It has been reported to WCV's that Murray Goulburn Co-Op, Leongatha has
had another workplace accident in the space of only a few days since an electrician
was badly burnt, while working alone.
It was reported that a Melbourne truck was going through a roundabout at
Lang Lang and the turn table pin came loose and the trailer dislodged itself.
Apparently this turntable pin was only changed the day before by Murray
Goulburn's Mechanics..so my question is, "is Murray Goulburn using
substandard parts or do they just employ unqualified mechanics?"
This is putting their drivers at risk and is not good enough, when will they
learn their lesson?
Worksafe is Investigating.
Showing posts with label Murray Goulburn Co-Op. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Murray Goulburn Co-Op. Show all posts
Monday, 18 May 2009
Friday, 8 May 2009
Steven Berry v Murray Goulburn Co-operative Limited. PR957500 (21 April 2005)
The AIRC has ordered a dairy food company in Victoria to reinstate a worker
it dismissed following his first episode of schizophrenia.
Commissioner Mansfield found that because of the machine operator’s mental
illness at the time, he was not in control of the actions that led to his dismissal
and therefore there was no valid reason for terminating his employment.
Medical evidence showed he was now fit to return to work.
Murray Goulburn Cooperative (MGC) fired the man after he left work during
his rostered shift without notifying his supervisor. Eight days later he was
found in the workplace at 3am with a cigarette and beer both of which are
banned at the factory. He had also left a can of beer in a fridge in the butter
room and gone into a hygienic area of the factory without regulation clothing.
Following that incident he was involved in a robbery of an empty cash bag
and two packets of cigarettes from a supermarket. As a result he received
a community-based order and his family sought psychiatric help.
He was diagnosed with schizophrenia and received treatment.
He was advised by MGC in July that he was stood-down without pay. Three
months later he advised MCG that his health had improved and he wanted
to return to work.
However, following a meeting with senior management he was informed that
he was dismissed. MGC was aware he’d been diagnosed with a mental condition
and had received treatment.
MGC maintained that consumer confidence could be affected by any breach
of its hygiene standards. It believed it had to impose a high level of responsibility
on employees for any failure to observe its standards.
Commissioner Mansfield ruled that due to the man’s mental illness at the time,
he was not in control of the actions that led to his dismissal, and on that basis his
sacking was harsh, unjust and unreasonable.
He concluded the medical evidence clearly indicated the worker’s ability to
return to his former job, and that there were no special requirements that
needed to be considered by his employer.
MGC was ordered to pay the man’s lost wages from December, which was when
he was out of hospital and had finished his community service. It was left open
whether the reinstatement be to his former position, or to an acceptable
alternative position.
Ref: EQUAL TIME
Number 64 June 2005
it dismissed following his first episode of schizophrenia.
Commissioner Mansfield found that because of the machine operator’s mental
illness at the time, he was not in control of the actions that led to his dismissal
and therefore there was no valid reason for terminating his employment.
Medical evidence showed he was now fit to return to work.
Murray Goulburn Cooperative (MGC) fired the man after he left work during
his rostered shift without notifying his supervisor. Eight days later he was
found in the workplace at 3am with a cigarette and beer both of which are
banned at the factory. He had also left a can of beer in a fridge in the butter
room and gone into a hygienic area of the factory without regulation clothing.
Following that incident he was involved in a robbery of an empty cash bag
and two packets of cigarettes from a supermarket. As a result he received
a community-based order and his family sought psychiatric help.
He was diagnosed with schizophrenia and received treatment.
He was advised by MGC in July that he was stood-down without pay. Three
months later he advised MCG that his health had improved and he wanted
to return to work.
However, following a meeting with senior management he was informed that
he was dismissed. MGC was aware he’d been diagnosed with a mental condition
and had received treatment.
MGC maintained that consumer confidence could be affected by any breach
of its hygiene standards. It believed it had to impose a high level of responsibility
on employees for any failure to observe its standards.
Commissioner Mansfield ruled that due to the man’s mental illness at the time,
he was not in control of the actions that led to his dismissal, and on that basis his
sacking was harsh, unjust and unreasonable.
He concluded the medical evidence clearly indicated the worker’s ability to
return to his former job, and that there were no special requirements that
needed to be considered by his employer.
MGC was ordered to pay the man’s lost wages from December, which was when
he was out of hospital and had finished his community service. It was left open
whether the reinstatement be to his former position, or to an acceptable
alternative position.
Ref: EQUAL TIME
Number 64 June 2005
Tuesday, 10 March 2009
Grants Galore and Murray Goulburn still can't get it right!
In July 2006, Worksafe established the $10 million dollar, Return to work
fund.
Through the RTW Fund, funding was allocated to eligible employers and
worksafe victoria have allocated it towards 13 projects in which, they
must establish innovative projects for earlier RTW's
The Murray Goulburn initiative was an 18 month project that was
supposed to provide more support and enable a earlier return to work.
This program was also targeted at training programs for their Health
and Safety Representatives.
Now, I find this extremely interesting, as I happen to know one of their
former Health and Safety Representatives, who was bullied in the
workplace to such an extent he was so stressed, that he took time off.
During his time off he received no support from Murray Goulburn
regarding his workplace injury, actually they denied his workcover claim
outright and he was also sacked while on workcover, even though he had
been told he was well enough to return to work, so where was his support?
He got none, instead for his years of loyal service, he lost his job and was
refused a RTW (even though the ACA protects him from this), he lost a
promotion he deserved and worked hard for and then, they refused to
allow him to make a claim for workcover payments, so don't try and
tell me that this company is providing their injured employees support
of any kind because I know first hand, that they don't.
Then to my total amazement, Worksafe Victoria gave Murray Goulburn
a grant to improve their RTW's but worksafe did not enforce the breaches
committed by this company regarding the ACA and this employees right
to be RTW ?
It makes no sense at all! Either you enforce the legislation or you dont,
and for Worksafe Victoria it seems that they dont?
Recently, the following story turned up in "The Star Newspaper "and from
it, it seems that Murray Goulburn were not compliant in providing a safe
workplace again and apparently this accident happened due to a hose
maintenance issue and has put hundreds of people at risk!
Going by the story posted above Murray Goulburn has not improved
their workplace safety at all!
When will worksafe Victoria make this employer compliant or will they
just give them another grant from the 10 million dollar RTW Fund and
allow them to continue to beat up their injured workers, once again!!!!
Ref: The Star Newspaper. March 3rd 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)