HRM grates, systems and Me

some Australian states and territories (notably. New South Wales with a proposed Workplace Fatalities Bill. and the Australian Capital Territory with an industrial manslaughter law) with some recent support front the ACTU for amendments to OHS legislation to include new offences of industrial nunslaughter against negligent employers and their senior managers.. As well as state legislation to deal with operational ()HS issues and regular inspections. the Australian Government established the National OHS Commission (NOHSC) in 1.5, as a tripartite policy review body It was replaced by the Australian Safety and Compensation Council IASCCI and includes representatives from the Confederation of Australian Industry (CAI), the ACTU and all state and territory governments. Its functions include setting advisory national OHS standards, developing national strategies and providing research, education, training and statistical support. Its former National OHS Strategy aimed to reduce workplace injuries by 40 per cent and fatalities by 20 per cent by 2012.. It also intended to develop ‘greater national consistency for OHS and workers’ compensation’, with a specific focus on the construction industry.. More recent’, the Australian Gmernment reviewed all federal and state OHS legislation and subsequently established a hamionised n.Monal WHS model, as discussed above. THE CURRENT NATIONAL WHS LEGISLATION While the overall purpose of the proposed harmonised national WHS legislation was to create a consistent and efficient legal framework across all Australian states and territories, which was ‘fair and balanced, not all of the multiple stakeholders involved in the consultation process (individual states and territories, employers and unions) were equally positive, as HRM in practice 10.2 illustrates. WHS legislation and practices are dynamic, and represent all amalgam of the mines and interests of many stakeholders, including governments, unions, employees, the 1,1 and medical pmfessions, insurance companies and rehabilitation service providers among nuny others.These sometimes conflicting interests were clearly illustrated in the consultations preceding this new legislation.
Unions push safety fears with ads
Unions have launched a national advertising campaign after expressing deep concern that Federal and State Labor are about to wind back health and safety protections for workers. ACTU
Government and the Stales adopt plans to change OHS taws. Unions claim that proposals contained in a review of the laws undercut assurances that there would not be a reduction of safety standards. Unions are concerned that the proposals.

chapter go managing workplace health and safety
of workplace safety. In NSW, where third parties had the right, just 12 prosecutions had been initiated in the past 30 years. all of which were successful. A proposal to place duties on OHS representatives could lead to their being targeted with legal action in the event of an accident. Employee-elected representatives would have to complete competency-based training and could be disqualified it they repeat., neglected their health and safety functions. This could leave them vulnerable for malpractice suits for failing to discharge their duty in the event of a workplace accident or injury. Mr Lawrence said that the union movement was deeply concerned about the proposals., was with great alarm that we read the two reports of the national review into model OHS laws commissioned by the Workplace Relations Ministers Council. It is our strong concern that the panel recommendations, if adopted, would result in many workers and their representatives being substantially worse off than under the current arrangements.. Australian figures show that there are almost 50000 wor,related health and safety incidents annually. More than 7000 Australians die each year as a result of injuries or illnesses that are related to their employment. Lawrence says a victim of workplace injury or illness should have the legal right to prosecute an employer, and the onus of proof in a prosecution should lie with the employer. ACTU president Shoran Burrow said that workers and families affected by any tragic workplace incident wanted legal protections upgraded, not downgraded.
The harmonisation process towants the new national WHS laws conunenced between 2008 and 2012, with the development of an agreement on Model WHS legislation accompanied by Model Codes of Practice. It was expected that them would be a national mll-out of the new laws and regulations on I January 2012. Unfortunately. for a variety of reasons. only the Federal, Australian Capital Territory, New South Wales, Northern Territory and Queensland jurisdictions achieved this timeline. As of January 2013, South Australia and Tasmania have passed similar le,MLition, but both Victoria and Western Australia have failed to conform. However, despite these delays to uniform national WHS laws, all (included) state and territory legislation contains the following components: I New definitions of ’employee and ’employ, The new laws ‘adopt a broad definition of “worker” instead of “employee” to recognise the changing nature of work relationships and to ensure health and safety protection is extended to all types of work, (e.g. contractors, subcontractors, employees of contractors, employees of labour-hire firms, outworkers, apprentice, trainees, work experience students and volunteers).. In addition, ’emplm-ers’ will now be considered persons conducting a business or undertaking IFC80sl, which includes self-employed people, companies, franchise, contractors and subcontractors, among others.