At the end of a complex year take sometime. we are fortunate to have full professional lives with many challenges which is why we love it but stop, simplify and breathe. I plan to rock on my cabin verandah with my dog and not think about contractors for at least an hour.. See you in
NSW District Court Judge Russell has held that 1 – a Principal Contractor does not owe an obligation to direct a contractor in how it is to undertake its work, where it does not have the requisite skills or knowledge but 2 – it does have such a duty where it has knowledge of the
The Model Code of Practice: Construction Work. Monitoring Contractor SWMS. What Does It Really Mean?
The Model CoP states that a Principal Contractor must “monitor” a contractors SWMS. When considered in the context of the legal position adopted over the last 100 years by the High Court and all Australian superior Courts it cannot mean that a PC is responsible for monitoring implementation or compliance of contractors with their own
SafeWork NSW v J & CG Constructions Pty Limited –  NSWDC 614 A Good Clarification of PC Duties for Site Risks but Not Quite Right on SWMS.
A Judge has confirmed that a Principle Contractor has obligations to manage the risk of falls from heights when a formworker fell 6 metres from a second floor, due to a void in scaffolding. The Judge observed that it is often the case that a sub-contractor is found to be more culpable than a principal
A security firm engaged as part of the hotel quarantine program was prequalified by CM3, an extensive and complex online contractor prequalification program which requests extensive evidence of safety management, usually through supply of documentation in an attempt to confirm on the ground safety management. The quarantine outbreak calls into question the benefit of putting
Following my post about a possible incorrect conviction under s 23 of the OHS Act I have been referred to Muscat v Magistrates Court VSC 2018 and a decision by the Victorian Supreme Court that s 23 does in fact apply to contractors. However on reading that case, which turns on complex interpretation of the
Recently it was reported that a Principal Contractor, Seascape Constructions, was convicted and fine $850K for 1 – failing to ensure the safety of persons other than it’s employee’s from risks arising from its undertaking when a contractor fell from a second floor and was killed and 2 – failing to issue SWMS to contractors
In amongst the calls for rolling of heads and that Dan should have been standing at doors himself, it is critical to understand, at law, what Dan’s responsibilities really were. The case law is clear a Principal Contractor (aka Dan) is entitled to rely upon the expertise of contractors it engages to undertake specialist work.
To clarify the manager at Connect Logistics who has been charged with manslaughter has been charged under the Crimes Act by the Police. The charges are not in relation industrial manslaughter, which was not in place at the time of the incident and which are not retrospective. In addition any charges of industrial manslaughter must
It was meant to be a watershed moment in the regulation of safety in the transport industry. It was meant to result in all users of heavy vehicles having a good hard look at themselves. It was meant to ensure drivers did not carry the brunt of the majority of enforcement activity. It was meant
So do we think there are grounds for WorkSafe Victoria to prosecute the security guard who while employed as a security guard, and owing duties under the OHS Act engaged in sexual intercourse with persons in quarantine, who are assumed to have civod until the expiry of quarantine or testing proves otherwise, recklessly exposing themselves
I am just preparing some content for a client presentation and rereading the above case and it is just fantastic. I really encourage anyone who wants to understand the law as it applies to Principal Contractors and their independent contractors in respect of safety to read it. It is quite long but well written and
There seems to be some confusion that the principal of imputation of conduct will extend the reach of the Industrial Manslaughter legislation to employees and others e.g. those with management and control of a workplace (supervisors) This is incorrect. Imputing the conduct of a worker to a company means that the company is held to
A recent decision by the Victorian Supreme Court refusing leave to appeal by a quarry (KMQ) against a conviction for a contractors death does not undermine the 2012 Baiada v The Queen High Court decision or extend liability for management of risks arising from a contractors work to Principal Contractors. It actually baffles my as
A linkedin connection recently sent me a link to a webinar they attended conducted by a very large online OHS software company in conjunction with a very large OHS consulting firm. The content was based on 4 elements of contractor management …. mmm eerily familiar. Sadly that’s where the similarity ended as the content was
The CFMMEU has launched legal action in the Federal Court alleging that the failure to provide a copy of a documented worksite safety management plan amounted to obstructing or hindering an Authorised Representative of a Registered Employee Organisation (ARREO). Now ,on entry an ARREO has the power to inspect plant, substance or any other thing
While listening to ABC 774 today I heard a discussion of the horrific accident involving a heavy vehicle which resulted in the tragic deaths of four police officers. During the discussion a caller commented that there needs to be a way to prevent heavy vehicle drivers from being pressured into taking drugs to stay awake.