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

Lack of consultation rendered mandatory vaccination requirement unreasonable

Talk before you walk

Consultation with employees always plays an important part when introducing changes in the workplace. Under work health and safety legislation, employers have a duty to consult with their workers as far as reasonably practicable in relation to health and safety matters.

Read more...

Commission orders employer to pay compensation as a result of its procedurally unfair disciplinary process

Procedurally disastrous

When investigating allegations of misconduct against an employee in the workplace, employers must ensure that any ensuing disciplinary process is kept distinct from and separate to from the investigation.

Read more...

The importance of WHS refresher training

Not a “one and done” thing

It is an expected and necessary part of work health and safety (WHS) plans that all new workers receive relevant WHS training.

Read more...

Commission finds mask mandate to be a lawful and reasonable direction

Mask up

Employees have a duty to comply with lawful and reasonable directions from their employer. In the current COVID-19 context, a key concern for employers is whether it is lawful and reasonable to issue directions related to safety matters arising from the pandemic.

Read more...

Lack of consultation rendered mandatory vaccination requirement unreasonable

Talk before you walk

Consultation with employees always plays an important part when introducing changes in the workplace. Under work health and safety legislation, employers have a duty to consult with their workers as far as reasonably practicable in relation to health and safety matters.

Read more...

Offers of alternative employment in redundancy cases

An offer you can refuse

In most cases of redundancy, employers have an obligation to consult with affected employees about the proposed redundancy and consider whether or not anything can be done to mitigate or minimise the impact on the employee, such as redeployment or obtaining other acceptable employment for the employee.

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.