@Stuart Keer-Keer
It's not possible for people to change or make alterations unless they want to.
As a consultant, you can only advise, recommend or suggest. Responsibility for implementing changes ultimately lies with your client.

Often the most obvious method for those in the H&S 'industry' is reliance on implementing legislation through providing documentation to ensure compliance.
Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. When it doesn't, taking different tacks may offer alternative paths to achieve H&S goals while realising what appear to be unrelated bonuses take the forefront.
These paths are less conventional, less obvious and require planning to get to the end.

When talking with management, consider talking in jargon they relate to. Understanding what their goals are may assist in deciding what paths work best.

Just my ramblings.

Often we ask companies "Do you have a shaving policy?" — Stuart Keer-Keer

Stuart, consider why a policy would be necessary given this particular one is aimed at PPE. Would it be more beneficial to consider a policy that has strategic benefits for management and home-life benefits for workers?

Rather than focusing on compliance would improvements to productivity be easier to sell? Engagement and participation are options. Suggestions rather than impositions. Listen to what is not said.

Because it is the law often creates the very barriers that need to be removed. Thinking outside the box may be the path to consider.

Just my ramblings

@MattD2 short answer - No.
The Privacy Commissioner has already determined the "My Vaccine Pass" in it's current form does not breach the Privacy Act with details here.

To quote a couple of paragraphs from that page -
"Our Office (Office of the Privacy Commissioner) has emphasised the importance of ensuring that this sytem is designed with privacy as a core consideration. That has included advocating for the Pass not to distinguish between those who are vaccinated and those who have an exemption on medical grounds (it is not necessary for the business to know).

Our Office also advocated for legislative protection of personal information collected so that it cannot be reused or repurposed by the business collecting it."

Further -
"Does the Privacy Commissioner investigate complaints about the details on My Vaccine Pass?

The COVID-19 Public Health Response (COVID-19 Vaccination Certificate) Order 2021 sets out the information that vaccination certificates must show and requires the person’s name and date of birth to be displayed.

Where another law requires personal information to be used in a certain way, that will generally override the provisions in the Privacy Act.

We cannot investigate complaints about these requirements.

If you want to discuss the information displayed on vaccination certificates further, you will need to contact the Ministry of Health."

Source here


So in answer to your question

does the "My Covid Pass" breach the Privacy Act? — MattD2

the Privacy Commissioner says No.

@Lucille N to accelerate culture change, management buy in is needed. Planning is required so benefits are presented to both management and workers. Compliance with legislation doesn't work with old school.

Talk to people in terms they understand.
Management will be interested in dollars and cents so the return on investment as described in Phillip’s model of training may help.
By making the benefits personal for workers, interest can be fostered. Whanau involvement may help.

Start with small achievable goals to show management how the fiscal position can be improved by demonstrating the connections between strategy, policies and procedures. Workers will be more interested in personal benefits.

Just my ramblings

@Lucille N in the showroom if the

manager who is apart of the health and safety committee — Lucille N

is not an officer of the business, then that person may possibly be nominated.

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?" — MattD2

I disagree with this statement Matt.

Elections can be initiated by the PCBU - S62(2) HSWA

Persons can self nominate - S9(2) Worker Engagement, Participation and Representation Regs.
The current "office holders' are all volunteers -

It should be noted, all "HSRs" volunteered and it was made optional to any person, as there was only a handful of volunteers they were all selected. — Lucille N

Therefore if they are the only one in the workgroup standing for the position, are automatically elected - S15(1) Worker Engagement, Participation and Representation Regs.

- straight forward really.

@Lucille N
Consider having to explain to a WorkSafe inspector what "Voluntary H&S Representatives" are, the roles they play and the functions they perform. That's your test case situation. More so if the inspector is there because something has gone pear-shaped.

Consider also, the reasons management recommended the need for these roles and the reasons workers did not request elections for HSRs. Consider whether there is a need for these roles. Management and workers need to openly discuss this and it will take time.

Review your safety management systems and openly discuss the best methods for engagement and participation. It may be these roles are suitable in which case elections are not required, or it could be the complete opposite.

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.

Another option is to rename the designation - intermediary springs to mind for me. There are pros and cons for this that have been discussed earlier.

Generally, I get the impression that management just want this to go away. However, the genie is out of the bottle and no-one is sure how to get it back in.

Keep in mind that effectively the goal is how to give workers a conduit to management, how management can realise worker's concerns and how both parties can meet their obligations under the HSWA.

My ramblings

@Lucille N
HSRs are chosen by the workers and thus representative of the workers.
IMHO what you described is a method by management to create a conduit to workers for worker engagement and participation.

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.
To determine what the people can be called/designated will be determined by what functions they conduct, any duties and responsibilities required, and how they attained the position. I get the impression these people are appointees - done by management with the best of intentions - and described as HSRs in lieu of any other title for people in these types of positions.

If, as @Tony Walton mentions, your business has a H&S Committee or Committees these people are active in, then they are more likely to be H&S Committee members.

For the future, clarifying the title designation may have inherent issues. The main one is a loss of trust by workers with the people in the positions. Management may wish to open discussions with workers to allow workers to take ownership and make a decision on how they wish to move forward.
To leave the status quo may create a situation where a H&S person inadvertently makes a move into an area where they place themselves and the business at risk.

My ramblings again.

@Riki Brown this link to Adventuremark may be what @Alex P is referring to.

@Lucille N
Just to clarify,
First, HSRs are not appointed. They are elected by workers who are part of a specific workgroup.

Second, the PCBU determines the workgroups.
Members of a workgroup may request an HSR to be elected. The PCBU may decline the request if the number of workers in a workgroup is less than 19. If the number of workers in a workgroup is 19 or more, elections must be held.
If the number of workers in a workgroup are less than 19 but the PCBU operates in a high risk sector or industry, HSRs are required upon request. High risk sectors or industries are listed in Schedule 2 of the HSW Worker Engagement, Participation and Representation Regs.

If no HSRs are required or even elected, the PCBU still needs to have systems for worker engagement and participation.

Keep in mind there is a difference between HSRs. HSRs who have completed training including attaining Unit Standard 29315 can utilise all the functions of an HSR. Those who have completed training but not attained the Unit Standard cannot issue PINs (Provisional Improvement Notices) or direct unsafe work to stop. Both types of HSRs can carry out all other HSR functions.
Note that HSRs have functions and not duties. Thus, they have no responsibilities and no legal obligations.

SiteSafe have an outline of the process here.

Just my ramblings

Hi Riki.

In the adventure activity industry, many companies still use a 'waiver' - an agreement with activity participants that says (amongst other things) something along the lines of..

"This adventure activity involves inherent risks....Company-ABC cannot guarantee your safety.....I hereby assume all risks and release all persons connected with Company-ABC from all liability of injury...I acknowledge that Company-ABC accepts no responsibility for the actions of their employees, contractors...." — Riki Brown

This is one for the lawyers. You may be correct in your conclusion or you may not be.
An earlier discussion topic here - The Athenberry decision and "contracting out" - may be of assistance as this interpretation by WSP may also be.

I for one, would be interested in the legal interpretation of what you ask.

Here in NZ, internet published guides for SSSP contents appear to be the likes of govt departments - Ministry of Education - and Councils - Auckland Council. These appear to draw on the information from SiteSafe.

The best available from overseas is from INGAA in the USA.

My ramblings

@Brendon Ward have you considered doing a PESTLE analysis?

@Catherine Ross are you looking at ground markings in conjunction with signage?

At the risk of sounding facetious, try teaching wearers to breathe while wearing face masks. While this does not address the OP’s original query, the method of breathing (inhaling and exhaling) contributes significantly whether glasses or googles become fogged up.

There is an underlying presumption that users either breathe correctly or are instructed in correct techniques. I may be wrong but I also may be right.

For a suggested breathing method based on that used when SCUBA diving, try here and here

@SusiR effectively this is a legal and HR minefield and specialised assistance should be sought.

There are not many references to AOD in NZ. The only one I have sourced was at the Dairy Women's Network.
Have a look at the webinar section - specifically Managing Risks of Drugs and Alcohol Webinar. This is presented by Graeme Smith of TDDA and while the background is farming, the processes apply across industries.
The information is relevant to the Privacy Act changes that came into effect in December 2020.

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 — MattD2

I disagree with this Matt.

Top of page 2: Item 2 under The approach states "Specific risk-based assessment"
First bullet point on page 3 begins "Undertake a risk assessment, which may capture specific roles, groups of similar roles or your workplace as a whole."

The final sentence on page 2 is: "The Forum’s leadership position is that vaccinations are the most complete and robust control we have today.".
And second last para page 1 begins "This is a leadership position, not a legal opinion."

I find the statement very clear with excellent reasonings and methodology.

But one problem remains - the willingness of workers to report incidents, regardless of their outcomes. — Chris Peace

My observations of the construction industry is perhaps the issue lies in business management and culture rather than H&S.
I can't speak for other industries or what happens overseas but my impressions are that here in NZ the construction industry has a pronounced lean to command and control. IMHO this is contrary to the 3Cs, engagement by workers, and H&S reps and committees. Most H&S is driven by management to achieve the outcomes they perceive so onus of responsibility shifts further down the pecking order.

And it is my observation that incidents go unreported by workers because it 'interferes' with production and/or completing notification is convoluted and time-consuming. Also, workers tend to either report what their boss wants to hear or not report so any blame or trouble is avoided.

Please read the attached and tell me if you think we can use ratios and triangles. — Chris Peace

In the NZ construction industry I don't worry about Heinrich's and Bird's triangles. My focus is on critical risks - these are the things that keep me awake at night. I sleep through anything less.

@Mandy Gudgeon
MoH will be the best to provide guidance - MoH Contact and Support

"Business advice
A free COVID-19 business helpline service is available for all New Zealand businesses. This includes sole traders.

Get support and advice on:

• government financial support, for example Wage Subsidy Scheme and Resurgence Support Payment
• what different Alert Levels mean for your business
• business continuity
• finding free or subsidised expert help, for example a business mentor or advisor.
• Employers can also get specific advice on people challenges, including staffing changes, employee wellness, and meeting your health and safety obligations.

To find out more call 0800 500 362 for North Island, or 0800 50 50 96 for South Island."