Working to rules: Business softens view on health, safety law

By PAULA OLIVER AND JIM EAGLES


Hotly debated health and safety laws have come quietly into force but it will be some time before a tangible result is seen.

That is the verdict of those closely involved in implementing amendments to the Health and Safety in Employment Act, which came into effect in May last year.

It is also an opinion endorsed by Business Herald surveys of several hundred small, medium and large businesses which gave a neutral rating to the new rules, a sharp contrast to the highly negative ratings given to other workplace law changes.

On a scale of 0 to 10 - where 0 is highly negative, 5 is neutral and 10 highly positive - the effect of the new rules on business activity was rated a mildly negative 4.4 and the effect on workplace safety a slightly positive 5.1.

Small businesses were a little more concerned about the effect of the new safety provisions than large firms.

But the overall message from the businesses surveyed was that the new requirements have had little impact, good or bad, to date.

The changes pushed worker participation in health and safety issues into prominence.

There was a requirement for an employer who employed 30 or more people to work with staff or their union to develop an employee participation system.

A health and safety representative had to be appointed on request.

For businesses employing fewer than 30 people, a system had to be developed if it was requested by employees or their union.

At the time the changes came into effect, Business New Zealand executive director Anne Knowles warned that the first six months would be crucial to their success.

Looking back on that period, Knowles said that the worst-case scenario envisaged by employers had not eventuated.

A successful implementation programme, helped by an advisory group involving employers and unions, had helped that.

"What has happened is that employees and employers have continued to treat health and safety issues pretty much as they always have," Knowles said. "That is - it is important that all employees be involved and that there be a preventive culture."

Knowles had feared that the laws would be made into an industrial issue, but had been pleased to find no evidence of that yet.

Similarly, her fear of a rash of stress claims had not yet eventuated - although stress been raised more in personal grievance cases as an "add-on".

Since the laws came into effect the Council of Trade Unions and employer groups have run training programmes for health and safety representatives.

CTU president Ross Wilson said there were about 4000 representatives elected and in the organisation's database so far.

More than 2500 had been trained, and those handling the courses within the union movement reported heavy demand from non-members as well as members.

Wilson said he was "well pleased" with the way the new laws had bedded in, although it was early days.

"The training is only the start of the process. I've never expected that by electing health and safety reps you're going to make the change in standards," Wilson said. "It's a building exercise."

Wilson also took a shot at those who had made negative comments about the laws. "Of course all of the dire predictions that were made haven't come to pass."

Businesses had until November last year to put employee participation systems into place.

Knowles argued that many, particularly larger employers, already had systems that were up to scratch.

Occupational Safety and Health policy manager Graeme Cahalane said a survey of employers would start next month to see what kind of systems had been put in and if any more information was needed.

He said that "without blowing our own trumpet", the implementation of the law changes was managed well. The advisory group had aided that.

"Like all pieces of legislation there was quite active discussion when it was under consideration. But I think all the evidence suggests it has bedded in well so far."

Labour Minister Margaret Wilson frequently referred to New Zealand's "appalling" workplace accident and death record as the reason for the law changes.

In the 12 months to June 30 last year, 73 people died in workplace accidents. That was the same as the year before.

Asked when the public could expect to see results from the new laws, Cahalane said that that "was the $64,000 question".

He suggested looking wider than just health and safety changes, and seeing those together with the Employment Relations Act.

"People are talking more. Just getting that discussion going, I think, will be of enormous benefit."

He said that obviously he would like to see the number of deaths fall. But even if it did it would be very hard to actually pin that to one aspect of law more than another.

"I honestly couldn't put a prediction on it," he said. "What I can say is that overseas research shows that where we see better interaction between employers and their employees, we see safer workplaces."

Ross Wilson warned against rushing to judge the laws. "This sort of change doesn't happen overnight. We're talking about building a different safety culture in New Zealand workplaces."

He said statistics were probably the only way to measure success, although the data for accident rates was "a bit dodgy".

Knowles said statistics were a difficult thing to rely on. She wanted to see the success measured by way of a preventative culture within all New Zealanders that saw them stop taking the risks that put the safety of themselves and others into jeopardy.

"People need to get over the view that they are invincible and that nothing is going to happen to them."

Andrew Little, head of New Zealand's largest union, the EPMU, also took the view that it was too early to give an informed opinion about what effect the new rules would have

"At the moment there's a rush on getting workplace safety representatives in place and I just couldn't say what impact it is having,"

The changes

Made employers explicitly liable for hazardous stress and fatigue their staff experience at work.

Promoted worker participation in health and safety issues.

Required an employer who employs 30 or more people to co-operate with employees and their union to develop an employee participation system.

Required that a health and safety representative be appointed if requested.

Made insuring against fines arising from health and safety convictions illegal.

Increased penalties for the most serious offences.

Health and Safety in Employment Act