My earlier post was in reply to @Andrew's comment and was to suggest other legislation.

@MattD2, - I don't disagree. However, perhaps the courts are a better platform to gain clarity.


Covid, especially the Delta variant, currently has centre stage for some very valid reasons.
It has not been the only pandemic or PHEIC over the last 120 years however.
Since 1899, there have been:

• Cholera
• Spanish Flu
• H2N2 Asian Flu
• H3N2 Hong Kong Flu
• SARS
• H1N1 Avian Flu
• MERS
• Polio
• Ebola
• Malaria, and
• Zika, to name the main ones.

(Source Major Epidemics of the Modern Era)

Taking current H&S knowledge back in time, what would the risk assessment for each outbreak reveal? What controls could apply. Would the remaining risk for each assessment be acceptable?

And after conducting a risk assessment for Covid, would the assessment be similar or different?
What lessons could be learned? Just viewing from a different angle.


Just my ramblings.

@Andrew S11 of the Bill of Rights is a valid principle.

Might I expand on some others that I based my decision on..
Taking the probability an employer or any other person or business contracting my services conducts a risk assessment that determines Covid presents a hazard where vaccination is a control to eliminate or minimise the hazard, then an opposing legal point presents itself.
The Human Rights Commission outlines the risk assessment criteria here - HRC.


As you correctly mention Andrew, "Everyone has the right to refuse to undergo any medical treatment".
Equally in HSWA PCBUs who "manage (sic) or control (sic) a workplace must ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that the workplace, the means of entering and exiting the workplace, and anything arising from the workplace are without risks to the health and safety of any person. (HSWA S37(1)).

And workers have obligations also - S45 HSWA - to "(a) take reasonable care for his or her own health and safety; and
(b) take reasonable care that his or her acts or omissions do not adversely affect the health and safety of other persons; and
(c) comply, as far as the worker is reasonably able, with any reasonable instruction that is given by the PCBU to allow the PCBU to comply with this Act or regulations; and
(d) co-operate with any reasonable policy or procedure of the PCBU relating to health or safety at the workplace that has been notified to workers."


Employment law also plays it's part with Employment New Zealand providing guidance for altering a workers' employment agreement - ENZ.

In all these situations, the underlying guidance is on good faith and communication.


Considerations unvaccinated individuals may need to reflect on are potential changes of roles in employment, possible termination if alterative roles are unavailable, peer pressure by collegues, social media comments (S14 Freedom of Expression) and more.


Just my ramblings.

Hey @Mike Massaar
Like I said - Your Mileage May Vary.

Heinrich's Triangle and Bird's Triangle are both from two eras when systems and methods were of lesser importance than human actions. They came from times when labour was cheaper than machinery. The ratios are based on outcomes rather than cause.
Minds immeasurably superior to mine have analysed Heinrich and Bird -

• Heinrich - Industrial Accident Prevention,
• A closer look at the Heinrich Accident Triangle,
• SIF Potential and Heinrich Pyramid

No doubt YMMV. My mileage aims to avoid the blame game that the triangles Heinrich and Bird proposed.

Near miss and unsafe acts are - at best - lag indicators. Lost Time Injury statistics tend to be incorporated into LTIFR and TRIFR, both of which can be manipulated by what statistics are used (and what are not) and which multiplier (200,000 or 1,000,000) is used.

TRIFR and LTIFR have little influence on assessing the risks of catastrophic events faced by high hazard industries. The Pike River inquiry mentioned this.

Near miss and unsafe acts are low impact high frequency incidents, neither of which have a serious influence on the cause of critical risks. Critical risks are high impact low frequency incidents which can be measured as both lag and leading indicators. As a lead indicator, likelihood can be reduced with the implementation of controls while the consequence (or outcome) will always remain the same.

If reducing critical risks is the focus on a business, then priority will – and should be – given to effective controls with regular evaluations of the effectiveness of such systems. For how to get it wrong –

• 9 man-made disasters that had a big impact on our world
• Rogers Commission Report
• NASA's Space Shuttle Columbia: Synopsis of the Report of the CAIB

Just my ramblings.

This is just a suggestion. Discuss the situations with the account managers, including KPIs, travel distances, overnight time away from home, travel conditions, rates of pay, commissions plus anything else brought up. Let the managers take the lead.

Don't be surprised if what management dangle or require are the factors creating the stress and fatigue.
As fatigue and stress are two dissimilar issues, the treatments are different also.
If you aim to improve productivity, management and managers may come onboard less reluctantly. It's a fine line to tread intially but once recognised easy to follow again

That you have asked for online courses tends to indicate (for me) that a major requirement of the account managers is to continue working while learning. It is not possible to learn and perform at the same time.. Also, irreplaceable time (either during or after work hours) is being taken away from the account managers creating more stress.

- who will the courses be targeted for? Workers? Upper Management? Middle Management?

@Sarah Becker
Google "medical incapacity nz". There are some NZ case law decisions that may be of interest.

,
What you are tasked with has various definitions where-ever you look. The "

more thorough processes about how we manage long-term work and non-work related injuries — Sarah Becker

" may be covered in the ACC Accredited Employers Programme (AEP) - Accredited Employers Programme Audit guidelines. Elements 10 to 17 give a framework "covering injury management, including claims administration and rehabilitation" and may be applicable for the processes you wish to implement.
If you are part of the AEP, ACC will require audits.

Should you not be in the AEP you may wish to discuss any proposed processes with your workers and with lawyers having relevant experience. In either situation, you may find HSWA fades away and the Employment Relations Act, the Privacy Act and case law become prominent.

Just my ramblings

Hi
This is the section from Greg Smith I mentioned -
“The statistical information provided to the board on health and safety comprised mainly personal injury rates and time lost through accidents … The information gave the board some insight but was not much help in assessing the risks of a catastrophic event faced by high hazard industries. … The board appears to have received no information proving the effectiveness of crucial systems such as gas monitoring and ventilation.” (Pike River Royal Commission Report Vol 2 Part 1 Chap 5 para 22 page 53) (Pike River Royal Commission)


Also worker engagement may assist to identify what these are -

Incident - unplanned or uncontrolled incident in relation to a workplace that exposes a worker or any other person to a (omit serious) risk to that person’s health or safety

Near miss - unplanned or uncontrolled incident in relation to a workplace that had the potential to expose a worker or any other person to a risk to that person’s health or safety

Serious harm - as per notifiable event — SusiR

HSWA sections 58 to 61 may be relevant, especially section 60 (Health and Safety at Work Act)


Incidently, early this week WorkSafe NZ CEO Phil Parkes spoke at an NZISM webinar about changes to how WorkSafe are interpreting Priorities to Better Work. The focus is on changing language, concepts and mindsets by moving strategies from looking at industry by industry (primarily agriculture, forestry, manufacturing and construction) to cross system hazards and risks.

The revised priorities are:
Changes over the next 1 to 2 years (quick fixes as controls are known)

• plant, structures and vehicles
• airborne risks and carcinogens

Strategic business approaches over the next 3 to 5 years (requiring changes to mindset)

• workforce participation, engagement and representation (moving away from command and control to inclusive productivity)
• intervening at the top of supply chains (changing business models by focusing on the duties of directors)

The WorkSafe strategic goals
Safe Work - people coming home without injury
Healthy Work - occupational illnesses
Equitable Outcomes - vulnerable workers

Not my ramblings

Hi
As you have guessed, there are no guides or reference definitions. These items are usually set by businesses to suit their individual requirements, are lag indicators and effectively have little relevance.
Greg Smith of Wayland Legal wrote an article about the relevance of lag indicators - Everything is Green: The delusion of health and safety reporting - that quotes the Pike River Royal Commission in the second paragraph. This is well worth the 10 minute read.

I find that management usually request non-notifiable incident, non-notifiable event and near miss reporting so they can make themselves look good to receive bonuses.

That said, my questions when asked about non-notifiable incidents, non-notifiable events and near miss reporting is:

• Who needs the data
• Why is the data needed
• Who will supply the data
• Have those supplying the data been engaged
• Where and when will the data be displayed
• Who will use the data
• How will the data relate to acute injury or occupation illness
• How will the data improve safety

The questions and answers usually create an uncomfortable atmosphere.

IMHO non-notifiable incidents, non-notifiable events and near misses are all time consuming high frequency low impact situations and by watching these, the high impact critical risks are overlooked. The more important focus needs to be on how risks are managed and how robust are incident investigations.

Personally, I don't sweat the small stuff any more.

"What is PPE?"
According to WorkSafe NZ, 'PPE is anything used or worn by a person (including clothing) to minimise risks to the person’s health and safety. This may include respiratory protective equipment, hearing protection, eye protection, protective clothing, and safety harness systems.'

According to OSHA, 'Personal protective equipment, commonly referred to as "PPE", is equipment worn to minimize exposure to hazards that cause serious workplace injuries and illnesses.'

And HSE state 'PPE is equipment that will protect the user against health or safety risks at work. It can include items such as safety helmets, gloves, eye protection, high-visibility clothing, safety footwear and safety harnesses. It also includes respiratory protective equipment (RPE).'

Working through the hierarchy of controls from the bottom up is both non-compliant with S6 of HSWA (GRWM) Regs and poor professional practice. Knowing the framework and how to integrate into specific businesses allows for flexibility and adaptablity. This is a basic outline - hierarchy control


In your second post, the answers to these questions are all covered within HSWA and associated Regulations. By downloading the legislation as pdfs, searching by word is easy.


Just my ramblings

@Steve H LOL like the final comment

how does the design of the gas mask you refer to relate to the half and full face respirators and face masks commonly used today?

A google search of face mask, full face respirator, half face respirator and navy gas mask tends to indicate they are not the same. But I could be mistaken.

This is WorkSafe's interpretation:
"A PCBU means a Person Conducting a Business or Undertaking.
It's a broad concept used throughout HSWA to describe all types of modern working arrangements which we commonly refer to as businesses.
Most New Zealand businesses, whether large corporates, sole traders, or self-employed, are classed as PCBUs.
The difference between a business and an undertaking is:
businesses are usually conducted with a view to making a profit and have a degree of organisation, system and continuity.
undertakings will have elements of organisation, systems, and possible continuity, but are usually not profit-making or commercial in nature."

So, while PCBU is stated in legislation as a ‘Person Conducting a Business or Undertaking’ (HSWA 17(1)(a)), the interpretation is that businesses are PCBUs (see Legalvision) regardless of whether sole traders, partnerships or limited liability companies.

A PCBU's primary duty is to ensure so far as reasonably practicable the health and safety of its workers while at work for the PCBU and any workers whose activities in carrying out work are influenced or directed by the PCBU while carrying out the work (e.g. temp workers) - see Brookfields


Responsibility for ensuring the PCBU meets its duties, is the role of officers in the business (HSWA 44(1)).

WorkSafe's interpretation is
"An officer holds a specific role in an organisation that allows them to exercise significant influence over the management of the business or undertaking. Officers have a due diligence duty under the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 (HSWA)." See Officers' due diligence


So in your example:
"Take Fred and Bill the builders who build houses. Fred and Bill are the bosses but the company is owned by Bert who has retired? There is Simon who is the supervisor."

The business owned by Bert that is run by Bill and Fred and employs Simon is a PCBU
If Fred and Bill have significant influence over how the business is run then they are officers and have duties
If Bert has significant influence over how the business is run then he is an officer and has duties
If Bert does not have significant influence over how the business is run then he is not an officer and does not have duties.
Same applies to Simon.

Based on who Sharon currently works for, my guess is these people are probably cleaners doing late shift in commercial premises in an urban environment.


A little more info regarding requirements may be of help. Are you requiring a panic alarm style, one way or two way communication? In house or out sourced monitoring?

I missed mentioning this table is dynamic rather than static like a standard (heatmap) risk matrix so that may have created confusion. All the values from vulnerability through to recovery for each hazard or risk are interconnected, related to each other and can be changed. Also, this is designed for where to prioritise resources and effort

I agree with your comments and feel they would apply if this was a static table.
In hindsight, I probably had too much information in the table so have changed it.
I've added the criteria behind the numerical values.

Hi @Christina Carroll
The advice on FENZ website is, IMHO, clear - "and will remain in force provided there are no physical distancing requirements in place where the building is located.".
For further clarification, you may wish to call FENZ on the 0800 number or email them. Both methods are towards the end of the article.

@Brendon Ward
Para 1 of Section 2.11 states "must obtain the current safety data sheet for a hazardous substance from the manufacturer, importer, or supplier of the hazardous substance".

Chemwatch don't appear to fall into any of the three categories. Also the mini SDS is copyright to Chematch indicating they have issued it and while the info may be correct, should anything go pear shaped you as the PCBU may be liable if the info is incorrect (due diligence is missing :sad: ).

If the information was produced at the source rather than by an intermediary, it would be reliable. The only method of determining whether the information in mini SDS is correct would be contact the manufacturer, importer, or supplier.

There are H&S and legal implications as it's not only a risk for workers to rely on the info in the condensed SDS but also a risk for the manufacturer, importer, or supplier to have their SDS condensed by a third party.

In the end, only you can determine what your risk appetite is.

Would it be fair to say that Construction Health and Safety New Zealand (CHASNZ), is a Site Safe on steroids with the aim of creating one prequal to rule them all? — Steve H

I think both SiteSafe and CHASNZ have lost their way. I can see parts of SiteWise in Totika and parts of SiteSafe's SSSPs in Totika also. In the end, I think both CHASNZ's Totika and SiteSafe's SSSPs have similar characteristics - good ideas spoiled by senior management to justify bureaucratic creations.

Again my ramblings

@Andy Bunyan
After reading the published outline and guidance information here my belief is you would be better currently maintaining ISO certification over Totika.
A standardised framework of core elements for assessment would be beneficial for for clients, suppliers and contractors. My opinion is that Totika does not deliver on the promises that it "creates a fair and equitable scheme . . . . and a common view for H&S pre-qualification".

I found the information disjointed, bulky and wordy, has multiple spelling and grammar errors, uses terminology not common in NZ, lacks a common topic layout, is strongly biased towards it's own auditors and overly detailed creating an inflexible framework.
Compare Totika with Ministry of Education requirements as both use SHE and Prequal.

In my experience, OHS prequalification is a method of short-listing potential suppliers or contractors for goods or services. It is a snapshot of their abilities, experience, processes and performance. A method of determining suitability before doing due diligence.
Unfortunately I think there is a considerable gap between what Totika currently provides and what industry requires.

Just my ramblings