Resources: Blogs

Out on the Full

Blogs
|

AFL Club fined for Work Health and Safety Breaches

Last year the Essendon Football Club was charged with breaches of the Victorian Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 in relation to the Club’s controversial supplements program by WorkSafe Victoria.

Last year the Essendon Football Club (the Club) was charged with breaches of the Victorian Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 (Vic) (the OHS Act) in relation to the Club’s controversial supplements program by WorkSafe Victoria.

In early 2013, it was announced that the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority and the World Anti-Doping Authority had investigated the Club regarding the nature of the Club’s supplements program in 2011 and 2012.

It was alleged that the players were injected with banned and / or experimental substances as part of the program. For their part, the players claimed innocence and that they did not know what they were being injected with.

The Club pleaded guilty to the two charges of breaching section 21 of the OHS Act (the duty of care that employers owe employees) in the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court in late January 2016. Specifically, the Club was charged with failing, so far as reasonably practicable, to:

  • Provide and maintain a working environment that is safe and without risks to health; and
  • Provide and maintain for employees a system of work that is safe and without risks to health.

The Club was convicted of the charges and fined a total of $200,000 for breaches of the OHS Act. The Club was also ordered to pay $20,000 for WorkSafe Victoria’s costs.

WorkSafe Victoria’s prosecution against the Club indicate that just like any other business, sporting organisations (professional or otherwise) have obligations to ensure the health and safety of its employees whilst at work, even if their workplace is a sporting field.

 

Information provided in this blog is not legal advice and should not be relied upon as such. Workplace Law does not accept liability for any loss or damage arising from reliance on the content of this blog, or from links on this website to any external website. Where applicable, liability is limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.

 

Similar articles

Court finds sole director failed to exercise due diligence in fatality prosecution

The Model Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (Cth) imposes a positive duty on officers to exercise due diligence to ensure the person conducting a business or undertaking complies with its work health and safety duties and obligations.

Read more...

Managing ill and injured workers

In her usual entertaining and informative style, our Managing Director and Principal, Athena Koelmeyer, will guide employers through the tangled web of legislative obligations they face when dealing with an ill or injured employee.

Read more...

Sole trader convicted and fined for WHS breach resulting in death of worker

In a recent decision of the NSW District Court, a sole trader has been convicted and fined $100,000 for breaching his health and safety duty under the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (Cth), which resulted in workers being exposed to a risk of death or serious injury.

Read more...

FWC rejects constructive dismissal claim, finding the employment ended by “mutual agreement”

Mutually beneficial

For an employee to have access to the unfair dismissal jurisdiction, the Fair Work Commission must be satisfied that the employee was “dismissed” from their employment within the meaning of section 386(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).

Read more...

Court finds sole director failed to exercise due diligence in fatality prosecution

The Model Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (Cth) imposes a positive duty on officers to exercise due diligence to ensure the person conducting a business or undertaking complies with its work health and safety duties and obligations.

Read more...

Tribunal finds employee’s refusal to undergo independent medical examination rendered dismissal fair

Check-up or check out

Where there are concerns about an employee’s capacity to work, it is prudent for employers to obtain medical advice confirming whether the employee can safely perform the inherent requirements of their role. This may include requiring the employee to undergo an independent medical examination.

Read more...

Let's talk

please contact our directors to discuss how ouR expertise can help your business.

We're here to help

Contact Us
Let Workplace Law become your partner in workplace law and sports law.

Sign up to receive the latest industry updates with commentary from the Workplace Law team direct to your inbox.

Subscribe

* indicates required