Have you tried engaging with the worker's GP? They may not be aware of the types of alternative work you may be able to offer, having only the employee's perspective.

Sounds like you've got it, Stuart.
Rightly or wrongly,
I've always thought of the PCBU is the legal entity that is the company, except when it is a one-person company.
Officers are in charge of the due diligence, planning and funding aspects of H&S. They're the ones who exercise significant control over the company. My simplistic interpretation on this is money based. Those setting budgets and deciding where to allocate funding are Officers, in my mind. Think Directors, C suite and maybe GM level.
The rest are Workers.

Of course, my understanding could be totally wrong

Pardon my ignorance, but why separate the two? I like the CAA (and Maritime, I think) versions that any unplanned event that isn't an accident (damage/injury), is an incident. Keeps it really simple and stops people from spending hours debating the difference and detracting from H&S actually providing value. Let lawyers worry about semantics and worry about what might harm your workers, instead of classifying it after it's happened.

However, if you want to go down the definitions road, I'd suggest you get rid of the circular definition and use of 'incident'. Maybe use 'event' or any other word you want to describe something happening.

Cheers
Jan-Ulf

Lots of great suggestions above.
To add a sample point (N=1), when I had Covid, the non-contact temperature checks (and hospital ear check) didn't indicate a fever, even though I certainly felt like I had fever - cold, sweats, shivers etc.

Why do people go to work, even when they don't feel too well? To earn money or to not let down their employer are the first two that spring to mind.
In my mind, a good approach is to be out there with the staff, so you have their trust and may be able to identify symptoms or unusual behaviour. Additionally, make it explicitly clear that you are supportive of sick leave, even when it is inconvenient as an employer. You might need a bit of support from above to create that messaging, though, as there may be costs to the business.

What great stories and achievements above.
I got my first job after University (Electrical Engineering) not because of my grades, but because I played an obscure sport (Underwater Hockey) and a musical instrument (Viola). The comment, I found out later, was: "Yay, someone who actually has a life outside electronics and computers!"

I'm with KeithH, Catherine.
Instead of setting limits, for which there are far too many factors to arrive at anything meaningful, talk with those who have to use the equipment and ask for their input/experience, then work on guidance and making their work as easy and effective as possible, while using your H&S expertise (eg of ergonomics) to add to the conversation.
A question/discussion I've found really useful is to ask what has gone wrong in the past. If the environment is safe enough, you can get some amazing stories, not just of accidents, but also near misses. Great food for learning.

A separate point I'd make is to also look at the bigger picture. Are you incentivising staff on productivity or putting them under time pressure, implicitly or explicitly?

I'd second KeithH in asking what they're trying to achieve by adding a policy.
Allow me to be contrary.
Any distractions are detrimental to driving concentration. Changing radio channel, adjusting temperature, eating, drinking, talking with passengers etc. all distract from the primary task of keeping the vehicle on the road. Should we have policies for those?
And then the "No pressure to answer when the boss is calling - the boss will not get grumpy" policy?
I'd flip my response around and ask how ShopCare is helping their drivers be as competent as they can be. Do they put them through Defensive Driving courses, or practical courses, where they can learn far more holistically?

Just to be the devil's advocate, what does it mean to be engaged in H&S? Is it the same as being engaged in making a profit for the company, or being engaged in producing the right quality of goods/work, or being engaged in getting the work done on time?
in my view, all the above are not separate things and we need to stop thinking about H&S as this separate and stand-alone entity.
The old fellas (me included) have been getting the job done, balancing the requirements of all the categories above, for a long time. Mostly, without too many incidents, accidents or deaths.
So, as a few people have already pointed out, ask people to share their experience, but don't ask with a specific focus on H&S. Ask them to be the master training an apprentice by sharing the good, the bad and the ugly about how work happens. This then gives you opportunities to also share some of your H&S specific knowledge, statistics or procedures, and hopefully get a two way conversation happening.
Finally, ask them what they think would help them get the job done better, quicker, safer, to better quality etc. Then see if you can help them with that, ie empower them, rather than hemming them in.
My 2 cents' worth :-)

Wayne Nicholl put it well. Determine exposure, determine primary controls and use vaccinations as additional controls.
Additionally, look at relevant industry standards for what is recommended/required. Also the New Zealand Immunisation Advisory Centre.
As an example, Plumbers generally require Hep A&B and IPV. Without having checked it, I believe that is even part of their registration requirement.

Who was it who wrote that any action, in hindsight, can be made to look foolish?
My answer to your question, Peter, is a firm NO. My opinion only, of course.
It may be the right strategy to satisfy the 'public' requirement to hold someone accountable, but is completely the wrong approach to enabling trust, honesty, transparency and hence safer organisations. The more focus is placed on legal liability, the less information will be forthcoming, legal privilege will be invoked and details will get lost, that may otherwise be used to learn.
A far more positive way would be to follow the airline industry, with its ASRS https://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/index.html where the focus is on learning. The three words there are: Confidential, Voluntary, Non-Punitive.

Nicely recycled, Peter, but still a good discussion point.
The world is not black and white, it's never an either/or scenario.
I think the Ministry of Transport is on the right track. Competence is important, but don't set up a system that expects human perfection all the time.

Todd Conklin puts it better than I ever could.
"Anytime you put a worker in a position where their only defence against getting hurt is that they'll do the job right, you're creating your very own alligator wrestling show." - Dr. Todd Conklin
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWPJzGtmiOQ

"Asking drivers to not wreck is not very effective" - Automotive industry, circa 1951 - relayed by Dr. Todd Conklin.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2Dp5HIk2Ss

Well said Paul Robertson, except I'd go one further and flip that first sentence around.
People decide on a course of action within a context, based on their knowledge, experience, competence and ability to determine (judgement) what they deem to be the best course of action at the time. Once the outcome is known, most of the time it is wanted - deemed success. Sometimes it is unwanted - deemed failure and then thought of as a mistake or human error.
To me, the 'mistake' or 'human error' label only exists afterwards, but does not apply at the decision making time, so really shouldn't be used, other than a descriptor leading to investigation of the context of the situation.

I'd be asking what you're gaining from this, especially if it is on a per worker basis. Is it part of the induction process and the primary induction? If so, it may be okay, as long as that process is robust. I would be worried if each worker then also still had to go through your primary site's induction as a separate step, as you'd wonder what benefit each organisation is gaining (other than costs).
There are a number of third party H&S pre-qualification providers within NZ, but they work on a company to company basis, not at the worker level, as far as I know.

Hi Michelle
Slight correction in your first sentence - PCBUs must take reasonably practicable steps, not all practicable steps.
From my limited knowledge - We have effectively the same, a budget of pretty much $0. H&S costs are part of the cost of doing business, but once accountants get involved, those costs get allocated to individual departments in the same way that operational training, administrative overheads and maintenance costs are allocated.
If your organisation has an appetite for it, you may be able to itemise (ie create a budget) organisation wide H&S items. I'm thinking purchasing Standards, subscriptions to Safeguard, external audits, D&A tests, your salary, phone, computer etc. Maybe talk with your accountant to see where those demarcations lie.