Two years and no action on defining “detriment” to coal mine workers who raise safety complaints. Another RSHQ failure in its drive to be a LOW Reliability Organization.
“Shoot one, scare a thousand”
The almost complete contempt the RSHQ, Resource Minister Stewart and the State Government has for protecting mine workers is their complete inaction about increasing protection for workers making safety complaints.
The Grosvenor Inquiry made a number of Findings and Recommendations about the contractor and labour hire workers being afraid of raising safety issues because it will threaten their employment.
In particular they recommended the following
Recommendation 29
RSHQ takes advice, as required, and if necessary, takes steps to amend section 275AA of the Act to clarify the application of the reprisal offence, with a view to strengthening protections for workers. For example, this may involve including a definition of ‘detriment’.
Recommendation 30
In relation to reprisal complaints, the Inspectorate undertakes prompt and thorough investigations, and provides appropriate feedback to complainants during the investigation and prosecution process.
The latest version of the CMSHA 1999 was published on the 1st March 2023
What changes have the powers that be made in nearly 2 years to Section 275AA Protection from reprisal and in particular defining detriment?
NONE, ZERO, ZIP.
I cannot find any mention anywhere about why this Recommendation has just been ignored for two years.
If they have done nothing in that time, obviously this so called Labor Government is not interested about increasing protection for Mine Workers from reprisal for raising safety issues.
Also Recommendation 30 about how RSHQ do a prompt and thorough investigation and provide appropriate feedback has had ZERO change in how RSHQ investigates from several cases I am aware of.
In one case after 2 years of Investigation RSHQ found that there were reprisals taken against a Mineworker, but declined to take any action with little to no explanation of why.
Prior to RSHQ completing its so called investigation, Workers Compensation accepted that the events occurred as per the complaints made.
An investigation was also conducted by a very high profile National Law firm on behalf of Employer and also found that the reprisal complaints were correct and substantiated.
When the affected Mineworker then asked RSHQ for a copy of their Investigation, RSHQ refused to provide it.
He has now had to lodge a Right to Information application to try and gain access.
Guess what.
RSHQ is running interference trying to get his request refused.
In what universe is this acceptable?
How is taking 2 years to investigate and then refusing to provide the person who made the complaint a copy of the report where they admit the actions took place but refuses to do anything about it fair unbiased and a “prompt and thorough investigations, and provides appropriate feedback to complainants during the investigation and prosecution process.”
What more proof is necessary for RSHQ to take action against the Employer or the SSE or Individuals in Management?
Despite the protests of Mr. McFarlane from the QRC there has been multiple examples of workers being discriminated against, disciplined, or had their employment terminated due to making safety complaints.
“Shoot one, scare a thousand” is an old saying
It still applies to any of the coal face cannon fodder refusing to go over the top,
This was the reason the Protection from Reprisal clauses were inserted.
When we made formal submissions to get the Legislation inserted it was referred to as the Newsome Clause after the blatant action of dismissing a SSHR (Site Safety and Health Representative) shortly after he raised substantiated complaints about inadequate on site Emergency Response capabilities
The relevant findings behind the recommendations are below
Finding 85
There is a perception among coal mine workers that a labour hire worker or contractor who raises safety concerns at a mine might jeopardise their ongoing employment at the mine. It has not been possible to assess how widespread that perception might be. However, the existence of a perception, no matter how widespread, creates a risk that safety concerns will not always be raised.
Finding 86
The perception that a labour hire worker or contractor might jeopardise their employment by raising safety concerns at a mine creates a risk that safety concerns will not always be raised.
Finding 87
It is critical to safety at mines that all safety concerns are raised in a timely way.
Finding 88
It is critical that all workers believe that they can raise safety concerns at mines without fear that their employment may be in jeopardy as a result.
Finding 95
There is scope to improve the mechanisms for safety issues to be raised by workers. Safety committees similar to those in the WHS Act and the Mining and Quarrying Safety and Health Act 1999 (MQSHA) are not provided for under the Coal Mining Safety and Health Act 1999 (Qld) (the Act).
Finding 96
The term ‘detriment’ in sections 275AA and 275AB of the Act is not defined.
Finding 97
Prompt and thorough investigation of reprisal complaints, and the provision of appropriate feedback to complainants, will reassure workers generally that such complaints are taken seriously, and will also enhance the prospects of success in a prosecution.
