If your reference is to industrial lift trucks or machinery that requires Falling Object Protective Structures (FOPS) or ROPS (Roll-over), possession of the standard is only of use if you are manufacturing FOPS / ROPS to the standard, or are inspecting frames that have been involved in an event to ascertain whether damage may have occurred to the frame (FOPS / ROPS). Typically, repair of damaged safety frames is not acceptable, and full replacements are required, along with re-certification. In any event a suitably competent and Certified Engineer would need to "sign-off certification that the device meets the standard(s), and such individuals are in short supply in NZ. Certification of safety frames should be visible in the form of a plate fixed to the structure, and specifying the standards it complies with.
A machine owner needs to take practicable steps to assess whether the frame attached to a machine is in original condition, is undamaged, and complies with the standard. Getting a suspect frame inspected by a suitably competent engineer is a practicable first step to take when there is doubt.
Possessing applicable conformance standards for all the plant a business owns / uses isn't, of itself, a necessary investment.

In my opinion, no we don't need another agency/service. We already have one and it's called WorkSafeNZ. What is not clear now is what happened to all the occupational health nurses that transferred across from Health to Dept of Labour in 1990. I suspect most have retired and those that haven't are working in a private capacity. The fact that WorkSafe is underperforming on so many fronts has gone from disappointing to unacceptable. Establishing another service for occupational health separate from WorkSafe is simply unnecessary duplication of resources. There are 600 odd employees in WorkSafe in addition to the Inspectorate. H & S professionals I speak to know of the job titles of several of these public servants but none have a clear idea of what those people actually do. We have had a Notifiable Occupational Disease (NOD's) structure in place for decades. This was a system to facilitate the notification of occupation-related disease and health effects by GPs to the Health Ministry for follow-up by occupational health nurses and medical officers of health. That responsibility passed to OSH with the transfer of OHN's to DoL and the appointment of OSH Departmental Medical Practitioners. OSH OHN's began following up the few notifications received, and DMP's advised and assisted with investigations. Occupational hygienists and health scientists transferred from the Health Ministry HO to DoL HO at the same time. The system was fraught because OHN's were not empowered with rights of entry to premises available to H&S inspectors. They were obliged to accompany an inspector in order to investigate the personal health issues. The hygienists / scientists were dispersed from Wellington to OSH regional offices by the mid-1990s which severely limited their availability to the wider OHN cohort and H & S inspectors. This was an unbelievably poorly arranged and managed system with all manner of professionalism related issues.
I have worked with several occupational medicine specialists / health practitioners and occupational hygienists over many years. In 2013 I presented a paper titled 'Where is the Health in "Health and Safety"?' to the ANZSOM Conference in Wellington. I exhorted OCC Health Specialists to engage with their GP counterparts at both individual practitioner and National Association levels to re-energise the level of collegial support for occupational disease reporting and investigation.

I sincerely believe these operational models for addressing the country's occupational health / disease burden should have worked, and still could. I believe, from my experience, the problem has been the fragmentation of resources, largely brought about by uninformed public service ideologues restructuring government departments (DoL, Health, Commerce) to operate on a business model rather than a service model which has resulted in the loss of institutional knowledge and intellectual capital critical to the delivery of services for the public good.

Rather than create another service that risks the same fate and becomes a top-heavy bureaucracy we should take the existing agency that is WorkSafe and get it performing. The first place to start is with the WorkSafe Board. The second point of focus is to establish a Health and Safety Executive (ala UK) that is staffed by career H&S Specialists, sets macro policy, overseas and funds research, and provides oversight and direction to the Operational Division which is WorkSafe. This will require removal of H&S functions / input from MBIE. Then occupational health might get the attention it requires.

Exactly right Wayne.

It's unfortunate that I've been away from the forum since posting my original comments on this thread. Keeping comments too brief can lead to misinterpretations and misunderstandings. Sometimes I break my own rule to "never assume".

I was somewhat dismayed at MattD2's narrow analysis of the implications my comments alluded to, but conversely encouraged by the insight and understanding evinced by Andrew's responses. He displayed an excellent grasp of the subject matter. Experience certainly aids our understanding.

The provisions of the ACC legislation in regard to entitlements provides a legal justification for establishing policies around secondary employment rights. There is, of course, a provision in the HSAW Act (as in its predecessor) obliging employees not to do anything, or omit to do anything, that might consequently endanger themselves or any other person. That could include arriving "fit" for work.

Health conditions, medication dependency, etc etc, are legitimate matters for required disclosure to would-be employers. These are factors employers can (should) take into account in deciding whether to employ (or terminate) persons whose well-being may be impaired in the employment by the existence of those factors, including fatigue / health effects from other employment. Of course, reasonableness and likelihood of impairment (risk) are considerations.

It was perhaps unclear wording on my part to allow an inference that paying the first weeks lost earnings from both Business A and Business B in the event of an LTI in Business A would be grounds for prohibiting employment in Business B. That basis alone, as Matt inferred,would be unsustainable grounds.
However the thread introduced by Tracy was about fatigue and secondary employment. Employers and employees both have a duty to ensure the employee is "fit" for work, i.e. unimpaired, to the extent that that is possible to determine. Pre-employment health checking and declarations, drug detection and management policies, declarations about other employment or activities are legitimate measures to identify potentially at risk workers. Truck drivers and airline pilots are patently obvious examples where fatigue risk management measures could include prohibitions on secondary employment.

The topic has actually been well covered in the ongoing thread by others, including the implications for Experience Rating by ACC. RTW to Business A may not apply to RTW to Business B, and so continue to impact ER for Business A i.e. total compensation days paid. It is the costs to ACC in relation to the accident claim that are used to calculate Experience Rating. Clarification achieved?

An important and significant fact that most employers and managers, and certainly employees are unaware of, is the provisions the ACC Act has on secondary employment. If an employed person suffers a work-related injury ( including motor vehicle injuries in specified circumstances) the employer in whose employ the worker suffers the injury is liable for all of the lost earnings the employee loses from all of the jobs, primary, secondary, and any others. Typically the employer of the moment (Employer A) has to pay 80% of lost earnings for the first week. ACC pays 80% from week 2 until recovery. If the employee has a second job with Employer B, Employer A is liable to add 80% of the earnings from that employment as well. It could well be that Earnings from Employer B are greater than from Employer A. That means Employer A is liable for a greater amount than if there was only source of earnings. And ACC will aggregate the total compensation paid in respect of the injury covered when calculating additional Experience Rating liability of employers. Maybe some employers might want to consider a "policy" on secondary employment for their workers, particularly if their worker's other employment was higher paid.
Check ACC Act 2001, S.98; & Schedule 1 cl.33(2).

The key point to keep in mind here is that the HSAW Act, and WorkSafe's jurisdiction / remit only applies to workplaces and people undertaking work. A private boat owner working on his own craft on land in the marina precinct, or elsewhere, is not within WorkSafe's jurisdiction, nor MNZ's. Historically before MNZ, CAANZ, NZ Police, NZTA became "agencies" of WorkSafe under MoU's (because of their specialist subject matter knowledge and expertise) the boundaries were more clearly defined. E.g. OSH /WorkSafe had jurisdiction on wharves up to the waters edge, and MNZ's jurisdiction was "afloat". MNZ had jurisdiction over shipboard cranes, WorkSafe over the slings and loading gear. Commercial activities on the marina (land-based) was WorkSafe's jurisdiction. The floating jetties and "on water" activities was MNZ's jurisdiction. The HSAW Act now extends the definition of a workplace to include commercial activities on a water body. MNZ and CAANZ also have International standards and laws to monitor and apply within their jurisdiction. This can influence their approach to investigations in these environments.

Every agency conducting a H&S investigation should approach the process in the same way. Unfortunately that hasn't / doesn't happen and so a wider variation in outcomes results. There is no consistency of approach.

The objective of every H&S investigation should be to identify those contributing factors that influenced or enabled the damage / loss / harm event to occur, either through their presence or the absence. The subsequent analysis of those factors should determine which were potentially controllable, whether the outcome would be different if the controls were in place, whether the damage event was reasonably foreseeable or not, whether the controls were available and able to be implemented, and if so would a lower level of damage have resulted. There are a number of other considerations in the investigation process that must be examined before decisions about accountability and prosecution are considered. Commencing investigation with a view to prosecution is a flawed approach in the health and safety context because it is based on assigning "blame" and holding the blameworthy to account. It it "encourages" bias, narrows the scope and thinking, does not treat all causative factors equally, and is an egocentric model. This is essentially the Police model of investigation, i.e. ascertaining whether or not a crime has been committed, gathering evidence to support the contention that a crime has occurred, and examining the evidence in order to join the dots to a suspected perpetrator.

Unfortunately this the Model that OSH / WorkSafe have been following since the mid-1990's, and I don't expect the other agencies vary much from the same Model. The results will continue to be underwhelming!

I note that Nippin Anand is visiting these shores this year. What opportunities might his visit create in this regard?

Nancy.
If your organization has multiple sites around the country I suspect some of them will be in older automotive premises. Harking back to Steve's comment, i.e 1970's - 80's area, bonded asbestos brake pads came wrapped in plastic in cardboard boxes. Occasionally there would be a red sticker on the plastic bag that said "Contains Asbestos". Rarely did the word Danger appear as well. If you poke about in some of the attic storage areas above the workshops I would be mightily surprised if you didn't unearth a box or two of said brake shoes. And when a customer comes in querying whether you would be able to service his vintage / classic vehicle, there will be an old timer still on staff who will relish the chance. And he will have a suspicion there just might be some brake pads and other handy parts stored somewhere! Viola! And the young guys will crowd around to watch / learn.
Spraying the brake drums with a light oil (diesel) at dis-assembly then wet-wiping out with a detergent soaked rag, disposing of the rag in a sealed & labelled plastic bag was " (best) standard practice at the time. An "Alert" to all workshops, and an audit of all storage areas would be a smart move.

Chrissy Roff.
A brother was a Rental Property Manager for a real estate company in a large metropolitan area with a large stock of older rental houses. I eventually provided guidance for him to work with electricians and property maintenance people servicing their portfolio on how to manage the asbestos issues they encountered. Some were aware of where asbestos might be, and what it might look like; most hadn't a clue and were blissfully unaware of the hazards. Asbestos in switchboards is common in older houses and these are unwittingly drilled, sawn, pulled out, tossed aside during re-wiring and upgrading. If electricians haven't had hazard management training in relation to asbestos then they need to be given some. @Stuart Keer-Keer and colleagues did a wealth of this education during the Christchurch Re-build.

Hi Mandy.
Chasing after standards etc can be an expensive business, and trawling through the Building Code equally dissatisfying. The attached publication is sadly no longer produced by Worksafe. They should hang their heads in shame that it is no longer available, even in archives. It gives the design specs for all manner of safe access systems. An excellent ready-reference publication. Just one of so many useful Guides previously available in the OSH library. Contact me directly if you have a question. I might have something in my library!

A very interesting discussion topic. In my opinion “Risk” is poorly understood as a concept ( as I have iterated in past Safeguard articles) and misunderstanding continues to proliferate. There are some obscure (read - unhelpful) definitions, such as “the effect of uncertainty on objectives”. The simplest way to describe risk in our H&S environment is in the relationship between Hazard and Risk. [They are definitely not the same]. Hazard = cause or source of harm / damage. Risk = the probability of a harmful / damaging event / exposure taking place. Of the 3 core factors that comprise a risk assessment, Severity can be reasonably estimated, in most cases; Frequency of possible Exposure is more easily assessed; but, Likelihood or Probability of occurrence is often difficult to assess, particularly if there is no known previous occurrence. Data collected can indicate to us actual severity and exposures, and often, probability, e.g crash rates for trucks on the Kaikoura section of SH1. Because it is thought that people with good driving skills are operating these vehicles the problem is with the road design and “other” drivers. Motonormativity shifts our focus away from the driver because we are all of a similar mindset about driving. But technology such as in-cab video monitoring is changing perceptions about causation. It’s not just video of crazy driving by other road users captured by trucks but driver monitoring as well. Research into driver impairment conducted by Monash University/ Otago University several years ago found drivers suffered almost identical levels of impairment after 17 hrs of wakefulness as consumption of alcohol up to the legal driving limit. Now we’re focussing more on driver wellness / lifestyle / driver scheduling as driving hazards. Now controls are beginning to be focussed on reducing risk by reducing driving hours (exposure & probability), etc etc. Engineering controls (design) applied to the roading network help as well.

As Stephen said. Be respectful, but don’t expect them to necessarily know much about your business operation. You’ll likely get 2 turn up, a reasonably experienced inspector and a relative newbie who’s learning. Take the opportunity to quietly educate them about your business / industry and it’s challenges. They (WorkSafe) have a confused and inconsistent understanding / interpretation of “risk” so be prepared to / take the opportunities to - explain why the way hazards are managed on your site might legitimately be different to the site they just visited elsewhere.

At the risk of being somewhat belated in making comments here (I’m reviewing old posts) having an understanding of the law, as written, and as interpreted by the courts is essential, in my view, for any H&S Advisor, whether in-house or consultant. A competent H&S advocate should be able to iterate “this is what the law says” and this is how it is applied by WorkSafe, and how it has been interpreted by the courts. There are plenty of examples of where both WorkSafe and the Courts have applied a flawed view of what the law means. Sometimes erroneous court decisions are appealed, more often they are not because the cost of doing so is out of kilter with the incurred costs and penalty. Every formal tertiary course on H&S should have some reference to the legal imperatives, supported by case law, in the course material. Yes, the primary outcome sought is damage prevention / control of risk to people, property, etc, but a regulatory environment underpins it all, and not to have regard to that context is ignorant.

The major reform we need is to finish the job we started back in 1989, which was to construct one Act and one Authority to administer it. It started with the reform of the Dept of Labour, the creation of OSH as the Authority, the transfer of personnel from MoT (engineer- surveyors), ACC Injury Prevention Consultants- Workforce, Health Dept Occ Health Nurses into OSH between 1990 & 1993, and the introduction of the HSE Act. The Mines Inspectors from Min Commerce were also supposed to transfer. Public Service Admin procrastination, and some other practical issues, including needed legislative changes, delayed the Mines Inspectors' transfer. In fact only 3 of 13 mines inspectors transferred across in 1997, the rest went back into the industry. Within 2 years 2 inspectors had retired, leaving 1. Previous Regulations made under old legislation were not promulgated under the HSE Act. Further reform of OSH resulted in a loss of knowledgeable people in both Policy and Technical Support from OSH and the initial One/Act-One Authority model lost it's way. The responsibility for that lies with Treasury, State Services Commission, and other senior public servants. Reform of other Govt Depts and a business model performance ideology for the public service initiated by Treasury was a major factor in OSH not performing. I was involved from 1994-95 in the facilitation and planning of the Mines inspectors' transfer to OSH. When the project got thrown in the bin by new policy personnel in OSH, I resigned. They didn't understand what they had thrown away! Pike River brought the shambles into focus.

So we got a re-invention of the original concept following the Pike River Enquiry. What should have happened, but didn't, because again it was guided by inexperienced / unknowledgeable policy wonks, was the creation of the whole stand-alone Agency.

There should be an Executive Division of Worksafe sitting above the Operational Division. The Executive cover Policy and Structure, legislation etc. The model is the HSE in the UK. H&S policy and oversight needs to come out of MBIE and into Worksafe. There needs to be pathways for individuals to develop their professional and technical specialities, with career progression in the organisation. So long as we have policy advisors transferring between Govt agencies and in and out of Worksafe there's not much chance for stability and the building of a sound body of knowledge within the organisation.

The need for Regulations can be better assessed when the rationale for them is well understood. At present the model of "cut & paste" from other jurisdictions as a knee jerk reaction to issues not well understood will continue to produce less than optimal results.

The purpose of Risk Assessments is to determine the level of risk a particular issue poses to a business. If the effect of a Covid infection amongst the business's workforce would have a seriously damaging impact on the business, the business should consider available options to mitigate that possible damage. If vaccinations and/or infection testing (several testing methods could be considered) potentially reduce the severity of infections if they occur, or the likelihood that infections will occur, or some other measures might reduce exposures to possibly infected people, are those reasonably practicable steps to take? Are they likely to significantly reduce the risk infected people would otherwise present to the business. If the answer is yes, then the business is, prima facie, able to consider implementing those controls. Other considerations such as individual rights, contingent difficulties in implementation, loss of key personnel etc need to be evaluated before a final decision is made. Individual rights don't trump everything else. We have a Court case relating to essential workers (Customs Dept) that establishes employer's rights to manage their business risk in this regard. Others above have iterated similar valid arguments. If the intended actions have a minimal impact on the business's assessment of risk then the measures might be difficult to justify vis a vis the impact on employees. the public good probably also needs to be factored in.

Hi Amanda. ACC can provide industry stats regarding total recorded claims, earnings-related claims, treatment claims for your business. They certainly have them. They form the basis of Experience rating. You could make contact with your ACC Account Manager and ask for your company's claims stats. They will provide you with that, if they haven't already. They compare your claims over a 3 year period with the industry average. With that information you could compare your year by year claims lodged with ACC, and if there is significant fluctuation, present the stats to your team and ask for their explanations for why that might be. Maybe you are doing things that are influencing behaviours, maybe controls of hazards has improved, maybe the environment has changed, the nature of work has changed, technology has impacted, or there have just been less events. I'm sure you will get a few team members willing to offer a theory. Good luck!

That depends on the nature of your workforce, your industry, and whether staff see the value in reporting the "small" stuff. Everybody needs a "why" to report (in fact to do anything!), i.e. there is a logical and valuable reason to that makes sense to them. If their "why" doesn't compel them they are unlikely to do it. Things don't get reported just because there is a "rule" that says they should. Most damaging events (people, property/equipment, environment damage) are fairly random occurrences. Severity can also be fairly random. Look at the minor injury events (or investigate them) and ask yourself "could the outcome / severity have been any worse"? Did an investigation of the more serious events disclose that there had been a number of prior events that could have had a similar outcome?

Assuming you drive a vehicle, your experience at that might give you insight into the number of "close calls", minor dings, big dings, major prangs you have experienced or seen in your time driving. Some people have the misfortune to experience the major prang as their first one, and it's the only one they will ever have!

Regardless of your philosophy / belief system relating to accident causation and accident / incident ratios, numbers of minor damage events exceed numbers of major damage events over time by some margin. actual ratios are not especially important in my view. What is important is that every event warrants an initial level of inquiry to assess whether the potential was greater than the actual outcome. You go from there.

If you would like to discuss the concept in more detail, contact me directly.

In any OHSMS I was providing to a client, a form like Garth’s would only be used for the final recording of an event (incident/accident/occurrence), not for the reporting of same. The initial reporting would either be a direct verbal communication by a person to a more senior person in the business, or the simple submitting of basic information in written form.

Verbal reporting works quite well when management has an ‘open door’ policy, where anybody can talk to anybody else in the business as of right, subject to their availability. I encourage all my clients to adopt this policy. Most do! Some place some limitations on access to the senior management team members for practical reasons. Completing a simple reporting form is the default option. I believe there is always a percentage of workers who will not report events it would be desirable for the business to be informed about because it was not convenient at the time, and afterwards they often can’t be bothered.
Reporting mechanisms need to be simple and easy. In my view, and experience, the primary objective is to get a responsible person’s (i.e. someone who can initiate the next step) attention. This creates the opportunity for a discussion, and then possible advancement of the issue, or not, depending on the outcome of that discussion.

A client had already introduced the concept of a Reporting Card to allow employees to communicate their concerns. We discussed at length, created different models, worked through them with the H&S committee for a variety of scenarios and settled on a simple refined version. It’s still called a Reporting Card and is printed on coloured A4 card so that it is robust, is able to be located in box holders around the premises, and is typically referred to by workers and supervisors as a Pinky, Bluey, or whatever colour was chosen.

There are six check boxes at the top of the card from which to select an event type description - Hazard, Near Miss, Accident, Property Damage, Maintenance/Repair Req’d, Improvement Suggestion. It doesn’t matter which box is ticked. There will be an initial follow-up regardless. There are 12 information categories that could be completed. Only four require information from the person reporting. These cover the Area/Location, an indication of the Issue, the Name of the person reporting, and the Date. If the person reporting can provide additional information, including suggestions, remedies etc, well and good.
The issue is followed up by the person reported to, or referred on to another person as appropriate. If a verbal report is made the Reporting Card is completed by the person reported to, including signing off any follow-up actions if that is within their competency.

The initial follow-up is typically “show me”, which involves a joint visit to the location of concern! There may or may not be anything physical to see. Certainly, context is important. Discussion occurs, and the matter progressed from there if warranted. Many locations and contexts may make any form of audio/visual recording difficult or even impractical, but if possible, this would take place if the enquiry graduates to the analysis phase.

Escalation procedures apply as appropriate. Cards are filed appropriately, retained, and their completion reported on to Management. Some events will escalate into involved and detailed investigations. A form such as Garth’s might be utilised in a more formal investigation, along with information recorded using different media.

Correct, Steve. Whatever PPE is deemed necessary by an employer (PCBU) must be supplied by that employer, even if the PPE is infrequently necessary (e.g. wet weather gear). It's not an uncommon accommodation of the employer's duty in this regard for the employer to allow an employee to purchase their own PPE and for the employer to reimburse the employee for the cost, on production of a receipt, or to allow an employee to continue to use existing PPE they already own. In all cases the employer must satisfy themselves that the employee-supplied PPE is appropriate and fit for purpose. This commonly occurs in regard to protective footwear and more personal items of PPE such as clothing (hi-viz singlets & shirts etc.) Employers are entitled to retain ownership of supplied PPE and retrieve it when employees cease employment. Most don't take back footwear.
In regard to safety footwear, employers can establish a base standard style of suitable footwear and supply that, but if an employee wishes to purchase their own footwear, because they prefer, for reasons of style, comfort etc something different (albeit more expensive) the employer can accept that, subject to the suitability test, and reimburse the employee up to the value of the standard item.

There are likely to be many “Bobs” in this country, i.e. people who turn up to work apparently “impaired” for one reason or another. Consider this as a hypothetical case, and examine the implications, then extrapolate it back to Racheal’s query. Remember that the Privacy Act allows for the acquisition of personal information where it is demonstrably relevant and necessary in the particular circumstances, or is already in the public domain.
Billy-Bob is a commercial traveller / salesman for a veterinary product supply company. He is based in a large city. His sales territory includes the city, surrounding towns, and a large rural area. He has a company vehicle which he takes home to garage each night. As compensation he has full private-use rights to the vehicle, while the company services and maintains it. Billy-Bob usually calls into the office depot most mornings if he is not out of town overnight, to pick up promotional materials, make calls, receive leads etc, and he often picks up urgent product orders to deliver to customers in rural NZ. He visits veterinary clinics, and occasionally farmer clients of those clinics.
Billy-Bob is re-married, with three teenagers and a newborn in the household. Three months ago he “wet the baby’s head” with the office staff.
Unbeknown to his employer, Billy-Bob is also an experienced Bar Manager and is employed by a large venues management company. This role requires him to have oversight of staff and service delivery at functions and events run by the company. This typically involves weekends and occasional weeknights.
Office depot staff have noticed some behavioural changes in Billy-Bob but are unsure why. There has been an increase in customer complaints regarding appointments not kept, and some promised urgent deliveries not made, or made late. Billy-Bob’s manager is thinking he probably needs to have a chat to Billy-Bob about his work performance but is unsure how to initiate the process. Before he can, Billy-Bob’s wife calls the manager to advise that Billy-Bob is in hospital with a broken leg. He fell down the steps of a farmers woolshed. He is in plaster to the groin and will be unable to drive a vehicle. He is likely to be off work for 8 weeks minimum. She is concerned that he has been working long hours, driving long distances, and has been quite tired lately. She is enquiring about his ACC compensation payments. A loss of income will have a serious impact on the family finances. Billy-Bob’s manager is pondering his responsibilities in this situation, and what he should have done.
A prudent employer will have established policies/rules around their employees working more than one job e.g. secondary employment. This policy should be made clear to prospective employees prior to engagement.
The rationale is twofold.
Rationale 1) If an employee is working two jobs (or more) their risk of injury / incapacity will be increased due to the greater overall exposure time to work related hazards, such as potential fatigue, amongst others. The risk is likely to be further exacerbated if one job is somewhat more hazardous than the other. The likelihood of fatigue alone becoming a risk factor in either job is obvious if both jobs are performed within the one 24-hour period.
Again, of course, a prudent employer will have identified the work-related hazards and put in place the controls required to mitigate risk of harm to employees as far as reasonably practicable. As part of their pre-employment screening employers should be asking questions regarding any predisposing conditions a person may have that would increase their risk of being harmed in the job. This may be in the form of a health questionnaire, and any red flags raised referred for an appropriate professional assessment. After all, an employer must ensure a person is not harmed in the course of their employment as far as reasonably practicable, and ensuring their physical and mental status is compatible with the role is essential. The current discussions regarding Covid-vaccinated vs unvaccinated employees in critical roles is a topical example.
Where activities a prospective employee may undertake outside of the offered employment potentially present a high risk of injury this could impact negatively on the employer’s ability to meet their business commitments in the event the employee is injured / unwell and thus unable to work. While the likelihood of an accident external to the business negatively impacting an employee’s ability to perform all of their duties may be a more difficult assessment to make it would nonetheless be relevant in critical roles or where unique skills are involved, e.g. surgeons, pilots, etc.
So maintaining business continuity where the availability of specialist skills is essential and depended on may well be grounds for requesting of employees, both prospective and current, information about the nature of any extracurricular activities, assessed on a case-by-case basis. Certainly questions about health status can be asked where relevancy can be established, and questions about other employment commitments can be asked due to an employer’s obligations to pay earnings -related compensation to injured employees as provided by the Accident Compensation Act 2001.
Rationale 2). An employee injured in the course of their employment and unable to attend work is entitled to earnings -related compensation for all of their lost earnings. If the injured person has more than one employer i.e source of PAYE earnings, they are entitled to earnings -related compensation based on the total lost earnings, i.e. from all jobs. (See ACC Act Sch.1 Cl.13]
The employer in whose employ the employee was injured is liable to pay earnings -related compensation based on the aggregate sum of all the employees lost earnings, at the rate of 80%, for the first week of incapacity. ACC then pays the same amount for the subsequent weeks of incapacity from work. The maximum amount of weekly earnings -related compensation that ACC is liable to pay is $1341.31.
In the hypothetical “Billy-Bob’s case above, if Billy-Bob’s earnings were $1200 / wk from the Vet Supply company, and $600 / wk from Venue Management, Vet Supply would be liable for $1440 compensation for the first week lost earnings (i.e. 80% of $1800.00), and ACC’s liability would be $1341.31 for the subsequent weeks of incapacity. Vet Supply would be paying more in compensation for the first weeks lost earnings than Billy-Bob would actually have earned.
If Billy-Bob had been injured while working for Venue Management they would have been liable for $1440 first weeks compensation, i.e. almost 2 ½ times his usual earnings from them.
ACC’s payments would remain the same. However earnings -related compensation (and other costs) is recorded against individual employers accounts by ACC for the purposes of Experience Rating. Where accumulated costs of claims exceed the industry average for that employer ACC has the ability to increase their levies accordingly.
For these reasons employers should be screening prospective employees for suitability and capability, asking the right questions to identify and manage extraordinary employment related risks, and managing those potential risks to their business, as well as doing their utmost to protect their employees’ well-being.

When you're having the "conversation" with Bob you might include re-appraising him of his personal responsibility for maintaining his own wellbeing (see S 45 of the HSAW Act) if it appears his practices likely to impact on his performance of his work duties are less than optimal.

The hierarchy of legislation, Codes, Standards etc from an enforceability perspective is as follows.

 Act of Parliament / Legislation, i.e Statutes, state general duties = mandatory & enforceable

 Regulations – made pursuant to a statute, specify particular compliance requirements; = mandatory
& enforceable

 Approved Codes of Practice, developed by Industry and /or Regulator = approved by a Minister of
the Crown; typically regarded as “best practice” and may be referenced as practicable steps in
enforcement action.

 AS/NZS Standards, International standards = persuasive, not enforceable per se. Some covering
more technical subject matter, e.g engineering, (electrical, mechanical etc) may be regarded as
minimum requirements, but must still pass the practicability test on a case by case basis for
enforcement purposes.

 Guidelines & non-approved codes, produced by Regulator / Worksafe, Industry, or from other
jurisdictions. = informative. Not enforceable.

Even when Audits are conducted against a standard or reference document there can be significant variation in assessed results / conformance due to auditor experience / competence, scale of operation, complexity of subject matter etc.
In my view / experience OHSMS standards and similar, are overly burdensome and require administrative resources that make conformance by the average SME in NZ too difficult to maintain. The focus and available resource gets directed at achieving "system" conformance with the audit criteria and fails to relate to work practice. For 20 odd years we persisted with the Standards conformance / System audit process (ACC WSMP etc) before the evidence of management system / work practice disconnect became overwhelmingly apparent. Now we are talking about "work as imagined vs work as done". About time!