Stats:
1 in 4 workers are being bullied.
Costs 13 billion dollars a year.
Showing posts with label VWA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label VWA. Show all posts
Thursday, 12 March 2009
Worksafes Approx Corporate Commando Costs !
This ridiculos exercise by Worksafe Victoria would have cost between $100
and $150 per person, we have roughly estimated by the photos that about
30 staff members have attended therefore the total cost of this was..........
Drum Roll Please......................................$ 3000.00 - $4500.00 Dollars!!
So, why is worksafe wasting money on these programs when they are
always stating that their staff are already highly trained ?
Why didn't this money go towards the improvement of Worksafes
Services to the Injured Workers of Victoria.
This training is needed for the injured workers, not the bloody worksafe
staff!
Ref: Corporate Commandos
and $150 per person, we have roughly estimated by the photos that about
30 staff members have attended therefore the total cost of this was..........
Drum Roll Please......................................$ 3000.00 - $4500.00 Dollars!!
So, why is worksafe wasting money on these programs when they are
always stating that their staff are already highly trained ?
Why didn't this money go towards the improvement of Worksafes
Services to the Injured Workers of Victoria.
This training is needed for the injured workers, not the bloody worksafe
staff!
Ref: Corporate Commandos
WorkSafe Victoria issues three safety improvement notices for scaffold collapse site
27 February 2009
WORKSAFE Victoria says it has issued three safety improvement notices at
the Prahran site, after a scaffold collapse on 22 February 2009.
These notices require safety assessment of the remaining scaffolds on the east
and southern side of the residential and commercial building. The company
must also develop a scaffold management system.
The scaffolds cannot be used until the work is complete.
WorkSafe is also carrying out a comprehensive investigation, which is likely
to take some months.
According to the authority, the collapse incident was a reminder to the
construction industry that it needs to ensure safety standards are applied
at all times. The constantly changing nature of building sites means work
must be ongoing to ensure changes on site do not create new risks.
The 22 February incident was the second major scaffold collapse since
October 2007 when a three-storey scaffold collapsed in Exhibition
Street near the corner of Collins Street, Melbourne.
WORKSAFE Victoria says it has issued three safety improvement notices at
the Prahran site, after a scaffold collapse on 22 February 2009.
These notices require safety assessment of the remaining scaffolds on the east
and southern side of the residential and commercial building. The company
must also develop a scaffold management system.
The scaffolds cannot be used until the work is complete.
WorkSafe is also carrying out a comprehensive investigation, which is likely
to take some months.
According to the authority, the collapse incident was a reminder to the
construction industry that it needs to ensure safety standards are applied
at all times. The constantly changing nature of building sites means work
must be ongoing to ensure changes on site do not create new risks.
The 22 February incident was the second major scaffold collapse since
October 2007 when a three-storey scaffold collapsed in Exhibition
Street near the corner of Collins Street, Melbourne.
Tuesday, 10 March 2009
"Mandatory investigations" Section 131 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act - 2004
WCV's: If you are an injured worker or their representative and you
have had problems getting worksafe to listen to you about your claim !
Then this process may just be what your'e looking for.
Where the VWA has not brought prosecution proceedings within
six months of an alleged offence, any person may request that the
VWA bring a prosecution.
In 2007/08, there were 13 requests for investigation under section
131(1) of the OHS Act (reportable under section 131(6)(a)).
Within three months of the request being made, the VWA must advise
the person in writing whether prosecution proceedings will be brought.
Twelve investigations pursuant to this section were completed during
the year. On eleven occasions the VWA determined not to prosecute,
one matter was forwarded directly to the Director of Public Prosecutions
for consideration, and one matter is still being investigated.
If the Authority advises the person that a prosecution will not be brought,
the Authority must refer the matter to the Director of Public Prosecutions
if the person requests (in writing) that the Authority do so.
In 2007/08, the Director of Public Prosecutions provided advice on
three matters following referral by the Authority.
On two matters the Director of Public Prosecutions advised that a
prosecution should be brought and in one matter a prosecution
should not be brought.
Ref: VWA Annual Report, 2008
have had problems getting worksafe to listen to you about your claim !
Then this process may just be what your'e looking for.
Where the VWA has not brought prosecution proceedings within
six months of an alleged offence, any person may request that the
VWA bring a prosecution.
In 2007/08, there were 13 requests for investigation under section
131(1) of the OHS Act (reportable under section 131(6)(a)).
Within three months of the request being made, the VWA must advise
the person in writing whether prosecution proceedings will be brought.
Twelve investigations pursuant to this section were completed during
the year. On eleven occasions the VWA determined not to prosecute,
one matter was forwarded directly to the Director of Public Prosecutions
for consideration, and one matter is still being investigated.
If the Authority advises the person that a prosecution will not be brought,
the Authority must refer the matter to the Director of Public Prosecutions
if the person requests (in writing) that the Authority do so.
In 2007/08, the Director of Public Prosecutions provided advice on
three matters following referral by the Authority.
On two matters the Director of Public Prosecutions advised that a
prosecution should be brought and in one matter a prosecution
should not be brought.
Ref: VWA Annual Report, 2008
Wednesday, 25 February 2009
Teenager dragged head first in printing press dies
Article from: Herald Sun
February 18, 2009 07:00pm
AN 18 year-old man who was caught in a printing machine at a carton
manufacturing plant in Thomastown has died.The man suffered severe
injuries after he was dragged head first into a box-printing machine at a
factory in the northern suburb of Thomastown shortly after 2pm
yesterday, a WorkSafe Victoria spokesman said.
It took firefighters about 45 minutes to extract the man from the machine.
He was taken to the Royal Melbourne Hospital, where he later died.
His death brought to four the number of people killed in a Victorian workplace
this year.
WorkSafe Victoria is investigating the death and said it is a warning to all
employers and workers. Worksafe executive director John Merritt said
on Wednesday that every employer should be meeting with their staff
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. "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."
A WorkSafe spokesman has confirmed the man's clothing caught in
rotating parts of the machine, dragging him into it.
WorkSafe has issued notices ordering the company to install better guards
on the machine. It is not yet clear if charges will be laid over the incident.
WCV's: Well, it had better become clearer Worksafe!
If this machine didn't have guards that were up to standard then you
had better lay charges against this employer!!!! They were obviously not
compliant?
Victorian workers already know going by the fatality rate this year, 4 so far
that you are not doing your job competently!!
So whats you re excuse this time Mr Merritt, here's another worker
who didn't make it home safely. What are you going to do about it?
February 18, 2009 07:00pm
AN 18 year-old man who was caught in a printing machine at a carton
manufacturing plant in Thomastown has died.The man suffered severe
injuries after he was dragged head first into a box-printing machine at a
factory in the northern suburb of Thomastown shortly after 2pm
yesterday, a WorkSafe Victoria spokesman said.
It took firefighters about 45 minutes to extract the man from the machine.
He was taken to the Royal Melbourne Hospital, where he later died.
His death brought to four the number of people killed in a Victorian workplace
this year.
WorkSafe Victoria is investigating the death and said it is a warning to all
employers and workers. Worksafe executive director John Merritt said
on Wednesday that every employer should be meeting with their staff
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. "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."
A WorkSafe spokesman has confirmed the man's clothing caught in
rotating parts of the machine, dragging him into it.
WorkSafe has issued notices ordering the company to install better guards
on the machine. It is not yet clear if charges will be laid over the incident.
WCV's: Well, it had better become clearer Worksafe!
If this machine didn't have guards that were up to standard then you
had better lay charges against this employer!!!! They were obviously not
compliant?
Victorian workers already know going by the fatality rate this year, 4 so far
that you are not doing your job competently!!
So whats you re excuse this time Mr Merritt, here's another worker
who didn't make it home safely. What are you going to do about it?
Tuesday, 24 February 2009
Workplace Accident - Scaffolding collapses, Injures two
Feb 24, 2009
Nine News.
Scaffolding has collapsed around a five-storey hotel in Melbourne, injuring two
people, crushing parked cars and bringing down tram lines.
The accident happened at 9.50am (AEDT) on Tuesday on the site of a hotel
being built on the corner of Commercial Road and Grattan Street, Prahran,
in Melbourne's inner south.
Emergency services are on scene and treating the injured people.
WCV's:My question is how did this scaffolding accident happen only
4.5 kms from worksafe Victoria’s head office?
Worksafe have hired many more inspectors to apparently improve our safety
at work, but going by this accident and its close proximity to the Worksafe
head office, I am now more convinced that Worksafe Victoria is totally
incompetent and is not doing their job.
If Worksafe Victoria were doing their job to best of their abilities as they claim
they are then why has the claim rate for workplace injuries increased in the last
12 months? There were 29,087 Workcover claims last financial year compared
with 28,550 in the previous year.
Also another important fact is, one in three bosses place production efficiency
ahead of safety or don’t care about work standards, according to a new survey
commissioned by Worksafe Victoria.
The survey also finds another 9% of work supervisors are in “denial” about safety
standards and do not profess an interest in the subject.
33% of supervisors were categorised as “disconnected” or “disgruntled”, arguing
workplaces where upper management and they don't seem to care about health
and safety”.
"The disconnected supervisor personally cares about health and safety ,but their
senior management doesn't, so they find it very difficult to raise issues and get
them dealt with in the workplace.
"The other group, the disgruntled, say 'If senior management don't care, why
should we?' and then there's a very small group that ...think ...the worst that
could happen in this workplace is that someone would get a paper cut."
The survey results are compiled from the questionnaires of 1160 Victorian
supervisors.
http://www.smartcompany.com.au/Free-Articles/Trends/20090220-One-in-three-bosses-dont-care-about-safety.html
Worksafes Executive Director, John Merritt, said. “Worksafes goal is to have
Victorian workers returning home safe every day”. He said even in tough times
employers who go to the trouble to look for potential hazards, consulting and
undertaking improvement activity will get results, he also said that employers
taking shortcuts or putting-off essential work plays with lives and now that this
accident has happened it just goes to show that Mr. Merritt’s Worksafe message,
isn’t getting though because here are two workers not returning home today
Mr Merritt and it has happened right under your nose!!!
SHAME ON YOU, WORKSAFE VICTORIA!
http://www.worksafe.vic.gov.au/wps/wcm/connect/WorkSafe/SiteTools/News/WorkSafe%20announces%20200809%20safety%20program
Nine News.
Scaffolding has collapsed around a five-storey hotel in Melbourne, injuring two
people, crushing parked cars and bringing down tram lines.
The accident happened at 9.50am (AEDT) on Tuesday on the site of a hotel
being built on the corner of Commercial Road and Grattan Street, Prahran,
in Melbourne's inner south.
Emergency services are on scene and treating the injured people.
WCV's:My question is how did this scaffolding accident happen only
4.5 kms from worksafe Victoria’s head office?
Worksafe have hired many more inspectors to apparently improve our safety
at work, but going by this accident and its close proximity to the Worksafe
head office, I am now more convinced that Worksafe Victoria is totally
incompetent and is not doing their job.
If Worksafe Victoria were doing their job to best of their abilities as they claim
they are then why has the claim rate for workplace injuries increased in the last
12 months? There were 29,087 Workcover claims last financial year compared
with 28,550 in the previous year.
Also another important fact is, one in three bosses place production efficiency
ahead of safety or don’t care about work standards, according to a new survey
commissioned by Worksafe Victoria.
The survey also finds another 9% of work supervisors are in “denial” about safety
standards and do not profess an interest in the subject.
33% of supervisors were categorised as “disconnected” or “disgruntled”, arguing
workplaces where upper management and they don't seem to care about health
and safety”.
"The disconnected supervisor personally cares about health and safety ,but their
senior management doesn't, so they find it very difficult to raise issues and get
them dealt with in the workplace.
"The other group, the disgruntled, say 'If senior management don't care, why
should we?' and then there's a very small group that ...think ...the worst that
could happen in this workplace is that someone would get a paper cut."
The survey results are compiled from the questionnaires of 1160 Victorian
supervisors.
http://www.smartcompany.com.au/Free-Articles/Trends/20090220-One-in-three-bosses-dont-care-about-safety.html
Worksafes Executive Director, John Merritt, said. “Worksafes goal is to have
Victorian workers returning home safe every day”. He said even in tough times
employers who go to the trouble to look for potential hazards, consulting and
undertaking improvement activity will get results, he also said that employers
taking shortcuts or putting-off essential work plays with lives and now that this
accident has happened it just goes to show that Mr. Merritt’s Worksafe message,
isn’t getting though because here are two workers not returning home today
Mr Merritt and it has happened right under your nose!!!
SHAME ON YOU, WORKSAFE VICTORIA!
http://www.worksafe.vic.gov.au/wps/wcm/connect/WorkSafe/SiteTools/News/WorkSafe%20announces%20200809%20safety%20program
Sunday, 8 February 2009
Workcover under attack
Alistair McKinnon,
Melbourne
11 October 2008
On October 8, around 500 workplace delegates and occupational health
and safety representatives attended a meeting called by the Victorian
Trades Hall Council (VTHC).
The meeting was called in response to a list of changes to the current
WorkCover legislation recommended by Peter Hanks QC, commissioned
last year to conduct an inquiry into the 1985 Workers Compensation Act.
The government of then-premier Jeff Kennett made a number of changes
to Victoria’s Accident Compensation Act, greatly reducing injured workers’
access to compensation and decreasing their entitlements. It was not until
2006 that the state Labor government declared it would “review the
Accident Compensation Act 1985 to ensure workers receive the assistance,
support and benefits they deserve”.
Now, after nine years of promises, Hanks’ final report seeks to further
diminish the entitlements of injured workers. Among the proposals made
is a change in the law to exclude workers from stress-related claims,
if the stress comes from any “reasonable management action”.
According to the VTHC this will knock out 90% of claims. Unions say
all injuries should be covered by a “no-fault” system.
Hanks also proposes occupational health and safety reps, instead of
unions, advocate for injured workers returning to work, effectively
strengthening employers’ ability to deny workers the right to return to
their jobs.
It also proposes to strip the present dispute resolution system
and have courts to hear disputes — a process that would add years to
dispute resolution and leave workers without money and medical treatment.
The meeting moved a motion opposing all recommendations not considered
by the unions to be in the best interests of workers and demanded that
the government reach agreement with the VTHC on key issues.
If these demands are not met, the VTHC has vowed to take further action.
From: Australian News, Green Left Weekly issue #770 15 October 2008.
Melbourne
11 October 2008
On October 8, around 500 workplace delegates and occupational health
and safety representatives attended a meeting called by the Victorian
Trades Hall Council (VTHC).
The meeting was called in response to a list of changes to the current
WorkCover legislation recommended by Peter Hanks QC, commissioned
last year to conduct an inquiry into the 1985 Workers Compensation Act.
The government of then-premier Jeff Kennett made a number of changes
to Victoria’s Accident Compensation Act, greatly reducing injured workers’
access to compensation and decreasing their entitlements. It was not until
2006 that the state Labor government declared it would “review the
Accident Compensation Act 1985 to ensure workers receive the assistance,
support and benefits they deserve”.
Now, after nine years of promises, Hanks’ final report seeks to further
diminish the entitlements of injured workers. Among the proposals made
is a change in the law to exclude workers from stress-related claims,
if the stress comes from any “reasonable management action”.
According to the VTHC this will knock out 90% of claims. Unions say
all injuries should be covered by a “no-fault” system.
Hanks also proposes occupational health and safety reps, instead of
unions, advocate for injured workers returning to work, effectively
strengthening employers’ ability to deny workers the right to return to
their jobs.
It also proposes to strip the present dispute resolution system
and have courts to hear disputes — a process that would add years to
dispute resolution and leave workers without money and medical treatment.
The meeting moved a motion opposing all recommendations not considered
by the unions to be in the best interests of workers and demanded that
the government reach agreement with the VTHC on key issues.
If these demands are not met, the VTHC has vowed to take further action.
From: Australian News, Green Left Weekly issue #770 15 October 2008.
Saturday, 7 February 2009
Victoria's Plan for Accident Compensation Reform & The Workplace Reforms - From the Premiers Office.
February 7th 2009
Government is currently developing a response to the Hanks Review into the
Accident Compensation Act 1985 and associated legislation.
The 2008 Statement of Government Intentions foreshadowed that the
introduction of this complex legislation into Parliament would take until
2009.
Main elements: Legislation will be introduced to implement the
Government’s response to the Hanks Report that will:
Enact changes to rewrite the Accident Compensation Act 1985 and the
Accident Compensation (WorkCover Insurance) Act 1993 through
one or more Bills; and remove anomalies and spent provisions from
existing legislation.
Responsible Minister: Finance, WorkCover and the TAC.
Source documents: Accident Compensation Act Review Report
http://www.compensationreview.vic.gov.au/
National Occupational Health & Safety Reform
Occupational Health and Safety (OH&S) is an area commonly identified
by business as having a significant regulatory burden. In acknowledging
the significant economic benefits to be derived from national harmonisation,
the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) has agreed to adopt national
consistency in OH&S laws through the implementation of model
legislation.Safe Work Australia is being established by the Commonwealth
Government and will develop an Exposure Draft of the proposed model
national OH&S law. This is expected to be released for public comment
by May 2009, following which the Workplace Relations Ministers’
Council will agree on the structure of this model law, later in 2009.
Safe Work Australia will develop model regulations and codes of practice
by early 2011. All jurisdictions have agreed to enact the law, implement
the model regulations and codes of practice, and complete all transitional
arrangements by December 2011.
The new legislation will replace the Occupational Health and Safety Act
2004.Victoria is also being consulted in the development of four regulatory
hotspots concerning safety as part of the COAG reform process:
National Mine Safety Framework
Upstream Petroleum (Oil and Gas) Regulation (which also covers resource management issues)
Rail Safety Regulation Reform
Maritime Safety Jurisdiction.
Responsible Minister: Finance, WorkCover and the TAC.
Industrial Relations Reform
The Victorian Government believes in a unitary industrial relations system
that has fairness at its core. The Commonwealth Government has introduced
its Fair Work Bill to replace WorkChoices and restore fairness to the
Commonwealth industrial framework.
Once this legislation is passed through the Senate, the Victorian Government
will work to amend its existing referral of industrial relations powers to the
Commonwealth to ensure that the improved unitary system will apply
comprehensively in Victoria.
The proposed Victorian Fair Work (Commonwealth Powers) Bill will mean
that, for the first time, Victorian businesses and workers will have access
to a fair national industrial relations system.
The Government is also determined to update and streamline existing
industrial laws in Victoria, including the operation of the Long Service
Leave Act 1992, to ensure that both employers and employees find it
easier to understand. This will assist Victorian businesses and employees
by making the Act more user-friendly and compliance more straight
forward.
Main elements:The proposed Fair Work (Commonwealth Powers)
Bill will:
Enable the provisions of the Commonwealth Fair Work Bill to apply to all
Victorian businesses within a unitary industrial relations framework; and
extend the operation of Federal workplace relations laws to employers
otherwise excluded.
Responsible Minister: Industrial Relations.
Government is currently developing a response to the Hanks Review into the
Accident Compensation Act 1985 and associated legislation.
The 2008 Statement of Government Intentions foreshadowed that the
introduction of this complex legislation into Parliament would take until
2009.
Main elements: Legislation will be introduced to implement the
Government’s response to the Hanks Report that will:
Enact changes to rewrite the Accident Compensation Act 1985 and the
Accident Compensation (WorkCover Insurance) Act 1993 through
one or more Bills; and remove anomalies and spent provisions from
existing legislation.
Responsible Minister: Finance, WorkCover and the TAC.
Source documents: Accident Compensation Act Review Report
http://www.compensationreview.vic.gov.au/
National Occupational Health & Safety Reform
Occupational Health and Safety (OH&S) is an area commonly identified
by business as having a significant regulatory burden. In acknowledging
the significant economic benefits to be derived from national harmonisation,
the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) has agreed to adopt national
consistency in OH&S laws through the implementation of model
legislation.Safe Work Australia is being established by the Commonwealth
Government and will develop an Exposure Draft of the proposed model
national OH&S law. This is expected to be released for public comment
by May 2009, following which the Workplace Relations Ministers’
Council will agree on the structure of this model law, later in 2009.
Safe Work Australia will develop model regulations and codes of practice
by early 2011. All jurisdictions have agreed to enact the law, implement
the model regulations and codes of practice, and complete all transitional
arrangements by December 2011.
The new legislation will replace the Occupational Health and Safety Act
2004.Victoria is also being consulted in the development of four regulatory
hotspots concerning safety as part of the COAG reform process:
National Mine Safety Framework
Upstream Petroleum (Oil and Gas) Regulation (which also covers resource management issues)
Rail Safety Regulation Reform
Maritime Safety Jurisdiction.
Responsible Minister: Finance, WorkCover and the TAC.
Industrial Relations Reform
The Victorian Government believes in a unitary industrial relations system
that has fairness at its core. The Commonwealth Government has introduced
its Fair Work Bill to replace WorkChoices and restore fairness to the
Commonwealth industrial framework.
Once this legislation is passed through the Senate, the Victorian Government
will work to amend its existing referral of industrial relations powers to the
Commonwealth to ensure that the improved unitary system will apply
comprehensively in Victoria.
The proposed Victorian Fair Work (Commonwealth Powers) Bill will mean
that, for the first time, Victorian businesses and workers will have access
to a fair national industrial relations system.
The Government is also determined to update and streamline existing
industrial laws in Victoria, including the operation of the Long Service
Leave Act 1992, to ensure that both employers and employees find it
easier to understand. This will assist Victorian businesses and employees
by making the Act more user-friendly and compliance more straight
forward.
Main elements:The proposed Fair Work (Commonwealth Powers)
Bill will:
Enable the provisions of the Commonwealth Fair Work Bill to apply to all
Victorian businesses within a unitary industrial relations framework; and
extend the operation of Federal workplace relations laws to employers
otherwise excluded.
Responsible Minister: Industrial Relations.
Friday, 6 February 2009
Ombudsman: police bullying and harassment complaint
Ombudsman: police bullying and harassment complaint
Ms PENNICUIK (Southern Metropolitan) --
24/05/2007
I wish to make a statement on the Victorian Ombudsman report of April 2007
entitled Investigation into a Disclosure about WorkSafe's and Victoria Police's
Handling of a Bullying and Harassment Complaint. My observations do not
relate to the circumstances of the case in question but to questions about the
capacity of WorkSafe Victoria to effectively prevent bullying and harassment
at work or to effectively investigate and deal with alleged instances of bullying
and harassment at work.
I have a longstanding concern with this issue, emanating from my work at the
Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) occupational health and safety
(OHS) unit. In 2000 the OHS unit coordinated a national health and safety
campaign on bullying at work entitled 'Being bossed around is bad for your
health'. This campaign generated a huge public response.
The ACTU received thousands of calls over many weeks from often
distraught employees about the bullying behaviour they were experiencing
at work and how it was affecting their health and wellbeing.
I spoke at length to many of those callers, which was at times harrowing.
This campaign really came out of the campaign three years earlier entitled
'Stop stress at work', which found that the most reported causes of stress
at work were difficult relations with management, including bullying and
harassment. We produced a brochure which describes what workplace
cultures with bullying look like, including unreasonable demands or
impossible targets; restrictive and petty work rules; being required to
perform tasks without adequate training; being forced to stay back to
finish work or additional tasks; compulsory overtime; unfair rostering
and allocation of work; no say in how the job is done; shouting and abusive
language; open or implied threat of the sack or demotion; and people being
afraid to speak up about conditions, behaviours or health and safety.
Part of this campaign was to alert the OHS regulators around the country,
including WorkSafe Victoria, to the seriousness of this problem and its
effect on the health and safety of employees. Intimidation and bullying
are serious workplace issues and rising workplace hazards, particularly
under the WorkChoices regime. Bullying occurs when there is a
workplace culture that allows it.
In February 2003 WorkSafe produced a guidance note 'Prevention of
bullying and violence in the workplace'. The Ombudsman's report
noted that operational procedures for inspectors were still in draft form
until September 2006 and that inspectors involved in cases being
investigated were unaware of the final document in November 2006.
It is a concern that WorkSafe took three and a half years to finalise its
internal operational procedures for its own guidance note.
It is also of concern that it took three and a half years for there to be an
internal procedure for inspectors to make referrals to internal WorkSafe
investigators. It raises the question as to whether WorkSafe has effective
procedures for other key risks and hazards, including violence, stress and
musculoskeletal injury.
The Ombudsman noted his lack of confidence in the method of WorkSafe's
investigation, and I note his observation that:
... if this case is symptomatic of a wider issue, more people will be
affected if the identified WorkSafe shortfalls in responding to complaints
about bullying continue.
I was also concerned by the narrow definition that WorkSafe appeared
to have regarding who are complainants and the criteria for deciding
which apparently serious allegations are pursued or not pursued. More
worrying for Victorian employers and employees is the revelation by
the Ombudsman that WorkSafe's actions as a regulator were mitigated
by political considerations.
I note that WorkSafe has agreed to the Ombudsman's recommendations
and is conducting a review of its procedures. I look forward to hearing
about the results of the review. It is critical that WorkSafe is able to deal
effectively and in a timely manner with bullying at work. At worst, the
health effects of bullying at work can result in serious physical illness,
alcohol and drug use, depression or suicide. Other symptoms include
headaches, sleep difficulties, high blood pressure, digestive problems,
tearfulness, anxiety, nausea, anger, irritability and loss of motivation,
concentration, self-confidence and morale.
The effects of bullying at work place pressure on family and friends.
The significant effects which working conditions have on the health
and safety of workers are largely underestimated or ignored in this
country.
I commend the report to members.
Ms PENNICUIK (Southern Metropolitan) --
24/05/2007
I wish to make a statement on the Victorian Ombudsman report of April 2007
entitled Investigation into a Disclosure about WorkSafe's and Victoria Police's
Handling of a Bullying and Harassment Complaint. My observations do not
relate to the circumstances of the case in question but to questions about the
capacity of WorkSafe Victoria to effectively prevent bullying and harassment
at work or to effectively investigate and deal with alleged instances of bullying
and harassment at work.
I have a longstanding concern with this issue, emanating from my work at the
Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) occupational health and safety
(OHS) unit. In 2000 the OHS unit coordinated a national health and safety
campaign on bullying at work entitled 'Being bossed around is bad for your
health'. This campaign generated a huge public response.
The ACTU received thousands of calls over many weeks from often
distraught employees about the bullying behaviour they were experiencing
at work and how it was affecting their health and wellbeing.
I spoke at length to many of those callers, which was at times harrowing.
This campaign really came out of the campaign three years earlier entitled
'Stop stress at work', which found that the most reported causes of stress
at work were difficult relations with management, including bullying and
harassment. We produced a brochure which describes what workplace
cultures with bullying look like, including unreasonable demands or
impossible targets; restrictive and petty work rules; being required to
perform tasks without adequate training; being forced to stay back to
finish work or additional tasks; compulsory overtime; unfair rostering
and allocation of work; no say in how the job is done; shouting and abusive
language; open or implied threat of the sack or demotion; and people being
afraid to speak up about conditions, behaviours or health and safety.
Part of this campaign was to alert the OHS regulators around the country,
including WorkSafe Victoria, to the seriousness of this problem and its
effect on the health and safety of employees. Intimidation and bullying
are serious workplace issues and rising workplace hazards, particularly
under the WorkChoices regime. Bullying occurs when there is a
workplace culture that allows it.
In February 2003 WorkSafe produced a guidance note 'Prevention of
bullying and violence in the workplace'. The Ombudsman's report
noted that operational procedures for inspectors were still in draft form
until September 2006 and that inspectors involved in cases being
investigated were unaware of the final document in November 2006.
It is a concern that WorkSafe took three and a half years to finalise its
internal operational procedures for its own guidance note.
It is also of concern that it took three and a half years for there to be an
internal procedure for inspectors to make referrals to internal WorkSafe
investigators. It raises the question as to whether WorkSafe has effective
procedures for other key risks and hazards, including violence, stress and
musculoskeletal injury.
The Ombudsman noted his lack of confidence in the method of WorkSafe's
investigation, and I note his observation that:
... if this case is symptomatic of a wider issue, more people will be
affected if the identified WorkSafe shortfalls in responding to complaints
about bullying continue.
I was also concerned by the narrow definition that WorkSafe appeared
to have regarding who are complainants and the criteria for deciding
which apparently serious allegations are pursued or not pursued. More
worrying for Victorian employers and employees is the revelation by
the Ombudsman that WorkSafe's actions as a regulator were mitigated
by political considerations.
I note that WorkSafe has agreed to the Ombudsman's recommendations
and is conducting a review of its procedures. I look forward to hearing
about the results of the review. It is critical that WorkSafe is able to deal
effectively and in a timely manner with bullying at work. At worst, the
health effects of bullying at work can result in serious physical illness,
alcohol and drug use, depression or suicide. Other symptoms include
headaches, sleep difficulties, high blood pressure, digestive problems,
tearfulness, anxiety, nausea, anger, irritability and loss of motivation,
concentration, self-confidence and morale.
The effects of bullying at work place pressure on family and friends.
The significant effects which working conditions have on the health
and safety of workers are largely underestimated or ignored in this
country.
I commend the report to members.
No wonder, I couldn't get Worksafe to prosecute!
I have been an advocate for workcover victims for ten years now and have
been fighting for the prosecution of my Husbands ex employers for not
providing a RTW, Constructive Dismissal and workplace bullying.
During this ten year period worksafe have continually refused to prosecute
this employer even though I could supply strong evidence of my complaints.
I found this very frustrating and couldn't understand why they wouldn't do
anything until recently!
It has now become clear on why worksafe didn't act on my complaints was
because, they are up each others arses, If you look up Worksafe Victoria
arse you will see, Devondales Boots!
I recently found a worksafe document noted in the link above that contained
information on a program called project ICE.
This project involved my husbands ex employers and was a best practice
application document on intervention, Communication and Education and
this Project was fully funded by WorkSafe’s RTW Fund see below:
ORGANISATION: Murray Goulburn Cooperative Co Limited
PROJECT TITLE: "Project ICE -Intervention, Communication & Education"
DURATION: 18 mths
This initiative is targeted at providing customized tools to support the
delivery of early intervention strategies to rural Victorian employers, taking
into particular consideration barriers which may be unique to regional areas
for example access to health care services, availability of general practitioners
and allied health services.
It is anticipated that the development of this model & subsequent training
program for supervision and management will enable more effective &
proactive workplace intervention to occur in a more timely manner.
The list below was taken directly from that document, and it clearly states
that this employer has had a poor history on injury rates & RTW's but,
when I complained to them (worksafe) about the fact that my Husband
was not offered a RTW and that the employer had constructively dismissed
him they completely ignored it and flatly denied that, that was happening
and closed our file.
Now in one of their own documents, it clearly states that this employer:
Worksafe investigate my allegations, they(worksafe) decided in their infinite
wisdom, to do a surprise visit to the factory some 7 years ( 2007) after I made
the original complaint in 1999.
Now, on worksafe's investigators arrival ,the employers attempted to block
worksafe investigators by refusing to hand over documentation, which I have
evidence of, and the employer could not provide clear evidence of when
their RTW program was commenced and guess what, nothing was done
about either happening?
Then, in worksafes annual report it shows that this employer was also then
given a grant to improve their RTW outcomes!.......... WTF!
What were they given a grant for? Why weren't they fined?
Why weren't they prosecuted?
It seems that if you are an employer you are rewarded for being f--k ups
and the workers are just thrown onto the scrap heap. Well I for one, am sick
of this shit and I want to know why is it, when worksafe know about this
companies poor RTW outcomes, why did they(worksafe) ignore my complaints
for 10 years and tell me that this company was compliant and why, didn't they
help my husband RTW like they should of?
Why is this employer getting away with not returning injured workers to
work? And why did WORKSAFE GIVE THEM A BLOODY GRANT, it should
have been a fine!
This employer injured my husband permanently and he gets nothing,
no job, no income, no future, no RTW but, the company who is responsible
for his injury, gets a grant for being f--k ups, and not supplying a safe
workplace, work that out!
I find it rather obvious Mr Tweedly, that the ICE program was only
implemented between April 2007 – July 2008 after, worksafe had made
their surprise visit, so you knew about this then, and still did nothing!
That's not being very Transparent now is it?
And, you still refuse to reopen his file?????????????????????????
Come on Mr Tweedly you know about all of this? When are you going to
do something?My husband deserved to RTW and deserved to be protected
from losing his job due to a workplace injury, just as the ACA provides, not to
be thrown onto the scrap heap and forgotten.
Come on Worksafe, Make this employer accountable for not being complaint
like you should have in 1999!
Do your job and give him back his life!
been fighting for the prosecution of my Husbands ex employers for not
providing a RTW, Constructive Dismissal and workplace bullying.
During this ten year period worksafe have continually refused to prosecute
this employer even though I could supply strong evidence of my complaints.
I found this very frustrating and couldn't understand why they wouldn't do
anything until recently!
It has now become clear on why worksafe didn't act on my complaints was
because, they are up each others arses, If you look up Worksafe Victoria
arse you will see, Devondales Boots!
I recently found a worksafe document noted in the link above that contained
information on a program called project ICE.
This project involved my husbands ex employers and was a best practice
application document on intervention, Communication and Education and
this Project was fully funded by WorkSafe’s RTW Fund see below:
ORGANISATION: Murray Goulburn Cooperative Co Limited
PROJECT TITLE: "Project ICE -Intervention, Communication & Education"
DURATION: 18 mths
This initiative is targeted at providing customized tools to support the
delivery of early intervention strategies to rural Victorian employers, taking
into particular consideration barriers which may be unique to regional areas
for example access to health care services, availability of general practitioners
and allied health services.
It is anticipated that the development of this model & subsequent training
program for supervision and management will enable more effective &
proactive workplace intervention to occur in a more timely manner.
The list below was taken directly from that document, and it clearly states
that this employer has had a poor history on injury rates & RTW's but,
when I complained to them (worksafe) about the fact that my Husband
was not offered a RTW and that the employer had constructively dismissed
him they completely ignored it and flatly denied that, that was happening
and closed our file.
Now in one of their own documents, it clearly states that this employer:
- Injury rate –consistent levels for last 2 years
- Financial –premium continues to increase @ 3.8% of remuneration
- Inconsistent WorkCover and RTW approach -gaps across various sites
- Internal benchmarking –highlighted significant improvement opportunity
Worksafe investigate my allegations, they(worksafe) decided in their infinite
wisdom, to do a surprise visit to the factory some 7 years ( 2007) after I made
the original complaint in 1999.
Now, on worksafe's investigators arrival ,the employers attempted to block
worksafe investigators by refusing to hand over documentation, which I have
evidence of, and the employer could not provide clear evidence of when
their RTW program was commenced and guess what, nothing was done
about either happening?
Then, in worksafes annual report it shows that this employer was also then
given a grant to improve their RTW outcomes!.......... WTF!
What were they given a grant for? Why weren't they fined?
Why weren't they prosecuted?
It seems that if you are an employer you are rewarded for being f--k ups
and the workers are just thrown onto the scrap heap. Well I for one, am sick
of this shit and I want to know why is it, when worksafe know about this
companies poor RTW outcomes, why did they(worksafe) ignore my complaints
for 10 years and tell me that this company was compliant and why, didn't they
help my husband RTW like they should of?
Why is this employer getting away with not returning injured workers to
work? And why did WORKSAFE GIVE THEM A BLOODY GRANT, it should
have been a fine!
This employer injured my husband permanently and he gets nothing,
no job, no income, no future, no RTW but, the company who is responsible
for his injury, gets a grant for being f--k ups, and not supplying a safe
workplace, work that out!
I find it rather obvious Mr Tweedly, that the ICE program was only
implemented between April 2007 – July 2008 after, worksafe had made
their surprise visit, so you knew about this then, and still did nothing!
That's not being very Transparent now is it?
And, you still refuse to reopen his file?????????????????????????
Come on Mr Tweedly you know about all of this? When are you going to
do something?My husband deserved to RTW and deserved to be protected
from losing his job due to a workplace injury, just as the ACA provides, not to
be thrown onto the scrap heap and forgotten.
Come on Worksafe, Make this employer accountable for not being complaint
like you should have in 1999!
Do your job and give him back his life!
Wednesday, 4 February 2009
Sunday, 25 January 2009
Historical:Compensation Amendments Get the balance right.
FROM THE MINISTER FOR WORKCOVER
DATE: Thursday, October 16, 2003
The Bracks Government is legislating to improve compensation rights for
Victorians permanently injured in workplace accidents, WorkCover and
TAC Minister Rob Hulls said today.
Mr Hulls said the Accident Compensation and Transport Accident Acts
(Amendment) Bill 2003, introduced to State Parliament today, fulfilled
the Government’s commitment to address permanent impairment benefits
for injured workers following the Common Law Working Party in 2000.
“The changes we are making are balanced and fair, ensuring
the financial viability of the accident schemes while caring for
Victorians permanently injured at work and on our roads,”
Mr Hulls said.
“Most importantly, this Bill will restore access to benefits for certain types
of significant permanent injuries that occur in future—assessed below the
10% permanent impairment threshold. These injuries were excluded by
changes introduced in 1997-98.”The Bill will also strengthen the ‘return
to work’ obligations on employers and improve the method of including
overtime and shift work in workers’ entitlements.
“This legislation is financially responsible as it clarifies a number of issues
raised by recent court decisions around impairment assessments, injury
causes and cost of living expenses,” Mr Hulls said.“If uncorrected, those
decisions would pose a risk to the financial liabilities of the TAC and
WorkCover schemes.“We are amending the law to reduce this threat to
the schemes while ensuring fair and equitable compensation for all injured
Victorians.”
The Accident Compensation and Transport Accident Acts (Amendment)
Bill will also:· Ensure benefits for statutory non-economic loss were fair,
in line with election commitments;·
“The TAC and WorkCover have been working with stakeholders
since February 2003 to reach agreement on recommendations on
improvements to the impairment assessment system,” Mr Hulls said.
“The proposals contained in this Bill represent the outcome of this
consultation process.”
WCv's: The proposals contained in this bill Mr Hulls, are to soley
benefit the government and the viability of Workcover it does not
provide any more or further protection for the injured workers
of Victoria.
DATE: Thursday, October 16, 2003
The Bracks Government is legislating to improve compensation rights for
Victorians permanently injured in workplace accidents, WorkCover and
TAC Minister Rob Hulls said today.
Mr Hulls said the Accident Compensation and Transport Accident Acts
(Amendment) Bill 2003, introduced to State Parliament today, fulfilled
the Government’s commitment to address permanent impairment benefits
for injured workers following the Common Law Working Party in 2000.
“The changes we are making are balanced and fair, ensuring
the financial viability of the accident schemes while caring for
Victorians permanently injured at work and on our roads,”
Mr Hulls said.
“Most importantly, this Bill will restore access to benefits for certain types
of significant permanent injuries that occur in future—assessed below the
10% permanent impairment threshold. These injuries were excluded by
changes introduced in 1997-98.”The Bill will also strengthen the ‘return
to work’ obligations on employers and improve the method of including
overtime and shift work in workers’ entitlements.
“This legislation is financially responsible as it clarifies a number of issues
raised by recent court decisions around impairment assessments, injury
causes and cost of living expenses,” Mr Hulls said.“If uncorrected, those
decisions would pose a risk to the financial liabilities of the TAC and
WorkCover schemes.“We are amending the law to reduce this threat to
the schemes while ensuring fair and equitable compensation for all injured
Victorians.”
The Accident Compensation and Transport Accident Acts (Amendment)
Bill will also:· Ensure benefits for statutory non-economic loss were fair,
in line with election commitments;·
- Provide payment of daily living costs for 18 months where accident victims are making the transition from hospital to living in supported accommodation facilities;·
- Strengthen the return to work incentives for employers, and
provide occupational health and safety incentives for small and medium
businesses;· - Improve worker entitlements in relation to overtime and
shift allowances in the calculation of weekly compensation;· - Implement cross-border arrangements for workers’ compensation;
- Increase certainty for Victorians injured in interstate accidents.
“The TAC and WorkCover have been working with stakeholders
since February 2003 to reach agreement on recommendations on
improvements to the impairment assessment system,” Mr Hulls said.
“The proposals contained in this Bill represent the outcome of this
consultation process.”
WCv's: The proposals contained in this bill Mr Hulls, are to soley
benefit the government and the viability of Workcover it does not
provide any more or further protection for the injured workers
of Victoria.
Friday, 23 January 2009
Report Fraud and Corruption by Employers, Insurers, Workers, Providers.
WorkSafe is committed to protecting the funds and assets placed under its
controls and protection for the benefit of the Victorian community.
Any fraud or corruption committed against WorkSafe is a major concern to
WorkSafe. Consequently, any allegations of observed or suspected fraud or
corruption will be thoroughly investigated and appropriate disciplinary action
will be taken against any employee or any other person(s) who commits fraud
or corruption against WorkSafe.
What is fraud?
Fraud is dishonest activity or potential financial loss to WorkSafe including
theft of moneys or other property by employees or persons external to
WorkSafe. This also includes the deliberate falsification, concealment,
destruction or use of falsified documentation used or intended for use
for a normal business purpose or the improper use of information or
position.
Fraudulent behaviour relating to Worker Compensation
The following are examples of fraudulent behaviour by a
worker:
knowingly submitting a false claim
providing false information
working whilst on compensation benefits
altering a medical certificate
submitting false travel expense claims.
The following are examples of fraudulent behaviour by an employer:
failing to have a return to work plan
failing to offer suitable employment
failing to forward a claim within the statutory time period
dismissing worker for lodging a claim for compensation
refusing to accept a WorkSafe Injury Insurance claim
failing to make weekly compensation payments.
The following are examples of fraudulent behaviour by a service
provider:
claiming for services which were not given (service providers, private
investigators etc) providing false invoices, medical certificates
providing deliberate over-servicing.
Fraudulent behaviour relating to Premium:
The following are examples of fraudulent behaviour by an employer:
deliberately providing incorrect information about the type of work being
undertaken (workplace industry classification - WIC)
deliberately understating amount of remuneration for premium calculation
failing to have an insurance policy when required.
What is corruption?
Corruption is any dishonest activity in which a director, executive, manager,
employee, or contractor of WorkSafe acts contrary to the interests of WorkSafe
and abuses their position of trust in order to achieve some personal gain or
advantage for themselves or for another person or entity.
The following are examples of corrupt behaviour:
deliberate schemes or arrangements to reduce premium
payment of secret commissions paid in money or some other value to a
WorkSafe employee, contractor, service providers and clients
conflict of interest involving a WorkSafe employee, contractors, service provider,
Agent or that of a relative or friend acting on his own self-interest rather than
the interests of WorkSafe
release of confidential information, for other than a proper business purpose,
sometimes in exchange for either a financial or non-financial advantage.
How to report suspected fraud or corruption relating to Worker’s
Compensation:
To report suspected fraud or corruption relating to Worker’s Compensation
contact Worksafe on:
Phone: (03) 96411051
Fax: (03) 96411631
Email: assessment_centre@worksafe.vic.gov.au
How to report suspected fraud or corruption relating to
Premium avoidance:
To report suspected fraud or corruption relating to Premium avoidance contact
Worksafe on:
Phone: (03) 96411206
Fax: (03) 96411768
Email: premium_information@worksafe.vic.gov.au
How to make a confidential complaint under the WorkSafe’s
Whistleblower Protection Procedures:
The Whistleblowers Protection Act 2001 deals with whistleblowing and
protection for people who report allegations of improper or corrupt conduct
by WorkSafe or its employees
To make a confidential complaint under the WorkSafe’s Whistleblower
Protection Procedures you can contact:
The Protected Disclosure Officer
Marlo BaragwanathGeneral CounselCorporate Legal Services
Phone: 03 9641 1027
or any of the WorkSafe’s other Protected Disclosure Officers.
For their contact details, see the publication WorkSafe’s
Whistleblower's Protection Procedures
What action will WorkSafe take?
Where allegations are supported, WorkSafe will respond appropriately,
in the circumstances, by either initiating disciplinary action under its’
internal policies, notifying the appropriate law enforcement agencies or
reporting to relevant authorities. This may include referral to the Police.
WorkSafe is committed to protecting the funds and assets placed under
its controls and protection for the benefit of the Victorian community.
Any fraud or corruption committed against WorkSafe is a major concern
to WorkSafe. Consequently, any allegations of observed or suspected
fraud or corruption will be thoroughly investigated and appropriate disciplinary
action will be taken against any employee or any other person(s) who
commits fraud or corruption against WorkSafe.
Who to contact for general guidance and advice
Contact our Advisory Service for general guidance and advice relating to
Occupational Health and Safety and Workers Compensation.
Phone: (03) 9641 1444
Toll Free: 1800 136 089
Email: info@worksafe.vic.gov.au
WCV'S: Don't you just love the line, "If the allegations are supported,
worksafe will respond appropriately". Well within worksafe victoria
"Appropriately" means to ignore evidence and not investigate then,
they can say, "the allegations were not supported therefore we will not
act on your complaints!"
So, in short, if you dont look you dont know!
Its an easy way of squirming out of complexed cases and allows
worksafe to deny any requests for further investigations into your
claims!
My Partners employers were complained about for 7 years before
worksafe investigated the claims made or visited the site and by
then the employers had been given enough time to cover their tracks!
This is not good enough! It's just slack!
How can you be told you were treated fairly and transparently when you
are not given the same opportunities as some employers do?
My Partners ex employers were rewarded for their non compliance by
Worksafe Victoria and were given a government grant to clean up the
factories poor workplace safety programs.
So how is this fair? The injured workers gets nothing and losses his job
but the employers get a grant and got away with not providing a safe
workplace.
How good must this system be to the employers of this state, they
must just, love it? You can blow it completely, then be paid money to
fix it or cover it up, so with that thought, I will leave it to the readers of
this blog to decide if this behaviour by Worksafe Victoria is fair, or not?
controls and protection for the benefit of the Victorian community.
Any fraud or corruption committed against WorkSafe is a major concern to
WorkSafe. Consequently, any allegations of observed or suspected fraud or
corruption will be thoroughly investigated and appropriate disciplinary action
will be taken against any employee or any other person(s) who commits fraud
or corruption against WorkSafe.
What is fraud?
Fraud is dishonest activity or potential financial loss to WorkSafe including
theft of moneys or other property by employees or persons external to
WorkSafe. This also includes the deliberate falsification, concealment,
destruction or use of falsified documentation used or intended for use
for a normal business purpose or the improper use of information or
position.
Fraudulent behaviour relating to Worker Compensation
The following are examples of fraudulent behaviour by a
worker:
knowingly submitting a false claim
providing false information
working whilst on compensation benefits
altering a medical certificate
submitting false travel expense claims.
The following are examples of fraudulent behaviour by an employer:
failing to have a return to work plan
failing to offer suitable employment
failing to forward a claim within the statutory time period
dismissing worker for lodging a claim for compensation
refusing to accept a WorkSafe Injury Insurance claim
failing to make weekly compensation payments.
The following are examples of fraudulent behaviour by a service
provider:
claiming for services which were not given (service providers, private
investigators etc) providing false invoices, medical certificates
providing deliberate over-servicing.
Fraudulent behaviour relating to Premium:
The following are examples of fraudulent behaviour by an employer:
deliberately providing incorrect information about the type of work being
undertaken (workplace industry classification - WIC)
deliberately understating amount of remuneration for premium calculation
failing to have an insurance policy when required.
What is corruption?
Corruption is any dishonest activity in which a director, executive, manager,
employee, or contractor of WorkSafe acts contrary to the interests of WorkSafe
and abuses their position of trust in order to achieve some personal gain or
advantage for themselves or for another person or entity.
The following are examples of corrupt behaviour:
deliberate schemes or arrangements to reduce premium
payment of secret commissions paid in money or some other value to a
WorkSafe employee, contractor, service providers and clients
conflict of interest involving a WorkSafe employee, contractors, service provider,
Agent or that of a relative or friend acting on his own self-interest rather than
the interests of WorkSafe
release of confidential information, for other than a proper business purpose,
sometimes in exchange for either a financial or non-financial advantage.
How to report suspected fraud or corruption relating to Worker’s
Compensation:
To report suspected fraud or corruption relating to Worker’s Compensation
contact Worksafe on:
Phone: (03) 96411051
Fax: (03) 96411631
Email: assessment_centre@worksafe.vic.gov.au
How to report suspected fraud or corruption relating to
Premium avoidance:
To report suspected fraud or corruption relating to Premium avoidance contact
Worksafe on:
Phone: (03) 96411206
Fax: (03) 96411768
Email: premium_information@worksafe.vic.gov.au
How to make a confidential complaint under the WorkSafe’s
Whistleblower Protection Procedures:
The Whistleblowers Protection Act 2001 deals with whistleblowing and
protection for people who report allegations of improper or corrupt conduct
by WorkSafe or its employees
To make a confidential complaint under the WorkSafe’s Whistleblower
Protection Procedures you can contact:
The Protected Disclosure Officer
Marlo BaragwanathGeneral CounselCorporate Legal Services
Phone: 03 9641 1027
or any of the WorkSafe’s other Protected Disclosure Officers.
For their contact details, see the publication WorkSafe’s
Whistleblower's Protection Procedures
What action will WorkSafe take?
Where allegations are supported, WorkSafe will respond appropriately,
in the circumstances, by either initiating disciplinary action under its’
internal policies, notifying the appropriate law enforcement agencies or
reporting to relevant authorities. This may include referral to the Police.
WorkSafe is committed to protecting the funds and assets placed under
its controls and protection for the benefit of the Victorian community.
Any fraud or corruption committed against WorkSafe is a major concern
to WorkSafe. Consequently, any allegations of observed or suspected
fraud or corruption will be thoroughly investigated and appropriate disciplinary
action will be taken against any employee or any other person(s) who
commits fraud or corruption against WorkSafe.
Who to contact for general guidance and advice
Contact our Advisory Service for general guidance and advice relating to
Occupational Health and Safety and Workers Compensation.
Phone: (03) 9641 1444
Toll Free: 1800 136 089
Email: info@worksafe.vic.gov.au
WCV'S: Don't you just love the line, "If the allegations are supported,
worksafe will respond appropriately". Well within worksafe victoria
"Appropriately" means to ignore evidence and not investigate then,
they can say, "the allegations were not supported therefore we will not
act on your complaints!"
So, in short, if you dont look you dont know!
Its an easy way of squirming out of complexed cases and allows
worksafe to deny any requests for further investigations into your
claims!
My Partners employers were complained about for 7 years before
worksafe investigated the claims made or visited the site and by
then the employers had been given enough time to cover their tracks!
This is not good enough! It's just slack!
How can you be told you were treated fairly and transparently when you
are not given the same opportunities as some employers do?
My Partners ex employers were rewarded for their non compliance by
Worksafe Victoria and were given a government grant to clean up the
factories poor workplace safety programs.
So how is this fair? The injured workers gets nothing and losses his job
but the employers get a grant and got away with not providing a safe
workplace.
How good must this system be to the employers of this state, they
must just, love it? You can blow it completely, then be paid money to
fix it or cover it up, so with that thought, I will leave it to the readers of
this blog to decide if this behaviour by Worksafe Victoria is fair, or not?
Wednesday, 21 January 2009
Victorian Workcover, CUB upset by High Court ruling
This is a transcript from The World Today. The program is broadcast around
Australia at 12:10pm on ABC Local Radio.
The World Today - Monday, 17 February , 2003 00:00:00
ELEANOR HALL: Back home now, to a controversial decision by Australia's
highest court. The critical question in the judgement, should a worker who
cuts a finger while peeling an apple in the lunchroom get compensation?
The answer, according to the High Court, is yes.It's denied Carlton and
United Breweries leave to appeal against a judgement which granted Mr
Mario Hegedis compensation for just such an injury. But Carlton and
United is not the only party angry. Victoria's Workcover Authority is also
up in arms.It claims this legal precedent could blow out the costs of workers'
compensation. But the workers say that had Workcover's view prevailed,
it would have changed the whole basis of the law, denying compensation to
anyone who couldn't prove that their work was a direct cause of their injury,
and leaving people caught up in terrorist attacks while at work with no
protection.Our finance correspondent Stephen Long reports.
STEPHEN LONG: On December 4 1998, Mario Hegedis was peeling an apple
during his lunch break in the crib room at Carlton United's Melbourne Brewery.
The knife slipped and slashed his hand. It might surprise some listeners,
but compensation for this kind of injury at work has generally been a routine
matter.Paul Mulvaney of Slater and Gordon explains.
PAUL MULVANEY: It has been traditionally the case that people who suffer
traumatic injuries at work, generally, are entitled to receive compensation,
even if work didn't cause the accident.
STEPHEN LONG: That was until the Kennett Government took power in
Victoria. In 1992, it amended the law so workers could only get compensation
for injuries suffered during the course of employment if the job was a "significant
contributing factor."And on the basis, a magistrate rejected a claim by Mario
Hegedis for 300 dollars in medical expenses. The ruling was overturned
on appeal by the Victorian Supreme Court. It found that the law was only
really intended to apply to diseases and similar injuries; strokes, heart attacks,
deafness and the like, and not to physical trauma suffered on the job.
And that interpretation's been upheld, first by three appeal court judges in
Victoria, then on Friday by the High Court, which denied CUB
leave to appeal. Victoria's Workcover Authority is not happy.It's warning the
decision could significantly increase the costs of compensation for employers
and the whole community, even allowing compensation to someone who burns
their nose while lighting a cigarette at work.But Paul Mulvaney accuses
Workcover of sensationalism. He says it's trying to disguise the fact that its
position could have changed the "no fault" basis of the law and denied
compensation to thousands of workers.
PAUL MULVANEY: The most important issue, had the appeal succeeded,
relates to major traumatic events that occur at work. For example, if 9/11
happened in Victoria at a workplace, then if Workcover's interpretation of
the law were correct, those workers would not be entitled to receive
compensation. Or in another extreme example, if a gunman ran into a
workplace and injured employees, on Workcover's interpretation they
would only be entitled to compensation if the gunman was a disgruntled
ex-employee or a disgruntled customer or had some grudge against the
workplace. If it was just a madman who chose the place without logic,
then they wouldn't receive compensation.
STEPHEN LONG: So, employees involved in something akin to the
Hoddle Street massacre could not get compensation on this interpretation?
PAUL MULVANEY: If the Hoddle Street massacre had occurred at the
place of work, yes.
STEPHEN LONG: How would you respond to people who would say, look,
it seems reasonable that someone who gets compensated at work if they get
a hand mangled in a machine or they suffer some sort of repetitive strain
injury, but it doesn't seem reasonable to me that a person gets compensated
simply because they cut their hand whilst peeling an apple during a work break.
PAUL MULVANEY: It's easy enough to trivialise the situation as an apple, or
as the Workcover Authority has put out a press release talking about cigarette
burns. They're very rare cases. Why this is important is because historically
workers' compensation legislation is a no-fault system, and the connection
with work is simply sufficient if the in jury occurred at work. The difficulty
with drawing lines is if you draw them on the basis that the Kennett legislation
sought to do, then you would disadvantage many thousands of workers.
STEPHEN LONG: Workcover isn't content to let it rest there. It says it's
consulting stakeholders with a view to further amendments. Plaintiff lawyers
say they are open to changes to clarify the law's application to people struck
down by illnesses unrelated to work; strokes and heart attacks and so on.But
some question Workcover's priorities, and whether it was worthwhile spending
more than a 100,000 dollars of taxpayers' money to try to block a workers'
claim for $300 compensation.
Australia at 12:10pm on ABC Local Radio.
The World Today - Monday, 17 February , 2003 00:00:00
ELEANOR HALL: Back home now, to a controversial decision by Australia's
highest court. The critical question in the judgement, should a worker who
cuts a finger while peeling an apple in the lunchroom get compensation?
The answer, according to the High Court, is yes.It's denied Carlton and
United Breweries leave to appeal against a judgement which granted Mr
Mario Hegedis compensation for just such an injury. But Carlton and
United is not the only party angry. Victoria's Workcover Authority is also
up in arms.It claims this legal precedent could blow out the costs of workers'
compensation. But the workers say that had Workcover's view prevailed,
it would have changed the whole basis of the law, denying compensation to
anyone who couldn't prove that their work was a direct cause of their injury,
and leaving people caught up in terrorist attacks while at work with no
protection.Our finance correspondent Stephen Long reports.
STEPHEN LONG: On December 4 1998, Mario Hegedis was peeling an apple
during his lunch break in the crib room at Carlton United's Melbourne Brewery.
The knife slipped and slashed his hand. It might surprise some listeners,
but compensation for this kind of injury at work has generally been a routine
matter.Paul Mulvaney of Slater and Gordon explains.
PAUL MULVANEY: It has been traditionally the case that people who suffer
traumatic injuries at work, generally, are entitled to receive compensation,
even if work didn't cause the accident.
STEPHEN LONG: That was until the Kennett Government took power in
Victoria. In 1992, it amended the law so workers could only get compensation
for injuries suffered during the course of employment if the job was a "significant
contributing factor."And on the basis, a magistrate rejected a claim by Mario
Hegedis for 300 dollars in medical expenses. The ruling was overturned
on appeal by the Victorian Supreme Court. It found that the law was only
really intended to apply to diseases and similar injuries; strokes, heart attacks,
deafness and the like, and not to physical trauma suffered on the job.
And that interpretation's been upheld, first by three appeal court judges in
Victoria, then on Friday by the High Court, which denied CUB
leave to appeal. Victoria's Workcover Authority is not happy.It's warning the
decision could significantly increase the costs of compensation for employers
and the whole community, even allowing compensation to someone who burns
their nose while lighting a cigarette at work.But Paul Mulvaney accuses
Workcover of sensationalism. He says it's trying to disguise the fact that its
position could have changed the "no fault" basis of the law and denied
compensation to thousands of workers.
PAUL MULVANEY: The most important issue, had the appeal succeeded,
relates to major traumatic events that occur at work. For example, if 9/11
happened in Victoria at a workplace, then if Workcover's interpretation of
the law were correct, those workers would not be entitled to receive
compensation. Or in another extreme example, if a gunman ran into a
workplace and injured employees, on Workcover's interpretation they
would only be entitled to compensation if the gunman was a disgruntled
ex-employee or a disgruntled customer or had some grudge against the
workplace. If it was just a madman who chose the place without logic,
then they wouldn't receive compensation.
STEPHEN LONG: So, employees involved in something akin to the
Hoddle Street massacre could not get compensation on this interpretation?
PAUL MULVANEY: If the Hoddle Street massacre had occurred at the
place of work, yes.
STEPHEN LONG: How would you respond to people who would say, look,
it seems reasonable that someone who gets compensated at work if they get
a hand mangled in a machine or they suffer some sort of repetitive strain
injury, but it doesn't seem reasonable to me that a person gets compensated
simply because they cut their hand whilst peeling an apple during a work break.
PAUL MULVANEY: It's easy enough to trivialise the situation as an apple, or
as the Workcover Authority has put out a press release talking about cigarette
burns. They're very rare cases. Why this is important is because historically
workers' compensation legislation is a no-fault system, and the connection
with work is simply sufficient if the in jury occurred at work. The difficulty
with drawing lines is if you draw them on the basis that the Kennett legislation
sought to do, then you would disadvantage many thousands of workers.
STEPHEN LONG: Workcover isn't content to let it rest there. It says it's
consulting stakeholders with a view to further amendments. Plaintiff lawyers
say they are open to changes to clarify the law's application to people struck
down by illnesses unrelated to work; strokes and heart attacks and so on.But
some question Workcover's priorities, and whether it was worthwhile spending
more than a 100,000 dollars of taxpayers' money to try to block a workers'
claim for $300 compensation.
Sunday, 18 January 2009
WorkSafe targets Melbourne retailers
WorkSafe's inspectors are targeting retail and hospitality outlets in
Melbourne's central business district this month.
Retail businesses and restaurants, cafes and bars will be inspected to
check that employers are meeting their return to work obligations for
injured workers. The visits in Melbourne will run over two weeks, from
January 19 to 30. Over the past five years, a total of 12,013 workers
were injured in the City of Melbourne, with treatment and rehabilitation
costs exceeding $170 million.
The retail and hospitality industries accounted for more than 1,400 of these
injuries and nearly $22 million in treatment and rehabilitation.
Musculoskeletal injuries, also known as sprains and strains, were the most
common injuries experienced.
WorkSafe's Len Boehm said the management of return to work obligations
was often juggled among a range of business needs. "Helping injured workers
return to work in a safe and sustainable way can be a complex process,
" Boehm said. "However, while it's currently peak time for retail and
hospitality trading, an employer cannot ignore their responsibilities.
Getting on top of these obligations now should mean there are fewer problems
for the inspectors to deal with." Boehm said that with many businesses having
hired additional workers for the summer trading period, young workers were
often at risk as they are less experienced and less likely to ask questions about
returning to work and about their safety. More than 1,000 young workers
have been hurt at work in the City of Melbourne in the past five years.
Inspectors will be checking on a range of matters including the existence of:
an injury register, an occupational rehabilitation program if the employer has
an injured worker, a risk management program, and a Return to Work
Coordinator, whose role is to assist an injured worker to remain at or return
to work as soon as possible after injury. Inspectors will also be checking that
information about what to do if a worker is injured is clearly displayed in the
workplace. "The inspectors' primary role is to help business operators, but
where they are not addressing return to work issues and meeting their
obligations, they will suffer the consequences, including the potential for
prosecution," Boehm said. WorkSafe has previously conducted similar
campaigns in Ringwood, Geelong and Werribee.
Ref: Inside Retailers online: Thursday, January 08, 2009
Melbourne's central business district this month.
Retail businesses and restaurants, cafes and bars will be inspected to
check that employers are meeting their return to work obligations for
injured workers. The visits in Melbourne will run over two weeks, from
January 19 to 30. Over the past five years, a total of 12,013 workers
were injured in the City of Melbourne, with treatment and rehabilitation
costs exceeding $170 million.
The retail and hospitality industries accounted for more than 1,400 of these
injuries and nearly $22 million in treatment and rehabilitation.
Musculoskeletal injuries, also known as sprains and strains, were the most
common injuries experienced.
WorkSafe's Len Boehm said the management of return to work obligations
was often juggled among a range of business needs. "Helping injured workers
return to work in a safe and sustainable way can be a complex process,
" Boehm said. "However, while it's currently peak time for retail and
hospitality trading, an employer cannot ignore their responsibilities.
Getting on top of these obligations now should mean there are fewer problems
for the inspectors to deal with." Boehm said that with many businesses having
hired additional workers for the summer trading period, young workers were
often at risk as they are less experienced and less likely to ask questions about
returning to work and about their safety. More than 1,000 young workers
have been hurt at work in the City of Melbourne in the past five years.
Inspectors will be checking on a range of matters including the existence of:
an injury register, an occupational rehabilitation program if the employer has
an injured worker, a risk management program, and a Return to Work
Coordinator, whose role is to assist an injured worker to remain at or return
to work as soon as possible after injury. Inspectors will also be checking that
information about what to do if a worker is injured is clearly displayed in the
workplace. "The inspectors' primary role is to help business operators, but
where they are not addressing return to work issues and meeting their
obligations, they will suffer the consequences, including the potential for
prosecution," Boehm said. WorkSafe has previously conducted similar
campaigns in Ringwood, Geelong and Werribee.
Ref: Inside Retailers online: Thursday, January 08, 2009
Friday, 16 January 2009
Impending Class Action Claim: Legal Firm Required.
We at WCV's beleives that Jeff Kennett, the State Government and the VWA should be held responsible for their Political
It is one of the ironies of modern democracy that the most vociferous
supporters of personal liberty and political rights are those who seek to
establish political systems which by their nature cannot tolerate these
freedoms. These are people who cynically take advantage of the liberties
provided by democratic rule in order to destabilise and eventually
destroy such rule. An autocratic society is maintained by official coercion
backed by the force of arms. On the other hand a liberal society cannot
be protected by its laws and its police force alone.
In order to subsist a liberal order needs a popular commitment to its values.
A system of criminal justice which is concerned with procedural fairness,
certainty of guilt before punishment, and humane treatment of suspects
and offenders is not designed to combat large scale or organised law-breaking.
A society which gives paramount consideration to civil liberties is relatively
stultified in its capacity to prevent excesses and to maintain order. The
strength of such a society is therefore not its coercive power but the
responsibility of its members.
Where responsibility is lacking one of two things will happen. The society
will gradually lose control or the state will be encouraged into curbing
liberties and returning to despotism. It is therefore not incorrect to say
that the degree of freedom which obtains in a society will be proportionate
to the responsibility, tolerance and restraint shown by its members. One
of the problems faced by liberal societies is that they are highly vulnerable
to subversion from within. Persons who are unwilling or unable to promote
change by popular acceptance resort to the exploitation of the weaknesses
in such societies.
In Australia for example, a minority of peace activists endeavour to subvert
the national security interests by trespassing and physically obstructing
defence installations and arrangements. Development works are obstructed
in the name of protecting the environment. Industrial disputes are won by
economic disruptions, the creation of disorder and even violence. In most such
instances, the activists in fact resort to deliberate, organised and large scale
law-breaking in order to achieve political ends. In an autocratic state, such
tactics are impossible for they invite swift and brutal repression.
In a democracy concerned with due process, it is difficult if not impossible to
restrain such measures by regular procedures. The result is often the
intimidation of the society as a whole into submission to minority views.
supporters of personal liberty and political rights are those who seek to
establish political systems which by their nature cannot tolerate these
freedoms. These are people who cynically take advantage of the liberties
provided by democratic rule in order to destabilise and eventually
destroy such rule. An autocratic society is maintained by official coercion
backed by the force of arms. On the other hand a liberal society cannot
be protected by its laws and its police force alone.
In order to subsist a liberal order needs a popular commitment to its values.
A system of criminal justice which is concerned with procedural fairness,
certainty of guilt before punishment, and humane treatment of suspects
and offenders is not designed to combat large scale or organised law-breaking.
A society which gives paramount consideration to civil liberties is relatively
stultified in its capacity to prevent excesses and to maintain order. The
strength of such a society is therefore not its coercive power but the
responsibility of its members.
Where responsibility is lacking one of two things will happen. The society
will gradually lose control or the state will be encouraged into curbing
liberties and returning to despotism. It is therefore not incorrect to say
that the degree of freedom which obtains in a society will be proportionate
to the responsibility, tolerance and restraint shown by its members. One
of the problems faced by liberal societies is that they are highly vulnerable
to subversion from within. Persons who are unwilling or unable to promote
change by popular acceptance resort to the exploitation of the weaknesses
in such societies.
In Australia for example, a minority of peace activists endeavour to subvert
the national security interests by trespassing and physically obstructing
defence installations and arrangements. Development works are obstructed
in the name of protecting the environment. Industrial disputes are won by
economic disruptions, the creation of disorder and even violence. In most such
instances, the activists in fact resort to deliberate, organised and large scale
law-breaking in order to achieve political ends. In an autocratic state, such
tactics are impossible for they invite swift and brutal repression.
In a democracy concerned with due process, it is difficult if not impossible to
restrain such measures by regular procedures. The result is often the
intimidation of the society as a whole into submission to minority views.
Friday, 19 December 2008
Most bosses ignore workers' mental health: survey 07 October 2008
Most Australian bosses ignore their workers' mental health, a new survey shows.
The nationwide survey of 1,000 workers found 70 per cent of respondents'
workplaces do not offer programs to support employees' mental and emotional
wellbeing. Half of respondents said they often felt stressed and one quarter
often felt depressed. The online survey was conducted late last month by
Sweeney Research for the SuperFriend Industry Funds Forum Mental Health
Foundation. The foundation is comprised of superannuation funds, life insurers
and mental health organisations including beyondblue and Lifeline. The chair
of the foundation's mental health reference group, John Mendoza, said employers
should recognise the importance of looking after employees' mental health.
"There is increasing evidence of a link between stress in the workplace and
mental illness," he said. "The cost of workplace stress to Australian business
is potentially crippling. "I would call on all Australian employers to learn more
about what they can do to support their staff and encourage them to seek help
when they need it."
The survey also found half of respondents thought drinking alcohol was a good
way to maintain or improve their mental health, while four in five believed
watching television positively impacted on mental health. Three-quarters of
respondents participated in activities to improve their physical health and half
engaged in tasks to improve mental health.
The most unhappy age group was 40 to 49-year-olds, with people in that age
bracket most likely to feel stressed and depressed and the least likely to look
after their physical and mental health.
7/10/2008, by AAP.CANBERRA
The nationwide survey of 1,000 workers found 70 per cent of respondents'
workplaces do not offer programs to support employees' mental and emotional
wellbeing. Half of respondents said they often felt stressed and one quarter
often felt depressed. The online survey was conducted late last month by
Sweeney Research for the SuperFriend Industry Funds Forum Mental Health
Foundation. The foundation is comprised of superannuation funds, life insurers
and mental health organisations including beyondblue and Lifeline. The chair
of the foundation's mental health reference group, John Mendoza, said employers
should recognise the importance of looking after employees' mental health.
"There is increasing evidence of a link between stress in the workplace and
mental illness," he said. "The cost of workplace stress to Australian business
is potentially crippling. "I would call on all Australian employers to learn more
about what they can do to support their staff and encourage them to seek help
when they need it."
The survey also found half of respondents thought drinking alcohol was a good
way to maintain or improve their mental health, while four in five believed
watching television positively impacted on mental health. Three-quarters of
respondents participated in activities to improve their physical health and half
engaged in tasks to improve mental health.
The most unhappy age group was 40 to 49-year-olds, with people in that age
bracket most likely to feel stressed and depressed and the least likely to look
after their physical and mental health.
7/10/2008, by AAP.CANBERRA
Wednesday, 17 December 2008
Judge says non-complainers should not miss out on compo
Written by: Norrie Ross ,Herald Sun
December 17, 2008 01:16pm
THE determination of an injured worker to get on with his life without
complaint may have worked against his compo claim, a judge said today.
Justice Geoffrey Nettle said if Geelong man Brett Dwyer had been more
of a whinger his claim for accident compensation would probably not have
been disputed by WorkCover.
Mr Dwyer, 44, of Grovedale, suffered horrific injuries to his arm when a
crane fell on him in March 2000. Today the appeal court ruled he had
the right to claim compensation after an epic battle that went all the way
to the High Court.
Justice Nettle said Mr Dwyer's strong character and determination to get
on with his life may have worked against him. "I suspect that, but for the
way the appellant (Mr Dwyer) has been prepared to put up with his pain
and suffering and get on with his business as best he can, the respondent
(WorkCover) may well not have disputed his claim," Justice Nettle said.
"It would be unfortunate, and in my view wrongheaded, if in future such
an applicant were treated less favourably than another who, being of less
strength of character, simply resigned himself to his injury."
The ruling that Mr Dwyer suffered a “serious injury" under the Accident
Compensation Act means that WorkCover will have to make an assessment
of appropriate compensation.
Slater & Gordon lawyer Danny Connor says WorkCover's rejection of Mr
Dwyer's claim was inexplicable. "Brett has been penalised for being a good
bloke," Mr Connor said. "Eight years ago he suffered a terrible injury which
means he wakes in pain every day and his right arm is permanently deformed,
with a loss of strength and function. "He gave up social activities including
golf and motor cycle riding, and the injury affected relationships with his family.
"Despite this, earlier courts ruled that this was not a serious injury, and for three
years we have fought for justice, from Grovedale to the High Court and back.
"The court today effectively found that WorkCover discriminated against Brett
because of his strength of character, his work ethic, and his ability to handle
pain and try to get on with his life." Mr Connor says he will enter negotiations
with WorkCover to finalise Mr Dwyer's compensation.
December 17, 2008 01:16pm
THE determination of an injured worker to get on with his life without
complaint may have worked against his compo claim, a judge said today.
Justice Geoffrey Nettle said if Geelong man Brett Dwyer had been more
of a whinger his claim for accident compensation would probably not have
been disputed by WorkCover.
Mr Dwyer, 44, of Grovedale, suffered horrific injuries to his arm when a
crane fell on him in March 2000. Today the appeal court ruled he had
the right to claim compensation after an epic battle that went all the way
to the High Court.
Justice Nettle said Mr Dwyer's strong character and determination to get
on with his life may have worked against him. "I suspect that, but for the
way the appellant (Mr Dwyer) has been prepared to put up with his pain
and suffering and get on with his business as best he can, the respondent
(WorkCover) may well not have disputed his claim," Justice Nettle said.
"It would be unfortunate, and in my view wrongheaded, if in future such
an applicant were treated less favourably than another who, being of less
strength of character, simply resigned himself to his injury."
The ruling that Mr Dwyer suffered a “serious injury" under the Accident
Compensation Act means that WorkCover will have to make an assessment
of appropriate compensation.
Slater & Gordon lawyer Danny Connor says WorkCover's rejection of Mr
Dwyer's claim was inexplicable. "Brett has been penalised for being a good
bloke," Mr Connor said. "Eight years ago he suffered a terrible injury which
means he wakes in pain every day and his right arm is permanently deformed,
with a loss of strength and function. "He gave up social activities including
golf and motor cycle riding, and the injury affected relationships with his family.
"Despite this, earlier courts ruled that this was not a serious injury, and for three
years we have fought for justice, from Grovedale to the High Court and back.
"The court today effectively found that WorkCover discriminated against Brett
because of his strength of character, his work ethic, and his ability to handle
pain and try to get on with his life." Mr Connor says he will enter negotiations
with WorkCover to finalise Mr Dwyer's compensation.
Friday, 5 December 2008
Workplace injury Discussion Paper
Peter Cotton
BA(Hons), MA(ClinPsych), PhD,
FAPS, is Director of Psychology
Services, Health For Industry,
Health Services Australia
Group, Melbourne, Victoria.
peter.cotton@hsagroup.com.au
Occupational wellbeing
Management of injured workers with
psychosocial barriers
BACKGROUND
Although most injured workers return to work with minimal
intervention, approximately 20% show levels of distress and
disability beyond that expected for the injury. The level of
morale in a workplace seems to play a major role in this.
Workers who experience positive emotions leading to
increased morale are more likely to be resilient following injury.
OBJECTIVE
It is important for general practitioners to recognise the non -
clinical factors that exert a significant influence over employee
wellbeing and return to work outcomes. Some management
strategies are presented.
DISCUSSION
General practitioners who work collaboratively with all major
stakeholders, who identify and manage psychosocial barriers
early, who take an active role in promoting positive expectations,
and who focus on the immediate problem rather than its industrial
associations will achieve better outcomes for their injured patients.BA(Hons), MA(ClinPsych), PhD,
FAPS, is Director of Psychology
Services, Health For Industry,
Health Services Australia
Group, Melbourne, Victoria.
peter.cotton@hsagroup.com.au
Occupational wellbeing
Management of injured workers with
psychosocial barriers
BACKGROUND
Although most injured workers return to work with minimal
intervention, approximately 20% show levels of distress and
disability beyond that expected for the injury. The level of
morale in a workplace seems to play a major role in this.
Workers who experience positive emotions leading to
increased morale are more likely to be resilient following injury.
OBJECTIVE
It is important for general practitioners to recognise the non -
clinical factors that exert a significant influence over employee
wellbeing and return to work outcomes. Some management
strategies are presented.
DISCUSSION
General practitioners who work collaboratively with all major
stakeholders, who identify and manage psychosocial barriers
early, who take an active role in promoting positive expectations,
and who focus on the immediate problem rather than its industrial
Individuals with compensable injuries frequently exhibit
worse health outcomes than nonclaimants with similar
clinical profiles(1) and can be very challenging to manage
clinically. Nevertheless, most injured workers progress
through treatment and return to work with minimal
intervention and angst. Indeed, across all workers’
compensation jurisdictions, approximately 80% of
injured workers progress straightforwardly, while the
other 20% exhibit levels of distress and disability that
appear to be excessive when considered in relation
to their initial injury. A further 5% go on to exhibit
‘apparently disproportionate outcomes’ where levels of
long term disability and distress cannot be explained by
the initial injury.(2)
Occupational wellbeing
The psychosocial flags model(3) has become an influential
framework for identifying potentially complicating
psychosocial factors that are predictive of poor return
to work outcomes and long term disability, particularly
in relation to pain related injuries. Our own research in
this field has focused more specifically on work related
psychological wellbeing using the organisational health
framework.(4) This approach overlaps with the flags model
in terms of highlighting a number of nonclinical factors that
exert a significant influence over employee wellbeing and
return to work outcomes.(5)
In contrast to the traditional focus on negative
emotional indicators in the occupational stress literature,
organisational health research finds that indices of positive
emotional states (which we term morale) are important
determinants of a range of workplace people related
outcomes. For example, we have shown that a decline
in level of morale is typically a stronger driver of stress
related workers’ compensation claims among cohorts of
teachers and serving police officers than a substantive
increase in levels of distress.(5,6)
When morale declines, individuals begin to doubt their
capacity to cope and focus more on distress related
symptoms and negative aspects of their environment.
Conversely, we have found that individuals and work teams
with higher levels of morale are more resilient in managing
their operational demands and pressures and exhibit less
withdrawal behaviours including absenteeism and stress
related workers’ compensation claims.(5)
Levels of morale are strongly influenced by
environmental factors, and in the workplace, the most
potent factors are supportive leadership styles and the
overall quality of work team climate.(7)
This approach to occupational wellbeing also
intersects with recent clinical research on the construct of
‘resilience’.(8) Across a range of populations, Fredrickson et
Al(9) have demonstrated that it is the experience of positive
emotions that enables individuals to bounce back from
adverse experiences. More specifically, positive emotions
increase personal coping resources, reduce lingering
negative emotions and return a range of physiological
functions (including cardiovascular reactivity) to baseline
levels more rapidly.
Organisational health research suggests that when
individual morale declines beyond a certain level, individuals
start to disengage and begin to actively seek evidence
of lack of organisational support and unfair treatment in
the workplace.(7)
These findings also have relevance to physical injuries where
levels of supervisory support have been shown to influence
the submission of workers compensation claims for
musculoskeletal injuries and significantly mitigate the effects
of chronic pain on work performance.(10) Hence, poor
supervisory and organisational support is now increasingly
recognised as a significant psychosocial barrier contributing to
both psychological and physical injury outcomes.
The following are some practical approaches to treating
injured workers, irrespective of whether they are presenting
with psychological or physical injuries.
Work collaboratively with key stakeholders
Poor alignment and communication between key
stakeholders (eg. other treating practitioners, employer
representatives and workers compensation authorities)
increases the likelihood of poorer return to work
outcomes.(11) Some general practitioners and other
health practitioners cite confidentiality concerns as a
key barrier to communicating with other stakeholders.(12)
However, good practice in this field involves clarifying
up front with the patient that while personal information
will remain strictly confidential, communication with
other stakeholders about the functional impact of their
health condition, return to work management issues and
alternative duties are critical to achieving positive return to
work outcomes.(1)
Where a worker is highly resistant to proceeding in
this manner, this response should be considered to be
indicative of a likely psychosocial flag (i.e. significant work
problems) that should be actively addressed.(13) In this
situation, standard clinical interventions are likely to be less
effective and the best option is to liaise with case managers
and psychology service providers to address work issues or
consider developing alternative return to work goals.
Additionally, most workers’ compensation authorities
now have in house clinical advisors who can be readily
accessed by treating practitioners for assistance in
managing workers and advice regarding return to work
issues. It is also important not to unwittingly foster an
adversarial approach toward the employer or WorkCover
authority as this increases the risk of poorer outcomes.
Identify and manage potential psychosocial
barriers early.
Early screening for potential psychosocial barriers should be
a standard element of clinical practice with injured workers.
Pursuing a stepped care approach where usual clinical
practice is monitored against normally expected recovery
timeframes can be used to trigger a clinical review and
additional intervention.(14)
A legitimate complaint psychologists sometimes make
is that workers with significant psychosocial barriers are
often not referred until 12+ months post injury. The evidence
suggests that psychosocial barriers can be accurately
identified within 3 months post injury and much more
effectively addressed at that time.(3,15)
Good practice also suggests that return to work goals
and timelines should be incorporated into treatment from
the outset. Again, where a worker is highly resistant to
engaging in return to work discussion, this should be
viewed as a psychosocial barrier to be actively addressed.
One option to consider here is case conferencing with
Other stakeholders in order to develop appropriate
strategies and formulate additional interventions.
Where the worker is angry and harbours perceptions
of unfair treatment by the employer, one approach that
can be helpful is to undertake a cost-benefit analysis of
the increased risk of long term disability if the worker does
not concurrently positively engage with return to work
processes. They can be advised that they are entitled to
pursue redress for perceived injustice, but that this should
not postpone efforts to resume normal functioning and
vocational involvements. The power of medical reassurance
and encouragement to focus on specific goals cannot be
underestimated here. Referral to a clinical psychologist
at this point can also be a useful adjunctive intervention.
Where there may be significant work problems, the case
conferencing process or liaison with a case manager
can be used to consider alternative duties or a different
work location. This may be a more realistic interim goal to
encourage the worker to maintain or redevelop a level of
positive vocational engagement and inhibit the progression
of the declining morale trajectory. The operative principles
here are attempting to ‘maintain morale’ by minimising
time off work and ‘keeping the injured worker connected
to the workplace’.
Occupational wellbeing – management of injured
workers with psychosocial barriers
There should be a very clear and strong clinical
rationale for providing any ongoing total incapacity
certification. For pain related injuries, 3 weeks
is frequently recommended as the limit after which
increased intervention and rehabilitation management
should be considered.(15) Less attention has been devoted
to psychological injuries in this respect, although earlier
guidelines have recommended a resumption of partial
employment by 14 days for stress related problems.(12)
Active expectation management
Evidence suggests that the time taken to return to
work can vary by up to one-third as a direct function of
education and recovery expectation setting in the initial
treatment sessions. This occurs irrespective of the type
of treatment being provided and the nature of the injury.(14)
Accordingly, explicitly establishing positive recovery
expectations and providing information about expected
recovery trajectories are crucial. Moreover, as noted above
in relation to psychosocial barriers, the power of medical
reassurance and encouragement in contributing to the
maintenance of morale should not be underestimated.
Maintain a focus on the work injury
Some injured workers present with pre-existing or
concurrent problems that are not directly related to
their compensable injury. Addressing these issues in the
context of a workers’ compensation claim can contribute
to poorer return to work outcomes. For example, a
worker who happens to have a history of childhood
abuse may exhibit a worse overall outcome if the abuse
related issues become the focus of treatment. This is
also an issue to consider when referring to psychologists
because some use holistic counselling models that
encourage a focus on underlying issues, and which are
actually not suitable for use with this population.
The recommended approach here is to ‘recognise
– acknowledge – quarantine’. That is, it is appropriate
to recognise these problems and to acknowledge them
with the worker. However, rather than then directly
addressing these issues, the worker should be advised
that they will be more effectively dealt with if resumption
of optimal functioning and vocational involvements are
first achieved. Thus, they should be ‘quarantined’ and
psychologically accepted without engaging or indulging in
internal thoughts and feelings related to these unresolved
problems. Such issues are more effectively addressed
from a stronger morale base. There is emerging evidence
that psychological acceptance strategies as opposed
to active engagement with negative internal thoughts,
feelings and memories, promotes better functioning.16
Don’t try to solve management and industrial
issues through clinical management
Be cautious about forming views about the workplace
based solely on information provided by the distressed
worker. While some workers are poorly treated
by harsh employers, some distressed workers also
very selectively describe workplace issues to treating
practitioners and significantly over report negative
experiences in the workplace. This is mostly not an
issue of ‘malingering’ but is more likely to reflect the
personality characteristic of high level trait emotionality.(17)
In the general population, approximately 17% of people
have high trait emotionality and are disposed toward
reporting higher than average levels of distress and
negative workplace experiences.(18)
Issues of unfair treatment are usually best pursued
through workplace fair treatment review mechanisms,
with the assistance of a support person. The question
that often needs to be considered in these situations is
whether additional time off work will actually help deal
with outstanding work matters, or is it simply delaying
the inevitable and reinforcing avoidance behaviours?
Of course, if the worker has been subjected to any
substantive harassment or related problems, then an
alternative worksite will be a more appropriate goal to
pursue. Organisational health research suggests that
where human resource/industrial issues are blurred
with health issues, there is an increased risk of a worse
overall outcome.(7)
In this respect, excessive advocacy can be a risky
strategy that often unwittingly further entrenches
problems, increases dependency, and reduces the
prospect of a positive longer term outcome.
Conclusion
Health outcomes for injured workers with significant
psychosocial barriers can be enhanced through a
focus on morale maintenance, establishing positive
recovery expectations, working collaboratively with other
stakeholders, containing underlying distress problems,
and ensuring at least partial vocational re-engagement as
early as possible.
Conflict of interest: none declared.
Reprinted from Australian Family Physician Vol. 35, No. 12,
December 2006
Peter Cotton
BA(Hons), MA(ClinPsych), PhD,
FAPS, is Director of Psychology
Services, Health For Industry,
Health Services Australia
Group, Melbourne, Victoria.
peter.cotton@hsagroup.com.au
Occupational wellbeing
Management of injured workers with
psychosocial barriers
References
1. The Australasian Faculty of Occupational Medicine and The Royal
Australasian College of Physicians. Compensable injuries and health
outcomes. Sydney: Royal Australian College of Physicians, 2001.
2. IUA/ABI Rehabilitation Working Party. Psychology, personal injury
and rehabilitation. London: International Underwriting Association
of London, 2004.
Occupational wellbeing – management of injured workers with psychosocial
barriers ,Reprinted from Australian Family Physician Vol. 35, No. 12, December
2006
3. Kendall NAS, Linton SJ, Main CJ. Guide to assessing psychosocial
yellow flags in acute low back pain: Risk factors for long term disability
and work loss. Accident and Compensation Corporation and
the New Zealand Guidelines Group, Wellington New Zealand, 1997.
4. Hart PM, Cooper CL. Occupational stress: towards a more integrated
framework. In: Anderson N, Ones DS, Sinagil HK, Viswesvaran C,
editors. Handbook of industrial, work and organisational psychology.
Vol 2. London: Sage, 2001.
5. Cotton P, Hart PM. Occupational wellbeing and performance:
a review of organizational health research. Aust Psychol
2003;38:118–27.
6. Hart PM, Cotton P. Conventional wisdom is often misleading:
Exploring police stress in an organisational health framework. In:
Dollard MF, Winefield AH, Winefield HR. Occupational stress in the
service professions. London: Taylor and Francis, 2003.
7. Cotton P. Report on the Prevention of Psychological Injuries Project.
Canberra: Comcare, Australian Commonwealth Government, 2006.
8. Frederickson BL, Tugade MM, Waugh CE, Larkin GR. What good are
positive emotions in crises? A prospective study of resilience and
emotions following the terrorist attacks on the United States on
September 11, 2001. J Pers Soc Psychol 2003;84:365–76.
9. Tugade, Fredrickson B. Resilient individuals use positive emotions
to bounce back from negative emotional experiences. J Pers Soc
Psychol 2004;86:320–33.
10. Byrne ZS, Hotchwater WA. I get by with a little help from my friends:
The interaction between chronic pain and organisational support on
work performance. J Occup Health Psychol 2006;11:215–327.
11. Kendall E, Guy L, Muechberger H, Myurphy P, O’Neill V. Occupational
stress: a qualitative investigation of effective injury management.
Western Australia: WorkCover, 2003.
12. The Royal Australian College of General Practitioners WA Research
Unit. Stress, compensation and the general practitioner. Western
Australia: WorkCover WA, 2001.
13. Main CJ, Burton AK. Economic and occupational influences on
pain and disability. In: Main CJ, Sapnswick CC, editors. Pain
management: an interdisciplinary approach. Edinburgh: Churchill
Livingstone, 2000.
14. Gonza ER. Third party medicine. Paper presented at the 5th
Interdisciplinary World Congress on Low Back and Pelvic Pain.
Melbourne, November 2004.
15. Main CJ, Robinson JP, Watson PJ. Disability, incapacity and rehabilitation
for pain patients. In: Justins DM, editor. Pain. An updated
review: refresher course syllabus. Seattle: IASP Press, 2005.
16. Bond FW, Bunce D. The role of acceptance and job control in mental
health, job satisfaction and work performance. J Appl Psychol
2003;88:1057–67.
17. Watson D. Intraindividual and interindividual analyses of positive
and negative affect: their relation to health complaints, perceived
stress and daily activities. J Pers Soc Psycho 1988;54:1020–30.
18. Costa PT, McRae RR. Influence of extraversion and neuroticism on
subjective wellbeing. J Pers Soc Psychol 1980;38:668–78.
CORRESPONDENCE email: afp@racgp.org.au
Sunday, 30 November 2008
The Workers Compensation Review threatens stress claims.
The ASU and other unions in Victoria are campaigning against proposed
changes to WorkCover that will restrict stress claims.
The changes have the potential to impact on workers, including ASU members,
by making it harder to receive compensation from stress claims.
Following a review of the Accident Compensation Act, it has been
recommended that the Act be amended to exclude all stress injury claims that
arise from any “reasonable management action”.
The proposed change is in direct contradiction to the underlying principle of the
Victorian WorkCover system that it is a “no fault” system, whether on the part
of the employer or the worker.
If this change happens, it would create a two-tiered system, with a worker who
has suffered a psychological injury required to demonstrate that the actions of
his or her employer were unreasonable, whereas if the injury were physical the
worker would simply have to show that the injury happened at work to obtain
statutory benefits.
The ASU and other unions find this recommendation an affront to worker’s
rights and a weakening of the laws designed to protect workers.
Each year about 3000 people receive stress injuries at work. If the
recommended changes go ahead, it is predicted that the vast majority of stress
claims will not be accepted in the future.
The ASU is lobbying the Brumby Government to stop the proposed changes.
Victorian workers deserver better and injured workers deserve the best system.
Stress Facts:
An ASU survey of 1,000 members last year found stress in the workplace was
an issue for almost 90% of the respondents.
The survey found one in five members described their workplaces as “very
stressful.” And one third of the respondents had taken sick leave as a result of
workplace stress.
The ASU is presently undertaking a stress project, funded by WorkSafe, to
prevent stress at work.
Ref: www.asuvic.org
changes to WorkCover that will restrict stress claims.
The changes have the potential to impact on workers, including ASU members,
by making it harder to receive compensation from stress claims.
Following a review of the Accident Compensation Act, it has been
recommended that the Act be amended to exclude all stress injury claims that
arise from any “reasonable management action”.
The proposed change is in direct contradiction to the underlying principle of the
Victorian WorkCover system that it is a “no fault” system, whether on the part
of the employer or the worker.
If this change happens, it would create a two-tiered system, with a worker who
has suffered a psychological injury required to demonstrate that the actions of
his or her employer were unreasonable, whereas if the injury were physical the
worker would simply have to show that the injury happened at work to obtain
statutory benefits.
The ASU and other unions find this recommendation an affront to worker’s
rights and a weakening of the laws designed to protect workers.
Each year about 3000 people receive stress injuries at work. If the
recommended changes go ahead, it is predicted that the vast majority of stress
claims will not be accepted in the future.
The ASU is lobbying the Brumby Government to stop the proposed changes.
Victorian workers deserver better and injured workers deserve the best system.
Stress Facts:
An ASU survey of 1,000 members last year found stress in the workplace was
an issue for almost 90% of the respondents.
The survey found one in five members described their workplaces as “very
stressful.” And one third of the respondents had taken sick leave as a result of
workplace stress.
The ASU is presently undertaking a stress project, funded by WorkSafe, to
prevent stress at work.
Ref: www.asuvic.org
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)