A recent case has highlighted the reality around mutual responsibility for safety outcomes at a workplace. In this case a client of a removal company has been ordered to pay 50% of the total penalty after an employee of the removal company was injured at the clients workplace.
In this case the court found that the client, Canberra Institute of Technology (CIT), was found to have negligently failed to have in place a reliable system to provide directions to its employees when they were faced with difficulties in their job.
The removalist team was instructed by the CIT facilities manager to load the furniture at one location, transport it to some large skip bins in another area of the campus, and then place the furniture in the bins. The CIT facilities manager told the removalist team that they were not to open the doors of the skip bins, or block the campus access road by reversing the truck at right angles to the bins. This requirement not to park at right angles to the bin meant the team could not adopt the usual practice of throwing materials from the back of the truck.
The worker was injured when he attempted to throw a 1.8-metre-long, 30-kilogram desk.
In allocating the penalties the Justice in the case noted that there was no question that both Balfran as employer and CIT as occupier owed a duty of care to the worker.
CIT argued that it had engaged the removalists as “experts” to move the materials, and any restrictions it imposed on the way the job was to be done was from a position of not knowing what was or wasn’t a safe way of performing the task.
the presiding Justice noted that CIT, by imposing conditions “on the way in which the work was to be done, created a circumstance in which the work was not going to be done in the way favoured by [Balfran] and which was patently unsafe”.
Learnings for all businesses
“This case highlights a reality that is often articulated, but still not well understood – that even when you engage an expert to undertake works at your workplace, you remain responsible for the safety of the worker onsite. Actions, directions and failure to adequately consult on risks onsite will all contribute to the level of responsibility that will be apportioned to you as the client if a worker is injured onsite”, explains ACAPMAs Elisha Radwanowski.
“This case should serve as a reminder to all businesses to establish and review their contractor engagement and management systems, with particular emphasis on the level of training and instruction that is given to staff on the requirement to consult on risks when contractors are onsite. When there is a standard way of undertaking a task, that is recommended by the experts, there should be a detailed discussion of the risks and alternatives of any proposed change to that standard approach”, concluded Elisha.
Here to Help
Safety Highlights are things to consider, implement and watch out for in your business. They are provided as general information for you to consider and do not constitute advice. You should seek further advice on your situation by contacting your legal advisor. ACAPMA members can access resources and receive advice, guidance and support from the ACAPMA employment professionals via employment@acapma.com.au , it is free for members. ACAPMA Membership delivers this and more benefits, see; https://acapma.com.au/membership/ for more information.
Elisha Radwanowski BCom(HRM&IR)
ACAPMA
