Attorney-General and Minister for Industrial Relations
The Honourable Cameron Dick
The Bligh Government has introduced laws to maintain Queensland’s workers’ compensation scheme as the strongest in Australia and keep employer premiums low.
Industrial Relations Minister Cameron Dick said the laws, introduced in State Parliament today, would offset the impacts of the global financial crisis and rising costs associated with common law claims and health and medical bills.
“This suite of changes is fair to both employers and employees,” Mr Dick said.
“There will be no restrictions on workers’ access to common law compensation claims, while employers will still have the lowest average premium of any Australian state or territory.
“WorkCover Queensland will increase average premiums for employers from $1.15 per $100 of wages to $1.30 for 20010-11.
“Victoria, which has the next lowest employer premium costs, currently charges businesses $1.34 per $100 of wages – nearly 3.1 per cent more than the new Queensland rate.”
Mr Dick said the changes to the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 would align with the Civil Liability Act 2003, harmonising liability and contributory negligence provisions and capping general damages at $300,000.
Damages for economic loss will be capped at three times Queensland Ordinary Time Earnings, or $176,607 a year.
“Workers will still have unchanged access to their benefits under the statutory scheme,” he said.
“However, claims in the courts will be subject to the new cap, as well as liability provisions. In addition, a court will be able to award costs against a worker where a claim is not successful.”
Mr Dick thanked key stakeholders, including unions, for their input into the new laws.
“These changes – which were developed after extensive consultation with the union movement, the legal profession and employer groups – will ensure that WorkCover continues to maintain its position as the strongest workers’ compensation scheme in Australia.”
Monday, September 20, 2010
Saturday, September 18, 2010
Round-up: occupational health and safety and employment law
There have been some recent changes to the obligations of transport and logistics employers under the Fair Work Act and the Occupational Health and Safety Act (NSW).
Since the introduction of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), employment law has gone through significant changes which have affected employers, including those in the transport and logistics industry. The industry, which is known for its strong union presence and safety concerns, has also been impacted by the recent decisions relating to OHS.
In this article we'll outline the recent changes to the obligations employers in the transport and logistics industry have under the Fair Work Act and the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000 (NSW).
Adverse action under the Fair Work Act
Since the introduction of the new industrial relations legislation, we have seen some changes to the "adverse action" provisions under the Fair Work Act.
Under the new laws, employers cannot take adverse action against persons because they have a workplace right, because they have or have not exercised the right, or because they propose or propose not to exercise the right. An employee now has an unfettered right to make a complaint or inquiry in relation to his or her employment without fear of adverse action.
Furthermore, once an employee has established that adverse action has occurred, the onus falls on the employer to prove that the reason for the adverse action was not because the claimant had a workplace right, engaged or refused to engage in a lawful industrial activity, or because of unlawful discrimination. Employers should note that the "adverse action" protection is now extended to employees and prospective employees.
Employers' responsibilities under the NSW OHS law
Following the High Court decision in Kirk v Industrial Relations Commission [2010] HCA 1, employers are in a somewhat better position when defending claims of breaches under the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000 (NSW).
The High Court in this instance found that WorkCover NSW will now have to nominate with some precision what the employer should have done to avoid breaches of the OHS Act, as a failure to do so would render a defence under section 53 – namely, that the required action was not reasonably practicable – near impossible to establish.
The Kirk decision potentially represents a major shift in the way OHS laws are applied in NSW, and while employers are in a better position following the decision, the NSW legislation still remains one of the strictest in the country.
Proposed Federal OHS legislation
Disparity between OHS legislation in different states has led to a proposal by the Federal Labor Government to enact Federal OHS laws which will standardise OHS obligations in Australia.
The proposed legislation is due to be enacted in early 2012, and the model laws bear close resemblance to legislation currently in place in Victoria and Queensland.
Once the laws are enacted, employers who carry on business in more than one state will be in a better position to ensure that they meet their obligations under the legislation. It should be noted that while the national laws will simplify compliance for employers, stringent standards will continue to apply.
Can an employee be unfairly dismissed if they were terminated due to OHS breaches?
While the termination of employment is subject to the unfair dismissal provisions of the Fair Work Act, it has been a long-standing principle that termination due to OHS breaches will not be "harsh, unjust or unreasonable". A recent decision by Fair Work Australia, however, has determined that a dismissal due to OHS breaches can be just and reasonable but still harsh under the circumstances.
The case in question turned on particular facts, and employers should not interpret this decision to mean that employment cannot be fairly terminated where there is a serious breach of workplace safety policies and practices.
Employers should ensure that their organisation and their people understand the obligations when terminating someone's employment, and that the dismissal is warranted given the nature of the breach and all the relevant circumstances.
Clayton Utz & Maurice Baroni.
Since the introduction of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), employment law has gone through significant changes which have affected employers, including those in the transport and logistics industry. The industry, which is known for its strong union presence and safety concerns, has also been impacted by the recent decisions relating to OHS.
In this article we'll outline the recent changes to the obligations employers in the transport and logistics industry have under the Fair Work Act and the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000 (NSW).
Adverse action under the Fair Work Act
Since the introduction of the new industrial relations legislation, we have seen some changes to the "adverse action" provisions under the Fair Work Act.
Under the new laws, employers cannot take adverse action against persons because they have a workplace right, because they have or have not exercised the right, or because they propose or propose not to exercise the right. An employee now has an unfettered right to make a complaint or inquiry in relation to his or her employment without fear of adverse action.
Furthermore, once an employee has established that adverse action has occurred, the onus falls on the employer to prove that the reason for the adverse action was not because the claimant had a workplace right, engaged or refused to engage in a lawful industrial activity, or because of unlawful discrimination. Employers should note that the "adverse action" protection is now extended to employees and prospective employees.
Employers' responsibilities under the NSW OHS law
Following the High Court decision in Kirk v Industrial Relations Commission [2010] HCA 1, employers are in a somewhat better position when defending claims of breaches under the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000 (NSW).
The High Court in this instance found that WorkCover NSW will now have to nominate with some precision what the employer should have done to avoid breaches of the OHS Act, as a failure to do so would render a defence under section 53 – namely, that the required action was not reasonably practicable – near impossible to establish.
The Kirk decision potentially represents a major shift in the way OHS laws are applied in NSW, and while employers are in a better position following the decision, the NSW legislation still remains one of the strictest in the country.
Proposed Federal OHS legislation
Disparity between OHS legislation in different states has led to a proposal by the Federal Labor Government to enact Federal OHS laws which will standardise OHS obligations in Australia.
The proposed legislation is due to be enacted in early 2012, and the model laws bear close resemblance to legislation currently in place in Victoria and Queensland.
Once the laws are enacted, employers who carry on business in more than one state will be in a better position to ensure that they meet their obligations under the legislation. It should be noted that while the national laws will simplify compliance for employers, stringent standards will continue to apply.
Can an employee be unfairly dismissed if they were terminated due to OHS breaches?
While the termination of employment is subject to the unfair dismissal provisions of the Fair Work Act, it has been a long-standing principle that termination due to OHS breaches will not be "harsh, unjust or unreasonable". A recent decision by Fair Work Australia, however, has determined that a dismissal due to OHS breaches can be just and reasonable but still harsh under the circumstances.
The case in question turned on particular facts, and employers should not interpret this decision to mean that employment cannot be fairly terminated where there is a serious breach of workplace safety policies and practices.
Employers should ensure that their organisation and their people understand the obligations when terminating someone's employment, and that the dismissal is warranted given the nature of the breach and all the relevant circumstances.
Clayton Utz & Maurice Baroni.
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Failure to seek first aid for injured worker ‘outrageous’
A Melbourne magistrate has described the failure of a Cheltenham company to seek first aid for a worker who hit his head and later died as “outrageous”.
Metal products manufacturer Pressfast Industries Pty Ltd was convicted and fined recently after a 2008 incident in which a worker fell over and hit his head on concrete after being struck by a forklift.
The 60 year-old man was later found unconscious at work and died in hospital two days later.
“There was no qualified first aider on site, and the company failed to call an ambulance or seek first aid for the worker,” WorkSafe Victoria’s strategic programs director Trevor Martin said.
“The only staff member with first aid training was certified in 1984, and wasn’t alerted until it was too late.”
In handing down his sentence, Magistrate Andrew Capell referred to the company’s decision not to seek help from the first aider, despite the expired certificate, as “outrageous”.
Following the incident, WorkSafe issued charges against Pressfast under the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004.
Pressfast was convicted of two charges and fined a total of $163,500, and the court agreed for the third charge to be dealt with through an Adverse Publicity Order – requiring Pressfast to pay for a series of newspaper advertisements publicising the situation and health and safety tips from WorkSafe.
“This incident really brings home the importance of workplaces having a trained first aider on site at all times,” Martin said.
“In this case, Pressfast didn’t have a plan in place for dealing with first aid situations. Requiring Pressfast to publicise this through newspaper advertisements will alert other companies to make sure first aid is a priority in their workplace.”
Employees need to be given information and instruction, such as the location of kits, the names of officers and procedures to be followed when first aid is required, according to Martin.
Pressfast director Gunther Mayr was also fined $20,000 without conviction, for failing to provide and maintain a safe working environment for employees.
Undertaking a Risk Assesment for First Aid at the workplace is extremely vital to ensure that appropraite resources are allocated as necessary for your business and operations. There are plenty of good resources available to assist in determining what your needs are in busines business sector. Safety For Life can provide an appropriate Risk Assessment to define your needs.
Metal products manufacturer Pressfast Industries Pty Ltd was convicted and fined recently after a 2008 incident in which a worker fell over and hit his head on concrete after being struck by a forklift.
The 60 year-old man was later found unconscious at work and died in hospital two days later.
“There was no qualified first aider on site, and the company failed to call an ambulance or seek first aid for the worker,” WorkSafe Victoria’s strategic programs director Trevor Martin said.
“The only staff member with first aid training was certified in 1984, and wasn’t alerted until it was too late.”
In handing down his sentence, Magistrate Andrew Capell referred to the company’s decision not to seek help from the first aider, despite the expired certificate, as “outrageous”.
Following the incident, WorkSafe issued charges against Pressfast under the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004.
Pressfast was convicted of two charges and fined a total of $163,500, and the court agreed for the third charge to be dealt with through an Adverse Publicity Order – requiring Pressfast to pay for a series of newspaper advertisements publicising the situation and health and safety tips from WorkSafe.
“This incident really brings home the importance of workplaces having a trained first aider on site at all times,” Martin said.
“In this case, Pressfast didn’t have a plan in place for dealing with first aid situations. Requiring Pressfast to publicise this through newspaper advertisements will alert other companies to make sure first aid is a priority in their workplace.”
Employees need to be given information and instruction, such as the location of kits, the names of officers and procedures to be followed when first aid is required, according to Martin.
Pressfast director Gunther Mayr was also fined $20,000 without conviction, for failing to provide and maintain a safe working environment for employees.
Undertaking a Risk Assesment for First Aid at the workplace is extremely vital to ensure that appropraite resources are allocated as necessary for your business and operations. There are plenty of good resources available to assist in determining what your needs are in busines business sector. Safety For Life can provide an appropriate Risk Assessment to define your needs.
Monday, September 13, 2010
Employee found to be unfairly dismissed even though he breached safety rules
The recent case of Paul L Quinlivan v Norske Skog Paper Mills (Australia) Ltd [2010] FWA 883 has highlighted Fair Work Australia's acceptance to reinstate employees validly terminated for breaches of workplace safety policies and practices if the termination was "harsh", or as was found in this instance, had a disastrous effect on the employee's life.
As we will see, however, this case turned on its own facts and employers and employees alike should be cautious about drawing conclusions as to whether a safety-based termination will be deemed "unfair" if challenged before Fair Work Australia.
The facts of the case
Mr Quinlivan was employed by the Norske Skog Paper Mill for approximately 20 years.
When the plant was shut down for maintenance, he began the task of cleaning a tank, which was a physically demanding job in a warm, dark and damp environment. As the plant was in shutdown, additional signage had been placed at the entrances to the plant reminding employees that safety glasses must be worn at all times.
Mr Quinlivan did not put on the safety glasses he was required to wear because, he said, there was not enough light and the glasses fogged up due to the warm, damp atmosphere and his perspiration.
Over several hours, he was repeatedly reminded by supervising staff to put his glasses on, as well as of the safety risks of not wearing glasses and the presence of the signs. His supervisors twice offered him safety glasses, to which he responded in a generally discourteous manner.
His employment was then terminated because of his repeated breach of safety policies and practices in failing to wear the safety glasses despite prominent signage and instructions to do so, and a separate matter concerning an alleged failure to follow a lawful direction given by his supervisor with respect to modification and use of a tool.
Mr Quinlivan applied to Fair Work Australia under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009, claiming that his termination was harsh, unjust or unreasonable.
Was his dismissal harsh, unjust or unreasonable?
In determining whether Mr Quinlivan's dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable, Vice President Lawler turned to section 387 of the Fair Work Act. He considered Mr Quinlivan's disciplinary history (which consisted of minor incidents), as well as the employer's obligation to comply with "onerous" State OHS legislation.
Vice President Lawler held that Mr Quinlivan's failure to wear safety glasses (despite repeated instructions to do so in accordance with safety policies and practices) and his "disdainful and abusive responses" to his supervisors constituted "relatively serious misconduct" and a valid reason for dismissal. He did not, however, find that Mr Quinlivan engaged in misconduct in the form of a refusal to obey a lawful direction with respect to a tool.
Vice President Lawler pointed out that if a dismissal is not unjust or unreasonable, it could still be deemed harsh if it would have a disastrous impact on the employee's personal and economic situation.
Mr Quinlivan was 44 years old. He had been employed at the mill for 20 years, had limited education, no trade, no post-school educational qualifications, he had been unsuccessful in finding another full time job since his termination despite "serious efforts" to do so, and he had a mortgage and family to support:
"Realistically, the applicant faces the prospect of long-term unemployment or underemployment. His family faces severe financial hardship. There is a real risk that he will lose his house. His marriage will suffer increased stresses. His wife's depression could well be exacerbated. All these circumstances are likely to impact adversely on his young daughters."
In these circumstances, Vice President Lawler found that the termination was harsh and therefore Mr Quinlivan had been unfairly dismissed. He ordered that the applicant be reinstated but sanctioned Mr Quinlivan by refusing him his lost wages from the date of dismissal to reinstatement, approximately $18 000, because of the seriousness of his misconduct.
So how should employers handle a similar situation?
Although in this instance, a court found a termination for an OHS breach to be harsh, unjust or unreasonable, such findings are not common and this case is somewhat novel.
Employers should not interpret this decision to mean that employment should not be terminated where there is a serious breach of workplace safety policies and practices. This case turned on its particular facts, as Vice President Lawler noted:
"If the applicant had substantially lesser service, had not been a middle aged man with very poor employment prospects for whom the dismissal has such personal and economic consequences or if it had been brought home to him at any time on 2 September 2009 that a further breach would have serious consequences, I would not have concluded that the dismissal was harsh."
As with any termination, the key is to make sure that your organisation and your people understand their obligations under the Fair Work Act when terminating someone's employment, and that the dismissal is warranted given the nature of the breach and all the relevant circumstances.
As we will see, however, this case turned on its own facts and employers and employees alike should be cautious about drawing conclusions as to whether a safety-based termination will be deemed "unfair" if challenged before Fair Work Australia.
The facts of the case
Mr Quinlivan was employed by the Norske Skog Paper Mill for approximately 20 years.
When the plant was shut down for maintenance, he began the task of cleaning a tank, which was a physically demanding job in a warm, dark and damp environment. As the plant was in shutdown, additional signage had been placed at the entrances to the plant reminding employees that safety glasses must be worn at all times.
Mr Quinlivan did not put on the safety glasses he was required to wear because, he said, there was not enough light and the glasses fogged up due to the warm, damp atmosphere and his perspiration.
Over several hours, he was repeatedly reminded by supervising staff to put his glasses on, as well as of the safety risks of not wearing glasses and the presence of the signs. His supervisors twice offered him safety glasses, to which he responded in a generally discourteous manner.
His employment was then terminated because of his repeated breach of safety policies and practices in failing to wear the safety glasses despite prominent signage and instructions to do so, and a separate matter concerning an alleged failure to follow a lawful direction given by his supervisor with respect to modification and use of a tool.
Mr Quinlivan applied to Fair Work Australia under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009, claiming that his termination was harsh, unjust or unreasonable.
Was his dismissal harsh, unjust or unreasonable?
In determining whether Mr Quinlivan's dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable, Vice President Lawler turned to section 387 of the Fair Work Act. He considered Mr Quinlivan's disciplinary history (which consisted of minor incidents), as well as the employer's obligation to comply with "onerous" State OHS legislation.
Vice President Lawler held that Mr Quinlivan's failure to wear safety glasses (despite repeated instructions to do so in accordance with safety policies and practices) and his "disdainful and abusive responses" to his supervisors constituted "relatively serious misconduct" and a valid reason for dismissal. He did not, however, find that Mr Quinlivan engaged in misconduct in the form of a refusal to obey a lawful direction with respect to a tool.
Vice President Lawler pointed out that if a dismissal is not unjust or unreasonable, it could still be deemed harsh if it would have a disastrous impact on the employee's personal and economic situation.
Mr Quinlivan was 44 years old. He had been employed at the mill for 20 years, had limited education, no trade, no post-school educational qualifications, he had been unsuccessful in finding another full time job since his termination despite "serious efforts" to do so, and he had a mortgage and family to support:
"Realistically, the applicant faces the prospect of long-term unemployment or underemployment. His family faces severe financial hardship. There is a real risk that he will lose his house. His marriage will suffer increased stresses. His wife's depression could well be exacerbated. All these circumstances are likely to impact adversely on his young daughters."
In these circumstances, Vice President Lawler found that the termination was harsh and therefore Mr Quinlivan had been unfairly dismissed. He ordered that the applicant be reinstated but sanctioned Mr Quinlivan by refusing him his lost wages from the date of dismissal to reinstatement, approximately $18 000, because of the seriousness of his misconduct.
So how should employers handle a similar situation?
Although in this instance, a court found a termination for an OHS breach to be harsh, unjust or unreasonable, such findings are not common and this case is somewhat novel.
Employers should not interpret this decision to mean that employment should not be terminated where there is a serious breach of workplace safety policies and practices. This case turned on its particular facts, as Vice President Lawler noted:
"If the applicant had substantially lesser service, had not been a middle aged man with very poor employment prospects for whom the dismissal has such personal and economic consequences or if it had been brought home to him at any time on 2 September 2009 that a further breach would have serious consequences, I would not have concluded that the dismissal was harsh."
As with any termination, the key is to make sure that your organisation and your people understand their obligations under the Fair Work Act when terminating someone's employment, and that the dismissal is warranted given the nature of the breach and all the relevant circumstances.
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
DJs case points to a company culture and a 'corporate cancer'
WHEN Kristy Fraser-Kirk brought a sexual harassment claim against retailer David Jones this week, much of the focus was on the figure.
After all, a $37 million claim for punitive damages sounds straight out of a courtroom in the US -- a country where anyone can sue for almost anything -- and far removed from the local reality where the record award for a sexual harassment case currently stands around $500,000.
Yet, ironically, had the 27-year-old publicist been employed at one of the larger US-based retailers instead, there is a good chance her complaint might not have seen the light of day thanks to a corporate culture more attuned to the risks of sexual harassment in the workplace.
Fraser-Kirk is now a household name thanks to the titillating nature of her allegations and the high-profile man they are directed towards.
Former David Jones chief executive Mark McInnes was as close to a corporate celebrity in Australia as one gets. Wealthy and successful -- he earned more than $35m during the seven years he oversaw the department store's revival and quadrupled the company's share price -- McInnes was a regular on Sydney's glitzy social scene. And it was no secret that the twice-divorced 45-year-old had no shortage of female admirers.
However, his reputation was tarnished forever on June 18 when it was revealed that a "mutual termination" of his employment had been agreed upon following incidents at two company functions.
McInnes's subsequent confession that he had acted in a manner that was unbecoming towards a female employee left little to the imagination and for weeks rumours swirled about the exact nature of his conduct. Supporters offered that McInnes had simply misread the woman's signals.
However, Fraser-Kirk's statement of claim, lobbed in the Federal Court on Monday after settlement negotiations with her employer apparently fell through late last week, lists the incidents in great detail.
It also points to a culture within the organisation that appears to have permitted harassment and bullying.
Fraser-Kirk alleges that McInnes first acted inappropriately towards her at a company luncheon held in May to celebrate the renewal of a contract with well-known racing trainer Gai Waterhouse.
Throughout the event, according to the claim, McInnes urged his employee to try a dessert that he likened to "a f . . k in the mouth", touched her under her clothing and repeatedly asked her to accompany him back to his Bondi home, which she declined.
Fraser-Kirk alleges that McInnes's behaviour towards her escalated at a company function two weeks later, where he touched her again beneath her clothes and attempted to kiss her against her will. She says the previous invitation to go home with him was repeated and she received a telephone call and a text message from her boss the next day, requesting that she meet him for dinner and a drink.
Fraser-Kirk also claims to have reported McInnes to her direct supervisor, Tahli Koch, and the company's public relations general manager, Anne-Maree Kelly, immediately after the first incident, only to be told by Kelly: "Next time that happens, you just need to be very clear and say, 'No, Mark', and he'll back off."
Fraser-Kirk says she later made it known that she was unwilling to travel to Melbourne for a work engagement because of her concerns about McInnes's unwelcome attention. Among other things, she is claiming that David Jones sent her to the second function despite knowing she was at risk of further unwelcome sexual advances, and has cited examples of four other women she claims have also been the subject of similar harassment.
The claim also points to a bullying complaint lodged against McInnes in 1999 before he was chief executive and a "bullying approach" later adopted under his watch that had "led to a reluctance by employees to raise concerns about management conduct".
The allegations, if proven to be true, reflect poorly on an organisation that has staunchly defended its policies in the area of workplace health and safety, including the prevention of sexual harassment and discrimination.
Most large publicly listed companies have similar policies. In fact, all are encouraged to publish details of any codes of conduct as part of the corporate governance guidelines put forward by the Australian Securities Exchange. While these codes are not required to make specific representations about harassment in the workplace, they are required to take into account how a company ensures it complies with various legal obligations. Sexual harassment is outlawed under federal and state legislation.
But if figures emerging from the most recent surveys on the subject are to be believed, the policies are not working.
The Australian Human Rights Commission conducted a national survey in 2008 and found that 22 per cent of women and 5 per cent of men claimed to have experienced sexual harassment at work. While that compared with 28 per cent of women and 7 per cent of men in 2003, indicating that progress was being made, Sex Discrimination Commissioner Elizabeth Broderick was deeply concerned about another finding.
"When we asked people about what they thought sexual harassment was, what we found was such a lack of understanding," Broderick tells The Weekend Australian. "People said 'no', when asked if they'd experienced sexual harassment. But when we asked them if they'd experienced any unwelcome touching or hugging, for example, they'd say, 'oh yeah, that happens quite regularly'."
Cases that appear before the Federal Court or state-based tribunals suggest that the same offences keep cropping up: unwanted touching, kissing, suggestive or pornographic emails and text messages, and persistent requests for dates.
In 2008, there was a Monash Medical School student who was compensated $100,000 after the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal found her supervisor dropped his pants and grabbed her breast. The Federal Court last year heard the case of a woman who was sacked for purported shortfalls in her work performance after complaining that a colleague was badgering her to enter into a sexual relationship. The court found that the woman was terminated because she would not tolerate ongoing harassment. She was awarded $466,000 in damages, including compensations for pain and suffering and medical expenses incurred to treat depression and anxiety that she had suffered.
The Victorian Equal Opportunity & Human Rights Commission, which oversees the Equal Employment Opportunity Act, receives more than 200 complaints a year centred on sexual harassment. These are typically cases that have not been able to be resolved internally.
Commissioner Helen Szoke believes that the cases she sees are the tip of the iceberg, given that most people who experience harassment do not pursue the matter because they are embarrassed, fear adverse repercussions for their careers or lack confidence in their company's complaint resolution process.
Surprisingly, the cases do not all emerge from small businesses. "We see cases from across a range of businesses," Szoke says. "And, yes, some of those companies involved are large businesses that have (anti-harassment) policies and procedures in place. But it's not good enough to just have a policy."
As the David Jones case suggests, the existence of a policy is not enough to ensure that a company's board is made immediately aware of allegations levelled against a senior executive, which is ironic given the retailer's directors, including Australian Olympic Committee head John Coates and former Woolworths boss Reg Clairs, have been individually named as defendants.
David Jones chairman Bob Savage has insisted that neither he nor the board knew anything of McInnes acting inappropriately until it was brought to its attention days before his termination.
Peter Wilson, national president of the Australian Human Resources Institute, describes the bullying and sexual harassment of women in the workplace as a "corporate cancer", and believes that its prevalence despite legislation being in place for the past 25 years can be largely attributed to the lack of women on boards and within senior management.
(It is worth noting, though, that David Jones has Business Council of Australian chief executive Katie Lahey serving on its board and its management committee includes three women.)
"The evidence is clear that the very appearance of the female gender in male-dominated groups immediately changes behaviour," Wilson says.
"Generations X and Y are used to men and women sharing roles, at work and at home. Primarily this is an older-male problem."
Broderick agrees.
"The more hierarchical the environment, the more susceptible it is to sexual discrimination, especially those industries or organisations where there's a lot of junior women and a lot of senior men," she says.
While the quantum of Fraser-Kirk's claim has whipped talkback radio hosts and their listeners into a frenzy, it is clear that the $37m figure is part of a strategy designed to inflict punishment on McInnes, David Jones and its directors.
Even the timing of the court filing, which coincided with the store's spring-summer fashion launch -- one of its biggest publicity opportunities of the year -- smacked of a payback.
Fraser-Kirk has appointed the same legal firm that represented one-time PricewaterhouseCoopers partner Christina Rich in her high-profile harassment and discrimination case several years ago. Rich reportedly settled her complaint for more than $5m.
While some have painted the David Jones staffer as a gold-digger, she is not chasing a payout purely for herself. She is seeking unspecified damages relating to loss and damage and has said that any punitive damages would go to charity.
One former boss of a global investment bank says the case highlights how Australian companies lag when it comes to stamping out workplace harassment.
He points to the sexual harassment revolution that took place in the US during the 1990s that forced corporations to take seriously their obligations in providing a safe and harassment-free workplace. Just look at the damage caused to Smith Barney's reputation when a sexual harassment lawsuit filed by senior broker Pamela Martens in 1996 shone a light on the company's then-misogynist culture.
While the case and various others it sparked settled out of court, allegations against the bank were fleshed out in the book Tales from the Boom-Boom Room: Women vs Wall Street, published in 2002.
The book details a culture where women were routinely groped, called "whores" and banned from off-site meetings. When one woman complained about a male co-worker's conduct, she was apparently subjected to a grilling that included questions about her sex life, her gynaecological records and queries about her marriage breakdown.
"When I was working in New York, this sort of stuff was taken seriously because companies had learned the hard way that these cases can become very big problems. Big dollars are involved," says the banker, who is now based in Australia.
"In the US and Europe, what companies do is set up an anonymous telephone hotline so that employees can comfortably report any allegations to an independent party. The other thing is staff training. But in Australia, there really seems to be this 'she'll be right' attitude.
"But sexual harassment costs money, it costs reputations. "
Wilson agrees that Australian companies need to improve. The institute advocated four things all companies should do: establish a clear policy spelling out that sexual harassment is not acceptable, institute regular training programs, establish an external whistleblowing capability and act quickly when an issue arises.
While Wilson applauds Savage for his apparent swift action once McInnes's conduct came to his attention, he says most companies lag in this area. And many still do not have independent people handling whistleblowing, he says.
"I know corporate Australia will watch what happens with great interest," says Wilson. "It may well turn out to become a precedent. It has certainly sharpened awareness of the matter."
It is unlikely that the case will ever go to court. David Jones would no doubt be reluctant to see the matter go to trial, because of the risk of further embarrassing details emerging.
McInnes, who has been overseas with his pregnant girlfriend since mid-June, this week admitted to making mistakes but denied many of Fraser-Kirk's specific allegations.
Savage has said from the start that the company has been intent on supporting Fraser-Kirk. Yet his comments this week suggest that his patience could be running out.
"We have made it clear we value Ms Fraser-Kirk as an employee and we wanted her to return to work. If she chose not to return or she felt she was unable to return to work, we have made it clear we would be willing to compensate her for her loss." he told The Weekend Australian. "It was never our preference for this matter to be litigated and we made this clear. We are disappointed she felt it was necessary, but now proceedings have commenced, we have no option but to defend them."
A very interesting case indeed and in the context of bullying and harassement which falls under the WHS Legislation, what has your company done to assess the risk work bullying and harassment? Does your policy and procedure standard up to the test should an incident occur? Making sure you have a system in place that meets the guidelines is paramount.
After all, a $37 million claim for punitive damages sounds straight out of a courtroom in the US -- a country where anyone can sue for almost anything -- and far removed from the local reality where the record award for a sexual harassment case currently stands around $500,000.
Yet, ironically, had the 27-year-old publicist been employed at one of the larger US-based retailers instead, there is a good chance her complaint might not have seen the light of day thanks to a corporate culture more attuned to the risks of sexual harassment in the workplace.
Fraser-Kirk is now a household name thanks to the titillating nature of her allegations and the high-profile man they are directed towards.
Former David Jones chief executive Mark McInnes was as close to a corporate celebrity in Australia as one gets. Wealthy and successful -- he earned more than $35m during the seven years he oversaw the department store's revival and quadrupled the company's share price -- McInnes was a regular on Sydney's glitzy social scene. And it was no secret that the twice-divorced 45-year-old had no shortage of female admirers.
However, his reputation was tarnished forever on June 18 when it was revealed that a "mutual termination" of his employment had been agreed upon following incidents at two company functions.
McInnes's subsequent confession that he had acted in a manner that was unbecoming towards a female employee left little to the imagination and for weeks rumours swirled about the exact nature of his conduct. Supporters offered that McInnes had simply misread the woman's signals.
However, Fraser-Kirk's statement of claim, lobbed in the Federal Court on Monday after settlement negotiations with her employer apparently fell through late last week, lists the incidents in great detail.
It also points to a culture within the organisation that appears to have permitted harassment and bullying.
Fraser-Kirk alleges that McInnes first acted inappropriately towards her at a company luncheon held in May to celebrate the renewal of a contract with well-known racing trainer Gai Waterhouse.
Throughout the event, according to the claim, McInnes urged his employee to try a dessert that he likened to "a f . . k in the mouth", touched her under her clothing and repeatedly asked her to accompany him back to his Bondi home, which she declined.
Fraser-Kirk alleges that McInnes's behaviour towards her escalated at a company function two weeks later, where he touched her again beneath her clothes and attempted to kiss her against her will. She says the previous invitation to go home with him was repeated and she received a telephone call and a text message from her boss the next day, requesting that she meet him for dinner and a drink.
Fraser-Kirk also claims to have reported McInnes to her direct supervisor, Tahli Koch, and the company's public relations general manager, Anne-Maree Kelly, immediately after the first incident, only to be told by Kelly: "Next time that happens, you just need to be very clear and say, 'No, Mark', and he'll back off."
Fraser-Kirk says she later made it known that she was unwilling to travel to Melbourne for a work engagement because of her concerns about McInnes's unwelcome attention. Among other things, she is claiming that David Jones sent her to the second function despite knowing she was at risk of further unwelcome sexual advances, and has cited examples of four other women she claims have also been the subject of similar harassment.
The claim also points to a bullying complaint lodged against McInnes in 1999 before he was chief executive and a "bullying approach" later adopted under his watch that had "led to a reluctance by employees to raise concerns about management conduct".
The allegations, if proven to be true, reflect poorly on an organisation that has staunchly defended its policies in the area of workplace health and safety, including the prevention of sexual harassment and discrimination.
Most large publicly listed companies have similar policies. In fact, all are encouraged to publish details of any codes of conduct as part of the corporate governance guidelines put forward by the Australian Securities Exchange. While these codes are not required to make specific representations about harassment in the workplace, they are required to take into account how a company ensures it complies with various legal obligations. Sexual harassment is outlawed under federal and state legislation.
But if figures emerging from the most recent surveys on the subject are to be believed, the policies are not working.
The Australian Human Rights Commission conducted a national survey in 2008 and found that 22 per cent of women and 5 per cent of men claimed to have experienced sexual harassment at work. While that compared with 28 per cent of women and 7 per cent of men in 2003, indicating that progress was being made, Sex Discrimination Commissioner Elizabeth Broderick was deeply concerned about another finding.
"When we asked people about what they thought sexual harassment was, what we found was such a lack of understanding," Broderick tells The Weekend Australian. "People said 'no', when asked if they'd experienced sexual harassment. But when we asked them if they'd experienced any unwelcome touching or hugging, for example, they'd say, 'oh yeah, that happens quite regularly'."
Cases that appear before the Federal Court or state-based tribunals suggest that the same offences keep cropping up: unwanted touching, kissing, suggestive or pornographic emails and text messages, and persistent requests for dates.
In 2008, there was a Monash Medical School student who was compensated $100,000 after the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal found her supervisor dropped his pants and grabbed her breast. The Federal Court last year heard the case of a woman who was sacked for purported shortfalls in her work performance after complaining that a colleague was badgering her to enter into a sexual relationship. The court found that the woman was terminated because she would not tolerate ongoing harassment. She was awarded $466,000 in damages, including compensations for pain and suffering and medical expenses incurred to treat depression and anxiety that she had suffered.
The Victorian Equal Opportunity & Human Rights Commission, which oversees the Equal Employment Opportunity Act, receives more than 200 complaints a year centred on sexual harassment. These are typically cases that have not been able to be resolved internally.
Commissioner Helen Szoke believes that the cases she sees are the tip of the iceberg, given that most people who experience harassment do not pursue the matter because they are embarrassed, fear adverse repercussions for their careers or lack confidence in their company's complaint resolution process.
Surprisingly, the cases do not all emerge from small businesses. "We see cases from across a range of businesses," Szoke says. "And, yes, some of those companies involved are large businesses that have (anti-harassment) policies and procedures in place. But it's not good enough to just have a policy."
As the David Jones case suggests, the existence of a policy is not enough to ensure that a company's board is made immediately aware of allegations levelled against a senior executive, which is ironic given the retailer's directors, including Australian Olympic Committee head John Coates and former Woolworths boss Reg Clairs, have been individually named as defendants.
David Jones chairman Bob Savage has insisted that neither he nor the board knew anything of McInnes acting inappropriately until it was brought to its attention days before his termination.
Peter Wilson, national president of the Australian Human Resources Institute, describes the bullying and sexual harassment of women in the workplace as a "corporate cancer", and believes that its prevalence despite legislation being in place for the past 25 years can be largely attributed to the lack of women on boards and within senior management.
(It is worth noting, though, that David Jones has Business Council of Australian chief executive Katie Lahey serving on its board and its management committee includes three women.)
"The evidence is clear that the very appearance of the female gender in male-dominated groups immediately changes behaviour," Wilson says.
"Generations X and Y are used to men and women sharing roles, at work and at home. Primarily this is an older-male problem."
Broderick agrees.
"The more hierarchical the environment, the more susceptible it is to sexual discrimination, especially those industries or organisations where there's a lot of junior women and a lot of senior men," she says.
While the quantum of Fraser-Kirk's claim has whipped talkback radio hosts and their listeners into a frenzy, it is clear that the $37m figure is part of a strategy designed to inflict punishment on McInnes, David Jones and its directors.
Even the timing of the court filing, which coincided with the store's spring-summer fashion launch -- one of its biggest publicity opportunities of the year -- smacked of a payback.
Fraser-Kirk has appointed the same legal firm that represented one-time PricewaterhouseCoopers partner Christina Rich in her high-profile harassment and discrimination case several years ago. Rich reportedly settled her complaint for more than $5m.
While some have painted the David Jones staffer as a gold-digger, she is not chasing a payout purely for herself. She is seeking unspecified damages relating to loss and damage and has said that any punitive damages would go to charity.
One former boss of a global investment bank says the case highlights how Australian companies lag when it comes to stamping out workplace harassment.
He points to the sexual harassment revolution that took place in the US during the 1990s that forced corporations to take seriously their obligations in providing a safe and harassment-free workplace. Just look at the damage caused to Smith Barney's reputation when a sexual harassment lawsuit filed by senior broker Pamela Martens in 1996 shone a light on the company's then-misogynist culture.
While the case and various others it sparked settled out of court, allegations against the bank were fleshed out in the book Tales from the Boom-Boom Room: Women vs Wall Street, published in 2002.
The book details a culture where women were routinely groped, called "whores" and banned from off-site meetings. When one woman complained about a male co-worker's conduct, she was apparently subjected to a grilling that included questions about her sex life, her gynaecological records and queries about her marriage breakdown.
"When I was working in New York, this sort of stuff was taken seriously because companies had learned the hard way that these cases can become very big problems. Big dollars are involved," says the banker, who is now based in Australia.
"In the US and Europe, what companies do is set up an anonymous telephone hotline so that employees can comfortably report any allegations to an independent party. The other thing is staff training. But in Australia, there really seems to be this 'she'll be right' attitude.
"But sexual harassment costs money, it costs reputations. "
Wilson agrees that Australian companies need to improve. The institute advocated four things all companies should do: establish a clear policy spelling out that sexual harassment is not acceptable, institute regular training programs, establish an external whistleblowing capability and act quickly when an issue arises.
While Wilson applauds Savage for his apparent swift action once McInnes's conduct came to his attention, he says most companies lag in this area. And many still do not have independent people handling whistleblowing, he says.
"I know corporate Australia will watch what happens with great interest," says Wilson. "It may well turn out to become a precedent. It has certainly sharpened awareness of the matter."
It is unlikely that the case will ever go to court. David Jones would no doubt be reluctant to see the matter go to trial, because of the risk of further embarrassing details emerging.
McInnes, who has been overseas with his pregnant girlfriend since mid-June, this week admitted to making mistakes but denied many of Fraser-Kirk's specific allegations.
Savage has said from the start that the company has been intent on supporting Fraser-Kirk. Yet his comments this week suggest that his patience could be running out.
"We have made it clear we value Ms Fraser-Kirk as an employee and we wanted her to return to work. If she chose not to return or she felt she was unable to return to work, we have made it clear we would be willing to compensate her for her loss." he told The Weekend Australian. "It was never our preference for this matter to be litigated and we made this clear. We are disappointed she felt it was necessary, but now proceedings have commenced, we have no option but to defend them."
A very interesting case indeed and in the context of bullying and harassement which falls under the WHS Legislation, what has your company done to assess the risk work bullying and harassment? Does your policy and procedure standard up to the test should an incident occur? Making sure you have a system in place that meets the guidelines is paramount.
Big fines imposed over SA factory blast
A munitions factory that exploded, killing three workers, was a disaster waiting to happen, a court has heard.
South Australian Industrial Magistrate Michael Ardlie on Wednesday imposed the near maximum fines in relation to the deaths of the three men at the Gladstone plant, in South Australia's mid-north, in May 2006.
He also lashed Quin Investments, the company that operated the facility, and its boss, Nikolai Kuzub, for showing little remorse.
Mr Ardlie said what little regret and contrition they did show came only after they were found guilty of breaching workplace safety laws.
"This, in my view, is a bare minimum and a case of too little too late," he said.
Killed in the explosion more than four years ago were Damian Harris, Matt Keeley and Darren Millington.
They were making water gel explosives and the blast was triggered as they combined the liquid and dry ingredients.
As well as killing the three men and wounding two other workers, the explosion completely demolished the building they were in and threw items of equipment up to 600 metres away.
In June, Mr Ardlie ruled that poor maintenance and the careless storage and use of dangerous materials, including TNT, was to blame as he found the company and Mr Kuzub guilty on two counts of breaching safety laws.
He said the blast occurred after a hot spot developed in a mixture of dry ingredients in a blending machine that had not been properly serviced.
In his sentencing remarks, Mr Ardlie said the company and Mr Kuzub totally failed in their obligations to provide a safe working environment and criticised the lack of maintenance and safety procedures.
"I can only say that the operation of the factory was a disaster waiting to happen," he said.
He imposed fines of $95,000 on both Quin Investments and Mr Kuzub, and also ordered they pay a total of $40,000 in compensation, to be shared among the relatives of the three victims.
The maximum fines possiblewere $100,000 each, though the SA government has since increased that to $300,000.
Outside court Damian Harris' father, Gary, said all the families involved had wanted to know what happened and wanted the company held to account.
"But as far as the fine goes, what's money compared to lives?" he said.
"I guess we're walking away knowing what happened and that something has been done about it."
Both the company and Mr Kuzub have indicated they will appeal against the magistrate's rulings in the case.
This highlights the importance of ensuring that companies have adequate safe systems of work, safe plant and equipment and have provided information, instruction and training to workers. This is an incident which could have been prevented had the employer fullfilled their obligations. The failure to do so when lives are lost are a complete disregard of corporate responsibility. Shame on them!
Brought to us by © 2010 AAP
South Australian Industrial Magistrate Michael Ardlie on Wednesday imposed the near maximum fines in relation to the deaths of the three men at the Gladstone plant, in South Australia's mid-north, in May 2006.
He also lashed Quin Investments, the company that operated the facility, and its boss, Nikolai Kuzub, for showing little remorse.
Mr Ardlie said what little regret and contrition they did show came only after they were found guilty of breaching workplace safety laws.
"This, in my view, is a bare minimum and a case of too little too late," he said.
Killed in the explosion more than four years ago were Damian Harris, Matt Keeley and Darren Millington.
They were making water gel explosives and the blast was triggered as they combined the liquid and dry ingredients.
As well as killing the three men and wounding two other workers, the explosion completely demolished the building they were in and threw items of equipment up to 600 metres away.
In June, Mr Ardlie ruled that poor maintenance and the careless storage and use of dangerous materials, including TNT, was to blame as he found the company and Mr Kuzub guilty on two counts of breaching safety laws.
He said the blast occurred after a hot spot developed in a mixture of dry ingredients in a blending machine that had not been properly serviced.
In his sentencing remarks, Mr Ardlie said the company and Mr Kuzub totally failed in their obligations to provide a safe working environment and criticised the lack of maintenance and safety procedures.
"I can only say that the operation of the factory was a disaster waiting to happen," he said.
He imposed fines of $95,000 on both Quin Investments and Mr Kuzub, and also ordered they pay a total of $40,000 in compensation, to be shared among the relatives of the three victims.
The maximum fines possiblewere $100,000 each, though the SA government has since increased that to $300,000.
Outside court Damian Harris' father, Gary, said all the families involved had wanted to know what happened and wanted the company held to account.
"But as far as the fine goes, what's money compared to lives?" he said.
"I guess we're walking away knowing what happened and that something has been done about it."
Both the company and Mr Kuzub have indicated they will appeal against the magistrate's rulings in the case.
This highlights the importance of ensuring that companies have adequate safe systems of work, safe plant and equipment and have provided information, instruction and training to workers. This is an incident which could have been prevented had the employer fullfilled their obligations. The failure to do so when lives are lost are a complete disregard of corporate responsibility. Shame on them!
Brought to us by © 2010 AAP
Investigation clears sugar mill
AN investigation by Workplace Health and Safety Queensland into a locomotive derailment at the Isis Central Sugar Mill on June 24 has failed to identify any breach of safety laws.
The investigation was launched after the loco, towing 28 bins of cane, left the Adies Road tracks just before the bridge under Kevin Livingstone Drive.
Driver Geoffrey Martin, his offsider and a trainee driver jumped to safety, with all sustaining minor injuries.
A spokesperson for WHSQ said while no breach was detected, the department had worked with mill operators to identify strategies to minimise the potential for future similar events.
“WHSQ is also actively working with the Australian Sugar Milling Council and its members to look at ways to continuously improve safety with cane rail and cane transport in the sugar industry,” the spokesperson said.
Isis Central Sugar Mill general manager John Gorringe said the investigation had confirmed the company’s internal investigation, which showed there were no defects with the equipment or rail track involved.
“The mill has worked with employees and introduced a number of measures to reduce the possibility of a similar incident,” Mr Gorringe said.
Mr Martin, who was subsequently sacked from his employment for alleged breaches of company policies, said he still had not heard from WHSQ.
Since the incident, Fair Work Australia has mediated in a complaint Mr Martin made against the mill, the outcome of which must remain confidential.
“We reached a mutual agreement with no discrimination on either part,” Mr Martin said.
News Mail
The investigation was launched after the loco, towing 28 bins of cane, left the Adies Road tracks just before the bridge under Kevin Livingstone Drive.
Driver Geoffrey Martin, his offsider and a trainee driver jumped to safety, with all sustaining minor injuries.
A spokesperson for WHSQ said while no breach was detected, the department had worked with mill operators to identify strategies to minimise the potential for future similar events.
“WHSQ is also actively working with the Australian Sugar Milling Council and its members to look at ways to continuously improve safety with cane rail and cane transport in the sugar industry,” the spokesperson said.
Isis Central Sugar Mill general manager John Gorringe said the investigation had confirmed the company’s internal investigation, which showed there were no defects with the equipment or rail track involved.
“The mill has worked with employees and introduced a number of measures to reduce the possibility of a similar incident,” Mr Gorringe said.
Mr Martin, who was subsequently sacked from his employment for alleged breaches of company policies, said he still had not heard from WHSQ.
Since the incident, Fair Work Australia has mediated in a complaint Mr Martin made against the mill, the outcome of which must remain confidential.
“We reached a mutual agreement with no discrimination on either part,” Mr Martin said.
News Mail
Australia ahead on health and productivity management
Australian governments have shown real leadership on workplace health and wellbeing, according to Sean Sullivan, president and chief executive of the US-based Institute for Health and Productivity Management.
In an address to the Australian Health and Productivity Management Congress in Melbourne this week, Mr Sullivan praised governments in Australia for grasping the importance of health and productivity management.
“The idea is no where as sharply focused nor widely adopted than it is right here in Australia,” he said.
“I commend what is happening here.”
Mr Sullivan singled out the Victorian Government and its WorkHealth initiative as a leader in the corporate health and wellness sector. The program was designed by WorkSafe Victoria to improve the health and wellbing of all Victorian workers and includes voluntary and confidential health checks.
“I’m really impressed with what is going on in the state of Victoria,” Mr Sullivan said.
“WorkHealth is an amazing example from the public sector.”
Mr Sullivan said the challenge for employers and occupational health and safety professionals was to look beyond ‘safety’ and instead focus on enhancing and protecting the wellbeing of employees.
“Safety is not the biggest issue anymore,” he told Government News.
“The biggest challenge is getting employers to see that employees are their human capital and the health of the human capital is just as important as the knowledge or technology base.
“They know what they need to have to run a successful enterprise, but health has not yet made it into that category.”
Australia’s efforts in workplace health and wellness were also praised by Dr Toby Ford, president of the Health and Productivity Institute of Australia (HAPIA).
“In Australia we’re doing health and wellness really well,” Dr Ford told congress delegates.
He said health and wellbeing was “the single greatest legacy an employer can give an employee”.
However, he argued for a voluntary, not statutory, approach to health and productivity management. Empowering the individual to take control of their health and wellbeing is the “winning ticket”, he said.
“Ownership of health destiny is really the vital part of what we’re doing here.
“We should motivate people and encourage them to participate.”
If you are looking at improving the health and wellbeing of workers in the workplace, then now is the time to consider a program to assist workers in identifying and addressing health issues. Make this a part of your WHS Plan. Improving the health of workers increases their productivity and effectiveness at the workplace and research has shown a direct correlation to improve safety performance.
Government News
In an address to the Australian Health and Productivity Management Congress in Melbourne this week, Mr Sullivan praised governments in Australia for grasping the importance of health and productivity management.
“The idea is no where as sharply focused nor widely adopted than it is right here in Australia,” he said.
“I commend what is happening here.”
Mr Sullivan singled out the Victorian Government and its WorkHealth initiative as a leader in the corporate health and wellness sector. The program was designed by WorkSafe Victoria to improve the health and wellbing of all Victorian workers and includes voluntary and confidential health checks.
“I’m really impressed with what is going on in the state of Victoria,” Mr Sullivan said.
“WorkHealth is an amazing example from the public sector.”
Mr Sullivan said the challenge for employers and occupational health and safety professionals was to look beyond ‘safety’ and instead focus on enhancing and protecting the wellbeing of employees.
“Safety is not the biggest issue anymore,” he told Government News.
“The biggest challenge is getting employers to see that employees are their human capital and the health of the human capital is just as important as the knowledge or technology base.
“They know what they need to have to run a successful enterprise, but health has not yet made it into that category.”
Australia’s efforts in workplace health and wellness were also praised by Dr Toby Ford, president of the Health and Productivity Institute of Australia (HAPIA).
“In Australia we’re doing health and wellness really well,” Dr Ford told congress delegates.
He said health and wellbeing was “the single greatest legacy an employer can give an employee”.
However, he argued for a voluntary, not statutory, approach to health and productivity management. Empowering the individual to take control of their health and wellbeing is the “winning ticket”, he said.
“Ownership of health destiny is really the vital part of what we’re doing here.
“We should motivate people and encourage them to participate.”
If you are looking at improving the health and wellbeing of workers in the workplace, then now is the time to consider a program to assist workers in identifying and addressing health issues. Make this a part of your WHS Plan. Improving the health of workers increases their productivity and effectiveness at the workplace and research has shown a direct correlation to improve safety performance.
Government News
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)