There has been some uncertainty since the passing of the Health and Safety at Work Act (2015) about how the Act would work in practice. How would judges would interpret the new law? Following the recent High Court decision in Stumpmaster v WorkSafe New Zealand, it’s now easier for lawyers and businesses to predict outcomes under the Act. With the maximum fine having been increased from $250,000 to $1.5 million plus reparations and other orders, it is very important for businesses to know their responsibilities under the Act.
The Health And Safety At Work Act
When it came into force on April 4th 2016, the Health and Safety at Work Act placed new obligations for health and safety on people or businesses undertaking work (PCBU), workers and other people at a workplace, including for example, customers and contractors.
The change that most businesses will be concerned about is the additional liability to the ‘officers’ of a business.
Under the Act, an officer (someone who is in a position to influence management of a business, such as a director, shareholder or manager) can now be personally liable for harm caused to anyone if they haven’t been carrying out their due diligence over the health and safety practices of the business.
Stumpmaster vs WorkSafe
In the case of Stumpmaster, the workers placed three cones around a tree they were cutting down, however WorkSafe found that Stumpmaster did not make enough effort to cordon the area around the tree or notify the public. A member of public was struck by a piece of the falling tree causing her to spend six days in hospital with lacerations and fractures. She was awarded $18,500 in compensation and Stumpmaster was fined a further $90,000.
Stumpmaster stated to media that they had health and safety policies in place. In fact, the employer had more signage and cones in their van, but did not properly cordon off the area around the tree. Even though Stumpmaster had the correct health and safety policies, Stumpmaster did not carry out due diligence to ensure their policies were being followed by everyone, and unfortunately this has cost Stumpmaster.
In Summary:
Stumpmaster could have protected themselves by ensuring their employees were all aware of their health and safety policies and were all following it while at work.
They could have specified to their employees that they would be checking their practices, and made the consequences of not following company policy clear to them.
While it can be difficult to change entrenched cultures and practices, and there is a cost to closely monitoring employees, it is definitely preferable to the risk of an accident, and a potentially crippling fine.
If you have questions about the Health and Safety at Work Act, or want to know more about protecting your business from prosecution, contact the Employment Law team at Godfreys Law on 03 366 7469.
Prev Article