|
COMPLETELY FORESEEABLE INCIDENTS AND THEIR PENALTIES
With workplace incident rates on the fall but blatant disregard for life still present, should we have completely SEPARATE AND HEAVIER penalties for completely foreseeable incidents?
In Victoria last month, an 18-year-old Mill Park boy lost his life in a workplace incident.
I call him a boy to better reflect the impact. After all, he had not long left school.
The boy died in hospital after being caught in a printing machine at a carton manufacturing factory in Commercial Road, Thomastown. He was dragged through an inadequately guarded printing press.
At the time, WorkSafe Victoria's Executive Director, John Merritt, said the tragedy was a warning to all employers and workers.
He went on to say, "Without pre-empting WorkSafe's investigation, every employer should be taking time this afternoon to consult with their workforce about known or predictable safety issues, and then develop and act on a safety improvement plan.
"If you already have one - review it."
Mr Merritt said that too often there was a knee-jerk reaction to fix problems after safety incidents.
"Frankly, it's a case of better late than never - but for the injured or dead person, their family and friends it's too late.
"If machines are unguarded, if people don't have appropriate training, licensing or supervision; and workers do not have the equipment needed to do their job safely - or if they're not using it - those issues must be dealt with today."
"There's no mystery about what hurts or kill people at work, but if you ignore the signs and warnings the consequences of not doing so can be horrendous and happen in an instant."
Similar but different
A number of years ago, I had just commenced work in a manufacturing facility, where an aluminium-cutting machine was in operation. Apparently, it was faulty and every so often an offcut would fly out - at high speed.
One day, a 58-year-old employee was walking through the metal shop where the faulty machine was at work when an offcut shot out hitting him in the eye.
The faithful employee, who was looking forward to early retirement to pursue his golfing hobby, lost his sight in one eye, that day.
He had been a co-worker of the owner since he took the job 10 years before, and had now been completely let down in a most betraying manner. After the incident the owner was deeply and legitimately sorry and couldn't do enough for the worker, but sadly, all too late.
They had worked side by side on many long night projects, enjoyed barbecues and Christmas parties together, and played golf.
The owner was aware the machine was faulty and let it remain that way, until the incident occurred and subsequent WorkSafe investigation, after which time he replaced it.
All the while it was faulty the owner was looking for a cheap replacement machine he could purchase at an auction, even though he had the money for a new or much better model, when it cost his mate his sight.
Here we have one death and one lost eye, a gulf apart in terms of despair and anguish, and I cannot begin to imagine what the boy's parents must be going through. You see, along with his death, all the parents dreams, aspirations and celebrations of their son's successes in life, are now gone, ripped away.
Although far removed from each other in depth of tragedy, these two incidents have one thing in common - they were both completely foreseeable.
Ignorantia juris non excusat
Ignorance is no excuse, and in this enlightened age of workplace legislation and safety information en masse, should there be a completely new and higher set of penalties for certain incidents? Should blatant disregard carry it's own set of penalties? After all, performance-based health and safety legislation has been operating in Victoria for nearly 24 years.
Performance-based means a business needs to find out what is required and implement it, train people, provide instructions and supervision, and make working environments safe for the workers and others impacted by the business operation.
New businesses start up every other week and owners can plead ignorance to a point, but when businesses are indifferent to the safety measures needed in their workplace to protect workers should our magistrates and judges be also indifferent to pleas for leniency after an incident occurs?
In 2008, Fosters Brewing Group received a record fine of $1.125 million, although the maximum penalty for a workplace incident was a shade over $920,000.
This decision set a precedent in Victoria and a clear message to employers. The community is not prepared to tolerate blatant disregard for life, and has seen too many of its workers injured or killed due to a lack of seemingly cheap and simple solutions.
|
