I had an ACC claim and it took me about 2 months and a lot of documents to convince them that it could have happened at work as the date was a Sunday and involved a car being repaired, we don't repair vehicles. It was a painful process as ACC did not believe that the doctor and the worker had it wrong.

the cost is prohibitive with safetyhub, I have tried them before they are also $1500 per year, and we only want 2 videos that we use about 5 times a year?

The cost of testing small slings is greater than purchasing new certified slings, also in a previous company that I worked for we were getting these slings with every shipment, we did try the certification track but found that 90% would fail so discontinued the process as you pay for the testing each time.

yes there is usually a clause in the IEA that states that the worker will follow all company rules and procedures of which PPE is one.

The workers safety is foremost and the PCBU will be held liable if they are injured, especially if you have provided the PPE and not ensured that they use it. Worksafe would be in the mind that the PCBU did not enforce safety standards, that being wearing of gloves and the PCBU did not do anything to correct the situation.

Just some thoughts

They cannot sign a waiver as the responsibility remains with the PCBU to ensure that the correct PPE is being used.

I must ask how the cuts are occurring, is it down to technique and ergonomics, I would look at the operation in great detail and break it into components, to see if a small change in the process could reduce the risk and occurrence.

At the end of the day if they are required to wear particular PPE there should be an education process and in worst case a HR process, I have just been in a similar position for PPE in the work place, and the HR route is a last resort.

Totally agree they need to better understanding of what is going on at the coal face.

This post is taking on a life of its own, everything from legislation to driving hours. Maybe the simple solutions are that we ensure that the wages and hours are enough that a person does not need to take on a second job to make ends meet. That would reduce the risk overnight....

Fair Call

We use the devices provided by St Johns.

I worked at Steel and Tube and we had 2 female branch managers and 1 regional manager, also the CFO was female. They were all very good at what they did

If they are worried about the cost of the Standard they are going to freak out when they see how much it costs to get audited..

Yeh thats the one

yes it is easy evaporative behavior is when they know they know what to do but choose not to do it unless some one is watching, and example is that they must wear safety glasses at all times and you note that they only do it when they see you.

I find it interesting that it was a fail in the audit considering the person had no formal training, they probably should have made it an opportunity for improvement. But given the regulations, I would not consider you a high-risk company. Maybe a better way forward is to get the person doing the audit qualified so that they are better placed to make statements in relation to your industry in relation to H&S.

Just my 2 cents

there are a lot of variables but you can contact one of our in-house engineers for advice.

The other consideration is that the cage provides protection from falling products so a hard hat is not really required. Also, most product is wrapped so there should be nothing loose.

a bit below what would be expected

I agree with the above statement, and I would not have a written policy as it leaves you open if not done correctly. If someone fails pre-employment I just do not employ them and leave it there if they subsequently reapply I would use judgment to determine if they progress further.

When it comes to inductions there are a lot of thoughts, me personally if the contractor has been on site consistently over any 12-month period. I would only refresh any changes and not make them do the complete process. But if they have not been on the site for a protracted period I make them redo it. I apply a bit of latitude rather than a hard and fast rule. I also take into consideration what they are doing and the level of risk. IE the contract cleaner would do an induction that only relates to the area where she works. and as she is here every day we notify her of any changes as they occur.

Had that call, as long as you are confident everything will be fine, I take the position that they have a job to do, and if I make it hard it could go poorly. Treat them civilly and with respect, they will in return the favour. Only once have I had an inspector just be unreasonable and am glad to say that he is no longer doing the job.