If you take a look at WorkSafe's Mobile Elevated Platform Best Practice Guideline it says:

"Use an appropriate harness system if someone could fall from the MEWP. Secure the harness to a certified anchor point within the MEWP." In practice for this we require a harness to be used at all times when operating a MEWP, and you must be attached to the anchor point whenever the MEWP is moving, or going and down.

Section 3.3 of the document goes into more detail also

With random drug testing it is important to balance people's rights to privacy, and safety concerns in the workplace. With the introduction of the oral-fluid testing standard in 2019 some of the privacy concerns are remedied as the period of time the testing covers is reduced.

I think if management are expecting their workers in safety sensitive roles to undergo random drug and alcohol testing, they themselves should also sign up for the testing as a means of leading my example. From a health and safety perspective I can't see how subjecting staff in non-safety sensitive roles to random drug and alcohol testing can be justified, this seems like it would come under a performance issue and should be dealt with that way on a case by case basis.

I would follow the Ministry of Health Guidelines for infectious diseases:

https://www.health.govt.nz/your-health/healthy-living/environmental-health/infectious-disease-prevention-and-control/prevent-spread-infectious-disease

There is nothing specific for Coronavirus as it isn't an issue for NZ at the moment. The seasonal flu will have a bigger impact so it would be more important to prepare for this.

We have an occupational healthcare provider, OK Health, that do our pre-employment and annual health checks, they also do out workstation assessments when an issue is identified. When an issue is identified in an individual, we generally offer the service to the entire team.

ACC has some fairly good guidelines here

You just have to answer a base questionnaire and a few unique ones. The score you're given is unique though as the different companies apply different weightings on the different sections

ISNetworld is a prequalification system that is aligned to the specific customer requirements. It's not like Impac or Sitewise where it just gives you a percentage out of 100 and you can share that with other contractors.

For example we engage with five different companies through ISNetworld and, while there are similarities for the different entities, there are customer specific requirements for each one as well. As such you couldn't really use an ISN certificate as a prequal for a customer that's not using ISN itself.

Without knowing what the substance is, and what the specific risks of it are it's hard to say. It may be that the PPE isn't required and they're just putting that in their for completion instead of writing something like "No specific eye protection required." The risk assessment may encompass more that just the hazardous substance being used and may include the other activities on site going on as well.

@MattD2 There isn't an international standard that I know of. Our company works with the three biggest fuel companies in New Zealand (International and National companies) and they all have their own system, which have some similarities, though many differences.

For our internal permit to work system, that we apply to our customers without their own PTW system, we closely align with one of the customer systems.

Here is a good reference: https://z.co.nz/ptwinfo

If you approach a training organisation, like Vertical Horizonz, or Safety n Action, they'll probably be able to put on a course for you and open it up to the public.

It is a petrol station forecourt, generally members of the public and the sites may be manned or unmanned.

Thanks for that Matt. That's really helpful

This was the WorkSafe response:

WorkSafe does not interpret the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015, we cannot provide legal or specific advice. We can provide relevant guidance.

We have a guidance criteria for notifiable events, however this does not define serious risk or have set measures for incidents as the situation can vary depending on the scenario. Please see the following link for the guide:

https://worksafe.govt.nz/notifications/notifiable-event/what-is-a-notifiable-event/#lf-doc-39637

In closing, if you are wishing to report an incident and are unsure if it is notifiable to WorkSafe, please call 0800 030 040. Alternatively, for a legal interpretation, you may also wish to consider independent legal advice specific to your position.

To add some context to this, this has been requested by one of our customers who frequently have fuel spills on their sites which can range from a few drops to 100s of litres. We are tasked with cleaning these up nationwide. These are a regular occurring (around ten per month) and they want us to access these as to whether WorkSafe notification is required, for us this poses an issue as we would want to have nationwide consistency.

Notice only needs to come from one PCBU, for us its the contractor most heavily involved in the notifiable works.

So those are two different things:

• You don't necessarily need a qualification to become a H&S advisor, they just need to start applying for the role
• The qualification they want to undertake will be dependent on what they want to achieve. As a minimum I would suggest they work towards a qualification that would give them a GradNZISM membership

Really they just need to start applying for health and safety positions and seeing what's out there. Experience is the best qualification.

HSWA gives the definition of a worker in Section 19:

19 Meaning of worker
(1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, a worker means an individual who carries out work in any capacity for a PCBU, including work as—
(a) an employee; or
(b) a contractor or subcontractor; or
(c) an employee of a contractor or subcontractor; or
(d) an employee of a labour hire company who has been assigned to work in the business or undertaking; or
(e) an outworker (including a homeworker); or
(f) an apprentice or a trainee; or
(g) a person gaining work experience or undertaking a work trial; or
(h) a volunteer worker; or
(i) a person of a prescribed class.

As the levy is not being put onto the individual there is no breach here.

I don't think the levy is being placed on the worker here, but on the PCBU so this part of the legislation wouldn't apply.

I don't think this is reasonable.

The head contractor has primary responsibility for the health and safety on site as they would likely have the greatest influence. Putting up a barrier like this is not acceptable. If they insist on it I would on-charge the cost of the induction probably back to the main contractor.

That suggests there is a current gap in your policy if it doesn't cover impairment from legal substances like painkillers or prescribed medication.