Basic HTML Version
WHS - we’re all responsible for safe
work practices
NEWS IN BRIEF
EWPA ANNUAL GENERAL
MEETING
The 2012 AGM was held Thursday, 6
September in Adelaide, at the Hilton
Hotel. The meeting also included the
SA division AGM plus a talk by Peter
Davies of Coates Hire on the EWPA’s
Safe Use Information Pack for EWPs. A
Telescopic Handler Association (TSHA)
National Executive meeting was also
held on Friday, 7 September at the
Hilton. The AGMs coincided with the
Crane Association Convention at the
Adelaide Convention Centre which
offered additional options for members
involved in both areas.
Following the AGM, the EWPA is
pleased to announce the new National
Executive of the EWPA includes:
PRESIDENT: Tim Nuttall – Access Hire
VICE PRESIDENT: Rick Mustillo –
Independent Parts and Services
COMMITTEE: Peter Wenn – Wenn
Wilkinson & Associates; Phil Middleton
– Workplace Training Centre; Doug
Rawlings – United Equipment; Keith
Clarke – Haulotte Australia.
SA TOW TRUCK
PROSECUTION
In SA a tilt truck driver who only
delivers EWPs was hit with an
infringement notice when the booking
police officer claimed the truck must
be licensed as a tow truck. The EWPA
helped the member to take this to court
and now reports the charges were
withdrawn because the vehicles being
used by our member were not defined
as tow trucks under SA legislation
because they were not utilised for
carrying motor vehicles.
This is a pleasing outcome but one win
doesn’t mean there won’t be more
issues in this area, EWPA Executive
Director Phil Newby said. In this case
it appears to be a local issue, but if
any members come across a similar
situation in other states, contact the
national office.
NOTE ON CONTROLLED
DESCENT DEVICES
The EWPA advises where Controlled
Descent Devices (CDD’s) are fitted they
should be inspected in accordance with
the manufacturer’s instructions and/
or AS1891 every three months and
the inspection should be recorded.
Members are reminded the inspection
should cover all components of the
CDD assembly.
By Phil Middleton
EWPA Training Director
Since the introduction of the
new WH&S act in January 2012,
some businesses have found
accommodating the changes a
huge task, and yet for others,
life has continued on as always.
One of the prime objectives
of the new WHS Act was to
have ‘harmonisation of work
health and safety laws to reduce
regulatory burdens and create
a seamless national economy’
(Worksafe Australia explanatory
memorandum). The objective
speaks for itself, however the
implementation across all states
has not been as smooth or quick
as some would like.
How has the WHS Act 2011
affected you? Some would say
it’s a pain in the’ proverbial’;
it’s just making it harder to do
what we do. On the contrary
the goal is to achieve a higher
level of safety by making
more people responsible for
workplace safety.
It could be argued the new
regulations were put in place
to give regulators a broader
scope to prosecute, not to
make life easier for business.
What we need to remember is:
prosecutions will only ever arise
from companies negating their
responsibilities.
Small contractors especially
might be finding it particularly
arduous (especially paperwork
wise) to comply with the new
Act; but the level of difficulty in
compliance is all about how you
interpret the new requirements.
I would suggest it’s subjective
upon your client base. For eg;
if you have been working with
large corporations, not a lot
has changed. You have been
going through change for years
now. For businesses that work
with the smaller end of industry
these businesses are the ones
that may feel like victims,
having to invest considerable
time money and resources
into administration processes,
changing work methods and
time lost though training days.
Recently I had a CCTV system
installed at our training facility.
What follows is a good example
of the old OHS and new WH&S
duties.
Pre-WHS a service provider
(person conducting or
undertaking business, PCBU)
would arrive on site and be
given a verbal site induction;
there would be a run through
of the work to be carried out,
hazards identified, controls
implemented. As a service
provider they are responsible
for their own safety; hence the
assumption the service provider
was competent to carry out
the task and had company
procedures in place.
Under WHS the officer must
exercise due-diligence and do
what is responsibly practicable
to ensure the health and safety
of the worker. Hence the
officer’s duty is to be confident
the company’s procedures for
a service provider, now known
as the PCBU, and their workers
(old term employee) also have
policies and procedure in place
to ensure compliance to the Act.
Using the above example, I
now have a legal obligation to
perform my duty under the Act.
This is where the variations in
the interpretation of what is
reasonably practicable come in.
As described in the pre-WHS
example; is a verbal induction,
a tool box talk and a group
hazard assessment enough?
No! Because it has not been
established if the worker has
the appropriate skills and
knowledge to carry out the task
and are those skills current?
Does the company have a work
method statement, equipment
operating procedures and
emergency plans in place?
These are not unreasonable
questions to ask, and in fact, it’s
nothing new to the majority of
industry. What is new is who is
responsible if due-diligence is
not exercised.
Under the new WHS Act,
responsibility falls on a variety
of people.
The Act has been amended
to impose a duty on “officers of
a corporation” to exercise due
diligence to ensure compliance
with occupational health and
safety duties.
Officers of a corporation can
now include:
• a director or secretary of a
corporation;
• administrators and liquidators
of a corporation;
• partners in a partnership; and
• office holders in an
unincorporated association
The WHS Act also imposes
a duty of care beyond the
traditional employer-employee/
contractor relationship. Duties
under the WHS Act are now
imposed on any “person
conducting a business or
undertaking”. The duty is
broad and is owed not only to
employees, but to contractors,
labour hire workers,
apprentices, trainees and work
experience students.
Under the new amendments,
an officer of the corporation
may commit an offence by
failing to exercise the required
due diligence, despite the
corporation complying with
its requirements or without
an incident or accident in the
workplace even occurring.
Knowing this, it is clear we all
need to take responsibility for
safe work practices.
HR
28 | ACCESS
in
ACTION | NOVEMBER 2012
ACCESS in ACTION