create scenario based training with role plays

Test organisational documentation

Anticipate worst case scenarios and develop risk management plans

Address workplace bullying through risk management, fraud and corruption plans, audit plans, safety plans

Identify left field questions

Engage professionals to assist in developing appropriate responses

Conduct „spot? audits and checks in the workplace

Demonstrate evidence of consultation

Know how risk assessments were conducted and what was considered

Understanding what is due diligence and what is required

Do your planning

Bernie Althofer AFAIM 2011 ©

EGL I ASSESSMENTS PTY LTD

P: 0419 661 421

W: www.egliassessments.com

Thank you Bernie for your fantastic article!

Understanding the difference shift work makes to the way the body functions can help adjust to a different pattern of life.

Why is shift work different from day work?

 The basic problem with shift work is having to work at times the body is designed to be resting. People are day oriented. This means all our body functions are geared to be active in the daytime and to sleep at night.

Body functions vary through a 24-hour cycle. This variation is called the ‘Circadian Rhythm’ (body clock). We depend on external cues such as light and dark, and the timing of meals for the body clock to work normally. Two important functions of the body clock are daily changes in temperature and production of digestive juices.

 Body Temperature cycle

Body temperature rises during daytime ready for increased activity. At night body temperature falls, which helps us slow down and feel sleepy.

 Digestion Cycle

Digestive juices are produced before the usual daily meal times. The activity of the digestive system is reduced at night.

After 2 or 3 nightshifts, the body starts to adjust, but the body clock goes back to normal after 1 to 2 days off. The body clock never changes permanently to a different sleep/wake cycle, even in permanent night workers.

In some people, different body functions adjust at different rates, and this can become a problem if working too many consecutive nightshifts.

 Work performance

On nightshift, workers will be working when their body does not function as well as it does in the daytime. However, the employer depends on work being done equally well at night as it is in the daytime.

Fatigue and sleepiness on the job are the major problems. Some jobs may also have a safety element that requires mental alertness. Injuries happen more frequently when people are fatigued.

It is important for health, alertness and work performance to take rest breaks when due, they should never be traded off for overtime. Workers who work long hours without a break can become ‘dangerously drowsy’.

 When the work undertaken is inactive or desk bound the following hints may help:

-       don’t dim the lights;

-       talk to others on the same shift regularly. It may help to keep all workers more alert;

standing up, doing stretches and back arches or walking around for a minute of two can provide relief from stiffness and fatigue, caused by sitting in the same position for extended periods;

-       splashing face and hands with water, can also assist when feeling tired.

 Life at home

Just as the body follows a rhythm, so does the social and family life. Once again the shift worker is out of step. When they are awake everyone else is sleeping; when they are at work everyone else has free time. Children may only see their shift working parent for short periods.

There may be weekends when all the family is not together because of shift work. To help reduce difficulties with domestic and social arrangements:

talk with family members ahead of time about problems which result from shift work and look for solutions;

-       buy a large monthly planner. Fill in the roster and sleeping schedules. This makes it easier to organise activities together;

-       adjust to the household routine where possible. Give the opportunity for children or partner to make suggestions about how to fit in to their activities;

-       take preschool children to a play group on the mornings before sleeping, or arrange with friends with small children to swap child minding duties on sleeping days;

-       take over some household duties on days off. One of the advantages of shift work is being home during the day;

-       during school holidays, plan days out with the family.

 Social life

Normal social interaction with family and friends is so important people may cut down on their sleep time so they can take part in customary social activities. This can affect work performance.

Plan to make the most of the time off. Let friends know the ‘free’ time;

see if there are others on shift work who will join in with daytime sport or other activity.

 Hints for health and fitness

Good health and physical fitness will assist shift workers to cope with the changes in lifestyle and working patterns.

Make sure that a healthy eating pattern is maintained. Availability of good food is crucial to assist workers to cope successfully with shift work. Take the time at home to prepare food packs and fruit to eat at work during breaks. This will help those who overdose on chocolate bars and soft drinks, just because it was the only food around at the time.

 Make an effort to increase physical activity during leisure time. Physical exercise can improve a person’s ability to survive shift work. Join a gym, take a walk, go for a swim or go bike riding, on days off;

Cut down on smoking, or preferably give it up altogether;

 Hints for sleeping

To avoid a build-up of fatigue shift workers must get as close to an average amount of sleep as possible.

Make sure ahead of time that conditions for day-sleep are as favourable as possible, for example curtains with block-out backing or blinds will reduce the light level, sleeping in cool conditions helps in getting to and staying asleep.  Heavy curtains and sound insulation on the doors and windows may reduce noise levels. Earplugs may help!

Let close neighbours know the shift worker’s sleep schedules, in the daytime so they can avoid mowing or noisy car repairs.

Some shift workers prefer to go straight to bed while others find it better to read or watch television first; take a shower or a soak in a hot bath before going to bed; and don’t eat or drink too much prior to sleeping and avoid drinking coffee in the last few hours prior to sleeping.

We’d love to hear some of your comments….are you a shift worker?  It would be great to hear some experiences!

• noise and risks to health
• relevant noise legislation
• what employers, workers and self-employed persons should know
• noise and hearing protectors
• noise hazard identification checklist
• decibel levels of common sounds
• where you can get further information

Click to view the publication on Noise

We’d love to hear your comments and experiences so, feel free to leave a comment!

1) Dealing with Aggression

Healthcare workers may be exposed to patients, family members or members of the public who display aggressive behaviour. In most cases, healthcare facilities will have well established procedures in place to deal with these situations however there are a few steps that you can follow when responding to this behaviour. •Remain calm – be polite and do not raise your voice.

• Call for assistance – contact another staff member to assist.

• Keep out of reach – it is important to keep your distance (two arms length at minimum)

• Do not antagonise – never abuse or ridicule. Also, let the aggressor leave and do not attempt to detain the person.

• And finally, report the incident to both your supervisor in the workplace and Nursing Australia. It is also important that you complete an incident report.

2) Manual Handling

Manual Handling refers to any activity requiring the use of force exerted by a person to lift, push, pull, carry or otherwise move or restrain any animate or inanimate object.

Manual handling continues to be a major cause of injuries in the healthcare industry therefore it is important that members follow correct manual handling procedures at all times. Whilst working in a healthcare facility, you should:

1 Ensure that you have had appropriate training in manual handling and that this is updated on a regular basis. If you require training, contact a Nursing Australia representative

2 Use equipment provided including hoists, slide boards and ensure that you report any faulty equipment to your supervisor immediately.

3 Be aware of the client’s safe work procedures in relation to manual handling. These provide step by step instructions on how to perform a task safely.

4 Always check a patient’s care plan, mobility assessments or any other patient specific manual handling plans prior to the transfer to ensure that you are using the correct transfer method.

5 Do not lift outside your capacity and do not be afraid to ask for help.

3) Infection Control

Due to exposure to biological hazards, healthcare workers face a risk of acquiring or spreading infections in the normal course of their work. It is therefore important that appropriate precautions are taken and these include;

1 Ensure that you follow Standard Precautions.

2 Wear Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) appropriate to the task (e.g. gloves, aprons, masks).

3 Ensure appropriate handling and disposal of sharps and other clinical waste. Also, never re-sheath needles.

4 Wash your hands frequently.

5 Ensure contaminated waste is disposed of in line with the client’s waste disposal procedure.

If you sustain a needle stick injury, it is important that you contact your supervisor and a Nursing Australia representative immediately.

4) Managing Fatigue

Given the nature of healthcare, healthcare workers often work long hours through shift work and overtime. Fatigue caused by a lack of sleep and/or physically and mentally demanding tasks, has the potential to impact significantly on an individual’s health and wellbeing as well as their ability to perform their duties safely. Fatigue can also compromise clinical care.

The following are tips to help prevent fatigue;

1 Ensure that you have had adequate sleep (7-9 hours daily is recommended for adults).

2 Manage your shifts and workload to ensure that you are not overworked that you have adequate breaks to allow for rest.

3 Take at least a 30 minutes break after 6 hours of work.

4 It is recommended that rostered hours not exceed 48 hours per week.

5 Maintain your health and fitness at a good level.

6 Take care when driving home after a night shift. Consider alternate transport methods.

Nursing Australia takes fatigue management seriously and manages this through shift allocation. It is however the member’s responsibility to advise us if they are working additional shifts with another employer and that actions are taken to manage their workload to prevent fatigue.

5) Slips, Trips and Falls

Slips, trips and falls are also a common cause of injuries in the healthcare industry. It is important that hazards leading to slips, trips and falls be identified and removed from the workplace to minimise the risk of injury.

The following are tips to minimise the risk of slips, trips and falls;

1 Wear appropriate non-slip footwear and if provided, wear gum boots when showering patients.

2 Remove any unnecessary materials or equipment in the work area.

3 Always use handrails when walking up and down stairs.

4 Ensure that spills are cleaned up immediately.

5 Don’t rush, particularly when using stairs.

6) Chemical Safety

It is important that care be taken when handling chemicals in the workplace as these may trigger physical reactions such as skin or respiratory tract irritation.

When using chemicals in the workplace, it is important to follow the safety instructions provided. This includes information on the labels as well as the information provided in the Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS). MSDS’ must be made available in the workplace for all hazardous substances. It is important that all members are aware of the location of these.

MSDS’ are important documents as they provide information on the chemical. Importantly they provide information on what controls need to be implemented when using the chemical such as PPE requirements. They also provide information on what to do in the event of exposure.

For more information please visit http://www.nursingaustralia.com

Imagine you are an officer from your organisation sitting in a Court, Commission or Tribunal and using that line to justify your actions or inactions in relation to a workplace death where workplace bullying was identified as a significant factor.

How far do you think you will get if you argue that you are not accountable or responsible for the workplace death if ‘nobody told you?’

Let’s go back a few years and think about all the changes that have impacted on the public and private sector.  Let’s think about how those changes might have impacted on your role as an officer.

 You think about how the Work Choices legislation has now changed to Fair Work Australia legislation.  You have heard something about the harmonisation of work health and safety.  You know from documents that you have seen in the past that there has been considerable research and debate conducted on the topic of workplace bullying and harassment. 

You think – “Just what have I been told?”  After all, you are the Head of your organisation and “Do I have to know everything?”

Surely the senior managers across the organisation with delegated responsibilities should take the heat.  After all, as the Head, you hold them accountable for what happens in their area of control even though the business is spread across the State.  As Head of the organisation, you have to respond to a wide range of interested parties and from to time that includes the Government, stakeholders and the community. 

You start to reflect on what it is that you do know about the organisational systems, policies and procedures regarding the prevention, detection and resolution of workplace bullying.  You recall that there was an internal working party established a few years earlier in response to a Government working party looking at the implications of workplace bullying.  You were not the organisational head at that time, so is it now your responsibility to know the finer details of the policy and procedure.  After all, you did not approve the policy.  The more you think about it, the more you consider that responsibility for the policy has been delegated to the HR Director, so they should be the one facing the questions.  Surely if there were problems with workplace bullying, you would have been told.

You think about the reporting mechanisms that are in place in relation to performance.  One of the initiatives that you started as the Head of the organisation was quarterly performance reviews.  A forum chaired by you was conducted and regional managers had to present responses to operational issues.  These regional managers had to present strategies and solutions to regional issues, and from memory, workplace bullying had not been mentioned.

You start to think about some of the Committees that operate within your organisation.  You start to list them – Audit Committee and Risk Management.  The Audit Committee generally presents very detailed reports and from memory, the cost of workplace bullying has not been identified as a critical issue.  

You sit on the Risk Management Committee and an Organisational Risk Management Plan was developed and approved, based on the advice of the Risk Management Co-coordinator.  This Risk Management Plan forms the basis for Regional Risk Management Plans.  As far as you can remember, workplace bullying has never been identified as a risk.

You think about some of the systems and processes that are in place across your organisation.  There is an Employee Assistance Service with psychologists and social workers across the organisation with a support network of Peer Support Officers; there is a network of Harassment Referral Officers and a network of health and safety co-coordinators. 

You get quarterly briefings from the HR Director regarding personnel issues.  You remember that in one briefing included some details about a WorkCover claim where allegations were made regarding workplace bullying.  However, from memory, the claim was rejected on the grounds that the actions were ‘reasonable management’.

As you think about where you currently stand, you decide to seek some outside advice from a consultant colleague.  You think you are on pretty good grounds.  You don’t expect the response your colleague provides. 

You have known the consultant for some time as he used to work in your organisation.  From time to time, the consultant had participated in some of the key change projects that had been implemented.  The consultant had also developed expertise in the field of workplace bullying.  You were reasonably confident that you had the bases covered.

The consultant listened to your concerns and before you realised what was happening, you were up to your neck in questions. 

So what did the consultant want to know?

“Are you an officer under the Work Health and Safety Act 2012?”  This was a bit of shock to the system as no-one had provided any information about this.  The consultant said “You’ve been told”.

“What do you have in place to demonstrate that you can meet your due diligence requirements?” and so you told him that you had a HR Department, EAS, support personnel and health and safety personnel.  “Is that it?” he asked.

“Tell me about the policy on detecting, resolving and preventing workplace bullying” the consultant said.  You start to explain that you were aware of the policy but you had not read it recently.

“Tell how workplace bullying is addressed in the risk management planning process” the consultant said.  You tell him that there is an organisational risk management plan which is used as a regional model.

“Tell me about some of the Safety Conferences that your employees may have attended in the last two years” the consultant said.  You tell him that there has been cut backs in training across the board and that as far as you knew, no-one from the organisation has attended any external health and safety conferences.

The consultant says “I think you should listen to what I am going to tell you, and then you will have to make up your mind as to whether or not you have been told”.   The consultant opens up and tells you this.

“Since I left your organisation, I have been presenting papers at various health and safety conferences across Australia.  It seems to me that the converted have been going.  I have not seen anyone from your organisation at one of those Conferences.  There have been key note speakers there speaking on the harmonisation of work health and safety legislation.  Unless you have been provided with regular briefings, you may not be aware of the changes regarding officers.  You may not be aware that as an officer, you have to do certain things to meet due diligence requirements and this might include getting out of your office and going to the workplace and asking questions.  I can also tell you that I have the luxury of reading comments made by workers on various websites.  Some of the comments are very direct and by tracking these comments, I can tell you that it would appear that there is a workplace culture where bullying is tolerated to the point of acceptance.  Why is culture even on the radar?  According to some legal professionals that I have spoken to, workplace culture is the next big thing to be raised in litigation.  You should also be aware that current employees from your organisation have contacted me in relation to the way they are being treated.  On the face of it, it appears that you may have some managers who are abusive and aggressive, with very little understanding of current legislative requirements regarding discriminatory conduct, bullying and harassment.  Some of your employees have even stated that HR personnel have said “If you don’t like it, why don’t you just leave”.  I can tell you that these employees believe that these managers are your ‘pets’ and that no-one is game to speak up.  If you look at some of the readers comments on the websites, it is fairly obvious that there are comments being made are about your organisation.  You should also know that a number of your employees have contacted not only me, but also legal professionals and told them about the toxic culture that exists.  These employees have been seeking advice about a class action.  I can go on.  However, you should know this if you believe that your systems and processes are working.”

Feeling a bit off colour about has just been said, you say “Why wasn’t I told?”

The consultant said “Look, a lot of your employees hold you in high regard.  They just think that you have a lot of ‘pets’ and they believe that if they speak up about how your ‘pets’ really are in the workplace, you won’t take any action.  I should also say that in some organisations, some people who are being bullied or mistreated in the workplace won’t report any form of inappropriate behaviours because they believe that no action will be taken or that they will be further victimised, threatened or harassed.  In some cases, some of the targets/victims quite openly state that they only want to tell their story once, and not have to relive it.  Frankly, it appears that you have a problem with your workplace culture, some management and communication practices, and to put it bluntly, you have been told”.

Taken aback, you said “What do you mean I’ve been told?”

The consultant said “Look, at a recent conference a lawyer made the same statement.  You have been told about the harmonisation process because it is on the internet, it has been in the newspaper, and there have been communications about the changes.  You really only have until the 31^st December 2011 to get an understanding of the new Work Health and Safety Act and what you have to do.  If an incident occurs on the 2^nd January 2012, you have to be able to justify your actions or inactions.  You know, it might be a case that you don’t know what questions you should be asking, or why those questions are even important.  See, I know that you know what are the right questions to ask in relation to operational matters”.

Feeling somewhat traumatised by these revelations and the openness displayed by your consultant friend, you go back to your office.  Obviously, the time frame is getting shorter so what do you do?  You devise a plan to find out why you weren’t told by your key advisers.  You make a phone call and set a course of action.

Could this be reality or just a little bit of pie in the sky to create a bit of fear?  Everyone has choices to make, and for every action there is a reaction and a consequence.  Ignoring the changes being created through the harmonisation processes could have some very real consequences for officers.  Every organisation may have a different way of addressing the realities of where they are now compared to where they need to be.  Delaying tactics and hoping the changes will all go away might not be the best course of action.

So, if push comes to shove and you are sitting in a Court, Commission or Tribunal, will you be one of those who say “No one told me”, or will you be the one who says “Yes, I was told, this is what I have done and this is why I did that”.

Bernie Althofer AFAIM © 2010

EGL I ASSESSMENTS PTY LTD

P: 0419 661 421

W: www.egliassessments.com

So, what are your thoughts and comments on this article?

Breathing in asbestos fibres has been linked to three respiratory diseases, all of which can be fatal.
•Asbestosis: a chronic lung disease that can lead to respiratory impairment and to diseases such as lung cancer.
•Mesothelioma: a cancer of the lining of the pleura (outer lung lining) or of the peritoneum (the lining of the abdominal cavity).
•Lung cancer: caused by asbestos; cannot be distinguished from those cancers that are caused by other agents such as tobacco smoke.

Workplace Health and Safety Queensland (WHSQ) enforces work safety laws, including those involving asbestos, as well as issuing A and B class certificates for asbestos removal for both friable and bonded materials.

A man recently was fined $5500 over the use of a high pressure hose to clean an asbestos roof on a house on Coochiemudlo Island.
The WHSQ prosecution and investigation found the man did not undertake a risk assessment on the project even though he was informed that the roof contained asbestos particles.

Last year, the case was highlighted of a Mackay man being fined $4000 after being prosecuted over the removal of asbestos roof sheeting. He was ripping asbestos sheeting off a roof and breaking it up while people were working in the building below.
Some other cases have involved contractors being required to pay up to $100,000 to get in professional cleaners to clean up their mess.

The WHSQ website spells out the obligations and responsibilities of people working with asbestos, their license requirements and safety tips for removal or maintenance work. You can also download the Queensland Government publication Asbestos: A home renovator’s and tradesperson’s guide for minor work in domestic buildings (PDF, 1.96 MB), which has been updated to include information for contractors.

People who need to be aware of safe asbestos handling procedures include licensed contractors, hirers of high pressure water cleaners, electricians, cleaners and air conditioner installers.

So, what do you think of the Asbestos issue?  Leave a comment below or on our Facebook page we always like to know what our readers think!

The OHS harmonization process will revolutionise how individuals and organisations approach workplace bullying. If it doesn’t, workplace bullying will continue as a critical physical and psychological issue affecting individuals and organisations forever.

So far in Australia, there have been relatively few prosecutions of organisations or individuals for health and safety breaches relating to workplace bullying. However, the recent successful prosecution of and employer and employees linked to the death of Brodie Panlock in Victoria may be the first step as Governments are starting to view deadly implications of the short, medium and long term and sometimes fatal impact of this insidious practice.

Despite publicity generated by Government Departments and strong media interest when there has been a death following a workplace bullying incident, I believe that many public and private sector organisations are being lulled into a false sense of security. Lack of data, small numbers of allegations dealt with quickly, or individuals not reporting incidents create an illusionary perception that ‘all is well’ and ‘we are doing enough.’

The tides of change are coming and as every day goes by, the tide is picking up strength just like a tsunami. What is this tide of change? In a nutshell, it is the Work Health and Safety Act that is due to be implemented in January 2012. Will it make a difference?

I believe that some of the changes will have a dramatic affect on how executive officers think about, and even commit themselves to the notion of work health and safety. They will have to about the physical and the psychological aspects if they are to meet their obligations and show that they can meet due diligence requirements.

Barry Sherriff and Michael Tooma have written an excellent, user friendly publication that is produced by CCH. I believe the way that they have interpreted the legislation has resulted in the publication of the book ‘Understanding the Model Work Health and Safety Act’. Their explanations of various definitions and what they actually mean gives credence to the belief that the tides of change are coming.

It is not intended to reproduce all the definitions covered by Sherriff and Tooma, but I am going to refer to few where I believe public and private sector agencies need to focus in terms of workplace bullying.

Officer

Executives might be blissfully unaware that changes to the legislation means that there is every possibility that they will be considered an ‘officer’ under the model WHS Act, and as such they must exercise due diligence to ensure that there organization complies with its duties under the legislation. Sherriff and Tooma point out that the term “officer” has the same definition as it has in the Corporations Act 2001. They also indicate that the definition is extended to apply to officers of the Crown by s. 244 of the model WHS Act. So, are you an officer? Sherriff and Tooma (2010:32) provide a list in relation to who is an officer.

Who is and who is not an officer in your organisation?

They also discuss due diligence and provide some discussion as to what is meant by due diligence. It is interesting to note that Sherriff and Tooma (2010:33) indicate that officers need to make themselves aware of changes to legislation and developments in case law as well as Australian standards.  Does this apply to workplace bullying? Well yes, it does. Courts, Commissions and Tribunals are continually making decisions that impact directly and indirectly on individuals and organisations. Whilst some organisations may cut back on training, it is essential that the Board and Executive officers be regularly briefed or involved in training sessions so that they can maintain currency in trends and issues and even decisions associated with workplace bullying.

Cutting back on training may even have a negative impact on how ‘officers’ demonstrate that they have met their obligations or fulfilled due diligence requirements.

Worker

Some things in relation to workplace health and safety might not change dramatically, but the definition of a worker is worth considering. As Sherriff and Tooma (2010:52) indicate, a person is a “worker” if they carry out work in any capacity for a PCBU. It is a broad definition, but they also indicate that it ‘includes work as an employee, a contractor, a subcontractor, an employee of a contractor or subcontractor, an employee of a labour hire company, an outworker, an apprentice, a trainee, a student gaining work experience, or even a volunteer.

Each of the ‘workers’ identified above can at any stage be involved in a workplace bullying incident so it is important that the safe system of work, including the prevention, detection and resolution of workplace bullying cover these people. The task is to read your current policy and see if the definition of worker meets this requirement.

Does your policy cover those ‘workers’ in terms of workplace bullying?

Who is a person at a workplace?

There are some subtle changes to the meaning of ‘who is a person at a workplace?’ Given that workplace bullying can involve internal and external employees or customers, this is an important definition. As Sherriff and Tooma (2010:53) indicate, ‘the duty of care of a person at a workplace is intended to capture visitors to workplaces, such as customers and clients, passers-by, relatives and associates of workers, and trespassers’.

Does your workplace bullying policy cover this definition?

What is a workplace?

Workplace has been mentioned several times. Workplace bullying can happen across a diverse range of locations and a key example of this is ‘cyber bullying’ or stalking (a criminal offence). It is important that employers and employees have a detailed understanding of this section. Sherriff and Tooma (2010:53) indicate that:

‘a workplace is defined as a place where work is carried out for a business or for an undertaking. It includes any place where a worker goes, or is likely to be, while at work (for example, a vehicle, a vessel, an aircraft or other mobile structure, any waters and any installation on land, and on the bed of any waters or floating on any waters). As such, not only are factories, shops, construction sites and offices workplaces, but roads, homes, national parks, schools, hotels, airports, aeroplanes, ports and ships are also workplaces when people are working there. Indeed, any place can be transformed into a workplace if people work there.’

So what is the relevance of that definition to workplace bullying? Workplace bullying can occur in any of the above places, and can be committed by employees of the organisation, or by employees of other organisations. How does your workplace bullying policy define workplace? Is it defined in your health and safety policy, or in some other document that employees hardly ever refer to?

Action

Given that Courts, Commissions and Tribunals appear to have taken a broad view about workplaces and what is workplace related, it is important that employees understand the parameters in which they operate. For example, the birthday bash of work colleagues held in an off site location may be considered work related if an event that occurs at the party site is discussed in the workplace proper.

Some organisations will allow employees to attend post event functions e.g. after a Conference, but ‘kick on events’ may occur after the post event functions. Depending on the circumstances, a ‘kick on event’ may be considered work related, or even a workplace.  From time to time, allegations of sexual harassment and bullying arise following such events, and in some cases, excessive consumption of liquor has occurred.

Changes to the workplace, broadening of definitions and allegations of all forms of inappropriate behaviour can result in adverse publicity and damage to individual and organisational reputations.

Is there a need for panic?  Well, no not at the moment.

However, if I were an Executive in the public or private sector, I would want to make sure that I could meet all the obligations placed on me through the changes to the Work Health and Safety Act and I would to be able to demonstrate that I could meet due diligence requirements. I would not to be sitting in some Court, Commission or Tribunal trying to explain why I had failed in my duties as an ‘officer’. I don’t think like would like to be explaining to the CEO or to the Board about how my inactions failed the organisation.

At the same time, if I was an employee giving evidence in a Court, Commission or Tribunal as to why I had committed a breach of work health and safety, I would want to know the answers.

What should I do?

Executive officers should be getting briefings from their health and safety personnel.

Health and safety personnel should be working hand in glove with HR, Risk Managers, and other key personnel concerned with managing physical and psychological hazards in their organizations.

Employees should approach their unions or health and safety personnel to find out what their obligations are and what they have to do meet them.

Health and Safety policies and procedures, along with various HR policies should be reviewed to ensure that they meet the requirements of the Work Health and Safety Act.

In the meantime, publications such as that listed in the references provide a very good understanding of the key issues identified in this short paper.

Alternatively, there are a number of Safety Conferences being held between now and 2012 where key note speakers address the Work Health and Safety Act. I have been to several of these, and the Melbourne SIA featured the eloquence of Barry Sherriff of Norton Rose explaining in a no-nonsense manner just how the new Act is going to impact on organisations and individuals.

References

Sherriff, B. & Tooma, M. (2010) Understanding the Model Work Health and Safety Act. CCH AUSTRALIA LIMITED. Printed in Australia by McPherson’s Printing Group. ISBN: 978 1 921593 72 7.

According to Bloomberg’s Businessweek, computer giant Intel is one of four companies trialing the use of online personal health records to help employees monitor their own health.

A consortium of companies including Intel, Wal-Mart and Pitney Bowes are involved in the project that hosts the records of employees so they have a good way of getting their entire medical [history] in one place.

According to the report about 7 percent of Americans have now used personal health records, nearly double the percentage a year ago. In theory, by giving employees an online tool to monitor their health, companies can cut health-care costs without raising concerns about data privacy. Plus doctors have better information with which to recommend treatments.

Personal-health-record software from companies like Dossia, as well as from Google’s (GOOG) Health system and Microsoft’s (MSFT) HealthVault, takes the place of pen-and-clipboard medical histories that patients fill out before doctor visits.

The information is different from that kept in electronic medical records, which can be difficult for patients to transfer among heath care providers. In addition to patients’ medical histories, personal health records also contain information about drug prescriptions and lab results.

The systems typically work by collecting health information from doctors’ offices, health plans, pharmacies, and labs — plus data that employees enter themselves — into a secure Website. The information is private to employees; employers can’t see it. And when employees leave a company, they take their personal health records with them.

Personal health records aren’t a cure-all: Employees must do the hard work of living healthfully. Yet the software can encourage positive changes.

The awards are a joint initiative by the National Safety Council of Australia and GIO. They are designed to celebrate Australian innovative safety solutions, best practice OHS and safety communication in the workplace.

The key objectives of the awards are to recognise high standards of safety by Australian organisations and individuals, promote OHS excellence and increase awareness of the Safety Council’s commitment to safety.

People or organisations can nominate under six categories:

1. Best Implementation of a Specific OHS Management System
2. Best solution of a OHS Workplace Risk
3. Best OHS Training Program
4. Best Communication of a Safety Message
5. Excellence in Innovative Environmentally Sustainable Work Practices
6. Business Excellence through OHS Management

Previous winners of the awards came from companies such as CGU Insurance, Railcorp, Queensland Department of Public Works and Bluescope Steel.

Each winner of the six categories is automatically in the running for the annual Award for Excellence in OHS which is the pinnacle for the award program and seen as an ultimate recognition for workplace safety.

Nominations for the awards are open till 2 July 2010. If you are interested in entering the 2010 Awards visit the Safety Excellence Awards Entry page.

Organizers of the event pointed out that about 7,000 Australians die each year from work-related causes and that in Western Australia alone 21 people had died at work since January 2009. In fact there was some criticism of the WA government because it had refused to sign up to nationally agreed safety laws and that was seen as leaving workers with “the weakest safety laws in Australia”.

Meanwhile, thousands of construction workers have marched in Melbourne’s CBD to protest against the rising rate of deaths and serious injuries at work. According to union figures, deaths in the construction industry increased from 3.14 deaths per 100,000 workers in 2004, to 3.86 in 2005, 5.6 in 2006, 4.48 in 2007 and 4.27 in 2008, he said. Workers placed black helmets on white crosses symbolising the eight construction workers who had died since the last memorial day.

In NSW, hundreds of family and friends placed flowers on the Memory Lines sculpture at Reflection Park in Sydney’s Darling Harbour to honour those who had died as a result of a workplace accident or illness.