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.

Safety, courts and crime: occupational safety and health prosecutions in the Magistrates' courts

This paper reports on an empirically based study of occupational safety and health prosecutions in the Magistrates' courts in the State of Victoria, Australia. It examines the way in which the courts construct occupational safety and health issues during prosecutions against alleged offenders, and then theorises the role of the criminal law in health and safety regulation. The paper argues that courts, inspectors, prosecutors and defence counsel are involved in filtering or reshaping occupational safety and health issues during the prosecution process, both pre-trial and in court. An analysis of the pattern of investigation of health and safety offences shows that they are constructed by focusing on 'events', in most cases incidents resulting in injury or death. This 'event focus' ensures that the attention of the parties is drawn to the details of the incident and away from the broader context of the event. This broader context includes the way in which work is organised at the workplace and the quality of occupational safety and health management (the micro context), and the pressures within capitalist production systems for occupational safety and health to be subordinated to production imperatives (the macro context). In particular, during the court-based sentencing process, defence counsel is able to adopt a range of 'isolation' techniques that isolate the incident from its micro and macro contexts, thereby individualising and decontextualising the incident. The paper concludes that the legal system plays a key role in decontextualising and individualising health and safety issues, and that this process is part of the 'architecture' of the legal system, and a direct consequence of the 'form of law'.

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.

Dismantling worker categories: the primary duty of care, and worker consultation, participation and representation, in the model Work Health and Safety Bill 2009

Late in 2009, the Australian Workplace Relations Ministers' Council endorsed the model Work Health and Safety Bill 2009, which is to be adopted by all Australian governments (federal, state and territory) from 01 January 2012. This paper describes and analyses two key sets of provisions in this model legislation. The first establishes a 'primary' duty of care imposed not on 'employers' but on persons conducting a business or undertaking, and owed to all kinds of workers engaged, directed or influenced by the person conducting the business or undertaking. The second encompasses broad duties on all persons conducting a business or undertaking to consult with workers who carry out work for the business or undertaking and who are directly affected by a work health and safety issue, and to facilitate the election of health and safety representatives representing all workers who carry out work for the business or undertaking. These provisions arguably make a significant contribution to solving a problem faced by occupational safety and health regulators around the world – modifying regulation to accommodate all forms of precarious work.

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.

Outsourcing risk -the regulation of occupational health and safety where subcontractors are employed

The subcontracting out of production tasks and services is not a new phenomenon, but from the late 1970s, and more especially over the last 15years, the practice-now frequently referred to as outsourcing-has grown substantially across a range of industries in most industrialized countries.Recent surveys undertaken in the United States,Europe,and Australia have all identified a rapid increase in outsourcing/subcontracting, especially amongst large private and public sector organizations. The Second Australian Workplace Industrial Relations Survey found that the number of contractors, agency workers, outworkers, and volunteers had increased by almost 40% in the last 5 years to 1997 with contracting out more common in the public sector than the private sector. Outsourcing has become a major tool by which large organizations have sought to increase competitiveness/cut costs, bypass regulatory controls, and secure more flexible employment arrangements.

Statutory occupational health and safety workplace arrangements for the modern labour market

Over the past 20 years there has been a significant refashioning of the labour market within Australia and other industrialised countries. This paper examines the implications of the growth of more flexible work arrangements for mechanisms designed to facilitate worker involvement in occupational health and safety at the workplace—a pivotal feature of post-Robens OHS legislation in Australia. It is argued that the growth of subcontracting, casual and home-based work has undermined both coverage and the effectiveness of these provisions, especially in a context where union membership and influence has also been declining. Looking at international experience, the paper examines a number of ways of remedying these deficiencies.

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.

Australian health and safety inspectors’ perceptions and actions in relation to changed work arrangements

Extensive international research points to an association between changed work arrangements, especially those commonly labelled as contingent work, with adverse occupational health and safety (OHS) outcomes. Research also indicates these work arrangements have weakened or bypassed existing OHS and workers’ compensation regulatory regimes. However, there has been little if any research into how OHS inspectors perceive these issues and how they address them during workplace visits or investigations. Between 2003 and 2007 research was undertaken that entailed detailed documentary and statistical analysis, extended interviews with 170 regulatory managers and inspectors, and observational data collected while accompanying inspectors on 118 ‘typical’ workplace visits. Key findings are that inspectors responsible for a range of industries see altered work arrangements as a serious challenge, especially labour hire (agency work) and subcontracting. Though the law imposes clear obligations, inspectors identified misunderstanding/blameshifting and poor compliance amongst parties to these arrangements. The complexity of these work arrangements also posed logistical challenges to inspectorates.