WORKPLACE SAFETY AUSTRALIA PTY LTD

Transcription

1 WORKPLACE SAFETY AUSTRALIA PTY LTD Safety Alert: August 2015 This OHS Alert is the copyright of Workplace Safety Australia Pty Ltd. Other than for the purposes, and subject to the conditions prescribed under the Copyright Act 1968, you may not replicate, forward, copy or otherwise transmit this OHS Alert to any other party, except pursuant to the following terms, without the prior written permission of Workplace Safety Australia. Paid subscribers of Workplace Safety Australia Pty Ltd who receive this OHS Alert as part of their subscription may forward or copy this publication within their business or organisation only pursuant to the terms of their subscription. Under no circumstances should this OHS Alert be distributed or copied to any person, or organisation, or any other entity, outside of the subscriber organisation. In This Alert Editorial Legislative Changes and Proposed Changes o Tasmania Radiation Uses Fees Increase o Queensland Vehicle Licensing System Updated and Renewed In Other News o Comcare to Go to Court Over Two Adelaide Incidents o SafeWork Australia Guidebook Provides Guidance On Good Work Design o More Flexible Rules for First Aid Supplies on Domestic Commercial Vessels o Investigation Continues into Lacrosse Apartments Fire o NZ New Chair for HASANZ o CASA Seeks Feedback on Draft CAAP 37 o AMSA Consultation on Marine Order 58 (Safe Management of Vessels) 2015 o SA $650,000 Available for WHS Innovation and Research Open for Comment In the Courts o Refusal to Attend Doctor s Consultation Was a Valid Reason for Dismissal Note: Web hyperlinks are reproduced in their full text throughout Workplace Safety Australia s Alerts. If you are reading an electronic copy of this Alert, you should be able to access the pages and documents by clicking the links (holding control and left mouse clicking is the usual way). However, some subscribers find that the links do not work effectively by simply clicking. If this is the case, simply highlight the link, copy it, and paste it into your web browser.

2 Editorial In the In the Courts section of this week s regular Safety Alert we look at a decision handed down in the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission this month. It involved the dismissal of a worker who refused to attend a medical consultation to evaluate her capacity to undertake her role. The employee in this case a registered nurse was dismissed under the terms of the Queensland Public Service Act for refusing to obey a reasonable instruction of her employer in this case the instruction to attend the consultation. The nurse had previously been absent on a number of occasions from her work as a result of anxiety related conditions and on the previous occasion her consulting specialist had informed the employer it would not be in the interests of her health to return to her previous position. The employee later informed her employer a hospital in this instance that she was fit to return, but her employer required confirmation from a specialist. She was given a list of three specialists but refused to see any of them and ignored the hospital s repeated requests. In the Commission she argued that she had not committed misconduct because failing to adhere to a request did not amount to the refusal to obey a direction. The Commission rejected the argument and found that she had been given every opportunity to cooperate. It found that her lack of co-operation with [the hospital] on such a fundamental issue as her fitness to continue in her substantive role warranted her dismissal. It should be noted that this case, and others like it to not establish a principle that it will be always and in every instance appropriate to dismiss an employee in similar circumstances. Whether an employee can be compelled to attend such a consultation will depend on the nature of their work and the illness or injury that the employee suffered and the process that the employer uses to attempt to compel the employee to comply with its instructions. Generally though, where there are serious and substantial concerns that an existing or previous illness may mean that an employees work or return to work might result in serious injury or illness an employer not only has a right to determine whether the employee can fulfil the role but a responsibility to do so. Kim Schekeloff Director Workplace Safety Australia Pty Ltd 2

3 Legislative Changes and Proposed Legislative Changes Tasmania Radiation Uses Fees Increase Relevance: Tasmania Industries: Universities; Research facilities Keywords: Radiation safety linear accelerators; radiation facilities fees Commencement: All by 1 July 2016 The Radiation Protection Amendment Regulations 2015 amend the Radiation Protection Regulations 2006 by prescribing a fee for a licence to possess and use radiation apparatus that is a linear accelerator, and increasing certain fees from the date of gazettal of the regulations and from 1 July Queensland Vehicle Licensing System Updated and Renewed Relevance: Queensland Industries: Road transport Keywords: Road transport; road safety; industry accreditation schemes; vehicle licensing Commencement: 1 September 2015 The major policy objective of the Transport Operations (Road Use Management Accreditation and Other Provisions) Regulation 2015 is to contribute to the safe and efficient use of the Queensland road network. It does this by: Providing a framework for industry accreditation schemes that support an integrated and efficient transport system with appropriate levels of safety; Providing for a range of approvals for entities to undertake certain road safety related functions; Allowing permits to be issued for road access in specific circumstances; and Providing for various matters under the Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act These matters are currently regulated by the Transport Operations (Road Use Management Accreditation and Other Provisions) Regulation 2005 (the 2005 Regulation). In accordance with Part 7 of the Statutory Instruments Act 1992, the 2005 Regulation will automatically expire on 1 September The Regulation repeals and replaces the 2005 Regulation and continues to appropriately regulate the matters outlined above. The Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995 (the Act) provides for the appointment of accredited persons to perform certain functions prescribed under a regulation. The 2005 Regulation provides for the accreditation of: Pilot and escort vehicle drivers: whose function is to warn other road users of the presence of an oversize vehicle; Approved examiners: whose function is to inspect vehicles to decide whether the vehicle is defective and therefore unsuitable for use on roads; Approved persons: whose function is to inspect modifications made to vehicles to ensure they have not made the vehicle defective; 3

4 Traffic controllers: whose function is to direct traffic at, for example, road works and construction sites; Driver trainers: who, for reward, provide driver training to learner drivers; and Rider trainers: who, for reward, provide Q-Ride motorbike rider training. The Act also allows a regulation to be made for the granting of certain approvals. The 2005 Regulation provides for: The registration of service providers to provide Q-Ride motorbike rider training; The approval of inspection stations to undertake vehicle inspections for the issue of safety certificates and certificates of inspection; The approval of providers to install alcohol ignition interlocks to motor vehicles; The issuing of special event and special circumstances permits, which provide limited exemptions from certain transport laws (for example, an exemption from the Queensland Road Rules to conduct a charity bicycle ride on a road); and The issuing of permits to allow vehicles that may damage the road to be used on roads under certain conditions. The 2005 Regulation also provides for a range of miscellaneous matters including: The process for the review of certain decisions under the regulation; and The fees payable under the regulation and the circumstances in which those fees can be waived or refunded. The Regulation makes continued provision for these accreditations, approvals and miscellaneous matters. The Regulation is generally consistent with the 2005 Regulation. It has, however, been updated to consolidate common provisions and to reflect current drafting practices. The Regulation also contains amendments to improve consistency between various schemes and to enhance its operation. In Other News Comcare to Go to Court Over Two Adelaide Incidents Federal workplace health and safety regulator Comcare has filed legal proceedings against two national employers over separate workplace incidents in Adelaide. Comcare has filed complaints and summonses in the Adelaide Magistrates Court against waste management company Transpacific Industries Pty Ltd and construction company John Holland Pty Ltd. Transpacific faces two charges, and John Holland three charges of breaching the Commonwealth Work Health and Safety Act 2011 over separate incidents within 24 hours of each other in Adelaide in Each offence carries a maximum penalty of $1.5 million. The charges against Transpacific relate to a fire at its Wingfield Chemical Waste Processing Plant near Port Adelaide on 25 July Comcare alleges that Transpacific workers were conducting the company s first production-scale trial to distil a new industrial solvent from a chemical waste product when a flash fire broke out from a large distillation tank. 4

5 The force of the fire knocked a worker to the ground from a distance of around five metres, and he was treated in hospital for burns. The John Holland matter involved an accident the following day, 26 July 2013, at the South Road Superway construction project in Adelaide's north. The alleged incident occurred when a portal crane collided with a mobile elevating work platform. The basket was on the ground at the time. The worker in the basket of the elevated work platform received medical treatment for his injuries. It is alleged that both companies failed to ensure, so far as was reasonably practicable, the health and safety of their workers and exposed them to a risk of death or serious injury or illness. The matters will be heard in the Adelaide Magistrates Court on dates to be set. SafeWork Australia Guidebook Provides Guidance On Good Work Design A new SafeWork Australia publication Handbook Principles of Good Work Design contains information about the ten principles and how they can be successfully applied to any workplace, business or industry. The handbook is intended to complement a range of existing resources available to businesses and work health and safety professionals including the Guide for safe design of plant. Each of the ten principles is general in nature so they can be successfully applied to any workplace, business or industry. The ten principles for good work design are structured into three sections: 1. Why good work design is important; 2. What should be considered in good work design, and; 3. How good work is designed. This handbook provides information on how to apply the good work design principles to work and work processes to protect workers and others who may be affected by the work. It describes how design can be used to set up the workplace, working environment and work tasks to protect the health and safety of workers, taking into account their range of abilities and vulnerabilities, so far as reasonably practicable. The handbook does not aim to provide advice on managing situations where individual workers may have special requirements such as those with a disability or on a return to work program following an injury or illness. This handbook should be used by those with a role in designing work and work processes, including: Persons conducting a business or undertaking (PCBUs) with a primary duty of care under the model Work Health and Safety (WHS) laws. PCBUs who have specific design duties relating to the design of plant, substances and structures including the buildings in which people work. People responsible for designing organisational structures, staffing rosters and systems of work. Professionals who provide expert advice to organisations on work health and safety matters. 5

6 The Handbook replaces the Australian Safety and Compensation Council document Guidance on the principles of safe design for work. The Handbook can be accessed at: More Flexible Rules for First Aid Supplies on Domestic Commercial Vessels If you are operating in Class C, C Restricted, D or E waters, and are required to meet the National Standard for Commercial Vessels (NSCV) Part C7A (Safety Equipment), you now have flexibility to determine the type and quantity of first aid supplies that are appropriate for your operation. A new solution lets you decide if you continue to carry the Scale medical kit or cabinet as prescribed in Part C7A of the NSCV, or assess the risks of your operation and customise your first aid kit to suit your circumstances. AMSA s General Manager of Domestic Vessels, John Fladun, said this change will make it easier for operators to comply with the standards without forcing them to buy first aid kits that may not be appropriate for their circumstances: While it is important that all vessels carry first aid supplies, what is suited for one operation might not be suited for another. This change will allow operators to assess their own requirements potentially saving them money, and reducing waste, because only first aid supplies appropriate to their operation need to be carried on board. It is important to note that if operators decide to use a different first aid kit it must also comply with the Work Health and Safety Code of Practice. To find out what your first aid kit should include AMSA has published this guide, which can be viewed on line at: More information can be found here: Investigation Continues into Lacrosse Apartments Fire The Victorian Building Authority (VBA) is continuing its investigation into the conduct of the building practitioners involved in the construction of the fire-damaged Lacrosse Apartments in Melbourne s Docklands. The VBA s investigation follows the Post Incident Analysis that the Metropolitan Fire Brigade (MFB) released in late April 2015 into the Lacrosse fire which happened late last year. The MFB found the fire was caused by an unextinguished cigarette on an eighth floor balcony but spread because of the building construction s use of a noncompliant aluminium cladding material in the building construction. 6

7 The State Coroner, His Honour Judge Gray, at the request of the MFB, will commence an Inquiry into whether regulations were a contributory factor to the fire. In his correspondence to the MFB, Judge Gray noted that:...the central issue appears to the combustibility of the cladding material used on the building and, in conjunction with that, whether the National and State regulatory frameworks ensured that risks were identified and addressed. It will be extremely important to keep a tight and appropriate focus for the investigation and not to duplicate or replicate the work of other investigations into this particular fire. This means that the VBA s role in investigating the conduct of the Lacrosse building practitioners is not being replaced by the Coroner s investigation. According to VBA Director Compliance and Performance, Kate Despot; The VBA conducts its investigations in accordance with its Compliance and Enforcement Policy which is based on the Australian Government Investigations Standards to ensure that all evidence gathered is admissible for the purposes of possible prosecution or disciplinary action. The City of Melbourne, in consultation with the MFB, determined that the Lacrosse building was safe to occupy. Residents were allowed to return and were also told at a public meeting held by the City of Melbourne, with MFB and VBA in attendance, on 27 April 2015 that the building was safe to occupy. NZ New Chair for HASANZ Craig Smith has been appointed Independent Chair of the Health and Safety Association of New Zealand (HASANZ). He steps into the role following Shenagh Gleisner, who has completed her term as HASANZ Establishment Chair. As the umbrella organisation for workplace health and safety professions in New Zealand, HASANZ was established in September 2014 to raise professional standards to help support providing healthier and safer workplaces. A highly experienced strategy and change specialist, Craig Smith is well known for his work in the health and safety sector. He was Secretariat Lead for the Independent Taskforce on Workplace Health and Safety, which in 2012 recommended to the Government the establishment of a representative body (HASANZ) for health and safety professionals. Mr Smith subsequently assisted with the establishment of WorkSafe New Zealand and, more recently, has been working with WorkSafe on its regulatory intervention approach. HASANZ s focus is to lift the quality of professional health and safety advice and make this content more accessible to businesses, workers and industry bodies. WorkSafe has provided resourcing for the establishment of HASANZ and the two agencies work closely together to help make New Zealand workplaces healthier and safer. Commenting on his appointment, Mr Smith stated: HASANZ values the ongoing support provided by WorkSafe. I look forward to working with business, workers and government agencies, such as WorkSafe, 7

8 Maritime New Zealand and the Civil Aviation Authority, to promote excellence in workplace health and safety practice. WorkSafe has noted its commitment to working with HASANZ in developing and enhancing the accessibility, capability and overall quality of health and safety professionals in New Zealand. CASA Seeks Feedback on Draft CAAP 37 This is the fifth amendment of this CAAP and replaces CAAP 37-1(4) dated May It has been amended by clarifying the requirements for Category B item extension periods to align with international standards. It also clarifies the terms dispatch and release for flight. Operational and airworthiness requirements (including aircraft type design approval requirements) require that every item of equipment installed in the aircraft must be operational at the beginning of a flight. However, because of the various levels of redundancy designed into aircraft, under certain conditions an acceptable level of safety can be maintained with specific items of equipment inoperative for a limited period of time until repairs can be made. Many aircraft also have equipment installed that is not required for safe operation under certain operating conditions (e.g. instrument lighting in day visual meteorological conditions [VMC]). Other equipment, such as entertainment systems or galley equipment may be installed for operators operational considerations. Regulation 37 of CAR provides CASA, or an appropriate delegate with the authority to approve defects in an Australian aircraft as a permissible unserviceability. CASA also approves a schedule of permissible unserviceabilities (PUs) for an aircraft in the form of a MEL. An approved MEL is a document that allows for the operation of a specific aircraft under specific conditions with a particular item(s) of equipment inoperative at the time of dispatch for the intended flight. Despite the inoperative equipment, the aircraft still complies with its type design standards. CAO requires that, in the case of a charter or regular public transport aircraft, all instruments and equipment fitted to the aircraft must be serviceable before take-off, unless unserviceability is a permissible unserviceability set out in a MEL; or CASA has approved the flight with the unserviceability. More information and how to make a submission can be found at: Submissions close on 31 August AMSA Consultation on Marine Order 58 (Safe Management of Vessels) 2015 Marine Order 58 provides for safety management systems on vessels and gives effect to Chapter IX of the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) and the International Management Code for the Safe Operations of Ships and for Pollution Prevention (ISM Code). The ISM Code applies to all passenger vessels, and to other vessels over 500 gross tonnage (GT). 8

9 This draft Order is made under the Navigation Act 2012 in the modern drafting style to replace the schedule 34 in Marine Order 4 (Transitional modifications), and address amendments to the ISM Code adopted by resolution MSC.353(92). The title of the Order is also changed The requirements for safety management systems on regulated Australian vessels (RAVs) under 500 GT (not subject to the ISM Code) are currently unclear. To provide clarity for these RAVs, AMSA has drafted a consequential amendment to Marine Order 31 (Vessel surveys and certification) 2015, to provide for a written declaration that a safety management system that complies with Part A of the ISM Code, is in place for the vessel. The declaration will be made when renewing or applying for certificates of survey with a recognised organization (RO). The safety management system is not required to be approved by the RO or AMSA. The Consultation period remains open until 9 September The Order and material relating to the proposed amendment can be accessed at: SA $650,000 Available for WHS Innovation and Research The call for the next round of SafeWork SA WHS Research Strategy grants is nearing, with applications to share the $650,000 worth of grant opportunities opening on Monday 24 August, The commissioned research grants enable researchers to undertake applied research to prevent workplace injury and illness in South Australia while the innovation practice grants, open to South Australian organisations with workplace safety responsibilities, fund the development and delivery of pioneering safety practices for South Australian workplaces. The grants will help fund research and innovation in priority industries agriculture, road transport, health care and social services, manufacturing, accommodation and food services, public administration, and construction as well as address systemic work-related disorders common across a number of sectors. Commenting on the grants, Acting Executive Director of SafeWork SA, Ms Marie Boland noted: Each year South Australia is fortunate to have high calibre researchers willing to tackle tough issues and industry groups eager to improve work health and safety practice for everyone s benefit. Reducing work-related injuries by 50 per cent by 2022 in South Australia requires commitment across industries and within workplaces, with research and innovation key tools to achieving this. Successful projects from last year s round included research into making shift work safer; improving job design in the aged care sector; developing drug and alcohol policies for workers in primary industries and supporting mentally healthy workplaces in the community services sector. The final date to accept applications will be 13 November, For more information please visit the SafeWork SA website: (WHS, Work Health and Safety Grant Programs) or call

10 Open for Comment Submissions Sought on Explosives Regulation The public comment period for the Explosives Regulation in Australia: Discussion Paper and Consultation Regulation Impact Statement is now open and interested parties are encouraged to have their say. Explosives regulation affects everyone who is involved with the import, manufacture, transport, storage, supply, use and export of explosives in Australia. This includes businesses, industries, workers and the wider community. Businesses, industries, workers and the wider community are encouraged to take the opportunity to express their views on issues, if any, differences in Australian jurisdictions explosives legislation may raise for them by making a submission to the discussion paper. Safe Work Australia is progressing this work on behalf of Work Health and Safety Ministers who have been asked by the Council of Australian Governments to progress greater consistency of explosives regulation, where there are clear benefits to be derived. The input received through this public comment process will help inform policy options and shape advice to Ministers on the future regulation of explosives. The public comment period is open for six weeks from 30 July 2015 to 10 September Submissions close at 5.30 pm AEST, Thursday 10 September For more information or to have your say on the Explosives Regulation in Australia: Discussion Paper and Consultation Regulation Impact Statement visit the Safe Work Australia Public Submissions website at: WA Public Comment Sought on Isolation Guideline In October 2014, attendees at WA Mines Safety Roadshows provided input regarding content for new guidance on the isolation of hazardous energies in fixed and mobile plant on WA mining operations. A draft guideline was prepared based on their input and is now available for comment. The guideline aims to assist mining operations to develop safe systems of work for fixed and mobile plant. It is structured to support a risk management approach to the isolation of hazardous energies where protection is required from: Movement or operation of plant; Movement of materials handled by plant; Contact with energy used to operate plant; Contact with energy used to carry out processes associated with plant; Contact with energy produced or carried by plant; Contact with energy stored within plant. Submissions on the draft guideline close 12 noon, Friday 11 September RSDComms@dmp.wa.gov.au 10

11 Please reference the page number when making specific comments and, if applicable, suggest alternative wording. Comments may also be made on the Word version. Isolation of hazardous energies associated with plant in Western Australian mining operations DRAFT guideline can be accessed at: NSW Department Looking to Appoint Mine Safety Director Applications are now being accepted for the role of Director Mine Safety Operations, based in Maitland in the Hunter Valley. The Department of Industry is seeking to appoint a Director Mine Safety Operations to provide strategic direction and leadership to the Mine Safety Operations Branch driving the continuous improvement of the government s mine safety policy and regulatory framework. The role is responsible for ensuring industry compliance with applicable Mine Safety legislation and standards, and promoting safety education and awareness across industry. Applications close on Monday 24 August and can be viewed on Jobs NSW at: The role of NSW Chief Inspector of Mines, again based in Maitland, has also been advertised. The Chief Inspector will provide high level technical advice, taking the lead to improve health and safety outcomes for sustainable mining in NSW. The role exercises statutory responsibilities as Chief Inspector of Mines to improve health and safety performance at mine sites and associated facilities. For the full job description go to Jobs NSW with a closing date of 24 August 2015, at: In the Courts Refusal to Attend Doctor s Consultation Was a Valid Reason for Dismissal Murphy v Darling Downs Hospital and Health Service Queensland Industrial Relations Commission August 2015 Extract from Judgment and commentary The link to Transcript can be found at the end of summary The applicant in this proceeding Ms Murphy sought reinstatement to her formerly held position of Clinical Nurse Consultant for the Child Protection Unit ( CPU ) at the Toowoomba Hospital. Ms Murphy had been absent from her substantive position since 9 November 2009 as a result of a medical condition. 11

12 The Hospital required a clearance for Ms Murphy to return to her substantive position given that her specialist medical evidence that such a return would be detrimental. Over a period of ten months, Ms Murphy refused to provide a medical clearance, notwithstanding that she had said she was ready and fit to return to her substantive role. Prior to her dismissal, there had been a number of periods of absences from work by Ms Murphy because of stress and anxiety. On about 25 January 2008, Ms Murphy had suffered both physical and psychological injuries for which she took extended leave and received workers' compensation. She returned to work on about 17 November 2008 on a suitable duties program. As a part of that program, Ms Murphy commenced a placement on about 5 March 2009 in the Child Protection Unit (CPU) at the Toowoomba Base Hospital. Later she was appointed to the permanent position with the CPU as a Clinical Nurse Consultant (Child Protection) at a Nurse Grade 7 classification level. In that position, Ms Murphy said the work could encompass both important responsibilities and also could be very emotional. On 2 November 2009, Ms Murphy lodged a workers compensation claim in respect of circumstances relating to her appointment to the CPU and alleged bullying behaviour by another employee. This claim was accepted, but only in relation to the circumstances relating to her appointment to CPU. It is noted 9 November 2009 was the last day worked by Ms Murphy at CPU. Ms Murphy commenced leave on the following day citing workplace stress. In April 2010, Ms Murphy tried to return to work on a suitable duties program with the District Education Unit. This was unsuccessful for her. A further period of leave occurred for alleged stress and anxiety. In September 2010, Ms Murphy sought financial support from the Respondent to retrain as a midwife by undertaking a Master of Midwifery course. The fee for the year was $13, and was paid by Ms Murphy accessing the Queensland Health Study and Research Assistance Scheme (SARAS). In April 2012 Ms Murphy s solicitors wrote to her employer stating her intention to return to her full time position. The hospital met with her and her solicitors and offered her a choice of psychiatrists to whom she could go to get medical clearance stating she was fit to return to work. She refused to do so on this occasion and on several occasions following. The hospital then issued her with a direction (which it was entitled to do under the Public Service Act 2008) requiring her to attend a consultation. On this occasion also, she refused to comply. Her employer then commenced disciplinary proceedings on the basis that she had refused to comply with a lawful direction. Ms Murphy claimed she had not committed any misconduct because she had never failed to follow a lawful direction. She said the letter supposedly requiring her to attend a doctor s consultation was only requesting her to do so so her attendance was optional. The letter sent to Ms Murphy had stated: To facilitate you returning to your substantive position, I request you provide medical evidence that you are able to return to your substantive position. If I do not receive medical advice concerning your return to work by 25 February 2013, I will have to consider my options in relation to your employment which may include a direction to attend a 12

13 medical examination in accordance with the Public Service Act 2008 due to your absence from work. (emphasis added). The Hospital argued that in light of Ms Murphy s past history of psychological injury it was not only reasonable but also necessary for the hospital to require an updated medical opinion before allowing her to return to her substantive position in the CPU. The hospital argued that at common law it is permitted that an employer can require an employee to attend a medical assessment to determine whether the employee is fit to perform his or her duties and whether he or she can do so safely, provided the direction is on reasonable terms and is reasonably necessary, and in these circumstances the requirement was reasonable. The Commission noted that case law confirms that the application of the word request can, and in this case did constitute a formal request requiring action on Ms Murphy s part. This was particularly so in light of the detailed communications which had occurred between the Respondent and Ms Murphy. There had been no ambiguity on the hospital s part with regard to its requirement for Ms Murphy s compliance in obtaining a medical clearance. It also concluded: There has been no denial of natural justice to Ms Murphy. In fact, the evidence shows that she had been afforded every opportunity to respond to the allegations against her. As well, the fact that the allegation and penalty were contained within the one document does not of itself render the action procedurally unfair. Ms Murphy had lengthy communication with the Respondent, while represented, and there is no doubt at all that she was well aware of what was occurring and what views the Respondent held with regard to her lack of cooperation with it on such a fundamental issue as her fitness to continue in her substantive role. It concluded the dismissal was not, therefore, unfair. The Full Transcript of the Court s Judgment can be found at: Yours Faithfully, Workplace Safety Australia Pty Ltd Important Note The information contained in this Safety Alert is in general terms only and does not constitute legal advice or other professional advice. The information contained in this safety alert should not be relied upon and is no substitute for seeking legal or other professional advice as appropriate to any facts, circumstances and materials that might be necessary for you to provide to a professional advisor. While all reasonable care is taken in producing Safety Alerts, Workplace Safety Australia, its Consultants, Lawyers and all others involved in providing this Safety alert all expressly disclaim all and any liability for the results of any actions or failure to act taken on the basis of this Safety Alert, and for any error or omission arising there from. The information contained therein does not necessarily reflect the views of the management of Workplace Safety Australia. Should you wish to discuss this further, please contact Workplace Safety Australia on DISCLAIMER PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL 13