In a recent tragic incident a worker was fatally injured when a co-worker drove with his raised forklift into the other worker.
The company had a system in place to ensure that workers were competent to operate and not just holding a ‘ticket’. Training included ensuring traveling with the forklift raised no higher than 30cm. The worker had completed a Competency to Operate (CTO) training and was warned on previous occasions as to this dangerous act.
Companies need to ensure that workers are competent to operate plant and need to set and uphold standards of operation. Even to the point of enforcement and where required as a last option dismissal. Workers need to be told that they have this duty and that the Company is not always in the wrong.
Changes to the WHS Legislation with the Harmonised law appears to be lending more weight to the need for the PCBU to consult, cooperate and coordinate their activities with other PCBUs who have a WHS duty in relation to the same matter, following a recent conviction over a failure to apply WHS Act s46. Consider Boland v Trainee and Apprentice Placement Service Inc  SAIRC 14 where the South Australian Industrial Relations Court have fined a not-for-profit organisation $12,000 for failing to comply with this duty.
There are statements from this case that both parties should not assume that there is a clear understanding of the hazards and who is responsible, if there is no consultation, cooperation and coordination.
Have you identified where more than 1 person has a duty in relation to the same matter and has each person with the duty, so far as is reasonably practicable, consulted, cooperated and coordinated activities with all other persons who have a duty in relation to the same matter? Do you have other PCBU’s interacting in your workplace with your workers? Have you met with this PCBU to discuss the work on site other than receipting the contract, insurances and the obligatory site induction with sign off of the SWMS/JSA?