admin

Recognising a pressing need for small and medium sized businesses to access us­­­eful and targeted advice about health and safety, Action OHS Consulting has developed a free four-part webinar series titled the War on Safety to assist. It launches 8 August 2018. 

Since this webinar series is now over – we’re offering access to the recordings. Interested? Click here.

We were inspired by the ABC’s War on Waste program… and threw a little spin on our own title. Yes, we want to catch your attention. Because safety is important. 

The series aims to fight through the perceived complexity of health and safety laws to provide free resources, practical tips and an understandable interpretation of the legislation.

“We’ve had a lot of feedback that the title of the webinar series is a little dramatic! But it really does represent the frustrations of many small businesses out there”, says Director and Principal OHS Consultant, Craig Salter.

“Generally, SMEs think they need to adopt a big business approach to safety, and as such, become overwhelmed by where to start. This often means that they sit on their hands and hope nothing goes wrong. Through our interactions, we regularly hear from SMEs that they don’t know where to turn to for information or support. This is really why we’ve designed much of our business around supporting these types of businesses, and why we’ve developed initiatives like this webinar series to assist”.

After working with over 500 Australian businesses over the last five years, Action OHS Consulting has designed the series based on the many frustrations and challenges SMEs experience when trying to comply with the laws.

Armed with over 50 years of collective knowledge, the consultants at Action OHS Consulting will deliver quick 30-minute webinars providing much needed insight on exactly how SMEs can manage their health and safety duties to work in line with the legislation, and importantly protect their people from harm.

The series will debunk the misconceptions commonly associated with good workplace health and safety practice. At the end of the series, businesses will have the knowledge and confidence to establish a safety system suitable for their business.

Action OHS Consulting will co-host the series with their sister organisation Safety Champion – a software solution purposely built for the SME market.

Webinar Schedule

All webinars will commence at 11am AEST

Workplace prosecutions are something that health and safety practitioners should maintain oversight of to identify trends. This article provides an overview of the prosecutions listed by WorkSafe Victoria and SafeWork NSW for Calendar Year 2016 as of 28 February 2017.

 

During 2016, over $10,000,000.00 in fines were issued to businesses and workers in Victoria and NSW following breaches to health and safety legislation.

Prosecutions: Numbers and Related Legislation

Calendar Year 2016 saw a total of 91 health and safety prosecutions in Victoria and 35 prosecutions in NSW. When compared to 2015, this is an increase in Victoria (6) and reduction in NSW (17).

Within Victoria:

• 83 prosecutions were recorded against the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Act 2004 only;
• 1 prosecution was recorded against the Dangerous Goods Act 1985 only;
• 3 prosecutions were recorded against the OHS Regulations 2007 only;
• 3 prosecutions involved both the OHS Act 2004 and the OHS Regulations 2007; and
• 1 prosecution involved both the OHS Act 2004 and the Dangerous Goods Act 1985.

In addition, there were 25 prosecutions associated with the Workers Compensation legislation.

Within NSW:

• 1 prosecution was recorded against the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000 (this is compared to 21 prosecutions in 2015); and
• 22 prosecutions were recorded against the Work Health and Safety Act 2011.

The reduction in the prosecutions related to the OHS Act 2000 in NSW from 21 in calendar year 2015 to 1 in 2016 is related to this Act being superseded as of 1 January 2012 (5 years prior to 31 December 2016). Both the average and median time for a prosecution to occur in NSW (from the date of incident) where an outcome was established in 2016 was approximately 2 years and 8 months; the maximum time for prosecution being 5 years and 1 month (followed by 4 years and 2 months).

Prosecutions: An Overview of the Health and Safety Fines Issued

Year on year, both the average fine and median fine increased in both Victoria and NSW. The average fine exceeded $50,000 in both states. The average and median fines were greater NSW.

In NSW each prosecution resulted in a fine. In Victoria, 93 fines were issued. This equates to 80% of prosecutions resulting in a “financial” fine. This is compared to 69% of the prosecutions in 2015. When considering the total direct cost associated with the the prosecution (e.g. court costs being issued, court funds being assigned, etc.), all prosecutions in Victoria were financially impacted. Outside of issuing fines, WorkSafe Victoria issued 6 Enforceable Undertakings (this is compared to 7 Enforceable Undertakings being issued in 2015). In these cases, the Enforceable Undertaking is a legally binding agreement between WorkSafe Victoria and the employer. The employer is obliged to carry out the specific activities outlined in the undertaking. Such scenarios ensure that the workplace implement agreed corrective actions.

With respect to fines, the maximum fines for both Victoria and NSW increased year on year. The maximum fines issued to a workplace were associated with the following events:

• The offender failed to provide a safe system of work which resulted in an employee being crushed by a trailer carrying a 20 foot shipping container when undertaking duties associated with his role – Victoria: $1,000,000.
• A worker was fatally injured when he fell approximately 5 metres through a penetration at a construction site – NSW: $425,000.

It is not just businesses that are being prosecuted in relation to health and safety breaches

If you were of the belief that health and safety prosecutions were limited to corporations- think again. In 2016, 10% and 34% of prosecutions were issued to workers in Victoria and NSW respectively.

The reason behind fines issued to workers in NSW being on average 382% greater than those issued to workers in Victoria may be associated with the harmonised health and safety legislation clearly defining:

• (i) who the Officer within a business is; in addition to,
• (ii) outlining the positive due-diligence duties placed on these officers.

In NSW there were three (3) workers at the Officer level who were issued with fines greater than $50,000.00:

• A worker was fatally injured when the tractor he was using to slash grass rolled over, crushing him – NSW: $160,000;
• A worker was fatally injured when he fell approximately 5 metres through a penetration at a construction site – NSW: $85,500; and,
• A worker was seriously injured when he fell 3-4 meters to the ground at a residential construction site.

This is compared to the maximum fine being issued in Victoria which was $15,000 plus costs of $2,000. In this instance the prosecution was associated with the following event:

• An employee was performing unscheduled maintenance on plant and equipment that did not have adequate guarding. The employee had not received any information, instruction or training with respect to maintenance. He sustained a partial amputation of the right arm.

Interestingly, with respect to prosecutions against the Workers Compensation legislation in Victoria, in addition to workers being required to pay back any money accessed via fraudulent activity (which equated to a total of approximately $700,000), of the 19 prosecutions, 43% of workers were issued with a suspended imprisonment sentence. The average fine was $1,977.60.

What Criteria are Regularly Associated with Health and Safety Prosecutions?

With respect to the criteria/codes that lead to the prosecution – the top 10 criteria, as defined by WorkSafe Victoria, are outlined below.

These criteria are consistent with 2015, with the exception of “Failure to conduct a risk/hazard identification” being added to the list and “Failure to notify VWA of a notifiable incident” being removed from the list.

The introduction of “Failure to conduct a risk/hazard identification” places a clear duty on workplaces to establish explicit and robust processes that identify hazardous situations. Whilst many businesses can demonstrate an ability to manage risk once a hazard has been identified, this criteria requires workplaces to proactively look for hazards that are associated with their workplace activities.

In addition to these criteria, other criteria noteworthy to report on includes Traffic Management and Forklifts both being associated with 8% of prosecutions. During 2016, internally, Action OHS Consulting observed a rise in improvement notices being issued by WorkSafe Victoria due to new client contact as a result of forklift use and traffic management practices.

Lessons your Business can Take from these Reported Health and Safety Prosecutions

Failure to provide a safe system of work, safe working environment and information, instruction, training or supervision were associated with one quarter of all prosecutions. To improve your safety performance, and learn from “errors” from the past, workplaces should proactively:

• Assess their workplace risks. Consider listing all foreseeable hazards in the workplace, and document the current controls that have been established by your workplace. At this time, consider additional control strategies. Document these additional control strategies into an Action Plan to support implementation.
• Consider safety as part of your procurement process. Don’t make safety an afterthought.
• Consider safety when engaging contractors. Workplaces often engage contractors to support processes that they are not familiar with, which means new hazards may be introduced to the workplace. Prior to engaging contractors, along with cost, seek information from those you are about to engage to ensure that they can maintain the safe working environment that you have established.
• Establish an induction program. This may include a “buddy” being assigned to new and/or young workers. Ensure the induction includes an overview of your safety program and the operational activities that the worker will undertake.
• Identify how you will manage implementation. Spreadsheets and folders can be effective if you are organised, however, as technology solutions evolve, web-based platforms such as Safety Champion Software will support, guide and remind you when deadlines and/or key milestones approach.

Apart from one of your workers being injured, a workplace incident and/or prosecution can have a negative impact on operations. Many large organisations, as part of their contractor and/or supplier programs, require businesses to report on their health and safety performance in their Tender applications or Invitations to Supply. A prosecution is likely to rule your organisation out of future engagements. In addition, a workplace that has been prosecuted may see this impact their brand. Not only may this see the general public decide to purchase from your competitors, it may also see your ability to access and retain talent damaged where workers have the ability to “choose” their employer of choice.

If you are like the team at Action OHS Consulting and Safety Champion Software and get a real kick out of interrogating data to make sense of trends; a link to the health and safety prosecutions in Victoria and NSW for 2016 can be found by following this link: Consolidated Raw Data from Victoria and NSW Health and Safety Prosecutions: Calendar Year 2016. This information was compiled by our data analysis from the information available at both the WorkSafe Victoria and SafeWork NSW websites.

If you would like more detail on our analysis, or provide us with an overview of your analysis or the trends that you see, please don’t hesitate to send an email to info@actionohs.com.au or contact us by telephone on 1300 101 OHS | 1300 101 647.

Are you interested in a health and safety consulting role where you get to role your sleeves up, get your hands dirty and make a difference?

You will be a self-starter who has a demonstrated ability to provide both considered and proactive health and safety advice. Your decisions will be based on reason, with a focus on operational and commercial impacts, legislative compliance, not just “the safety stick”.

Excellent verbal and written communication skills are essential – it is the basis of what we do and what health and safety consultation is built-on. As you would expect, the ability to think on your feet and multi-task will always be an advantage in the consulting environment.

The positions that we have available, call for driven people and people are invested in making a difference. The quality of our work has resulted in rapid growth which means we are in the process of considering roles for consultants to support our growing list of SMEs, government, publicly listed and privately owned businesses.

Attitudes which we are looking for? Great ones! Attitude is how we have built our team, so if you’re excited to work with us, that’s a great start.

Proven experience and skills that we would like to see include:

• Actively working within an operational WHS/OHS role (or roles!); and
• Principal and/or Lead OHSMS Auditor experience; or
• Safety Management System Development; or
• An Allied Health (i.e. Physio, OT, Exercise Physiology) background to support our ongoing delivery of workstation ergonomics assessments and manual handling advice.

Skills wise, qualifications we would see you having:

• Tertiary Qualifications in OHS;
• Membership with an industry body such as Exemplar Global , SIA, AIOH, HFESA,  ESSA;
• OHSMS Auditor Training;
• Cert IV in TAE.

We have offices located in Sydney and Melbourne. All roles are based in Melbourne (Richmond). While you will be based in Melbourne, you will need to be prepared to travel using your own vehicle and/or occasionally staying overnight. The number of roles we have, and what these roles look like are not set in stone; full-time part-time or freelance – we will consider them all. Our goal is to find the right person or people to support our amazing clients, not to try and fit a mould.

If you would like to apply, or gather more information regarding the opportunity; please do not hesitate to contact us: info@actionohs.com.au | 1300 101 647.

Building a Safe Workplace Together

www.actionohs.com.au | info@actionohs.com.au | 1300 101 OHS | 1300 101 647

Workplace prosecutions are something that health and safety practitioners should maintain oversight of to identify trends and maintain awareness of foreseeable hazards. This article provides an overview of the prosecutions listed by WorkSafe Victoria and SafeWork NSW between January and April 2016.

Prosecutions: Numbers and Related Legislation

The first 4 months of 2016 saw a total of 42 health and safety prosecutions in Victoria and a total of 6 prosecutions in NSW.

Within Victoria:

• 40 prosecutions were recorded against the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004
• 1 prosecution was recorded against the Occupational Health and Safety Regulations 2007
• 1 prosecution involved both the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 and the Dangerous Goods Act 1985.

Within NSW:

• 1 prosecution was recorded against the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000
• 5 prosecutions were recorded against the Work Health and Safety Act 2011.

Prosecutions: An Overview of Fines

The average fine in both states came in at $83,000. The median fines varied significantly. The maximum fine issued by each state regulator is as follows:

• Victoria – $750,000
• NSW – $187,500.

In NSW each prosecution resulted in a monetary fine. In Victoria 40 fines were issued (95% of the total prosecutions). In addition to the fines, WorkSafe Victoria issued 2 Enforceable Undertakings. In these cases, the enforceable undertaking is a legally binding agreement between WorkSafe Victoria and the employer. The employer is obliged to carry out the specific activities outlined in the undertaking. Such scenarios ensure that the workplace implement agreed corrective actions.

Prosecutions: What is the Cause and where are the Gaps?

With respect to the criteria/codes that lead to prosecution – the top 10 criteria, as defined by WorkSafe Victoria, are outlined below.

1. Failure to provide a safe working environment – 43%
2. Failure to provide a safe system of work – 38%
3. Failure to provide information, instruction, training or supervision – 26%
4. Falls/work at height offences – 21%
5. Crush injuries 19%
6. Failure to conduct a risk/hazard assessment – 17%
7. Guarding – 17%
8. Failure to conduct a risk/hazard identification – 12%
9. Failure to provide and maintain plant – 12%
10. Unguarded plant – 12%.

Combined, failure to provide a safe system of work and safe working environment resulted in over one third of the prosecutions. This outlines the requirement for workplaces to actively:

• Assess their workplace risks. 
• Consider safety when procuring equipment – how effective is guarding?
• Considering safety when engaging contractors.

It is noteworthy to comment that six (6) of the prosecutions in Victoria were associated with the failure of the workplace to isolate energy when repairing and/or cleaning equipment. All workplaces that have plant and equipment should strongly consider establishing Safe Operating Procedures (SOPs) in consultation with their operators, and ensure that their workers and contractors have been trained and competent in these.

Prosecutions: Of Interest

Some prosecutions that may be of interest may include:

• Once the loading of a truck was complete, the truck driver asked the employee operating the forklift to lift him up onto the truck on the tynes of the forklift. The forklift operator stated that he knew it was the wrong thing to do but he did it anyway. Whilst being lifted, the truck driver’s right hand became entangled in the mast and mast channel of the forklift. The truck driver suffered bruising and some lacerations to his hand, but did not receive treatment as an inpatient in hospital. The offender pleaded guilty and was, without conviction, sentenced to pay a fine of $18,000 and to pay costs of $3,895.
• A workplace was transferring a 660 litre bin loaded with cardboard through an Automated Car Park Station. While waiting in the car park, an elderly women was struck by the corner of a 660 litre wheeled waste storage bin loaded with cardboard. The woman was knocked to the floor. The offender pleaded guilty and was, without conviction, sentenced to pay a fine of $50,000.00 and to pay costs of $4,564.00. It was reasonably practicable for the offender to control the risks to health and safety associated with the task by ensuring bins were not overfilled with cardboard, using a spotter when transporting bins through public areas and scheduling of loaded bin movements out of hours to minimise risks to the public. 
• A manufacturing company that produces materials for the construction industry was sentenced to pay a fine of $40,000.00 and to pay costs of $3,975.00 following a worker breaking their leg after the 500 kg material collapsed while undertaking the task. The “task” involved two (2) employees lifting and loading a suspended material weighing 500 kilograms onto a flatbed truck. There was no safe system of work associated with the task of lifting, transporting and loading facade modules at the workplace. It was reasonably practicable for the offender to control the risk by implementing a safe operating procedure for lifting, transporting and loading materials which included the identification of the risks and the associated control measures.
• A company that provides cleaning services to various businesses via engagement of subcontracted cleaners. A cleaner was engaged to clean at a meat and poultry production business. The cleaner was cleaning a mixer (which had an interlocked grate at the top, but access via the exit point at the bottom) which mixed meat. The cleaning company failed to ensure that the workplace was safe, by failing to ensure that the workplace where the cleaning was to take place provided adequate information, instruction and training to the subcontractors, in relation to the lockout/tagout system for isolation of the mixer prior to dismantling and cleaning it, and failed to prohibit its subcontractors from working until such adequate information, instruction and training was provided. The cleaner was cleaning the mixer with a hose and a scourer and put his hand with the scourer through the bottom opening to remove the debris. The mixer began to operate and his left hand was caught by a rotating auger, severing three fingers, only two of which were able to be surgically re-attached. The offender pleaded guilty and was, with conviction, sentenced to pay a fine of $20,000 and to pay costs of $7,000.
• An employee, who was given the job of preparing the rig for work, was unfamiliar with its controls and had never installed or been trained in how to install the 1.8 metre leader extension which had to be fitted to the mast. Despite reporting his concerns to his supervisor, work on preparing the rig continued. As a result, 10 of the 16 bolts needed to secure the leader extension to the rig were not fitted. Later that day the deceased was working at the top of the rig when the mast snapped causing the deceased to fall to the ground, along with a 20 metre section of the mast. A conviction was imposed and a fine of $750,000.00.
• An employee suffered serious arm and hand injuries which required hospitalisation after attempting to clean a cannelloni dough mixer. The guarding on the dough mixer did not prevent access to the danger area, due to the interlock device that was fitted not isolating power to the rotating paddle inside the feeder hopper. There were no policies, procedures or instructions for the cannelloni dough mixer. The incident was not reported to WorkSafe immediately or in writing in 48 hours, and the incident scene was not preserved. The offender pleaded guilty and was, with conviction, sentenced to pay a fine of $30,000.00 and costs of $2,557.00.
• A 15 year old employee of a labour hire business was driving a forklift. Three children (two of whom had no prior farm work experience), were left unsupervised and the forklift was accessible to those three children in that the keys were left in the ignition. There was a risk of serious injury or death to employees using the forklift without being licenced, and that leaving the keys in the forklift allowed unauthorised access to the forklift. The deceased was killed when the forklift he was driving tipped over causing fatal injuries. The offender pleaded guilty and was to pay a fine of $450,000.

It is worth mentioning that 10% of the prosecutions were the result of workplaces that failed to notify WorkSafe Victoria that a notifiable incident that occurred in their workplace, and 7% of the prosecutions were the result of workplaces that failed to preserve the incident site. Both of these requirements are expressed clearly within Section 38 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004. If your workplace is not familiar with what incidents require notification, or, if there is no reference in your procedures on how to manage a notifiable incident – this is something you should consider reviewing immediately. Please Contact Us if you require direction.

Finally, apart from legal fees, fines and a negative prosecution result, a conviction can comprise future work opportunities and the ability for your organisation to participate in tenders. Why? Many contractor agreements these days request that you provide information outlining your:

• Hazard management processes (i.e. SWMSs, JSAs, etc.);
• Worker competencies (e.g. licences, etc.);
• Insurance details (i.e. Workers Compensation, Public Indemnity and Professional Liability); and,
• Prosecution history (from convictions to regulator notices received).

Safe workplace practices will reduce your workplace’s likelihood of incident and/or injury, and support your workplace growing. The output being a productive workplace that provides workers with both confidence and job security.

www.actionohs.com.au | info@actionohs.com.au | 1300 101 OHS | 1300 101 647

The 2^nd ‘Safety in Design’ Conference was held recently in Melbourne during May 2016. As the name suggests, the topics discussed on the day centered on the importance of considering and planning for safety in areas such as:

• process and functional safety (e.g. when designing plant and/or guarding);
• construction of new and/or refurbishment of buildings;
• purchase of new plant; and
• designing guarding for current plant (i.e. retro-fitting) – which has been raised by a number of our clients in recent times.

The presenters focused on the challenges of safety in design and the importance of balancing the risks and costs of today, whilst anticipating the needs of tomorrow through a “whole of life” design review. Whole of life considerations that are often forgotten about, include:

• repair and maintenance;
• cleaning;
• training and licence requirements;
• monitoring requirements (e.g. noise and/or dust); or
• decommissioning, etc.

A key message from the conference was that safety needs to be considered at the concept stage, when decisions are made about the ‘intended purpose’ and/or ‘required deliverable’, as opposed to safety being considered only after the design commences. The following example was shared which gave this thinking some perspective:

If safety in design was considered after a decision was made to have a rail-road crossing, the safety considerations will be specific to the design, and in line with the “agreed deliverable”. The safety aspects of the design would make the rail-road crossing as safe as possible – it would include booms, lights, signals, etc. However, wouldn’t it be better if safety in design was considered at the concept stage? If the “goal” was to prevent cars and trains impacting, safer solutions such as a bridge and/or underpass may have been an option for consideration.

Being consulted with in the concept phased resonates daily in the workplaces we support. We recently had a client contact us to gather advice about what they needed to ensure was in place prior to purchasing a forklift, due to their walkie stacker: (1) not being able to access the top level of racking, and (2) not being able to reach-forward. After reviewing the “efficiency” that could be generated across a small floor area where load shifting occurred for less than 2 hours per day, against the hazards that would need to be controlled if a forklift was introduced (e.g. mobile plant moving at faster speeds, licencing requirements, fuel onsite – resulting in the management of hazardous chemicals, etc.), the client started to investigate walkie stacker options that provided the result / goal they were after. 

Safety in design (and procurement) should be considered when the “goals” of the design are being considered, not once the “finalised deliverable” has been prescribed.

Consideration of safety in the concept phase will support elimination, or provide the best opportunity to significantly reduce risk of whole of life design issues with an item of plant or a building. From our view point as health and safety consultants, past experience continues to demonstrate that trying to manage and reduce hazards post implementation can:

• be financially expensive. Retro-fitting requires a new plan(s), sourcing materials and trades for smaller/one-off jobs.
• be resource demanding. Someone at your workplace (or many), will be required to focus their time on a project that could have been resolved earlier. Their time will be utilised due to their involvement in supporting risk assessments, construction, managing contractors, etc. – everything can’t be “outsourced”. In addition, time will be spent training your workers in the new practices and/or processes.
• impact safety culture. Your workers may feel that their voices are not considered as “known” hazards continue to reappear; as opposed to be managed better, or eliminated. 

We understands that there is incredible pressure on business owners to look for cost saving measures when purchasing new plant, leasing new premises, or refurbishing current premises in order to remain profitable. Therefore, managing risk by considering safety in the concept phase of the design, when project “goals” are being agreed on makes absolute sense.

www.actionohs.com.au | info@actionohs.com.au | 1300 101 OHS | 1300 101 647

What training looks like varies considerably and will often depend on the training requirement. We often ask the question to our clients “what consideration did you make when developing the training program in your workplace?” Often, their response is limited. This article takes a look at “blocked” practice versus “random” practice.

In a sporting context, everyone has been exposed to blocked and random practice. Think about going to the golf driving range, shooting a basketball or netball. When training to execute the skill, do you think it would be better to act out Scenario A 10 times, before moving onto Scenario B for 10 attempts, and then onto Scenario C for 10 attempts (this approach is referred to as blocked practice); or, would it be better to act out Scenario A once, Scenario B once and Scenario C once and repeat this 10 times (this is referred to as random practice)?

The answer is dependent on whether you were assessing the performance in the training, or the performance at a later date.

Blocked practice should produce better performance than random practice during the initial rehearsal/training.

Blocked practice is an effective way for the participant to “understand” the components of the individual skill. Once this skill is understood, it is random practice that facilitates the participant’s ability to retain the skill. 

Why? During random practice, the participant is required to fully focus on the skill and replay the entire motor pattern. Blocked practice sees the participant make small adjustments to the motor pattern, in line with how they executed the skill on the last occasion. In a “real” life situation, do you have the ability to make minor adjustments based on your last performance?

When designing effective training, consider the knowledge of the participants:

• If the task is new for the worker(s), you may want to schedule training activities to transition from a blocked to a random approach when developing the training materials.
• If it is re-training and the workers are familiar with the skill, you may want to schedule all training activities in line with random practice.

In addition, you will need to consider what do the attendees’ work tasks looks like? If their work requires constant variation in the task; random practice is likely to be more effective. Golf is a great example here, you often hear about players frustrated as to why their “form” at the driving range does not translate onto the golf course. The reason for this is, on the golf course they only get one shot/chance to execute the skill (and that shot counts). Whilst at the driving range, they implicitly make minor adjustments (to their motor pattern) between attempts, using the knowledge of their last attempt. This means that the consequence of errors is not as visible. It also means that the “form” they have described on the driving range, has been learnt from the adjustments they have made from their earlier shots during that practice session.

How can this be better managed? At the driving range, consider changing clubs or the scenario for each shot, train how you play. This is the same for training in the workplace – is there variation when your workers operate machines, or undertake certain activities?

To support learning, where appropriate, a key consideration for the person developing the training is to move away from a blocked approach to a randomised approach. Whilst challenging for your participants initially – it will improve their skills in the future.

Another aspect to consider is how your competency assessments are structured? If the operator can continue to attempt until they “pass”, does this demonstrate competency, or does this demonstrate that they have an ability to use the feedback provided from the knowledge of the last result? The importance of getting this right will depend on the impacts to your workplace of the “error”.

www.actionohs.com.au | info@actionohs.com.au | 1300 101 OHS | 1300 101 647

Businesses of all sizes struggle with managing their workplace safety responsibilities. When operations are busy, activities which have been initiated to ensure that the established risk controls are in place and working can often be forgotten. Let’s face it, there should be a reason why these activities have been scheduled, and if this reason is to protect the health and safety of workers, contractors or visitors, they should not be placed on the “to do later” list. Increased workloads, being “busy”, or “forgetting” is no justification.

At every workplace there should be a well understood reason for every health and safety task that is being undertaking. If the reason you are undertaking the task is not understood, maybe now is time to review those tasks, rather than just “forgetting” about them?

In addition to “tasks” being completed; the management of “the evidence” of tasks being completed is often unstructured. 

Software can assist. Software does assist. It is common place now for OHS Software programs to automatically email the identified workplace stakeholders, with reminders of when important tasks are scheduled for completion. OHS Software programs should then provide the workplace with a way to manage the OHS record(s) on completion. The simplicity of OHS Software means that it is something that many workplaces are now considering to introduce to support the visibility of their OHS Program and establish workplace efficiencies.

Whilst there are many software applications on the market, all OHS Software is not the same. The majority of the OHS Software programs that are on the market are “commercial off-the-shelf (COTS)”. This means that they have been made, ready for sale to the public. It means that they are not developed specifically to a workplace – that includes your workplace. They have been designed to be implemented easily into workplaces with minimal customisation. This means that the “80-20 rule” should be considered (i.e. at a minimum, the OHS Software program should be able to effectively deliver 80% of the outputs you require). However, with careful planning and by following the considerations below, you should be in a position to elevate that 80 closer to 100 – by identifying the OHS Software program that is “more-right” for your workplace’s needs.

Procuring an OHS Software program should be considered a long-term relationship. To ensure that you get the right OHS Software program for your business, it is absolutely essential that you do your homework first. Listed below, in no particular order, are ten (10) questions you should consider, before purchasing a “web-based” OHS Software program:

• Are you looking for an “OHS Software package” or “OHS Policy and Procedures”? OHS Software packages are effectively “frameworks”. This means that your workplace will be required to develop the OHS Policy and Procedures additional to the OHS Software licence. Some packages will provide a “Manual” that is in line with their OHS Software program (this is rare). If a Manual is provided, ask your supplier how much work will be required to align the Manual to meet your workplaces operational needs, and if any additional documentation may be required.

• Are you looking at OHS Software or “Web-based” OHS Software? Besides being antiquated, OHS Software that is loaded onto individual computers (think the “old” Microsoft Office), does not have the “flexibility” of web-based OHS Software. The user is locked into being at their computer to access their OHS Management System. Web-based OHS Software will also allow users to access their OHS Management System anywhere, and on any device (where they have access to the internet). A bonus of web-based OHS Software is that the supplier should provide you with “free” automatic updates as the OHS Software develops – this cannot be said for Microsoft Office!

• How easy is the OHS Software to use? This may sounds straight forward, but it is often overlooked as the procurement team gets caught up in the initial excitement of the “new” and “shinny” software program that is going to make “everyone’s” life easier. While some OHS Software packages may look great when demonstrated, it is important that you are considering/questioning:
  • if it provides the functionality you need?
  • does it address your business critical workplace’s needs?
  • if the user interface is clear and simple to navigate?
  • will your users, who may have varying levels of computer literacy, be able to easily use the OHS Software?

• Are there limitations surrounding the number of workers (Users) who can access the OHS Software? The evidence tells us that health and safety is about the collective, not individuals, at a workplace. A number of OHS Software programs place limitations explicitly around the number of user licences a workplace has access to, or implicitly does this by “significant” increases in their pricing when multiple licences are requested. If there are limitations around the number of users who can access your OHS Software, ask the question…

…how will our workplace live the mantra that “safety is everyone’s responsibility”? 

• Does the OHS Software have a lock-in period? If the OHS Software package effectively delivers all of the benefits that you signed-up to during the initial procurement, it makes sense that you would continue to use the software – right? As disclosed above, the majority of OHS Software is “Commercial off-the-shelf”, this means that the business you are looking to purchase the OHS Software from, often has not invested time in developing the software specifically for “your” workplace needs. This being the case, you should be very nervous of OHS Software suppliers that look to lock you into contract greater than 1 year. If the OHS Software: (i) behaves as promised; (ii) has effective help support; and, (ii) continues to improve in line with advances in technology, you will stay. For the majority of businesses, OHS Software does not need to be developed specifically for the organisation.

• Can you access the OHS Software from Mobiles and Tablets? With so many organisations operating outside the traditional office setup; would workers being able to access your OHS Software from their mobile telephone and/or tablet be of benefit?

• Does the OHS Software provide you with access to all Modules or just “some” Modules? All software can be a “tricky” to navigate. Whilst advertising a “starting” price, OHS Software providers will often charge additional fees that are “disproportional” to the initial outlay, for any extra modules that you identify in the future that could benefit your workplace as your safety program matures. Make sure you understand all potential future costs – even if you don’t think you will need them all right now. Running multiple systems due to cost, as we often see, is confusing and disorganised.

• What does the OHS Software “Help” support look like? Before financially investing in an OHS Software system, you need to ensure that there is an easy way for questions and/or concerns that you have to be raised and managed. As a minimum, the OHS Software should provide you with access to:
  • a “Help” Support Manual.
  • the ability to raise issue either by email and/or telephone.
  • Note: It may also be in your best interest to understand if there is any cost associated with any help requests that you make.

• What happens to “your” data if you decide that the OHS Software is no longer for you? Firstly, it is your data. Secondly, you have a legislative duty to maintain selected health and safety records. Therefore, it is absolutely critical that you have access to these. Can you export or download the data yourself? Or does the OHS Software provider charge you retrieval costs?

• Does the OHS Software have compatibility with other IT Systems? All software should support efficiency. With workplaces typically having at least one IT Program established prior to implementing an OHS Software package, it is worth identifying how the OHS Software package can align with your current IT system(s)? For example, will you be required to manage employee information across multiple platforms (i.e. your payroll system and your OHS Software package)? Or will the two (2) packages be able to communicate with each other? If the OHS Software cannot directly communicate with other IT Programs you have installed, what other options have been provided to you to support efficiency? For example, is there the ability to import data?

This is by no means an exhaustive list and it should not cover the full breadth of your review. If you would like further support, or have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. With regards to additional considerations, we will look to provide more information in future blogs. If you have any feedback on your experience with procuring OHS Software, we would love to hear from you.

www.actionohs.com.au | info@actionohs.com.au | 1300 101 OHS | 1300 101 647

Workplace prosecutions are something that health and safety practitioners should maintain oversight of to identify trends. This article provides an overview of the prosecutions listed by WorkSafe Victoria and Safe Work NSW for 2015 as of 15 March 2016.  

Prosecutions: Numbers and Related Legislation

2015 saw a total of 85 health and safety prosecutions in Victoria and 52 prosecutions 52 in NSW.

Within Victoria:

• 80 prosecutions were recorded against the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004
• 2 prosecutions were recorded against the Dangerous Goods Act 1985
• 1 prosecution was recorded against the Occupational Health and Safety Regulations 2007
• 1 prosecution involved both the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 and the Occupational Health and Safety Regulations 2007
• 1 prosecution involved both the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 and the Dangerous Goods Act 1985.

Within NSW:

• 21 prosecutions were recorded against the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000
• 30 prosecutions were recorded against the Work Health and Safety Act 2011
• 1 prosecution was against the Explosives Act 2003.

Interestingly, whilst the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000 in NSW was superseded as of 1 January 2012, approximately 40% of the prosecutions listed in NSW during 2015 were against the superseded Act.

Prosecutions: An Overview of Fines

The average fine in both states exceeded $50,000. In NSW the average fine was only slightly greater when comparing between the current and superseded legislation; however, the amounts for both: (i) median fine ($80,000 v  $47,250), and (ii) the greatest fine (412,500 v $300,00), were greater when prosecuted against the current legislation. This is in line with the guidance that was provided on enactment, that penalties would increase when the harmonised Work Health and Safety Legislation was introduced.

In NSW each prosecution resulted in a monetary fine. In Victoria 59 fines were issued (69% of the total prosecutions). In addition to the fines, WorkSafe Victoria issued seven (7) Enforceable Undertakings. In these cases, the enforceable undertaking is a legally binding agreement between WorkSafe Victoria and the employer. The employer is obliged to carry out the specific activities outlined in the undertaking. Such scenarios ensure that the workplace implement agreed corrective actions.

Prosecutions: What is the Cause and where are the Gaps?

With respect to the criteria/codes that lead to prosecution – the top 10 criteria, as defined by WorkSafe Victoria, are outlined below.

1. Failure to provide a safe system of work – 34%
2. Guarding – 20%
3. Failure to provide a safe working environment – 18%
4. Failure to notify WSV of a notifiable incident – 16%
5. Failure to provide and maintain plant – 16%
6. Failure to provide information, instruction, training or supervision – 13%
7. Falls/work at height offences – 13%
8. Crush injuries – 12%
9. Failure to conduct a risk/hazard assessment – 8%
10. Failure to preserve incident site – 8%.

Combined, failure to provide a safe system of work and safe working environment resulted in over half of the prosecutions. This outlines the requirement for workplaces to actively:

• Assess their workplace risks. Workplaces should consider listing all foreseeable hazards in the workplace, and document the current controls that have been implemented to support the management of the hazard. At this time, the workplace should consider additional/ alternative control strategies. If the risk associated with the hazard can be further mitigated, this should be documented with a Safety Action Plan developed to support implementation.
• Consider safety when procuring equipment. Often safety is an afterthought. Considering safety prior to purchasing will better ensure that controls do not require retro-fitting and/or additional equipment is not required to manage the “new” hazard presented – both having financial implications.
• Considering safety when engaging contractors. Workplaces often engage contractors to support processes that they are not familiar with, which means new hazards may be introduced to the workplace. Prior to engaging contractors, along with price, seek information from those you are about to engage to ensure that they can maintain that safe working environment you have established.

Guarding and maintenance of plant equates for over one third of prosecutions. Guarding is a high level control that ensures there is separation between workers (and their limbs) and moving parts. Management and supervisors should be undertaking regular walk-throughs to ensure that guarding is not overridden. The guarding that management and supervisor walk past is the fatality and/ or amputation that they accept. Where guarding has been removed, management and supervisors should talk with the operators to understand the basis for this. Are operational KPIs realistic? Can processes be reviewed? Is the plant fit for the purpose that the workplace wants? Is additional equipment required?

Worth a mention is the 16% of workplaces that failed to notify WorkSafe Victoria of the notifiable incident that occurred in their workplace and the 8% of workplaces that failed to preserve the incident site. Both of these requirements are expressed clearly within the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004. If your workplace is not familiar with what incidents require notification, or there is no training or reference in your procedures on how to manage a notifiable incident – it is something you should consider reviewing immediately.

Finally, apart from legal fees, fines and a negative prosecution result, the lengthy duration of legal proceedings can impact workplace resources (e.g. with conflicting focuses between the prosecution and workplace safety). The impact also flows through to other areas of the business resulting in a negative safety culture, low morale amongst workers as well as the negative impact on business development due to ‘loss of faith/brand damage’ that is perceived by the general public.  

www.actionohs.com.au | info@actionohs.com.au | 1300 101 OHS | 1300 101 647

Does your workplace have an OHS plan? If so, does your workplace have OHS objective and targets to support you to achieve the outputs of this plan? And, if you have established objectives and targets, are these periodically reviewed, evaluated and redefined (if necessary)?

Or do they actually sit somewhere in the background, getting reviewed on an ad-hoc basis… or worse still, after a health and safety incident occurs? We’re going to reveal a phrase in here that we think encompasses a trap that many businesses and organisations might fall into when it comes to health and safety management.

“A target without a plan is just a wish…” 

When we take time to consider this phrase, it is evident that to effectively achieve any workplace safety goals we have set in place, requires careful and considered planning. Why then do many workplaces continue to leave their Health and Safety Program in “the hands of the Gods”?

Where to from here?

To get you started, we wanted to outline some clear and practical advice for the strategic planning of your workplace safety program. Here goes…

• Ensure that Senior Managers are aware of their legislated health and safety duties and due diligence obligations.

• Establish key stakeholders to help define your workplaces health and safety objectives and targets. It is important that the objectives and targets that your workplace agrees on, are aligned to your Health and Safety Policy. When establishing targets make sure that they are:

1. • S – Specific
   • M – Measurable
   • A – Achievable
   • R – Realistic
   • T – Time-framed 
     • Lead performance indicators: Measure the actions your business takes to improve performance.  They are in-process measures and can be predictive.
     • Lag performance indicators: Report on outcomes. This is an after-the-event measurement, essential for charting progress, but less effective when attempting to influence the future.
     • Note: Lead indicators often require an investment in time to implement. Generally, lead indicators require initiative and/or action prior to a result being seen by a lag indicator.

• With consideration to your workplace Health and Safety Targets, establish a Safety Action Plan. Within the Safety Action Plan outline timeframes and attach responsibilities.

• Communicate Health and Safety Targets to workplace.

• Periodically review Health and Safety Targets and Safety Action Plan.

How about a free 30 minute consult. If you’re in Australia, book yours today.

Some free resources to get started with your planning

We’ve worked with over 500 Australian businesses over the last several years, designing and establishing solutions to a range of needs. And trust us, we see the many frustrations and challenges that businesses have with safety, as they attempt to comply with the laws.

Rest assured, there are some great resources you can access for free to get you started. Some that we love;

1. Check out WorkSafe Vic’s Industry Hotspots website that provides you with an idea of what hazards and risks are most relevant in your industry – the ones you should look to address/prevent first. http://injuryhotspots.com.au/#/
2. Here’s a list of Australian-based regulators where you can go to get relevant advice and guidance. https://www.actionohs.com.au/ohs-legislation/ 
3. If you need a software system to keep your safety management tasks on track and ticking along, try Safety Champion’s GO FREE plan. A forever free plan for safety software that allows you to manage incidents, inspections, hazards, corrective actions and more. http://safetychampion.com.au/

Remember, we’re in the business of making safety easier and more accessibly to all businesses and people – irrespective of their safety knowledge or expertise. If you need assistance, please don’t hesitate to let us know. Contact us today.

The majority of workplaces we speak with understand the need for training; however, many do not “understand” the purpose of training. Well-kept and documented training records demonstrate excellent compliance practices, not excellent training practices.

The purpose of training is not to demonstrate your records management skills; it is to ensure that your workers have been provided with the right skills to complete their job safely. Think about it for a moment; has your training been developed for you workers, or have they been developed to tick a compliance box?

Whilst your business may have well-presented training materials, do these training materials focus on all learning styles? If your training is based on paper based instructions or reading off a computer screen, you may have missed the mark for some workers. Robust training should be developed to include all learning styles. One of the most common and widely-used categorisations of learning styles is Fleming’s VARK model. This model suggests there are three learning styles:

• Auditory:The worker learns through listening. These workers depend on hearing and speaking as their main way of learning. Auditory learners must be able to hear what is being said in order to understand. These workers may have difficulty with instructions that are written.
• Visual:The worker learns when ideas, concepts, data and other information is associated and presented with images and techniques.
• Kinaesthetic (Tactile):Learning takes place by the workers doing the task or role playing the task, rather than listening to how the task is done or watching a demonstration.

Whilst most workers will learn across all styles, some may be strongly aligned to one style. To ensure that training is not only a compliance exercise, look to incorporate all three learning styles into the delivery of all of your training sessions.

www.actionohs.com.au | info@actionohs.com.au | 1300 101 OHS | 1300 101 647