@Sandra Nieuwoudt
As a preamble, policies are usually overarching principles that provide flexible guidance to achieve outcomes. Processes are a collection of specific activities or tasks in a defined sequence to produce a service or product related to the outcomes. Procedures are instructions to execute one or more actions in a process.
So policies are the why, processes are the what and procedures the how.

ISO45001 is an OHS framework or system that can be used to create an OHS manual that contains processes that are comprised of specific procedures.
An advantage of using ISO is Annex L (formerly Annex SL), a level structure for all future ISO releases. This allows for other standards - say 9001, 14001 - to be easily added as an integrated management system.

While it is possible to have a OHS manual without reference to ISO45001, the manual does need a framework.

The detail in each section of the manual should be sufficient to provide clarity and in jargon relevant to the audience it is intended for. The best method to do this is to engage the audience. Takes longer but opens the door to buy-in.

Looking at what you have prepared, you may wish to use this for the gap analysis to determine what sections of ISO45001 apply for your requirements - SGS gap analysis.

My ramblings

@Michael Wilson
What you ask is primarily covered by privacy.
MBIE have general guidance.
The Privacy Commissioner has guidelines regarding requests for vaccination status here and here.

Suggest you start with MBIE before consulting your solicitor.

My ramblings

@Sandra Nieuwoudt
Consult, Coordinate, Cooperate

Sandra
The landlord is a PCBU and your business and their's have ovelapping duties - see Hesketh Henry
Your landlord may be acting with caution given what @SteveH mentioned and dealing with perceived or potential risk is good. However, your landlord may not be aware of the 3 Cs.

Point 7 appears to indicate they use a property manager - see the last point (no. 9) at Brookfields to get an understanding of who has primary responsibility.

Since it's not a topic that has had a lot of discussion elsewhere, you may find engaging with the landlord beneficial before passing it to your solicitor (which I guess is what you would do anyway).

Again ramblings

@robyn moses the WHO has information here WHO - masks

I'm not defending the decision to implement social distancing, masks and contact tracing, but they are the easiest for the general public to relate to and apply.

While the lack of engineering controls may have led to the current situation, merely because the authorities seldom mention this type of control (though it was mentioned in relation to cross contamination with air conditioning) what would we in the H&S profession recommend before relying primarily on PPE?

Where reasonably practical, different methods of isolation and types of engineering controls could be/should be implemented in addition to PPE.

Again my ramblings

@Sarah Fair
Please don't take offense, but how does this reassure workers?

Just curious

@Mark Jennings
A couple of suggestions that I'm using more often:

Drop the "Safe" or "Standard" so the 'instructions' become just an Operating Process or Procedure (OP). This creates a wider view of presenting the activity/activities being described IMHO.

Create three documents. First, one similar to a Unit Standard to outline the activity so the learning outcomes are clear - the 'why' becomes clear also. Second, the OP and then modify to match the learning outcomes. And third, a training plan that relates to the the learning outcomes and OP (I have modified all three documents at times). What I have ended up with is the why, the what and the how. For me, I have learned to separate the why from the benefits using this method.

Again, my ramblings

Imagine if these items had no words and only pictures describing good practices. Wow!!

@Catherine Ross
I think you are asking for an improbable number. My reasons for that include what @Steve H mentioned, the build of the person, capacity of the machine, shape of the load, size including height and width, the surface, plus more.
A brief online search indicates that in Australia, the US and the UK all regulations and procedures refer back to the manufacturer's guidelines. And there are variations from country to country.

My experience is that as soon as limits are declared, people paint themselves into a corner. Workers can over exert themselves or refuse to do the activity. Management can make unrealistic requests or create impractical processes.
As a suggestion, consider engagement with the other party and try to set general parameters based on common sense.

Just my ramblings.

Cheers @Steve H

@MattD2
Personally I agree with you.
I don't like Risk Matrices - numerical, alphabetical or traffic light style - to set the outcome of hazard. gave them up a few years ago.

I think the OHS profession here has got hung up on justifying positions rather than providing value. Also that business management has driven changes to suit themselves while not engaging with workers.
As an aside, the earliest reference in NZ I can find to using risk matrices is in SiteSafe's 2016 SSSP when initial and residual risk rating appeared in the task analysis. That the release of this version matches closely with the implementation of HSWA is, for me, more than a coincidence.


For me the consequence of an activity is not if it will happen, but when it will happen. And the consequences I worry about are death (HSWA S25) or a notifiable injury or illness (HSWA S23). So for me, I look at the activity, identify the hazard(s), determine the consequence(s) and work through the hierarchy of controls.

I don't consider the likelihood. Progress down the HoC automatically takes care of that. Once the controls for each level have been identified, it's up to the officers and workers of the PCBU to choose and find their own balance. There's only so much money in the kitty and so much time to get the job done.

There's more, but probably better for a new post.

PS - who says the legislation is perfect?

Hi all
We have a procedure but I would appreciate it if anybody can share theirs with me as a comparison, for example, a methodology for low-risk equipment vs sensitive equipment. — Sandra Nieuwoudt

Sandra
Generally frequency of testing under AS/NZS 3760 leans towards the environment the equipment is in rather than the type of equipment itself.

AS/NZS 3760:2010 applies for most testing while AS/NZS 3551:2012 applies to medical equipment.
Registered electricians will be able to access AS/NZS 3760 through the EWRB. Not sure about AS/NZS 3551:2012.

@Steve H provided a link to the proposed 2020 update -

Download the proposed draft standard here — Steve H

I would suggest talking with the EWRB - EWRB Contact page

If safety is defined by the absence of the risk of harm — Riki Brown

There are many definitions of what safety is.
I prefer Todd Conklin -
“safety is not the absence of accidents, safety is the presence of defenses.” ... We should focus more on the positive steps we take to prevent injuries and illnesses and focus less on the accidents themselves.

Possibly an answer for retaining the risk matrix.
This is an area for NZISM and HASANZ to take the lead for adoption - MDPI

@robyn moses
Pleasure to have been of assistance. :halo:

Goodhart's Law with a generalization by Marilyn Strathern

• When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure

From here - Goodhart's Law

@Steve H
I think there are issues all round.
Language barriers with the crew, short cuts by the employee - language difficulties may have played a part, presumptions by the PCBU.

I read this (thanks @Chris Peace) - Safety Science article and then reread the sentencing notes.

For me, it made a difference. For me, I am being to see that while we have tried to legislate OHS since 1891 we are struggling to get our heads around how to look objectively at the big picture and not subjectively at a few brush strokes. I think we have to accept that that if we grow enough tall poppies, some will be cut down but eventually they will survive.

My ramblings again.

@MattD2
@Steve H
Cheers guys.

In the Genera case, will be interesting to see how they discharge their duties outlined in the case Matt linked. — Steve H

I read the sentencing report. Genera opted for the bottom 2 of the Hierarchy of Controls - bit more training, a buddy, a radio, plus harness and hard hat. I'm not an SME regarding what Genera do so can't comment good or bad in the controls selected.

So my question is do other companies pay for workers medical fees, x-rays, physio etc. for a work injury or is the worker required to pay the going rate less the subsidized ACC contribution? — robyn moses

Personally I see this relating to the Employment Relations Act rather than HSWA. It appears that this is human resources orientated rather than safety based. I may be wrong, but sense there are underlying issues contributing to what is apparent.

My suggestion is consult an employment lawyer to determine if what you are looking for is 'what a fair and reasonable employer do'.

We are a non-accredited business. — robyn moses

Can you elaborate further please Robyn. I'd like to be sure my thoughts match your business situation.

Cheers