Page 2559 - Week 10 - Tuesday, 13 October 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
request for improved pay and working conditions. Some employers regard themselves as magnanimous benefactors who know what is in the best interests of their employees at all times, even though their employees' views have not been articulated.
I would like now to turn to the issue of consultation. Unfortunately, the Government in this instance appears to have taken the stance that, as it was an election promise to implement this change, the community as a whole should have been aware of its determination to proceed with the introduction of work groups for workplaces with 10 or more employees. What the Government forgets from time to time is that not everyone voted for Labor in the election and not everyone is familiar with the Labor election platform. It was therefore not surprising to me to hear that the first response from the business sector to this amendment Bill was that it had not been consulted. This is unfortunate, as there had been a high expectation that the community would be consulted on major issues. Mr Berry has made it known that he consulted with the Industrial Relations Advisory Council, or at least mentioned the fact that the change in the threshold number of employees for designated work groups was imminent. It could perhaps be argued that from that time it was indeed up to the representatives on the Industrial Relations Advisory Council to liaise with their constituents and to inform them that the proposed change was to happen soon.
There are issues about this change to the Occupational Health and Safety Act that concern the small business sector, and many small business proprietors feel that this change could prejudice the viability of some by imposing additional costs upon them during a recession. The Government denies that there will be any significant cost, and, to an extent, that is correct. The cost of training and organising casual relief staff to fill in for work group coordinators on training courses is a financial impost. However, as these courses can be credited against an employer's liability under the Federal Government's training guarantee legislation, provided the payroll is in excess of $200,000, it is no more than many employers currently have to meet. Further, I do not see the issue of time off to organise meetings for employees in designated work groups as a real sticking point, as I am sure that most employees would keep up some form of contact with each other and would therefore discuss these most important issues without difficulty.
There have been suggestions that the application of the amendment Bill should relate only to businesses with the equivalent of 10 or more full-time employees. However, in my opinion - and the intent appears to be the same in the legislation - an employee is an employee, whether full-time, part-time or casual, and as they have a position in a particular workplace they, too, must be able to have some voice in that workplace's occupational health and safety management.
Training course providers could also look at the flexibility of their timetabling for courses from the point of view of particular employees who could attend sessions only at night, or one day a week, for example. Every effort needs to be made by training course providers to accommodate the needs of employees. I have taken the time to look at the training course offered by the Trades and Labour Council and can see nothing but a high standard of course content, focusing on the needs of employees to identify and report on occupational health and safety concerns. The courses are also open to employers who wish to avail themselves of this type of training, although that will not substitute for training staff.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .