I agree, but even they failed (seemingly) miserably in the Iso ltd case. It was dismissed without the Court even considering guilty or not guilty! More experience/expertise needed I reckon.

Having just read the latest copy of Safeguard and the article about prosecutions falling short, I would require WorkSafe inspectors/investigators to understand the standard of evidence required to bring a prosecution.
While this may sound controversial, defendants having their prosecutions dismissed because evidentiary standards haven't been met is not doing WorkSafe any favours. Especially when it seems that there would be a case to answer. Although I will admit to not knowing the ins and outs of these cases (Mount Somers Sand and Iso Ltd) it did seem that on the face of it they should hold at least some responsibility, and yet the cases were dismissed on lack of evidence, because it did not meet the criminal standard of beyond reasonable doubt. Do the WorkSafe investigators understand what is required? If so, why are they falling short?
Whilst I'm not a fan of prosecuting when help would be more appropriate, when a company is deserving of prosecution at least get it right!
Friday rant done!!

I've not long completed the BSI on line training for 45001 and lead auditor. I can thoroughly recommend.

Wow, i've not seen that video for years! I used to use that in the Air Force to teach new aircraft mechanics about working with LOX. Perennial classic!

Hi Chrissy, I can recommend the good folks at EMA. I've had the fortune to work with them on an number of occasions; a wealth of knowledge and experience across a wide range of industry.

Hi, Previous to my current position I had been a consultant for around 5 years and introduced several clients to SMS Apps based on what their core business is. Horses for courses! However the one I have introduced here is by far the best I have come across for functional configurability and customization. Check out the SHE Assure system through Evotix - highly recommended
https://www.evotix.com/solutions/assure-health-safety-ehs-software

I absolutely agree Matthew, I was a little glib! The law has it covered, I was just hoping that the (at least) majority of society would agree with it! Under 15's can work, just not in an environment that would expose them to a level of risk unacceptable to a child.

Hi Matt,
No employee under 15 can work on a construction site, or in an are where the work being done is likely to harm them.
Society has got it covered!!

Hi Aaron,
It is confusing, I agree. Person in the context of PCBU is a legal entity, whilst a sole trader (the actual human being) would be the officer, the PCBU would be the company/business/undertaking he or she operates under. For all intents and purposes when someone operates as a sole trader, it's the same thing, the responsibility falls on the same shoulders. The difference in definition would become important if a prosecution eventuates. For instance, if Bob owns Bob's Garage (a one man band), Bob's Garage is the PCBU, and Bob is the Officer (and also, the worker). Bob's Garage could be prosecuted as the PCBU, but if the prosecution is against the Officer it is Bob the man who would foot the bill personally, not his business.

The PCBU is the legal entity operating (conducting) a business or undertaking, not a person.

I'm not sure what the answer is, but I do know we have to figure it out, and soon. I've just read an article from MyOsh concerning work related fatalities from the UK - 123 workers in 2021/2022, and they are not yet satisfied (nor should they be). NZ in 2021/2022 saw 63 work related fatalities. But lets put that into perspective; the UK has a working population of around 32,475,000 people (ons.gov.uk) and we have around 2,826,000 (stats.govt.nz). The UK have a little over 11 times the working population of NZ, and only twice as many fatalities. After six years of new legislation, new regulators/regulation, heightened awareness, more seminars and conferences than you can shake a stick at, we have not improved as far as I can see, at all. Indeed we have dropped further behind if we compare our performance to other countries. When I started work in this industry we used to try and stir people into action by telling workers that we killed people at a rate of almost 4 times that of the UK. That figure is now nearly 6.
Rant over!
I think we are trying to hard to fix a problem that we do not yet understand the causes of. We need to work out why we are so bad at looking after our workforce before we come up with some corrective actions.

Hi Karl,
We've used Telarc and found their auditors to be approachable and helpful.
Alan.

Hi Stuart,
I have spent a lot of time trying to explain this to senior managers and owners as it is quite confusing. It is the phrase 'Person' in PCBU that misleads folks. PCBU is the company or organisation as a legal entity - the company has an obligation to look after anyone who works for it, does work for it (contractors) or could be affected by work it carries out. It does this by using systems and procedures such as risk analysis, accident reporting and so. Business owners/directors etc. (Officers) act as kind of a backstop for this, they are there to make sure the company (PCBU) is doing what its supposed to to keep those folks safe. They can do this by making sure that those procedures are up to date, emergency drills have been carried out, accidents are being reported and investigated to mention just a few of their duties. This is traditionally done at BoD meetings, but they should be taking a more hands role, getting out into the workplace to talk to workers and getting an understanding of what their people face everyday.
So, to answer your question who in the company is accountable? Nobody is accountable in the sense that if the company was prosecuted it is the company that would be fined and sanctioned. Think about which bank account the fine would come out of! The directors/owners would not personally suffer financially but the company would. This is different to the Officer being prosecuted - that is a personal fine/sanction.
In another, more practical sense everyone is responsible to make sure they follow process and instruction, failure to do this means the company may have to explain why those processes weren't robust enough to prevent someone getting hurt.
I apologise if this is overly simplistic, if you need help please feel free to shout out on alandotboswellatactiverefrigdotcodotnz

I got a Law Degree whilst serving as an Aircraft Propulsion Technician in the Royal Air Force!

Spot on Steve. To be fair, Third party Pre qualification is a good idea, but they stop short of it being a great idea. If they came out and actually audited us 'in action' a for more confidence inspiring result would occur. But alas, tell them what they want, pay your money and move on!!! Hhurumph!

I kind of agree with Don. It is my understanding that if you pre qualify under a Totika registered pre-qualification outfit then you are good to go as if you had pre qualified with any of the other Totika registered outfits. The problem is that it is a voluntary scheme. If a required pre-qual isn't registered your still going to have to pay the extra cost. To think this out; if they register they will definitely see a reduction in customers (instead of 5 accreditations you now only need 1), so where's the incentive to volunteer to the scheme?
These folks seem to be worried about losing money rather than ensuring we have a workable standard benchmark that gives clients the confidence that any contractor they take on has robust practice and procedure in place.
Which brings me neatly to my next point. The disparity in information and evidence required between different third party qualifiers is enormous. We have just completed two from the leading contenders, two different standards, varying amounts of evidence, and two very different results. I'm not saying one is better than the other, but we are the same company doing the same job regardless of our pre qualifier, how do different results accurately reflect our ability to 'do' health and safety?
One standard, one result, confident contractors and client confidence!
I'll get off my soap box now...
... and breathe :-)

I think we are kind of missing the point a little. Who cares whether they fall within the auspices of the HSWA? Those folks could be safer while working off a mobile scaffold. A fall from 2.5 metres doesn't hurt any less coz you're not 'at work'. Its been spotted so fix it! It's the morality over legality head scratcher! I'm firmly in the morality camp :-)