Resources: Blog

Employer ordered to withdraw unreasonable safety warning

Blog
|

Take It Back

A recent decision of the Fair Work Commission (FWC) has reminded employers of the importance of taking a measured and consistent approach to enforcing workplace policies and procedures.

A recent decision of the Fair Work Commission (FWC) has reminded employers of the importance of taking a measured and consistent approach to enforcing workplace policies and procedures – particularly those relating to work health and safety.

In Cordowiner v Ashton Coal Operations Pty Ltd [2019] FWC 2525, the FWC ordered an employer to withdraw a formal warning that it had issued to an employee following a safety breach, because its supervisors had condoned the conduct to the point that it was “normal practice”.

The application to the FWC was made by a mechanical technician/fitter at the Ashton Coal underground mine in accordance with the dispute settlement procedure in the relevant enterprise agreement. The dispute settlement procedure required the FWC to determine whether the warning was unjust or unreasonable in the circumstances.

The employee had been issued the warning for failing to isolate a man transport vehicle from energy sources prior to lifting the chassis. In determining that the employee had engaged in serious misconduct, the employer relied on its Energy Isolation Procedure, which required employees to isolate any plant and equipment powered by energy prior to “commenc[ing] work”.

The FWC heard opposing views about what the phrase “commenc[ing] work” meant in this context. The FWC was ultimately satisfied that the employer intended it to include preparatory work such as lifting a chassis given the associated safety risks, and the employee had therefore committed a safety breach which warranted the issuing of a warning.

Despite this finding, the FWC held that it was unreasonable for the employer to issue the warning given the particular circumstances of the case. In this regard, the FWC accepted evidence that it was common practice at the mine to lift plant and equipment prior to isolation and that supervisors knew of this practice and had not previously taken any steps to stop or alter the practice.

According to the FWC, the employer’s decision to discipline the employee when no other employees were similarly disciplined amounted to differential treatment.

In addition to the above circumstances, the FWC acknowledged that the wording of the Energy Isolation Procedure was ambiguous and the actual breach created only a low risk of injury.

The FWC therefore ordered the employer to withdraw the warning.

Lessons for employers

The health and safety of people in the workplace ought to be of paramount concern for businesses, and employers are entitled to discipline workers who place the health and safety of themselves and others at risk.

However, in circumstances where an employer discovers widespread non-compliance with safety procedures, it should take steps to ensure that those policies and procedures are implemented and followed by everybody (including management) before seeking to discipline individual employees.

 

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

Company vicariously liable for injury resulting from skylarking supervisor

All in good fun

Enjoying the company of your colleagues is something most people hope to find in the workplace. It can make work much more enjoyable and lead to lasting friendships. However, fun in the workplace can cross a line when it takes the form of dangerous skylarking or roughhousing.

Read more...

Brisbane company first to be convicted of industrial manslaughter

Brisbane company first to be convicted of industrial manslaughter

Workplace fatalities are tragic and devastating events. In order to reflect the seriousness of these incidents, some jurisdictions across Australia have amended their work health and safety laws to establish the offence of industrial manslaughter, where the negligent conduct by a person conducting a business or undertaking or officers causes the death of a worker.

Read more...

Workplace Relations Review

Cases and Legislation June 2020

Cases and Legislation June 2020 NEWS ALERTS NSW Work Health Safety Legislation Amendments The Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (NSW) (WHS Act) was recently amended giving effect to some of the recommendations of the 2018 national review of the modern WHS Act. ...

Read more...

The onus and presumption in adverse action matters

It’s on you

Under the general protections provisions in the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act), it is unlawful for a person to take adverse action against another person for a proscribed reason. One of the features of the general protections provisions under the FW Act is the presumption that adverse action was taken for a proscribed reason unless it is proven that the adverse action was not taken for that reason.

Read more...

Notice of termination in the employment contract

Put it in writing

When it comes to engaging new employees or promoting existing employees, it is crucial that employers prepare and review contracts of employment to ensure that they accurately reflect the terms which will govern an employee’s employment.

Read more...

Termination of employment letters

In your letter

A termination of employment letter serves a significant purpose in bringing the employment relationship to an end.

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 Relations.

Signup to receive the latest industry updates with commentary from the Workplace Law team direct to you inbox.