In 2008, the Council of Australian Governments agreed to a national review of work health and safety regulation with a view to greater uniformity between the states and territories and a system of regulation better adapted to modern working arrangements. The result has been the Model Work Health and Safety Act, a version of which has been enacted in each jurisdiction within Australia with the exception of Western Australia and Victoria. One of the features of the Model Work Health and Safety Act is the imposition of duties on persons who are in a position to control or influence safety in workplaces. The legislation contemplates that more than one person can have a work health and safety duty in relation to the same matter. In such cases, these persons must, so far as is reasonably practicable, consult, co-operate and co-ordinate with each other.
One of the first convictions under this consultation provision was handed down in May. The case involved an employee who was injured, when the guttering he was handling came into contact with power lines. The employee had been placed in his position by an apprentice placement organisation, was being supervised by a self-employed roofer and was working at a site under the control of a construction company. All three of these defendants had their own separate duty to ensure the safety of the employee, as well as a duty to consult, co-operate and co-ordinate with each other about safety arrangements, which they failed to uphold. This decision has particular significance for training and placement organisations and host employers.In 2008, the Council of Australian Governments agreed to a national review of work health and safety regulation with a view to greater uniformity between the states and territories and a system of regulation better adapted to modern working arrangements. The result has been the Model Work Health and Safety Act, a version of which has been enacted in each jurisdiction within Australia with the exception of Western Australia and Victoria. One of the features of the Model Work Health and Safety Act is the imposition of duties on persons who are in a position to control or influence safety in workplaces. The legislation contemplates that more than one person can have a work health and safety duty in relation to the same matter. In such cases, these persons must, so far as is reasonably practicable, consult, co-operate and co-ordinate with each other.
One of the first convictions under this consultation provision was handed down in May. The case involved an employee who was injured, when the guttering he was handling came into contact with power lines. The employee had been placed in his position by an apprentice placement organisation, was being supervised by a self-employed roofer and was working at a site under the control of a construction company. All three of these defendants had their own separate duty to ensure the safety of the employee, as well as a duty to consult, co-operate and co-ordinate with each other about safety arrangements, which they failed to uphold. This decision has particular significance for training and placement organisations and host employers.In 2008, the Council of Australian Governments agreed to a national review of work health and safety regulation with a view to greater uniformity between the states and territories and a system of regulation better adapted to modern working arrangements. The result has been the Model Work Health and Safety Act, a version of which has been enacted in each jurisdiction within Australia with the exception of Western Australia and Victoria. One of the features of the Model Work Health and Safety Act is the imposition of duties on persons who are in a position to control or influence safety in workplaces. The legislation contemplates that more than one person can have a work health and safety duty in relation to the same matter. In such cases, these persons must, so far as is reasonably practicable, consult, co-operate and co-ordinate with each other.
One of the first convictions under this consultation provision was handed down in May. The case involved an employee who was injured, when the guttering he was handling came into contact with power lines. The employee had been placed in his position by an apprentice placement organisation, was being supervised by a self-employed roofer and was working at a site under the control of a construction company. All three of these defendants had their own separate duty to ensure the safety of the employee, as well as a duty to consult, co-operate and co-ordinate with each other about safety arrangements, which they failed to uphold. This decision has particular significance for training and placement organisations and host employers.