As driving is recognised as a critical risk for our company, the company has set tolerances and times in the monitoring system when speed exceedance meet 'monitored' status e.g. zero tolerance at Roadworks and zero tolerance at schools between 8.30am -9.30 am and 2.45 pm to 3.30 pm and then based on posted speed limits and >specified speed for >specified time over max defined distance.

Drivers whose driving speeds repeatedly exceed the tolerances become 'monitored' drivers. They are placed in a monitoring register for one month and are provided additional monitoring to help them manage this hazard. If no further overspeed events occur for 1 month the driver's vehicle is removed from the register. Overspeed reports provided by the monitoring system are provided to Managers daily for drivers in their area of responsibility.

For 'monitored' drivers, the Manager is responsible for verifying the driver, advising the driver of the overspeed, undertaking a staysafe engagement for the first overspeed and then there is an escalating response for further overspeeds e.g. confirming they were the driver, undertaking a staysafe engagement and raising a hazard report. Subsequent overspeed events are reported with an incident report and investigation. An overspeed in the monitoring period after an incident report and investigation is escalated to HR/Exec team before assigning actions. Owners are assigned for each part of the process and company overspeed targets and expectations have been set e.g. 100% tagged drivers have staysafe engagement etc.

We seem to be getting the necessary focus and improvements with this process.

If you google Worksafe Videos there are a number of Worksafe NZ and Worksafe Victoria videos available that may assist.

Sounds like double jeopardy. So if your organisation relies on Govt contracts 100% then potentially out of business but if they don't then potentially no additional or minor impact for them. From my observations this already appears to be factored into tendering for Government contracts as information regarding any Company prosecutions is required to be disclosed (usually for a specified period) and generally the questions appear to be more interested in what occurred, what lessons have been learned and what changes have been made to prevent another occurrence i.e. what level of HSE maturity the Organisation displays. So not a formal ban but potential to have an impact during the tendering process on organisations that haven't stepped up, rather than a one punishment fits all approach.

Really good Steve. No issues with Totika but unfortunately not widely recognised yet by Clients or potential Clients.

S Signed up for Totika but unfortunately Kainga Ora don't currently recognise it so another prequal was required to be added to the ever growing and getting more expensive list. Well done for getting off this treadmill.

" I am struggling to think of any roles outside of healthcare where exposure to an endemic contagion would be higher at work than the general population."

In the first instance, I would place working in a classroom of 30 unvaccinated or vulnerable children or young people in that category.

Hi Sarah
I can suggest you check this page on the ACC website as it falls under the scope of your Return to Work initiatives. An ACC recovery team will assist you throughout this process for longer term injuries.
https://www.acc.co.nz/for-business/working-with-us-to-manage-employee-injuries/supporting-your-employee-back-to-work/

If the issue date is the issue date of the full SDS and not the condensed version then this would continue to assist to ensure SDS are less than 5 years old as required by legislation.

Hi Crissy, No issues at all. I have worked in the past with software developers from Canada and the States. The time lags can work in your favour at times.

We use Lucidity Software - www.luciditysoftware.com.au
They were chosen due to their integrated reporting systems and ability to capture data from the field (particularly remote sites) on their app.

I can understand why third party assessment is required for contractors/suppliers who cannot give evidence of this but why isn't meeting International standards sufficient?
If your Company is independently audited to an Internationally recognised standard e.g. 45001 (which includes both regular site visits and documentation checks by JAS ANZ auditors) why is it necessary to then also be required to have a number of additional flavour of the month prequals thrown in. Why is this internationally recognised prequalification not sufficient evidence?

Agree with Kip, useful baseline to utilise
Currently our only fatigue management flowchart is simply a monthly report based on hours worked per week for all staff (axis has weeks and grouped hours on other axis) hours grouped by <55, 55-60, 60-65, 65-70, 70-75, 75-80, 80+hours. The expectation is certain colours should not be appearing on the chart without Managers explanation.

This code of practice may assist, if you copy the below reference into your browser window.

https://worksafe.govt.nz/dmsdocument/2269-hsnocop-47-secondary-containment-systems

All employers are required to comply with the Smoke Free Environments Act and clients would have an expectation that the workplace would be safe to enter.

It sounds like your business needs to communicate your Company expectations better i.e. Company Smoking Policy and a meeting with staff to communicate the change and why (to meet your Companies legal responsibilities, safeguard staff and clients health, reputation etc). The Smoke free Environments Act is a great resource for wording your Policy.

Ensure smoke free signs have been placed at entry areas and designated smoke free areas. Also with fuels and flammables around this may assist to determine additional areas required to be smoke free. This Policy would apply to everyone working in and entering the workplace - workers, owners, clients, subcontractors etc so make sure it is well communicated.

Really disappointing they state "If you're working in other industries or professions, contact your industry or professional body. They may have ergonomic resources and information." Even if the current information required review at least it was available. It appears the previously useful resource for Machine operators is now no longer available.

The key is "when fitted with a protective structure". The protective structure is ineffective unless a seatbelt is worn. In the Manufacturers supplied Operators Manual there will be a requirement for a seatbelt to be worn if the machine came with an OPS , if retrofitted the engineering designer will also have stipulated this.

Agree with Jo, taking the height training course was invaluable to understand what is covered in the course and what gear is required. My biggest take away was to ensure the right lanyards are purchased and used. If you can prevent a fall with fall restraint lanyards and they are suitable for the task, it removes the hazard of fall arrest systems that allow a fall and require additional resources and rescue plans to prevent injury.

Agreed, I note the American Welding Society Health and Safety related Z49.1 standard it was based on is now dated 2012 and is available free from the American Welding Society. It appears the separation distance in this updated document refers to 20 feet or 6.1m see 10.8.2.3

NZS4781-1973 COP for Safety in Welding and Cutting provides guidance on the use and storage of cylinders.
3.2.4.1 states Oxygen cylinders shall not be stored near highly combustible material......acetylene or other fuel-gas cylinders....
3.2.4.3 Oxygen cylinders in storage shall be separated from fuel-gas cylinders or combustible materials.... a minimum distance of 6m or by a fire resisting barrier at least 2m high having a fire resistance rating of at least 1/2 hour.
The standard is priced around $45 and has a wealth of cylinder use and storage information.

Our local scouts use them as a fundraiser. They cut them down for firewood. There may be other non profit organisations doing similar in your area.