The new one I have just heard from a company is "no, we won't make it mandatory but we really encourage you to get it however if the customer requires it then we will need to pass on that requirement"

This seems like another attempt to contract out of their responsibilities as an employer?

Hi Michael,

We have recently completed a global safety standdown, as the company I work for is located on every continent. The initiative was lead from our overseas head office with members from every department scheduled to set sessions (to promote pan-department discussions), and ensure that everyone got a chance to attend without totally stopping the business for the day. At each session, everyone was divided in tables of 8, with a manager at each to 'hear' their concerns and keep them on task.

The discussions were good and robust, with the usual extra vocal individuals coming up against their match from other departments, and where the quiet ones had confidence speak because they were not in their familiar teams.

Each table was also asked to write down their concerns or the things they liked and what they wanted to see more of (sort of stop,start,continue but only from what was recognizable only from the discussions) the issues/concerns/output was recorded a 1 pager in bullet points, and collated with other tables/sessions.

Later, every individual was independently surveyed about their experience, and what if anything they might like to further add/change given they had some additional time to digest the discussions post event. Again an opportunity to allow input.

While the results are still being collated and yet to be released, anecdotally from feedback it was a success.

Note, this was not about gaining commitment from the workers to be better at safety as individuals. It was about "how as an organization could we do better for them?". Headoffice will publish the results and subsequent approach in due course.

So based on my observations of this event I liked it, I think the level of participation and richness in the discussions was a good indicator, plus workers are still talking about it in day to day conversations.

Hi,

This scenario was raised to me by a 'not for profit yatch club', who has only 1 full-timer and some part-time hospo staff.

"Where would a yatch club stand in the event of a paid member who is using the adjacent dry ground to the slipway to renovate his own boat, who uses his own tools, who erects his own scaffolding, BUT later falls between the scaffolding and his boat (square scaffold against curved boat) to suffer severe injuries?"

Does in this instance the club get a freepass?

In my opinion most likely yes. It would appear that as a paid member the boatie restoring his boat would probably be described as a 'volunteer worker' for a 'sporting recreational group' so would be exempt from HSAW, even with the club having employees. AND because the boatie was not working at the time, or doing anything of direct benefit, for the club, the boat and scaffolding are therefore not a workplace. -thoughts?

Other considerations;

Besides the ground and frame that the boat sat on, the club would not have provided or done anything to setup the boat and scaffolding, other than perhaps assist winching the boat up the slipway months before, as is often the case.

In terms of notification of such an incident, would it fall under just HSAW (if applicable) or Maritime law or both due to it being in the slipway area but not on the slipway - thoughts?