Decriminalization of Health and Safety at Work in Australia

ABOUT THE BOOK As the title Safety or Profit? suggests, health and safety at work needs to be understood in the context of the wider political economy. This book brings together contributions informed by this view from internationally recognized scholars. It reviews the governance of health and safety at work, with special reference to Australia, Canada, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. Three main aspects are discussed. The restructuring of the labor market: this is considered with respect to precarious work and to gender issues and their implications for the health and safety of workers. The neoliberal agenda: this is examined with respect to the diminished power of organized labor, decriminalization, and new governance theory, including an examination of how well the health-and-safety-at-work regimes put in place in many industrial societies about forty years ago have fared and how distinctive the recent emphasis on self-regulation in several countries really is. The role of evidence: there is a dearth of evidence-based policy. The book examines how policy on health and safety at work is formulated at both company and state levels. Cases considered include the scant regard paid to evidence by an official inquiry into future strategy in Canada; the lack of evidence-based policy and the reluctance to observe the precautionary principle with respect to work-related cancer in the United Kingdom; and the failure to learn from past mistakes in the Deepwater Horizon disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. Intended Audience: Researchers; policymakers, trade union representatives, and officials interested in OHS; postgraduate students of OHS; OHS professionals; regulatory and socio-legal scholars.

Constitutive Regulation of the Firm: occupational health and safety, dismissal, discrimination and sexual harassment

As many other chapters in this book have noted, until recently labour lawyers have tended not to draaw on regulatory scholarship. In this chapter we look at certain areas of labour law through a particular kind of regulatory lens - regulation that requires firms to reconstitute their management processes and procedures, perhaps even their organisational cultures. In particular, we examine the kinds of regulatory demands made on firms by legal rules in four areas of labour law: (i) occupational health and safety (OHS)regulation; unfair dismissal law; equal opportunity (EO) and (iv) sexual harassment law.

Enforcing upstream: Australian health and safety inspectors and upstream duty holders

The ‘new style’ occupational health and safety legislation implemented in Australia from the late 1970s changed the character of OHS legal obligations, establishing general duties supported by process, performance and, more rarely, specification standards,1 and extending obligations to those who propagate risks as designers, manufacturers, importers or suppliers — the ‘upstream duty holders’. This article examines how OHS agencies inspect and enforce OHS legislation upstream, drawing on empirical research in four Australian states and relevant case law. We argue that upstream duty holders are an increasing area of attention for OHS inspectorates but these inspectorates have not yet risen to the challenge of harnessing these parties to help stem, at the source, the flow of risks into workplaces.

Regulating supply chains to improve health and safety

The fragmentation of previously integrated systems of production and service delivery has been an important feature of organisational restructuring over the last three decades. This article highlights the adverse implications of this development for the health and safety of workers, examines the extent to which current British health and safety law provides an adequate framework for addressing these outcomes and explores whether its capacity to do so could be enhanced through the introduction of new statutory provisions on the regulation of supply chains. It concludes that, in terms of both structure and operation, the present framework of law is problematic. It further argues that recent international initiatives show that it is feasible to develop such statutory provisions and that existing evidence suggests that provisions of this type could usefully be introduced in respect of a number of areas of activity where the implications of the externalisation of production and service delivery seem particularly problematic.

Harmonising occupational health and safety regulation in Australia: The first report of the national OHS review

The Australian government had set up a major National Review into Model Occupational Health and Safety Laws (National OHS Review) to examine the Occupational health and safety (OHS) statutes in Australia to identify areas of best practice, common practice and inconsistency and to make recommendations for a model OHS Act. The article analyses the first report of the review panel.

Work health and safety and the criminal law in Australia

This paper analyses recent Australian debates about the use of the criminal law in work health and safety regulation. It argues that these debates have to be seen in the context of the historical development of work health and safety regulation in the United Kingdom and Australia. The first part of the paper shows that, since the late 19th century, contraventions against the Australian work health and safety statutes have not been regarded as 'really criminal', and have largely been addressed by informal measures and, since the 1980s, by administrative sanctions. When prosecutions have taken place, work health and safety issues have been individualised and decontextualised, so that defendants have been able to reduce their culpability in the eyes of the court. Significant legal barriers have undermined the use of the crime of gross negligence manslaughter against corporations and individuals. The second part of the paper analyses recent debates about restructuring gross negligence manslaughter and bolstering the 'criminality' of offences under the work health and safety statutes. It argues that the latter debate has been constrained by the historical forces examined in the first part of the paper, and that the current position, embodied in the recently harmonised Work Health and Safety Acts, favours attempting to recriminalise the work health and safety legislation. The debate about reforming gross negligence manslaughter has stalled.

A responsive sanction to promote systematic compliance? Enforceable undertakings in occupational health and safety regulation

This article examines the use of enforceable undertakings in Australian occupational health and safety (OHS) regulation. Enforceable undertakings are promises by persons alleged to have breached their regulatory obligations to do something, which if not done, is enforceable in court. Enforceable undertakings potentially have an important responsive and restorative role to play in a regulatory enforcement strategy to ensure compliance with OHS statutes, and have been used in other areas of business regulation, including trade practices, financial, prudential, consumer, civil aviation, environmental and communications and media regulation. The article then reports on a study of the operation of enforceable undertakings in Queensland to enforce compliance with OHS obligations. We conclude that this early experience of enforceable undertakings in Queensland provides useful guidance as to how the enforceable undertaking provisions might best be implemented elsewhere, and preliminary evidence of the complexities of their likely effectiveness in OHS regulation.

Take me to your employer: the organisational reach of occupational health and safety regulation

[Conclusion] We have explored two dimensions of the Australian OHS statutes which enable statutory OHS duties to reach more than one employer or self-employed person within a corporate group or network. First, most of the OHS statutes contain provisions extending the reach of employer’s duty beyond the employer’s employees. One legislative technique is to deem contractors and their employees to be employees of the principal contractor. Another imposes duties on employers and self-employed persons to persons who are not employees, so that employers and self-employed persons can be responsible for the OHS of firms, and those they engage, lower in the contractual chain. These duties are non-delegable, meaning that the principal contractor cannot seek to delegate OHS duties to firms lower in the contractual chain. Second, new Victorian ‘shadow officer’ provisions can be applied to remove difficulties and doubt as to the liability of partners in a partnership, officers of unincorporated associations, joint venturers, and holding and subsidiary companies within corporate groups. While the provisions can be argued simply to confirm that a partner who fails to take reasonable care in relation to OHS will be guilty of an offence, we demonstrate that there are very real benefits to having ‘shadow officer’ provisions which remove uncertainties about the liability of unincorporated associations, joint ventures and corporate groups. Perhaps most significantly, the Victorian corporate officer provisions have the potential to extend liability to individuals and other entities within organisational structures, where those individuals and entities make or participate in making decisions that affect the whole or a substantial part of the organisation’s business, and are responsible for an OHS offence having been committed, due to their failure to take reasonable care. We suggest that similar provisions should be included in all OHS statutes, to overcome at least some of the barriers limiting group responsibility for OHS statutory duties.

Regulating supply-chains to address the occupational health and safety problems associated with precarious employment: The case of home-based clothing workers in Australia

Over the past 20 years the labour market, workforce and work organisation of most if not all industrialised countries have been significantly refashioned by the increased use of more flexible work arrangements, variously labelled as precarious employment or contingent work. There is now a substantial and growing body of international evidence that many of these arrangements are associated with a significant deterioration in occupational health and safety (OHS), using a range of measures such as injury rates, disease, hazard exposures and work-related stress. Moreover, there is an emerging body of evidence that these arrangements pose particular problems for conventional regulatory regimes. Recognition of these problems has aroused the concern of policy makers - especially in Europe, North America and Australia - and a number of responses have been adopted in terms of modifying legislation, producing new guidance material and codes of practice and revised enforcement practices. This article describes one such in itiative in Australia with regard to home-based clothing workers. The regulatory strategy developed in one Australian jurisdiction (and now being ‘exported’ into others) seeks to counter this process via contractual tracking mechanisms to follow the work, tie in liability and shift overarching legal responsibility to the top of the supply chain. The process also entails the integration of minimum standards relating to wages, hours and working conditions; OHS and access to workers’ compensation. While home-based clothing manufacture represents a very old type of ‘flexible’ work arrangement, it is one that regulators have found especially difficult to address. Further, the elaborate multi-tiered subcont racting and diffuse work locations found in this industry are also characteristic of newer forms of contingent work in other industries (such as some telework) and the regulatory challenges they pose (such as the tendency of elaborate supply chains to attenuate and fracture statutory responsibilities, at least in terms of the attitudes and behaviour of those involved).

The implications of de‐collectivist industrial relations laws and associated developments for worker health and safety in Australia, 1996–2007

The institutional and regulatory interlinkages between industrial relations (IR) and occupational health and safety (OHS) are seldom explored in the IR literature. This article begins to address this gap by examining regulatory initiatives in Australia during a period of neoliberal government. It examines the laws enacted by the federal government during this period and events and cases arising from these laws that go some way to illustrating their effects. Evidence is also drawn from detailed research on a number of state OHS inspectorates between 2004 and 2006. It is argued that de-collectivist changes to IR laws exacerbated problems posed by the growth of flexible work arrangements and a drop in union density, weakening participatory provisions in OHS laws and promoting work arrangements that undermined OHS standards. The study provides evidence of the implications of a divergence in the trajectory of IR and OHS laws and the importance of better integrating worker protection laws.

Supply chain regulation to protect the occupational health and safety of vulnerable workers

The last two decades have witnessed a fragmentation of previously integrated systems of production and service delivery with the advent of boundary-less, networked and porous organisational forms. This trend has been associated with the growth of outsourcing and increased use of contingent workers. One consequence of these changes is the development of production/service delivery systems based on complex national and international networks of multi-tiered subcontracting increasingly labelled as supply chains. A growing body of research indicates that subcontracting and contingent work arrangements affect design and decision-making processes in ways that can seriously undermine occupational health and safety (OHS). Elaborate supply chains also present a regulatory challenge because legal responsibility for OHS is diffused amongst a wider array of parties, targeting key decision-makers is more difficult, and government agencies encounter greater logistical difficulties trying to safeguard contingent workers. In a number of industries these problems have prompted new forms of regulatory intervention, including mechanisms for sheeting legal responsibility to the top of supply chains, contractual tracking devices and increasing industry, union and community involvement in enforcement. After describing the problems just alluded to this paper examines recent efforts to regulate supply chains to safeguard OHS in the United Kingdom and Australia.

Development of a new regulatory model for occupational health and safety in the New South Wales coal industry: an issues paper for the New South Wales Department of Mineral Resources

This paper addresses the regulatory issues arising in developing a new regulatory model for the New South Wales Coal Industry. As such, it identifies the relevant literature on this subject, the options available for reform, and the experience of Australian and key international bodies responsible for the development of regulatory standards in this area. In particular it: Identifies the main shortcomings in the existing regulatory approach; Identifies the potential roles/main strengths and weaknesses of different types of standards (eg specification, performance, process and systems-based rules) and potential “best practice’ combinations of standards; Examines the appropriateness of the current regulatory regime whereby the general OHS legislation (including the general duty provisions) applies to mining in addition to the large body of regulation which is specific to mining; Identifies the importance of, and possible means of addressing, issues of worker participation within the coal mining industry; Draws on the literature on what motivates companies and individuals for the purpose of recommending key provisions for inclusion in new legislation to provide appropriate personal and organisational incentives; Draws on the literature on major hazards facilities to suggest the appropriate roles for OHS management systems and safety reports or comparable approaches (eg mine safety management plans); Draws on the United Kingdom (UK) and United States of America (USA) experience of coal mine safety and its regulation for comparative purposes, and for insights as to what sort of regulation most effectively reduces work related injury and disease in coal mining; Examines the relevant roles of International Labour Organisation (ILO) Conventions; Examines the extent to which different regulatory regimes would be appropriate to open cut and underground coal mining; and Examines options for reform. This paper is focussed specifically on the issues identified above.

Engaging expert contractors: The work health and safety obligations of the business or undertaking

This article examines the legal principles governing the statutory work health and safety general duties of principals who engage expert contractors to carry out work beyond the expertise of the principal. The article examines recent case law in which superior courts accepted the principal’s argument that the engagement of the expert contractor was sufficient to discharge the principal’s statutory work health and safety general duty. It then reframes the debate within the principles of systematic work health and safety management, and key provisions in the harmonised Work Health and Safety Acts—the primary duty of care; the key underpinning principles; the positive and proactive officer’s duty; and the horizontal duty of consultation, cooperation and coordination. It argues that it is likely that courts examining the issue of the principal’s work health and safety obligations under the harmonised Work Health and Safety Acts will require principals to do more to actively manage the work of expert contractors to ensure the health and safety of all workers and others potentially affected by the work.