First Choice Health & Safety Consultants

First Choice Health & Safety Consultants WHS COMPLIANCE
• Safety Audit / Gap Analysis
• WHS Site Inspections
• WHS Incident Investigations
• Contractor Management
WHS TRAINING
• WHS Training needs

First Choice Safety Consultants are skilled and experienced Safety Consultants who are committed to providing on site health and safety services. We are passionate about making workplaces safer. No matter what workplace health and safety challenge you face, whether one time only advice or a full range of services, we are ready to work with you to assess your needs, evaluate options and develop sol

utions. We will assist you in your safety management system based on AS4801 standard. We are committed to providing value-added professional, effective and efficient WHS services and safety programs to comply with the Work Health and Safety Act and Regulations.

11/05/2022

Prosecution of CEO: The buck stops at the top

The Queensland WHS Prosecutor secured a conviction of a Chief Executive Officer in April this year, when he was fined $60,000 for failing to exercise due diligence in relation to the death of a worker at a fertiliser factory.

The factory produced bags of fertiliser. The bags were moved along a conveyor where workers were required to inspect them. At the time of the incident, sections of the conveyor did not have sufficient guarding in place and had not for at least 13 months.

On 10 March 2020, a worker became partly trapped in a part of the machinery designed to flatten bags. By the time another worker found him, he was unconscious and unable to be revived. He died from his injuries.

In considering a plea of guilty from the CEO, the Court found that over a 13-month period, the CEO failed to exercise due diligence to ensure the company took reasonably practicable steps to address the risk of death or serious injury from the conveyor.

In particular, the CEO took no steps to check that safe systems and processes were in place, including failing to ensure that there:

were visual markings to identify an exclusion zone to minimise the potential for workers to interact with the moving conveyor; and
was a risk assessment or safe operating procedure developed regarding the work that was done near the moving conveyor.

The Court noted that "the buck stopped with [the CEO] in terms of decision-making" at the company. The Court found that the risk of harm to workers was real and foreseeable because of the lack of guarding and workers being required to work near the moving conveyor.

In imposing the fine, the Court noted that general deterrence was the primary consideration as well as the impact on the family of the deceased. The Court also took into account mitigating factors of the CEO, including that he:

had no prior convictions;
was personally affected by the worker’s death; and
had given a substantial level of support to the worker’s family.

The CEO had also immediately taken steps to ensure the company addressed the risk.

The case highlights the critical importance of officers of a company taking a proactive approach in ensuring the company implements an effective work health and safety management system.

In this matter, the company has also been charged with industrial manslaughter and those proceedings, along with prosecutions against two former directors, are also ongoing.

WORKPLACE DESIGN, MODIFICATION AND PURCHASING
How can designers meet their health and safety obligations?
There are a number of things that designers should do to ensure they are meeting their obligations...


OBLIGATIONS AND STANDARDS
Health and safety legislation
Each jurisdiction is primarily responsible for creating and enforcing work health and safety laws...

Recently Asked

Are we liable for a car accident arising due to employee illness?

Q: One of our employees suffers from chronic migraines. When he develops a migraine during his shift, he drives home to either finish his shift from home or take personal leave. If he should have an accident while driving home, can our business be liable? We are based in Queensland.

A: In Queensland, an injury to a worker is compensable under the legislation if it arises out of, or in the course of, employment. An injury to a worker is taken to arise out of, or in the course of, the worker’s employment if the event happens while the worker is on a journey between the worker’s home and place of employment (section 35 of the Workers’ Compensation & Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld)).

However, the injury to the worker is not taken to arise out of, or in the course of, the worker’s employment if the event happens while the worker is in control of a vehicle and contravenes section 328A of the Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld) (see section 36 of the Workers’ Compensation & Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld)). This section makes it an offense for a person to operate a vehicle dangerously. Therefore, if the employee’s chronic migraine causes them to operate a vehicle in a way that is dangerous to the public, an employer may not be liable for an injury that results to them.

13/01/2022

Are you required to ensure employees who attend the workplace have returned a negative rapid antigen test?

On 5 January 2022, the Prime Minister reported that the National Cabinet had agreed that the Commonwealth Attorney General will convene a meeting of relevant ministers from all jurisdictions to remove any potential obligation to impose testing requirements in workplaces on employees.

Implementation of a system of rapid antigen testing (RAT) for workers attending a workplace is one of several measures that will control the health and safety risk posed by COVID-19 infection. It will also assist to minimise the risk of material business impacts caused by a COVID-19 outbreak in the organisation.

Is a RAT system required to discharge your health and safety duties?

Whether adopting a RAT system is actually required by work health and safety legislation depends on whether it is a reasonably practicable measure. In this sense, consideration of adoption of a RAT system gives rise to the same issues as implementing other risk control measures, such as mandatory vaccination. These considerations include:

whether a RAT system is justified by the degree of risk, e.g. in an area where community transmission is significant;
the gravity of the potential harm, whether that be physical (e.g. aged care) or economic (e.g. logistics);
whether it is suitable and available for the workplace setting; and
whether it will be effective, practical and not unduly costly, having regard to the size of the workforce and their willingness to undergo RATs.
Legal risks and requirements

Like mandatory vaccination, issues will arise as to the extent to which the employer can direct employees to submit to a RAT regime. Before implementing such a system, the employer will need to conduct a thorough assessment of the risk of COVID-19 infection and the merits of the measure to control the risk. The employer will also need to engage in proper genuine consultation.

If these steps are taken, it will be likely to be lawful and reasonable for an employer to require RAT as a condition of entry.

In addition, if a government or public health direction requires an employer to implement RAT in the workplace, the employer can direct its employee to comply with the law.

Logistical considerations

RAT will present potential logistical challenges for larger organisations. Given the need for workers to be tested before starting work, larger organisations may need to consider the logistics and time requirements for significant numbers of employees to complete a test prior to the start of their workday.

Employers will be responsible for procuring their own test kits (either directly or through a third-party RAT service), in line with the requirements of the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), and will bear the costs of implementing RAT.

07/12/2021

Failure to manage trench work risks results in two fatalities

The Victorian County Court has reinforced, through a significant penalty, the importance of businesses operating in high-risk environments to ensure engineering controls are implemented when required. Last month, in DPP v Pipecon Pty Ltd (2021), civil construction company Pipecon Pty Ltd was fined $550,000 following the tragic death of two workers in 2018 in a collapsed trench.

Background

In February 2018, Pipecon started work at a site to construct a main trunk skewer system. The project included trenching, pipe-laying and manhole installation. It required Pipecon’s employees to work in and around excavated trenches and manhole pits.

On 21 March 2018, two workers – a 34-year-old man and a 21-year-old man – were laying pipes at a housing development in a trench when it collapsed. Both workers suffered fatal injuries. At the time of the incident, both workers were working unsupervised in a trench that had no manhole cage or trench shields.

Judgement

The Court considered that the supervisor must have been aware that high-risk work was being carried out, or was about to be carried out, without critical safety equipment of a manhole cage or a trench shield being in place. This was a serious breach of Pipecon’s safety systems, which exposed the workers to the danger of injury from engulfment.

The Court also found that a simple step that could have been taken was to provide supervision that would result in checking that the manhole cage or a trench shield had been taken to the area of the trench before work was commenced.

Pipecon pleaded guilty to breaching section 21 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 (Vic) and was fined $550,000, following a 25% reduction for entering a guilty plea.

Warning

Following the judgement, WorkSafe issued a press release to confirm that it would take similar enforcement action against employers that failed to take reasonable steps to protect the health and safety of their workers.

WorkSafe reminded businesses that to manage trench work risks, employers should:

ensure a safe work method statement (SWMS) is developed and followed for trenches that are more than 1.5-metres deep, or for similar high-risk construction work;
ensure workers are instructed on the SWMS and emergency response plans implemented to deal with incidents;
plan work so that it can be undertaken safely, with, for example, appropriate engulfment protection systems and site security requirements;
ensure work is supervised and monitored by a competent person who is experienced in trenching works; and
ensure workers never work outside engulfment control measures where the excavation is of sufficient dimension or depth to allow a person to enter.

30/11/2021

Testing the validity of an improvement notice

In all jurisdictions in Australia, safety inspectors can only issue an improvement notice – requiring a person to take positive steps to address an identified breach – if the inspector has a reasonable belief that there is a present contravention of work health and safety (WHS) law or, that the person has contravened WHS law in circumstances that make it likely that the contravention will continue or be repeated.

The NSW Industrial Relations Commission (Commission) was required to consider and determine if a SafeWork inspector genuinely had reasonable belief in Lipman Pty Ltd v SafeWork NSW (2021) when a principal contractor appealed a refusal by SafeWork NSW to withdraw an improvement notice.

Background

Lipman, a construction company, was the principal contractor responsible for the construction of an aged-care building in Liverpool, NSW.

As the building consisted of 11 floors, Lipman engaged Safemaster to install and certify a proprietary permanent fall arrest roof safety system for the construction site. This included anchor points for fall arrest purposes and a building façade access system to assist workers working on the exterior of the building.

Near the end of construction, the building required minor repairs and adjustments to the external façade. Lipman subcontracted Benz Height Access Solutions (Benz) to provide rope access services and specialist height access services for the repairs. Tragically, a Benz worker fell from the level-eight balcony and was fatally injured. The deceased worker was suspected of using Safemaster anchor points.

Following the fatal incident, SafeWork NSW inspected Lipman’s construction site and issued Lipman with:

an improvement notice requiring improved compliance for the site’s fall arrest anchor points on level eight; and
a prohibition notice preventing the use of all installed fall arrest/rope access anchor points across the site.

The improvement notice was issued on the basis that Lipman’s suspected contravention of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (NSW) (WHS Act) would continue or be repeated.
Lipman then unsuccessfully appealed the improvement notice to SafeWork NSW before applying to the NSW Industrial Commission for an external review of the improvement notice.

Reasonable belief

The Commission made it clear that the inspector must reasonably believe that:
Lipman contravened s 19 of the WHS Act; and
the contravention occurred in circumstances that made it likely that the contravention would continue or be repeated.

The Commission determined that assessing if an inspector has a reasonable belief warranting an improvement notice is an objective test.

Therefore, certain facts need to be in existence capable of inducing the state of mind of a reasonable person, or in other words, there needs to be reasonable grounds for the reasonable belief to exist.

In this case, the SafeWork inspector issued the improvement notice on the basis the contravention – being the failure to ensure the health and safety of workers on site – would continue or be repeated because the inspector:

observed anchor points, including a failed anchor point, and ropes on level eight of the building;
believed the use of abseiling by attaching it to any of the anchor points presented a serious risk to the health and safety of workers;
observed the presence of workers at the site;
was concerned that abseiling work at the site would continue; and
knew that Mr Benz’s co-worker had been taken to Liverpool police station for questioning but he and/or other workers would be likely to return to the site and attempt to continue the façade work that Mr Benz had been conducting.

However, the Commission determined that no reasonable belief could exist because the inspector’s observations overlooked the operation of the prohibition notice.

Considerations for employers

This decision is a reminder that businesses can challenge improvement or prohibition notices if the notices are deficient or have been issued without proper grounds.

As improvement and prohibition notices can expose your business to penalties for non-compliance, businesses need to carefully review any notices and ensure they are valid.

19/11/2021

Must you consult about vaccination mandates required by public health orders?

One of the issues raised by, and on behalf of, employees who object to complying with mandatory vaccination requirements is that the employer has failed to comply with obligations to consult with the affected employees about occupational health and safety (OHS).

In Beydoun & Ors v Northern Health & Ors (2021), the Fair Work Commission (FWC) considered an argument that the employer had not met its obligation under the applicable enterprise agreement to consult about OHS risk management. The employers were health services that were directing nursing staff to comply with the vaccination requirements imposed by Chief Health Officer (CHO) Directions in Victoria.

The FWC distinguished between the enterprise agreement consultation obligation, which was concerned with the work environment and the performance of work, and the CHO Directions, which required the employer to take all reasonable steps to ensure an unvaccinated worker does not enter or remain on its premises for the purpose of working.

The FWC observed that the requirement to receive a vaccine outside of the workplace (while not performing work) did not give rise to an obligation for the employer to consult with its employees pursuant to an enterprise agreement. Therefore, the employer was free to initiate disciplinary action in respect of a failure of an employee to carry out instructions arising from the CHO Directions.

The CHO Directions are concerned with managing the risk associated with COVID-19. The statutory duty of the employer to consult in relation to the OHS matters is limited by reasonable practicability. The duty does not require an employer to take every possible step that could be taken. Moreover, it requires the employer to consult when controlling risks, hazards, issues and conditions under the employer’s management and control. This duty is distinguishable from the CHO Directions, which impose obligations with which the employer simply must comply.

The FWC concluded that the CHO Directions are not stated to operate subject to consultation obligations under OHS laws. The enterprise agreement does not incorporate OHS laws.

The FWC also observed that the obligation under the dispute resolution clause in the enterprise agreement to ensure work will continue normally according to the usual practice that existed before the dispute, until the dispute is resolved, only limited the application of the status quo to the performance of work, not the entire state of affairs. Therefore, it did not prevent the employer from dismissing employees who did not meet the requirements.

16/11/2021

Safety and the use of technology in the workplace

With a push towards using technology more in the workplace, including artificial intelligence, it is important to understand the benefits and limitations with respect to safety.

There is no doubt that the use of technology can help to reduce the huge compliance burden faced by businesses in managing safety, particularly if you have a large number of subcontractors and/or supply chain participants.

For example, subcontractor pre-qualification screening can be completed and recorded electronically. Also, electronic management can assist to improve subcontractor performance, manage incident notification and response/resolution close out for multiple subcontractors.

But the use of artificial intelligence (AI) is also a greater concern for safety regulators looking at the supply chain. Recently, Australian safety regulators commissioned research into the potential health and safety risks related to the use of AI in the workplace. This research was done in the context of the potential impact AI has on role design, task allocation, time management, organisational structure, and communication between management and workers, all of which have an impact on the safety of systems of work.

SafeWork NSW employees interviewed for the project noted it was often difficult to understand and anticipate the health and safety implications of AI, especially dynamic AI (dynamic AI systems continually learn and adapt while being used). The operational behaviour of dynamic AI was considered unpredictable, which would have consequences for attributing accountability and identifying the root causes of accidents involving dynamic AI. The prospect of AI receiving periodic updates that fundamentally changed how the AI operated was also concerning for SafeWork participants who were unsure about how to keep pace with continuously updated technology.

The uncertainties of technology in managing safety in the workplace will also be impacted by the skills shortage that Australia may face as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. A skills shortage may mean reliance on less experienced contractors which can, and often does, lead to increased risks to health and safety and potential incidents. Therefore, as we exit slowly from the pandemic, the focus for businesses should be on how they can best position themselves to use limited resources, including technology, to maintain the highest level of safety possible.

IT AND SAFETY MANAGEMENT
Virtual and augmented reality
Virtual reality and augmented reality are training tools you might use in your workplace...


SUPERVISION OF SAFE WORK
Step-by-step: What to do when a supervisor is absent
If a supervisor is absent from work, you must ensure you continue to meet your obligation to provide adequate supervision...

Case Law
Subcontractor fails to take known steps to control risk

The Case

SafeWork NSW v Mercon Group Pty Ltd (2021)

Mercon Group Pty Limited (Mercon) operates a business in demolition and excavation. Growthbuilt Pty Limited (Growthbuilt) engaged Mercon as a subcontractor to undertake demolition work, including removing several concrete slabs to create space for the installation of stairways and elevators.

Mercon provided Growthbuilt with an initial quote, which included the provision of
‘catch decks’ to be used in the course of cutting the concrete slabs to minimise the risks associated with concrete falling during cutting or after it was cut. The quote was not accepted by Growthbuilt. Mercon undertook the work without the catch decks.

On 3 February 2017, three employees of Mercon were in the process of cutting one of the concrete slabs, when the slab on which they were working collapsed beneath them and two of the employees fell approximately 2.85 metres to the ground below, sustaining serious injuries. The third employee began to fall as well but his fall was arrested by his clothing becoming caught on a piece of protruding metal. He was not injured.

The Verdict

The steps that Mercon could have implemented to eliminate the risk were well known to it and had been set out in its initial quote. However, Mercon failed to conduct the work in a safe manner by not installing catch decks.

Mercon accepted that it should have insisted on its proposed use of catch decks or found another way to do the work. Mercon pleaded guilty to breaching sections 19 and 32 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (NSW) in failing to comply with its primary duty of care and exposing workers to a risk of death or serious injury.

Mercon was convicted and ordered to pay a fine of $90,000, following a 25% reduction for entering a guilty plea. It was also ordered to pay the prosecutor’s costs in the amount of $42,000.

The Lessons

This case highlights that every employer has duties to ensure relevant control measures are implemented even if the cost of those measures is borne by the employer directly (rather than the business commissioning the work).

16/11/2021

Adverse action for a disability is not always clear cut

Under s 351(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act), an employer must not take adverse action against an employee because of physical or mental disability. This is unless the action is not unlawful under any applicable state or territory anti-discrimination law, or it was taken because of the inherent requirements of the position.

For the purposes of s 351 of the FW Act, adverse action taken because of physical or mental disability requires:

the action to be taken because of the disability, not incapacity that happens to be a consequence of a disability; and
the decision-maker of adverse action to have knowledge that the employee is suffering from a condition, and that this condition is the reason for the performance or misconduct.

It’s important to appreciate that the approach taken by the courts to discrimination for the purposes of s 351 may not be the same in determining whether an employer has engaged in discrimination for the purposes of anti-discrimination legislation.

Adverse action for incapacity for work

Incapacity for work may well be a consequence of disability but this doesn’t necessarily mean it is a manifestation or part of the disability. For example, incapacity for work may be caused by an underlying mental illness. However, just because the employer acts on the incapacity does not mean it is motivated by the underlying mental condition.

This was seen in Western Union Business Solutions (Australia) Pty Ltd v Robinson (2019). In this case, an employer dismissed an employee for failing to attend a medical appointment as requested and concern about the employee’s capacity to return to work. The employee had provided medical certificates indicating that he had anxiety and depression.

The employee claimed he was dismissed because of his mental illness. The decision-maker in the decision to dismiss denied that the employee was dismissed because of mental illness.

The Full Federal Court found that if the effect of the employee’s mental condition on his ‘capacity’ for work was a part of his mental illness because it was a ‘manifestation’ of it, and the decision-maker was shown to have thought that his incapacity was nothing more than the manifestation of his mental disability, that did not necessarily mean that the decision to dismiss was because of his mental illness. The two considerations could be severed or disaggregated.

Adverse action for performance issues

In Batista v Wells Fargo International Finance (Australia) Pty Ltd (No.2) (2020), an employee received a written warning for, among other things, not attending the office at the required time of 9am. The employee claimed his inability to attend work was a ‘manifestation’ of a mental illness (i.e. depression and anxiety) and the employer, in breach of section 351, had taken adverse action against him for reasons that included his illness.

The employer had previously raised concerns about the employee’s mental wellbeing. The employee was referred to the Employee Assistance Program, and both his manager and HR were aware the employee was on medications (that were non-drowsy) and attending counselling.

HR and the employee’s manager were aware the employee had spoken of having a ‘meltdown’ that required a week off work. The medical certificate stated that he was suffering from anxiety with depression, for which he was receiving medication and counselling pending referral for a psychiatric assessment.

16/11/2021

Employer slapped with a hefty fine over two assaults on workers

The responsibility of an employer to ensure workers are not exposed to the risk of violence was highlighted in a Victorian case this month. The Department of Justice and Community Safety (Department) was fined a total of $100,000 following two separate assaults on youth justice workers by children in detention in 2018.

In the first incident, a youth justice worker at the Malmsbury Youth Justice Precinct was assaulted with a guitar by a child. The child was not permitted to have a guitar outside of his bedroom due to a history of violent behaviour in detention. The violence included previously hitting another child in the head and striking two guards with the guitar.

The second incident involved a youth justice worker being badly burnt on the face and later developing post-traumatic stress disorder after hot liquid was thrown in his face and he was punched and kicked by a child.

In both cases, the Court heard it was reasonably practicable for the department to provide and maintain a system of work to enforce the rules. In the first incident, the Department had failed to inform and instruct the worker about the restrictions and conditions on the use of, or access to, guitars. In the second incident, the Department had not ensured adequate training in applying the policy prohibiting hot drinks from being taken out of the kitchen area.

The Department was convicted and fined $80,000 in relation to the first incident and $20,000 for the second incident, as well as being ordered to pay costs.

Where an employer seeks to control risks through administrative processes at the workplace, it is critical that staff are properly trained and instructed in those procedures. Although in this case the outbursts of violence may have been unexpected, the risk of injury from violence was foreseeable in that working environment.

27/08/2021

Caring for your clients

This month, the Melbourne County Court imposed a significant fine on the director and company operating an oxygen therapy provider after a client died following hyperbaric oxygen therapy.

WorkSafe Victoria v Oxymed Pty Ltd (2021) is an example of the critical importance of assessing the risks of injury to which third parties may be exposed arising out of your business or undertaking.

This case involved Oxymed Pty Ltd, which is an oxygen therapy provider offering hyperbaric oxygen therapy. Hyperbaric oxygen therapy involves supplying pure oxygen to a person in a pressurised environment. The increased air pressure is intended to allow a patient’s lungs to absorb more oxygen than would normally be possible.

In or around April 2016, a long-term client of Oxymed Pty Ltd, who suffered from extensive multiple sclerosis and had a history of epileptic seizures, was found unconscious in a single-person hyperbaric chamber. After being taken to hospital and placed on life support, the client did not recover and died later that week.

The Court found several significant failures by the company and clinical director of the company, Malcom Hooper, including:

not having an adequate system in place for identifying and assessing the risks to each person receiving hyperbaric oxygen therapy;
not developing a comprehensive plan to eliminate or reduce those risks;
insufficient supervision of people receiving treatment; and
not keeping staff updated with training and instruction on administering first aid.
Oxymed Pty Ltd and Mr Hooper were both found guilty of breaching sections 26 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 (Vic). Mr Hooper was also charged and pleaded guilty to failing to notify WorkSafe Victoria of the incident and failing to preserve the incident site, in breach of sections 38 and 39 of the Act.

Oxymed Pty Ltd was fined $550,000 and Mr Hooper was fined $176,750.

The judgement highlights the importance of the requirement to ensure proper training and supervision of your staff in safe systems of work, including emergency response and first aid. The courts will also not countenance a failure to report serious incidents to the regulator.

05/08/2021

3 key changes to health and safety laws in Victoria

The Victorian Government is intending to make key changes to the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 (OHS Act). These changes will:

affect how the OHS Act applies to labour hire workers, host employers and labour hire providers;
prohibit provisions in insurance contracts that seek to insure or indemnify a person against their liability to pay monetary penalties under OHS laws; and
grant more powers to Health and Safety Representatives (HSRs) and Authorised Representatives of Registered Employee Organisations (ARREOs).
Strengthening laws for labour hire workers

The definitions of ‘employer’ and ‘employee’ in the OHS Act will provide that a labour hire worker performing work for a host employer will be taken to be the employee of the host. This means that labour hire workers will have all the same OHS Act rights and protections of an employee when at their host employer’s workplace.

Labour hire providers and host employers will have duties to consult, cooperate and coordinate with each other when they share duties under the OHS Act towards labour hire workers. This duty is based on a similar provision in the model Work Health and Safety Act, which applies in other Australian states and territories, and seeks to ensure that when providers and hosts owe the same duties to the same worker, the provider and host are working together to ensure those duties are met.

Breach of the duty may attract a fine of up to $30,000 for individuals and $149,000 for body corporates.

Prohibiting OHS insurance and indemnities

A further change will render void any provisions in insurance contracts that seek to insure or indemnify a person against their liability to pay monetary penalties under OHS laws.

It would also be an offence to provide, enter into or hold this kind of cover, or to provide or receive a benefit under such a contract.

New Zealand and New South Wales already prohibit these kinds of insurance and indemnities, and a similar offence will commence in Western Australia shortly.

Granting more powers to HSRs and ARREOs

The OHS Act already gives powers to HSRs and ARREOs. ARREOs are union officials who hold a permit issued by the Magistrates Court that allows them to enter workplaces if they reasonably suspect that a contravention of OHS laws relates to work being done by members or potential members of their union.

When an ARREO enters a workplace, they are permitted by the OHS Act to exercise certain powers. These include inspecting plant and substances, observing work, and consulting with employees and employers.

HSRs are employees or independent contractors who have been elected by their colleagues to represent the interests of other employees or independent contractors on health and safety matters.

The proposed changes to the Act will give ARREOs and HSRs the power to take photographs, measurements, sketches and recordings, including video recordings. An HSR will only be able to take a photo or a video recording for the purpose of:

representing members of their designated work group on health and safety matters;
monitoring health and safety activity by their employer;
enquiring into health and safety risks; or
attempting to resolve health and safety risks.
An ARREO will only be able to exercise the new power “to the extent that it is reasonable for the purpose of enquiring into the suspected contravention” that they entered the workplace to examine. For example, if an ARREO entered a workplace to enquire into a suspected contravention – which must be noted on an entry permit before the ARREO enters – then they could not take photographs or video of another suspected contravention, or anything else, while at the workplace.

Address

Capalaba, QLD
4157

Opening Hours

Monday 9am - 5pm
6pm - 7pm
Tuesday 9am - 5pm
6pm - 7pm
Wednesday 9am - 5pm
6pm - 7pm
Thursday 9am - 5pm
6pm - 7pm
Friday 9am - 5pm
6pm - 7pm

Telephone

+61403845731

Website

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when First Choice Health & Safety Consultants posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Contact The Business

Send a message to First Choice Health & Safety Consultants:

Shortcuts

Share

Category