Gather data about similar events of concern. Why did they happen? What's different.
Don't use likelihood words. They mean whatever a reader wants them to mean. — Chris Peace

I have always liked the use of likelihood descriptors if using a risk matrix approach - in the past for construction projects I have found the type of "a similar event has occurred within this; plant, site, company, industry, etc." to be much more consistent than the "highly likely - highly unlikely" scale... especially for the poor person that has to read the assessment/report in the future.

Regarding the OP, I always think "why are we trying to classify incidents like this" - not in a negative way, but thinking about what the purpose of the categories will be and how they will be used.

Often in the case of HiPo events (or critical risk) it is a shorthand for evaluating the amount of effort spent on investigating the event - and on the surface it makes sense, if you only have the time to investigate one event you'd choose the one that could have caused the most harm, right?

The issue is that the amount of learning an incident can provide isn't directly linked to the potential severity of that event - you will likely learn less from a missing scaffold handrail on a 10m scaffold than you will from a badly managed design change in a process plant that resulted in discharging hot (clean) cooling water straight into the stormwater drain.

The catch 22 is how do you know what is worthwhile to investigate before you investigate it??...

And to answer the OP - from memory of the last company I worked in that used a HiPo classification was essentially anything above an LTI or a Notifiable Event, but that company had very little risk of their staff being involved in a multiple fatality type event so could have skewed their classification lower so that there was stuff to investigate for continuous improvement.

The PCBU simply has a duty of due diligence in selecting a competent contractor and applying the 3 C's on the job based on who is in the best position to manage which risks. — Tony Walton

And somebody saw the opportunity in the market to "take care of that" for PCBUs (for a small fee of course) - then more and more companies jumped on the pre-qualification bandwagon... which lead to the creation of Tōtika to solve the issue of "contractors requiring to retain multiple pre-qualification certificates".
While this is a solution to the identified problem, I do wonder, like you , if looking at this wider as a "how can we do tenderer selection better in NZ?"
And to be honest a "Yelp, but for contractors" could probably be more beneficial to NZ... although that would be ripe for abuse if it was just an open feedback format!

straight forward really. — KeithH

Agree that the process for holding HSR elections should be straight forward, my comment was specifically regarding that since there was little interest from anyone taking on the role that there is a reasonable likelihood that there might be no one to vote for (or even to just assume the position).
As you point out the Manager may be eligible to fill the role, or they could be incorporated into another work group, but while those "solutions" may be technically compliant with the Act, there is a good chance they don't actually produce the processes the Act intended.

Great thread Garth, I hope that all businesses that are looking at putting in a mandatory vaccination policy have considered these points before doing so... of course they have because that is what the WorkSafe NZ guidelines told them to do (where's the Tui billboard...)

One more point I would add is to revise their Sick leave policy - best case go to a unlimited sick leave policy, but if that is a bridge-to-far at the moment then at least an unlimited Covid-related sick leave policy. Eliminate the need for any worker to have to weigh up the risk of potentially infecting others at work and paying the rent this week.

COVID-19 Mortality Risk Correlates Inversely with Vitamin D3 Status, a Mortality Rate Close to Zero Could Theoretically Be Achieved at 50 ng/mL 25(OH)D3 — robyn moses

Got to be careful with this - while there is a correlation is it actually caused by the increase in Vitamin D3 (and so taking D3 supplements makes sense) or is it just that those with high D3 levels are also more likely to be in better shape to fight an infection (i.e. less likely to be in the higher risk groups for Covid).

Since the selection of workers was made by management, IMO the people are are not HSRs as described in the HSW Worker Engagement, Participation and Representation Regs. — KeithH

To be honest very few organisations in NZ would have "true - HSWA defined" HSR - illustrated by Air NZ winning the top award at the 2019 Safeguard awards for essentially "holding HSR elections as per the legislation". And I would also bet that a lot current HSR / Committees in NZ businesses today don't actually fulfill the intended functions under the Act anyway, regardless if those HSRs were elected or not.

key thing is to be consistent - whatever you call your "HSRs" make sure they know what their role is in your worker consultation process, and make sure the worker consultation process as a whole is understood by everyone.
Once their is agreement on how the process works, it is best that you write it down. Also ensure that there is a periodic review of the process, what works for the team now might not in the future when people have come and gone from the business. Having the process clearly written down will help with this. One critical point to add is to make sure the process is not just reactive, but includes the process for proactively seeking workers' input on H&S matters, especially when there will be a change to their "normal" work (S60 of the Act gives some high level situations)
The two clear requirements in the legislation are that you need to (S58-60) engage with workers regarding H&S, and (S61) have practices which include workers in improving workplace H&S. Get these in place without your workers feeling like they have to invoke the other sections relating to elections or committees and I would bet that you will have much better worker engagement practices compared to another company who has reverted to complying with the basics of the legislation.

As Don Ramsey suggests, an option is to conduct an election process. This is a straight forward process - with potential outcomes that management may be unaware of. See Sections 21-26 inclusive of the Worker Engagement, Participation and Representation Regs. — KeithH

Might be harder than you think guys - as one of the main reasons for this thread in the first place was that there was "very little interest from anyone to take on the role", which will likely end up in a situation where there are no eligible nominees in the showroom area... and we are back to square one of "well do we need one if no one wants to be one?"

Vaccination Policy with full vaccination by x date or termination of employment now on my desk for worker consultation and engagement with HS committee etc. — robyn moses

Doesn't sound like any actual employee consultation went on there - sounds like a decision has been made by management and now go tell the workers what they have to do...

This is really important because the PCBU still has duties and responsibilities to ensure that there is to be no harm in the workplace that they are unaware of and no risk of harm that they are aware of that they haven’t taken measures to counteract. — robyn moses

Are we waiting for the case where an employee subject to a company deciding to go "no jab, no job" suffers negative effects on their mental health as a result of the stress, etc. and if that falls under the company's duty to manage risks to their workers?

didn't they tell you in safety school that Danger Tape is near on indestructible and it is also impossible to climb over, under or around it... well that is what they seem to be teaching based on how it is sometimes used!

Yeah, sorry Stephen - I did have that thought after I posted that maybe you were meaning you weren't covered by the Vaccination Order at all.
I would take a similar approach still though - inform them that you have collected the required information to ensure that you can and will only send vaccinated employees to their job, but as the information was not gathered for the purpose to provide it to your clients that you legally cannot do so.

As to your query MattD2, whilst we may choose to release our info to our own paymasters, one might say we at least have a bit of an eye on one's own organisation so as to be comfortable. If however that info is being sought by customers of one's employer and is released then one might say the genie is out of the bottle and control of certain personal info lost forever. — Andy Bunyan

One of the main parts of the Privacy Act is to have a clear purpose for the collection of private information, ensuring the people you are collecting the information from understand that purpose and how the information is to be used and then only using the information for that purpose.
As in the example you gave unless you have informed your employees that you will be sharing the information with clients then you shouldn't... and clients really shouldn't be sharing private information with others - a clear breach if the act.

We have had the same requests, however my workers are not coved by the COVID-19 Public Health Response (Vaccinations) Order 2021, as they do not fall into this category:
7.2... — Stephen Small

If they are working for the DHB would they not generally fall under "7.3 Workers who are employed or engaged by certified providers and carry out work at the premises at which health care services are provided"?

My concern is the scattergun effect of health providers who are sending out blanket statements without looking at the coverage. — Stephen Small

I agree with you on this - and as I mentioned it would seem reasonable for you to respond that as the Relevant PCBU of the Affected Person you have obtained and have record of the information required under clause 11A of the Vaccination Order, can confirm that the Affected Persons assigned to the work comply with clause 7 of the Order, and will updated the DHB if anything changes.

It really depends what your companies employee consultation procedures requires - if it says each area requires a HSR then there either needs to be one or you need to change the procedure (with consultation with the workers on the change).
The legal requirements are that you engage with workers on health and safety matters and provide them with opportunity to participate in improving workplace health and safety. There are specific for the requirements in the legislation for HSRs and Safety committees if they have been requested - but the caveat is these apply when HSRs or a Committee is requested by the workers... and given no-one is will to be nominated for the replacement HSR I wouldn't expect they have specifically asked for one.

Again since no-one is willing to volunteer to be the showroom HSR, if it were me the key action would be to agree with the workers on what good engagement and participation looks like to them and then do that.

(Note: given you have 80 staff and 4 HSR you are compliant with the prescribed minimum ratio, although hire one more person and you won't be ;))

Some DHBs have been telling me that they need an assurance that only vaccinated contractors go to their site but are also reserving the right to request full name, date of birth, date and type of vaccination and other personal information for any staff that might be going to their site in the future. — Garth Forsberg

That is likely because they are required by the Vaccination order to collect that information if the worker is covered under the order; 11A - COVID-19 Public Health Response (Vaccinations) Order 2021
My understanding of the Privacy Act (and correct me if I am wrong @Andy Bunyan) is that it doesn't prevent anyone from requesting private information, but it provides a framework for (amongst other things) how private information is collected (including informing the purpose of collecting the information), keeping the information private and not using it for any other purpose than for the reason it was collected.

The grey area in the DHB situation is who is considered the "relevant PCBU" - your company or the DHB. But I would argue that the safest way to not fall faul of the privacy act while complying with the order is to consider your company as the "relevant PCBU" and to ensure that the assurance they are requesting includes that the company will keep accurate and up to date records of any worker as per 11A of the order.

A few years back Worksafe focused on trampoline parks after a number of serious injuries were occuring. At the bottom of page 2 on the bulletin they released is a note with their take on waivers - essentially not worth the paper they are written on.
https://www.worksafe.govt.nz/assets/dmsassets/1/1673WKS-8-news-and-media-trampoline-parks.pdf

And yes I agree with you it is not about RA's etc. — Sandra Nieuwoudt

The problem is context in this case - From Jane's comment I take it as read that a Risk Assessment has been done for Covid risks, and that "masks" have been identified as a suitable control... the context I meant before is there is a range of RPE available for all different situations. So far in this thread the suggestions have been related to powered / positive pressure RPE, however (my understanding) is the benefit of "masks" regarding Covid risks is to minimise the spread of the virus breathed/coughed out from an infected person rather than protecting the wearer from infection (illustrated by the recommendation not to use vented masks which make breathing out easier) - so while there is probably some benefit to powered RPE they probably do not provide the risk management of the "masks" stated in the risk assessment.
@Jane I'm trying to stay away from saying "do a risk assessment" :), so I'm just saying is if you do go with an alternative mask option, that you check back that it does what it was assumed a mask would be doing as the assessed risk control.

Regarding other options;
I have found that the "best fit" of masks the available is highly personnel, the mask my wife likes I hate (and vice versa), so it may be that you cannot standardise on providing any one mask and providing a range of available masks or an allowance for purchasing masks may be required.
Also consider what procedural controls are needed alongside the mask PPE, it may be that more frequent breaks, e.g. even a quick 1 minute break apart (physically distanced) to remove masks and have a breather every 10-15 minutes (e.g. every pallet stacked) may alleviate so of the issues.

One for Halloween!

Sadly consult and cooperate is rare — craig christie

Agree with that Craig - it's not often you see good quality consultation even with employees, with contractors we seem to be even more engrained in the command and control mentality.

I feel your frustration!
As you said in you previous post, I also feel like "H&S" is being used as the reasoning for taking actions which are actually in place to manage business continuity risks due to Covid.
Even the PMs explanation yesterday of why vaccinations would be required for all workers where Vaccine Certificates are being used was essentially "we think people would expect that if they had to be vaccinated the workers would have to be too" rather than any sort of actual assessment of the risk.

yes the rest of the document provides advice about doing a risk assessment, etc. but it leads with that statement - everything after it is pinned to that opinion that vaccinations "can be mandated for any workers' roles".
Also keep in mind that this is the forums advice to CEOs, who stereotypically do not have time to read whole reports and who rely on executive summaries to obtain key information. So it wouldn't be unexpected for them to only briefly read the first page where this is the main point (@robyn moses example is potentially a result of business leaders relying on these types of high level summaries to make decisions).

It is an essential service so has operated through all levels of lockdowns — robyn moses

My understanding is essential services (supermarkets, pharmacies, gas statios, etc.) are not allowed to implement the Vaccine Certificate scheme (at least that is the message for now).
Also all the current Government information (e.g. the covid19.govt.nz website is regarding Vaccine Certificates for public to enter a venue/event/retail/etc. location, so if your company isn't open to the public then I wouldn't expect it to be reasonable to use Vaccine Certificates to control entry... but I am learning to not expect the rules to be logical.

Just saw the Business Leaders H&S Forum released yesterday resources for "Covid Vaccination Policy Support"

I personally cannot believe that in their "Leadership Statement" they have stated that "the Forum’s leadership position is that vaccinations are the most effective control to protecting people’s health and therefore can be mandated for any workers’ roles." (emphasis added).
So effectively this is the CEOs of most of NZ's large companies saying that there is no need to do a risk assessment anymore before we mandate vaccinations in any of our organisations. This is contrary to WorkSafe's advice, but I guess that can be somewhat forgiven since the Government itself at yesterday's press release essential did the same with their statement that "if you are going to use the Vaccine Certificate scheme then all your workers will have to be vaccinated as well." - again essentially sidestepping WorkSafe's advice that a risk assessment should be done before considering vaccine mandates (including considering "What is the risk of COVID-19 infection and transmission in the work environment when compared to the risk outside work? (equal to outside work = lower risk; higher than outside work = higher risk)")