Dialogue: Workers deserve law with teeth

By ROSS WILSON*

It's no surprise that tragic workplace deaths in the Auckland region this month appear to have been caused by unsafe systems of work.

Despite popular myth, work accidents and disease do not generally occur because of apathy, carelessness or stupidity on the part of workers, but through unsafe and unhealthy systems, processes and tools.

Research such as studies in Britain by the Institute of Industrial Psychology and the Health and Safety Executive show that carelessness causes only a small proportion of accidents. The main cause is the employer's failure to ensure safety.

While there is a need for New Zealand research, health and safety workers, unions and Government agencies clearly recognise that safe systems are critical to improving our shocking health and safety record.

Workplace legislation must therefore encourage employers and workers to develop and maintain safe and healthy systems in all workplaces, including proper knowledge, training and supervision.

That we are at present failing is clear from our appalling statistics; more than 500 people die of work-related trauma or disease in New Zealand every year.

As well as the huge cost of pain and anguish to the families, the monetary cost of workplace accidents and disease is estimated to be as high as 6 to 8 per cent of our GDP - up to $10 billion a year.

The Health & Safety in Employment Act 1992 already requires employers to identify workplace hazards and take all practicable steps to eliminate, isolate or minimise them.

The problem is that the act has not been as effective as it should be because of low fines (an average of $6200) and under-resourced and lax enforcement.

The Health & Safety in Employment Amendment Bill, at present before a parliamentary select committee, will address these deficiencies by:

* Providing some limited rights to elected employee health and safety representatives to be involved in developing and maintaining safe systems of work, and to refuse dangerous work.

* Allowing any person, for example the family of a deceased worker, to prosecute under the act if OSH decides not to.

* Extending the coverage of the act to include workers, such as rail workers and aircrew, who are at present excluded.

* Highlighting the fact that occupational diseases, including serious consequences of stress and fatigue, are potential hazards to be addressed by prevention strategies.

* Increasing the maximum fines, and introducing a system of instant fines up to $4000, to provide an incentive for employers (and employees) to comply with the act.

The amendments are modelled on similar legislation in other comparable countries which have been more successful than New Zealand in reducing the toll of workplace accidents and disease.

It is worth noting that an OSH analysis of submissions on the discussion paper preceding this bill showed that 72 per cent of health and safety workers thought that increased fines would improve workplace health and safety, 88 per cent supported instant fines, 73 per cent supported additional measures to address workplace stress, and 67 per cent thought anyone should be able to prosecute.

It is therefore disappointing that some employer representatives and politicians have reacted negatively to the bill.

I am confident that the majority of employers do intend to provide safe workplaces and want to avoid the tragedies that confront us almost daily in media reports of workplace accidents.

But it is also a fact that many employers view OSH requirements as some sort of unfair compliance cost rather than necessary protections for human beings.

Those driving opposition to the bill for political gain have suggested that small businesses will be subject to massive fines for trivial matters, that unions are getting some special right to prosecute, and that there will be a new liability for any stress or fatigue experienced by employees.

The joint statement issued by the tripartite panel (union, business and OSH) on the bill just before Christmas has clarified the position and:

* Reassures employers that they are not going to be slammed with massive fines they cannot afford.

* Confirms the panel's expectation that the bill is directed at preventing serious and debilitating work-related stress for which there is already a legal liability.

* Makes clear that the bill will allow any person, not just unions, to take a private prosecution if OSH fails to, and that this is a normal right under other legislation (but not commonly exercised because of cost).

This is a welcome response to some well-publicised misstatements. The health and safety of workers is far too important to be used for political game-playing.

* Ross Wilson is president of the Council of Trade Unions.