to download a copy of the report - WorkSafe Victoria

Labour Hire Research Report:
Best Practice Models for Managing Joint Responsibilities in
the Labour Hire Sector
Prepared for WorkSafe / Victorian Workcover Authority by the
Australian Centre for Research in Employment and Work (ACREW)
Faculty of Business and Economics
Monash University
August 2007

Table of Contents
Executive Summary .............................................................................................. 4
1 The Project........................................................................................................ 15
1.1 Project Objectives ...................................................................................... 15
1.2 Scope of the Project................................................................................... 16
1.3 Background................................................................................................ 16
1.4 Method....................................................................................................... 17
1.4.1 Sample Criteria ................................................................................... 18
1.4.2 Desk Review and Preliminary Analysis............................................... 19
1.4.3 Case Study Data and Reporting ......................................................... 19
2 Good and Effective OHS practice in the Labour Hire Sector............................. 25
2.1 Research Outlines ..................................................................................... 25
2.2 Labour Hire Structure................................................................................. 25
2.3 Towards Best Practice ............................................................................... 27
2.3.1 AS 4801:2001 ..................................................................................... 27
2.3.2 SafetyMAP.......................................................................................... 28
2.3.3 Principal Elements of Best Practice in OHS Management Systems ... 29
3 OHS Best Practice in the Labour Hire Sector in Victoria: A Framework............ 31
4 Analysis and Discussion ................................................................................... 44
4.1 Overview.................................................................................................... 44
4.1.1 Best practice......................................................................................... 44
4.1.2 Data generalisation ............................................................................... 44
4.1.3 Thematic analysis ................................................................................. 45
4.2 Commitment to OHS and shared responsibility ......................................... 45
4.2.1 OHS as a corporate value and objective.................................................. 45
4.2.2 Challenges for management................................................................... 47
4.2.3 Challenges for joint responsibility............................................................ 47
4.2.4 Learning from the workplace .................................................................. 48
4.2.5 Resources for OHS ............................................................................... 48
4.2.6 Accreditation to standards...................................................................... 48
4.3 Summary of perceptions ............................................................................ 48
4.4 Pre-placement inspection of workplaces.................................................... 50
4.4.1 Risk assessment and management......................................................... 51
4.4.2 Rejection of non-complying clients.......................................................... 51
4.5 Pre-placement assessment of on-hire workers.......................................... 52
4.5.1 Certification .......................................................................................... 52
4.5.2 Reference checking............................................................................... 52
4.5.3 Skills testing ......................................................................................... 52
4.6 Induction .................................................................................................... 52
4.6.1 Agency and host induction ..................................................................... 52
4.6.2 Induction fatigue.................................................................................... 53
4.6.3 Knowledge transfer ............................................................................... 53
4.6.4 Induction resources ............................................................................... 53
4.7 Training...................................................................................................... 54
4.7.1 Site-specific permits .............................................................................. 54
4.8 Supervision ................................................................................................ 55
4.8.1 Buddy systems ..................................................................................... 55
1

4.8.2 Toolbox meetings.................................................................................. 55
4.8.3 Audit .................................................................................................... 56
4.9 Monitoring .................................................................................................. 56
4.10 Reporting incidents and near hits / near misses ........................................ 56
4.10.1 A reporting culture................................................................................. 56
4.10.2 Measuring ............................................................................................ 57
4.10.3 Assistance in reporting .......................................................................... 57
4.10.4 Participation in investigation ................................................................... 58
4.10.5 Medical treatment.................................................................................. 58
4.11 Consultation and representation ................................................................ 58
4.11.1 The role of the Act................................................................................. 58
4.11.2 Representation versus communication.................................................... 59
4.12 Return to work............................................................................................ 59
4.13 Industry-specific issues.............................................................................. 60
4.13.1 Nursing ................................................................................................ 60
4.13.2 Meat processing.................................................................................... 60
4.13.3 Specialisation, scale and scope.............................................................. 60
4.14 Regional issues.......................................................................................... 61
4.14.1 The market size for agents..................................................................... 61
4.14.2 Addressing location challenges .............................................................. 61
4.14.3 Community as stakeholder..................................................................... 61
4.15 The significance of ‘size’ of firm ................................................................. 62
4.16 Innovative practices ................................................................................... 62
4.17 Highly effective strategies .......................................................................... 63
4.17.1 Safety Ambassadors and Champions...................................................... 64
4.17.2 Safety Awards....................................................................................... 64
4.17.3 Valuing the Community as Stakeholder ................................................... 64
5 Conclusions ...................................................................................................... 65
5.1 Management commitment ......................................................................... 65
5.2 Management systems................................................................................ 65
5.3 Workplace inspection and monitoring ........................................................ 66
5.3.1 Pre-inspection....................................................................................... 66
5.3.2 Induction .............................................................................................. 66
5.3.3 Monitoring ............................................................................................ 66
5.3.4 Reporting ............................................................................................. 66
5.3.5 Workplace changes............................................................................... 67
5.4 Consultation and representation ................................................................ 67
5.5 Communication .......................................................................................... 67
5.6 Mutual learning .......................................................................................... 67
5.7 Summary.................................................................................................... 68
6 Recommendations on Joint OHS Responsibilities ............................................ 69
6.1 Overview.................................................................................................... 69
6.2 ‘Good for business’: corporate objectives and values ................................ 69
6.3 Management systems................................................................................ 69
6.4 Pre-placement assessments...................................................................... 70
6.5 Certification................................................................................................ 70
6.6 Induction .................................................................................................... 71
6.7 Training...................................................................................................... 71
6.8 Supervision ................................................................................................ 72
6.9 Monitoring .................................................................................................. 72
2

6.10 Incident reporting ....................................................................................... 73
6.10.1 Data capture and measurement.............................................................. 73
6.11 Workplace changes ................................................................................... 74
6.12 Consultation ............................................................................................... 74
6.13 Representation........................................................................................... 74
6.14 Communication .......................................................................................... 74
6.15 Return to work............................................................................................ 75
7 The Project Team.............................................................................................. 76
Appendix I: Charting the On-hire Sector and Best Practice...................................... 78
Appendix II: Interview Design Parameters ............................................................... 85
Appendix III: Cases and Narratives (‘Stories’).......................................................... 96
The Union Perspective ......................................................................................... 96
The Trainer’s Perspective..................................................................................... 98
Employer Organisation Perspectives.................................................................... 99
Labour Hire Sector-Specific Perspectives .......................................................... 102
Labour Hire Agency Perspectives....................................................................... 103
Host Employer Perspectives............................................................................... 126
Employee Perspectives ...................................................................................... 146
3

Executive Summary
Background
On behalf of WorkSafe, the Monash University Australian Centre for Research in
Employment and Work (ACREW) consulted with stakeholders, practitioners, trainers, union
officials and workers to produce case studies that illustrate progress towards ‘best practice’
in the labour hire sector.
Research Framework
ACREW did not test the extent to which the implementation of effective Occupational Health
and Safety (OHS) systems matched informants’ claims. This project comprised qualitative
research that drew on interviews. It was not, therefore, an audit of systems nor of
compliance with legislation, but rather a series of narratives derived principally from the
experiences and perspectives of those in the sector. It is also, therefore, not possible to
generalise conclusions to apply to every firm in the sector, nor to categories of firm by size
or regional location. What may be generalised are essential principles of initiatives that
assist firms, whatever their size and location, in seeking to achieve best practice.
The interviews that underpin the case studies were predominantly with managers of firms,
and, within that category, with those managers charged with responsibility for OHS. The
sample of workers interviewed was very small, and while these interviews provided their own
perspective that complemented managers’ views, they may not be indicative of labour hire
workers in general or across other industries.
Research Objective
The project sought to identify which approaches to Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) in
labour hire could lead to positive, practical outcomes. ACREW also aimed to identify how
promotion of OHS consultation / representation within the workplace and at crucial points in
the labour hire process might contribute to these beneficial outcomes.
Research Trends
ACREW found in its desk review and preliminary analysis that there remains a serious deficit
in the critical literature on labour hire. The major part of the academic literature addresses
the structural and behavioural aspects of the labour hire sector as conditions that per se
provide incentives for shifting of responsibility and cost. Unions also assume that labour hire
is of itself a risk-encouraging practice. The labour hire sector and employer organisations
argue, conversely, that academic and other critical analysis misunderstands practice and
4

fails to establish methodologically rigorous links between structure features of labour hire
and claimed adverse outcomes for workers.
The more technical economic literature implicitly separates structural features from
behaviour and points to links between structural adjustment and workplace flexibility, on the
one hand, and productivity gains, on the other, with concomitant organisational, financial,
societal and personal benefits. However, it does not move further into exploring how to align
these conflicting perceptions of labour hire.
ACREW has therefore identified a need for further research that systematically seeks out
instances of good practice, identifies the relationship of such practices to models of best
practice, and promotes adoption of practice change that will ameliorate both perceptions of
labour hire as high risk and as implicitly incapable of improvement. There is, then, a need for
‘good stories’ about labour hire that will withstand rigorous analysis.
Project Findings
Management commitment
ACREW has found that firms that demonstrate management commitment to OHS as a
priority, and communicate that commitment throughout their organisation to every person are
well-equipped to claim that they are aiming to achieve best practice. Commitment to
achieving best OHS practice extends from the highest executive level down through to
supervisors and workers at their toolbox and other meetings.
The principal challenge to efforts to achieve best practice, then, is that commitment, from
which flow corporate values, systems development, sufficient resources and communication.
Best practice for organisations of every size is according safety of all workers the highest
priority. Conversely, a narrow focus on short-term competitive advantage through cost
reduction poses a risk to OHS and is unlikely to be associated with a sound business
decision. All those interviewed demonstrated broad understanding of OHS requirements, the
link between OHS and effective business and management, and the importance of
embedding OHS as a value in firms, their management and all their workers.
Management systems
The project identified that best-practice organisations in regard to their OHS practices have
well-developed, well-supported management systems, which have been customised for their
own circumstances, but they remain cognizant of alternatives that competitors may develop.
OHS management systems do not of themselves constitute best practice, but they provide
5

important assistance in aiming towards it.
These systems are comprehensive in addressing pre-work and task assessment, risk and
hazard identification and address: induction for OHS and for specific tasks; ongoing training
and skills renewal; supervision and reporting that is proactive and supportive; a culture of
partnership with the labour hire agency and the on-hire workers; and ongoing negotiation of
control between the agency and the host employer so as to identify, manage and reduce risk
to on-hire workers.
There was clear advantage in systems development and maintenance for on-hire firms if
they chose to specialise in an area, whether this was mining on a large scale or
entertainment on a much smaller one. However, very large firms, with a multitude of
interests and locations were able to provide an appropriate level and diversity of service and
monitoring because of economies of scale, which they were equipped to benefit from.
Small firms were not necessarily less capable of delivering good practice in OHS. Much
depended on the capacity and commitment of the owner-manager or key staff member. The
‘system’ that produced very good outcomes was the result of deep understanding of
conditions allied with a willingness and capacity to undertake those essential elements, such
as site inspection, monitoring and communication that in larger firms were formally and
extensively documented.
ACREW also found that although many firms were aware of SafetyMAP or AS/NZ4804 or
other accreditation systems, they had not pursued them as a framework for their own
OHSMS, preferring a customised but largely ad hoc system devised in-house.
Workplace inspection and monitoring
Agencies that demonstrate progress towards best practice are proactive in directly verifying
workplace safety before placing workers. They seek access. They are willing to work with
hosts to rectify shortfalls in practice, but they are also willing to decline a contract where a
host will not meet the agency’s OHS requirements. They inspect or review workplaces and
practices regularly, independently of the host.
Such agencies identified their own willingness to make ‘hard’ decisions about accepting or
rejecting host employer clients as essential to their own business identity, reputation and
performance.
Induction
While all those interviewed were committed to dual induction (agency and host employer) as
6

a principle, a number identified the risks of ‘induction fatigue’ – worker inattentiveness due to
repeated or inappropriate inductions. Proposals to meet this challenge included
improvements to the induction program in relevance and style, and it was recognised that
programs focusing on technical issues of legislative compliance were particularly a problem.
The consistent factor that emerged was the importance of management commitment to
induction and refusal to allow induction to become a rote process. It was therefore desirable
to undertake testing to ensure that relevant knowledge transfer had taken place.
Incident reporting
Host firms with good practice are proactive in setting targets and key performance indicators
(KPIs) that assume reduction in injury and incident rates, have an ultimate target of zero
injuries, and foster a culture of reporting not only incidents but ‘near hits’ or ‘near misses’.
They persist with this reporting where it leads to adverse statistics, because this promotes
learning and improvement.
Incident reporting incorporates several layers of communication and coordination. As a part
of shared or joint responsibility, reporting must simultaneously be to the host employer
(including the HSR) and to the agency (including the HSR), as well as to WorkSafe where
required. This is then followed up by a review of workplace safety and implementation of
corrective action. Best practice builds on this structure to incorporate reporting upwards to
the highest level in a firm, involvement of workers in any review and providing feedback to
them on outcomes. In the case of near hits and near misses – instances that fall short of
becoming incidents for other reporting purposes – the same reporting tracks are to be
followed and best practice additions adopted. This second line of reporting therefore builds
on the first, without any requirement for specialised system additions. Firms that followed
this path assured ACREW of the usefulness and success of this approach.
Consultation and representation
Such firms include effective mechanisms for consultation and representation between hosts
and agencies, and agencies and hosts and workers. ACREW found that organisations
moving towards best practice are willing and able to implement appropriate and responsive
communication with on-hire workers whether or not those workers are represented by a
union. Such organisations have a systematic, responsive approach to dealing with health
and safety representatives (HSRs) and, where appropriate to the scale of the firm, formal
meeting procedures for review and consultation with HSRs. Agencies aiming for best
practice consult in relation to health and safety matters with on-hire workers, on site where
this is feasible but by other means where it is not.
7

However, ACREW also found that generally there was confusion between communication, to
which there was great commitment, and formal consultative and representative structures,
which were seen as superseded by good communication. This appeared to be so even
where informants indicated they were aware of the Act’s consultation and representation
requirements. Best practice, as well as compliance, requires, in the case of consultation, that
agencies and hosts must verify that consultative arrangements are in place and that these
include on-hire workers. Similarly, representation must be understood as an entitlement for
all workers, which includes on-hire workers, and existing HSR arrangements need to
accommodate on-hire workers or such workers must be provided with their own HSR and
Designated Work Group. This extends to situations where on-hire workers have multiple
employers.
Return to work
While there was in many cases a positive approach to return to work systems, there was
some support for the argument that on-hire labour was a preferred option for host employers
because it reduced on-costs. Agencies who showed good practice were able to cite their
own systems for maintaining the interest and support of their workers through temporary
placements, sometimes within the agency and sometimes, at reduced or nil cost, with an
appropriate employer. However, across the sample interviewed, it could not be said that
there was a systematic, positive and coordinated approach to return to work that recognised
both agency responsibility for workers and the benefits for host employers in supporting
such programs. An outline system that incorporated return to work strategies from the outset
would provide a solution to the perceived imbalance of responsibility and short-term
perceptions of cost.
Mutual learning
Those interviewed almost invariably expressed enthusiasm for learning from the experience
of others as well as their own experiences, and they were therefore keen for information
about the findings of the project.
Summary
The narratives or stories in the case studies reveal a commonality of understanding about
OHS, about the interviewees’ positive perceptions of their own firms – and occasionally
doubts about some competitors. The agencies and host employers interviewed were
selected as ‘best practice’ after consultation with various stakeholders.
No one firm could be said to exemplify ‘best practice’, in that each had selected from among
8

a range of best practice features as a way of meeting compliance and business
requirements. Rather, collectively the organisations interviewed offer a broad
acknowledgement of the importance of elements of good practice in their pursuit of
corporate goals, especially in OHS.
The cases therefore illustrate, across the range from small to large agencies and host forms,
and metropolitan and regional firms, how progress towards best practice is achievable within
the available resources of firms, and how it can enhance business value, including
community, social, environmental and ethical goals.
ACREW found that the message of priority for health and safety for all workers, whatever
their source or relationship, underpinned sound practice on every level.
9

Towards Best Practice: Recommendations in Summary
This summary must be read in conjunction with sections 3 and 6 of this report, where
recommendations are set out in greater detail and in tabular form.
Progress towards best practice in the labour hire sector includes the following provisions and
behaviours:
Values and Systems
• Best practice on-hire agencies and host employer organisations demonstrate a
commitment to OHS as their highest priority through incorporating OHS goals into
organisational objectives
• Host organisations have in place OHS management systems commensurate with their
size and scale of operations
• OHS management systems are personnel-independent – they function effectively
irrespective of change to specific managers of OHS because both values and procedures
are deeply embedded in firm behaviour and structure
• Moving towards best practice includes constant attention to innovative practices in OHS
management that arise from technological change and from individual innovations that
workers, managers and observers offer
• Agencies only accept as clients host employers who meet the agency’s goals and
procedures
• Host employers only contract with agencies who meet the host employer’s goals and
procedures
• Agencies and host employers ensure a maximum of communication between each other
through established protocols
Joint Responsibilities
Certification / Licences
• Certification / Licence is verified by the agency as to validity, relevance and recency
• On-site competence is verified by the host organisation under trained supervision
10

Induction
• Agencies provide induction into the firm and its OHS systems
• Host employers provide on-site induction for on-hire workers
• Agencies and host employers communicate to workers the importance of worker
responsibility for their own welfare
• Agencies and host employers check for induction fatigue and effective knowledge
transfer
Training
• Training is task specific and location specific
• The agency provides generic training in OHS principles and responsibilities
• The host provides workplace-specific training
• All training is provided by qualified personnel
• Agencies and hosts establish coordinated, shared programs for maintaining and
upgrading skills
Supervision
• The agency ensures that workplace supervision is appropriate to the task and the
workplace through direct verification of supervision arrangements
• The host employer provides appropriate direct supervision of on-hire employees and
ensures that the agency has the supervisor’s contact details
• Host employers provide a ‘buddy’ system to assist with the orientation and supervision of
new workers
• Host employers provide, and agencies verify, regular, preferably daily, toolbox meetings
that include all workers and that address issues of OHS as a matter of course
• Agencies and host employers ensure that feedback from toolbox meetings is addressed
and timely responses provided to workers
Monitoring worker safety in the workplace
• The agency has monitoring and reporting systems for workers that are independent of
11

the host
• The agency and the host together conduct ‘walk-through’ observations where feasible
• Agencies and host employers undertake regular testing of monitoring and
communication systems and response times
• Agencies and host employers demonstrate their commitment to OHS through active
inspection and engagement with workers on site
• Agencies and host employers ensure that there are systems in place to identify new risks
and measures for their control
Consultation and representation
• On–hire workers are fully involved in workplace consultation about health and safety
matters that directly affect, or are likely to directly affect them
• Agencies and host employers ensure that on-hire workers are represented in the
workplace where formal representative arrangements exist
• On-hire workers are represented at the host employer workplace:
o
o
Either by existing DWG arrangements that provide for a host employer HSR to
represent them
Or by establishing their own DWG at the host workplace and electing their own
HSR
Incident reporting
• The host notifies the agency of all incidents and near hits and near misses
• The host (as the employer with management and control of the workplace) provides
immediate notification of “notifiable incidents” to WorkSafe 1 and preserves the incident
site
• The agency and the host ensure that every on-hire worker has ‘24/7’ (round the clock and
continuous) contact details for reporting incidents
• The agency and host actively promote incident and injury reporting
• The agency and host actively promote near hit / near miss reporting
12

• The agency and host actively promote management responsiveness to reporting,
including prompt communication of corrective action and other feedback
Workplace changes
• Agencies and hosts ensure that on-hire workers are fully informed about potential
changes in workplace arrangements, and are involved in consultation about those
changes
• Host employers ensure that agencies and HSRs are advised of potential changes in the
workplace as early as possible, and are involved in review and consultation about those
changes
Communication
• Agencies and hosts ensure communication with each other that supports OHS
• Agencies and hosts ensure communication with workers that supports OHS
Return to work
• Agency responsibility to return injured workers to work is achieved by agencies and hosts
working cooperatively to manage injured workers and provide suitable alternative duties
• Agencies and hosts work cooperatively to help injured workers get back to work or stay
at work while they recover from an injury by:
o
o
o
o
Providing the necessary physical and emotional support
Preparing a Return to Work Plan including an Offer of Suitable Employment when
the worker has some capacity
Establishing a Risk Management Plan
Establishing an Occupational Rehabilitation Program
• Agencies and hosts both appoint a Return to Work Coordinator
• Agencies and hosts jointly take a proactive approach to identifying suitable duties
1 Section 37 OHS Act 2004 sets out which incidents are notifiable incidents.
13

Abbreviations
ACCC
AiG
AMIEU
ASCC
DWG(s)
HSR(s)
KPI(s)
LH
OHS
OHSMS
RCSA
VECCI
VTHC
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission
Australian Industry Group
Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union
Australian Safety and Compensation Council
Designated Work Group(s)
Health and Safety Representative(s)
Key Performance Indicator(s)
labour hire
Occupational Health and Safety
Occupational Health and Safety Management System(s)
Recruitment and Consulting Services Association
Victorian Employers Chamber of Commerce and Industry
Victorian Trades Hall Council
14

1 The Project
1.1 Project Objectives
The proposition investigated by this research is that model (best practice) examples of
labour hire companies that manage their OHS effectively can provide useful information and
guidance for the labour hire sector.
Good practice examples that strive towards best practice can also offer practical guidance
on how to facilitate improved OHS outcomes, as well as persuasively demonstrate that good
OHS practices are beneficial to all.
In commissioning this research WorkSafe sought to examine current management practices
of labour hire companies that lead to effective OHS outcomes for its workers, the client (host
employer) and the agency (the on-hire labour supplier). WorkSafe designated the following
broad objectives for this research:
o To identify the most prevalent barriers to OHS compliance for labour hire firms and
host companies operating within Victoria.
o To develop an understanding of how OHS can best be managed in the labour hire
sector to overcome compliance challenges, from the perspective of employers,
employees, health and safety representatives and host organisations. Such
understanding would be obtained by examining models of OHS management
systems and practice of labour hire employers, group training companies and host
organisations.
o The research would consider systems and practices of small, medium and large
providers and users of labour hire services as well as employment in a cross-section
of host organisation industries and work types.
o The research would focus upon compliance and responsibilities relating to training,
induction, supervision, pre-placement risk management, communication, and
consultation / representation, as well as the monitoring of workers’ safety at the
host’s workplace.
o To develop case material for distribution within the labour hire sector that will
demonstrate the practicalities of these solutions to other providers of service within
the labour hire sector.
15

1.2 Scope of the Project
In order to meet client requirements, ACREW undertook consultations with a range of
stakeholders and practitioners, with the aim of producing a set of best practice case studies
for distribution.
The project aimed to identify which approaches to OHS management in labour hire lead to
positive, practical outcomes. The project also aimed to identify how the promotion of OHS
consultation within the workplace, and at crucial points in the labour hire process, can
contribute to these outcomes. The project sought to illustrate the link between organisations
exhibiting good practice in regard to their OHS practices and effective mechanisms for
consultation and representation.
In scope, therefore, the project focused on a priori identification of best practice in agencies
and host firms, and drew from interviews with those firms and workers specific and broad
directions that together comprised best practice in the view of interview subjects and of the
project team itself.
The project did not test implementation empirically: that is, it took at face value descriptions
and claims of best practice, details on implementation in management and the workplace,
and attitudinal claims. This is not to question the veracity of data furnished in interviews; it is
a statement on project scope.
It should also be noted that the general thrust of academic literature has been in the
detection and analysis of inherent problems in the on-hire sector. There is very little
empirical research into best practice and little acknowledgement that on-hire firms and their
host clients are capable of or interested in developing and maintaining best practice OHS
management systems as an integral feature of commercial success.
1.3 Background
In 2002, Underhill conducted research for WorkSafe Victoria that resulted in a report,
Extending Knowledge on Occupational Health & Safety and Labour Hire Employment: A
Literature Review and Analysis of Victorian Worker’s Compensation Claims. As shown in
that research, there is already considerable knowledge of the conditions or characteristics
that predict a high risk of injury in labour hire work: for example, blue-collar workers in
certain high-risk industries and occupations are more likely to be injured, as, too, are
younger, less experienced and new workers unfamiliar with the workplace and site-specific
tasks or conditions. This research also proposed further investigation of the long-term health
16

effects of labour hire employment and the effect of management practices on improving
OHS practice. The Parliamentary Inquiry into Labour Hire Employment in Victoria took up
this point (Economic Development Committee, Final Report, 2005, Inquiry into Labour Hire
Employment in Victoria, Melbourne, pp.59-60; Interim Report, 2004, pp.37-38), noting that
data were still required to establish or support causal links between practice and outcomes,
and that the field itself was a new one. The Victorian Government accepted the
recommendation to commission further research, in 2006. This project therefore aimed to
contribute to that research requirement, and to provide a basis for practice-based outcomes
in OHS management.
1.4 Method
As its principal method of data collection, ACREW proposed qualitative research that
involved as its central method case studies of labour-hire providers and host organisations
(see Table 1).
As managing OHS in labour hire is acknowledged as a new area of research, a case study
methodology was proposed because, as Alvesson (2003: 13) 2 observes, it has the benefits
of guiding the researcher “to understand specific phenomena and develop theory”. Yin
(2003) concludes that case studies are the preferred approach when the researcher has little
control over participants or events and when the focus is on a contemporary phenomenon
within some real life context (Denzin & Lincoln 2000; Patton 2002; Yin 2003).
A major consideration in the choice of a qualitative methodology for this project was the
need to collect rich, detailed descriptions of issues that cannot be garnered through surveys
alone. Bhagat and Krishnan (2005) conclude that in a globalising world, qualitative research
involving interviews and focus groups will become increasingly important because this form
of research yields data that provide insights into the significance of behaviours and practices
that would not necessarily be revealed by quantitative surveys.
For this project specifically, Yin’s approach to within-case and cross-case analysis was
employed. The qualitative analysis focused on emergent themes from the source data
without relying on a priori hypotheses, but it then related these to compliance requirements
in legislation: the legislated requirements are a given for OHS management. As stated in the
project’s scope, it also accepted as stated the narratives or stories that respondents
provided: if the respondents provided an account of comprehensive OHS systems and
provided anecdotal, evidential and/or documentary support for their account. It was not the
2 All detail for references is included in a separate report, Labour Hire Research Report ... Review of
the Review.
17

function of the interviewer to seek to validate that narrative by reference to external data as
the respondents were demonstrating their understanding of their legal and moral obligations,
as they understood them. Minor changes or shifts of perspective in the narrative, as
recorded in interview transcripts, are therefore not regarded as significant, where these
amount to internal ‘editing’, because the nature of semi-structured accounts is that they do
not assume total internal consistency (see Gubrium & Holstein 1998).
1.4.1 Sample Criteria
Selection criteria for case organisations included:
• Identification of the organisation as having a claim to best-practice OHS, as
determined a priori from interviews with stakeholders and snowball compilation of
likely interview subjects, building on the characteristics of reputation and record, and
professional or anecdotal reports of OHS competence;
• Reputation of the organisation, according to stakeholder informants;
• The organisation’s OHS record, which was verifiable from several sources, such as
its injury record, its published claims, and informant data;
• An emphasis on high-risk areas in terms of industries or occupations routinely
utilising labour hire (e.g., the meat industry and blue collar industries, as identified in
the Parliamentary Inquiry);
• A cross-section between regional and urban organisations; and
• A balance in labour hire organisations from temporary placements to workforce
management providers.
The cases were drawn from Victoria, although many of the firms reviewed and consulted are
active in other jurisdictions, including internationally.
Sampling was undertaken in the first instance by reference to information on potential best
practice firms. From this point the team moved to snowball sampling (chain-referral), crossreferenced
with its own industry contacts and other sources (Biernacki & Waldorf 1981).
Although there are formal concerns that such sampling might overlook the importance of
those who decline to participate (Groger, Mayberry & Straker, 1999), for this project
sampling of those identified as best practice proponents and willing to present their case is
wholly appropriate to scope and direction.
18

Firms identified for interview were then crosschecked with WorkSafe data on workplace size
/ turnover / activity (using remuneration as a proxy) and any information published by the
firm itself.
The project did not seek a statistically valid sample of all firms providing or using labour hire,
and it does not therefore argue that its conclusions about best practice are either typical or
atypical of the labour hire sector at large. It also presents only a small sample of worker
responses, which are consistent with other data but cannot be regarded as strongly
evidentiary.
1.4.2 Desk Review and Preliminary Analysis
ACREW undertook a preliminary desk review of the government reports and transcripts of
the Parliamentary Inquiry for thematic information relevant to the project and to inform itself
of potential interview subjects and cases. The desk review included a literature review on
good and effective OHS practice in the labour hire sector.
Due to the character of labour hire employment it was not possible to use conventional
understandings of the idea of best practice. As commonly used, best practice refers to the
process whereby the highest industry standard is achieved through an iterative process of
comparisons utilising benchmarking methods. For present purposes we defined best
practice by reference to the organisations identified as utilising good or effective practices.
The interview subjects themselves (and perhaps in response to the wording of questions)
routinely described their practices as best practice irrespective of significance in any single
instance of practice.
ACREW also conducted semi-structured background interviews with labour hire users and
other stakeholders (for example, the Victorian Trades Hall Council (VTHC) and employer
associations) to inform the researchers on issues pertinent to the research. ACREW was
guided by the Steering Committee in identifying interview subjects for this phase of the
research.
1.4.3 Case Study Data and Reporting
For the case study interviews, in each organisation ACREW conducted semi-structured,
face-to face interviews, with relevant managers, health and safety representatives (where
these were present), and with workers or worker groups. Semi-structured interviews are an
appropriate methodological approach for in-depth exploration of a topic that is built on open
exchange between interviewer and respondent (Patton 1990).
19

With the agreement of participants in all interviews, ACREW recorded these interviews and
transcribed them (with appropriate removal of identification of individuals). Researchers
made contemporaneous notes of interviews and worker groups, and together with
transcriptions these provided a form of data triangulation.
Firms were classified in the first instance with reference to on-hire / labour hire firms,
measured by WorkSafe’s organisation size, then screened against workplace size and
remuneration (eliminating subgroups or groups with no activity in the test year). The initial
schema for size therefore retained the small/medium/large differentiation requested by
WorkSafe. These fall readily into bands, measured by their activity levels or premiums.
Table 1: Classification of Firm Size
Firm size for project (workplace size)
Small
Medium
Large
‘Dollar’ classification (remuneration)
Up to $1 million
Between $1 million and $5 million
Over $5 million
Note: Workplace size is based on WorkSafe data from 2006/07, which places organisations
in six dollar-value bands, which here are reduced to three levels redefined as large, medium
and small. The three classifications are:
• Workplace size
• Organisation remuneration, and
• Organisation size.
The first and third are given a numerical range, 1-6, which accords with a dollar range (as in
Table 1) (an additional category, “0”, was not relevant here. It is therefore possible to
measure organisation “size” by reference to three characteristics, and to use this, in the case
of labour hire firms, to inform interview and analysis to determine the general description of a
firm as small, medium or large.
It was found that workplace size classifications are broadly consistent with organisation size,
measured in the same way, but are not identical in every case. ACREW therefore used both
sets of data to refine its understanding of the level at which a firm should be classified.
A similar schema for host organisations could only be based on agency information and
public information, in the first instance, but in conducting interviews it was then possible to
ask hosts to assess their own size. In the report, host size and activity are also crossreferenced
to size with respect to their employment of on-hire labour (for example, when a
large firm uses a very small number of on-hire employees, or uses a large number but in a
very restricted time-frame, such as peak maintenance periods).
In discussion with WorkSafe, it was provisionally agreed that the sample set out in Table 1
20

would accommodate the data. However, this categorisation could only be provisional, in that
access, availability, feasibility and data value remained to be tested in practice.
Table 2: Data Sample (Case Studies Initially Proposed)
Organisation type
Host companies
Organisation
location
Data collection Number of sites Total interviews /
groups**
Small Metropolitan Interviews 1 2 (1 manager; 1 employee
group)
Regional Interviews 1 2 (1 manager; 1 employee
group)
Medium Metropolitan Focus groups 1 6 (3 managers; 3 employee
groups)
Regional Focus groups 2 4 (2 managers; 2 employee
groups)
Large Metropolitan Focus groups 1 8 (3 managers; 5 employee
groups)
Labour hire firms
Regional Focus groups 2 6 (3 managers; 3 employee
groups)
Small Metropolitan Interviews 1 2 (1 manager; 1 employee
group)
Regional Interviews 1 2 (1 manager; 1 employee
group)
Medium Metropolitan Focus groups 1 6 (3 managers; 3 employee
groups)
Regional Focus groups 2 4 (2 managers; 2 employee
groups)
Large Metropolitan Focus groups 1 8 (3 managers; 5 employee
groups)
Regional Focus groups 2 6 (3 managers; 3 employee
groups)
Sample total 16 56
ACREW anticipated adjusting this sample after consulting WorkSafe and to meet any other
constraints that emerged.
The principal constraint was in relation to focus groups of workers. It was not possible to
conduct focus groups as originally proposed, but ACREW is confident that this does not
weaken the data or conclusions in view of other indicators of good practice and of data that
were available from workers. ACREW was able to conduct a small number of targeted
interviews with workers.
21

A second feature that emerged was the location and activity of on-hire agencies. Major (or
large) agencies with a metropolitan base typically either provided labour to regions as part of
their business or supported a local office in the region. The distinctions between agency size
and agency location emerged as more fluid than expected, not least because of the range
and complexity of corporate structure in the labour hire sector.
Table 3 shows the final sample for the project, including both interviews with organisations
(managers and OHS coordinators or similar staff, and workers: 3a) and consultation with
stakeholders and other informants (3b).
Table 3a, 3b Data Sample – Project Implementation
Table 3a
Organisation type Organisation location Data collection Number of sites
Host companies
Managers, consultants
Small Metropolitan 1 1
Regional 1 1
Medium Metropolitan 0 0
Regional 1 1
Large Metropolitan 5 3
Regional 2 2
Labour hire firms
Small Metropolitan 2 2
Regional 0 0
Medium Metropolitan 3 2
Regional 2 1
Large Metropolitan 4 3
Regional 0 0
On-hire workers
On-hire workers
Metropolitan 4 4
Regional 5 2
Sample total 30 22
22

Table 3b Consultation with Stakeholders
Training
organisations
Number
Locations or
organisations
Metropolitan 2 1
Other categories
Employer and sector
organisation(s)
Unions and union
organisations
7 5
6 4
Union OHS advisers 2 1
Workplace inspectors 5 1
Sample total 22 12
Note 1: In assigning categories to firms by size or location, it is not always possible to give a firm a
single classification (for example, a metropolitan firm may also operate significantly in a regional area;
an apparently ‘large’ workplace may emerge as a small user of on-hire labour, or indeed as a largely
automated industry and therefore a ‘small’ workplace. A deficit in any one classification is therefore not
as clear as a bare number or nil return would indicate.
Note 2: Not every minor consultation or verification is recorded in this table.
Interviews required approximately 30-45 minutes each (generally they ran for longer, with
the agreement of participants), and were subjected to thematic and narrative analysis to
determine main themes such as corporate goals, pre-placement inspection, induction,
training, supervision, reporting, consultation, representation, communication and return to
work. Where possible interviews and discussion were treated iteratively: after initial review of
information, interviewees were contacted for further comment and offered the opportunity to
amend their information. This not only assisted more robust data collection but also
maximised the amount of usable data.
Those interviewed generally expressed interest in the project and in particular asked how
they might obtain a copy of the findings. The project team saw this as indicative of
enthusiasm for learning from the experience of others, which emerged as a consistent
theme in interviews.
Interviews of labour hire and host employer firms were only one source of data. Additional
data were sourced from the Victorian Trades Hall Council, an officer of the Australian Nurses
Federation, an officer of the Meat Employees Union, and an office-holder and member of the
Steering Committee on behalf of the labour hire sector for initial guidance to issues and
perspectives.
23

Representatives of two major employer organisations representing both host employers and
labour hire organisations, the Victorian Employers Chamber of Commerce and Industry
(VECCI) and the Australian Industry Group (Ai Group) were interviewed. A further round of
discussion was held at WorkSafe Victoria with a group of WorkSafe inspectors, to provide a
grounded, anecdotal view of experience in monitoring and addressing non-compliance in the
workplace and to advise also on instances of good practice.
ACREW then developed the cases as ‘stories’ exemplifying practice. Where appropriate,
ACREW returned to informants for clarification.
24

2 Good and Effective OHS practice in the Labour Hire Sector
Section 2 sets out in summary form the principles used by ACREW in describing best
practice and its relationship to compliance that are tabulated in the next section. It draws on
the review of the literature (section 10) undertaken as a preliminary phase in the project.
Detailed authority for this section is further provided in section 10.
2.1 Research Outlines
Firms that apply more effective OHS practices generally show lower likelihood of injury of
temporary workers (Francois & Lievin, 1995, as reported by Underhill 2003; Johnstone et al
2004; Quinlan 2003). Evidence from overseas parallels research in Australia in this regard
(Amuedo-Dorantes 2002: 262; Johnstone & Quinlan 2005; Hernanz & Toharia 2006).
However, it is not a simple matter to rely on this research as a pointer to directions or issues
in Australian workplaces, because of the complex relationship between patterns of work,
workplace structures, history of representation (and the comparatively rapid pace of changes
in representations, such as in Australia, with declining union membership in recent years),
and the specific regulatory regimes put in place (see Laplagne et al. 2005).
It is prima facie likely that commitment to OHS will have an impact on injury rates, but the
causal links are not necessarily stronger than a correlation which could arguably be
attributed to other factors (such as changes in machinery and technology generally, changes
in education background – as opposed to task-specific training, or changes in workforce
composition by gender or age: Laplagne et al 2005). Overseas research can therefore at
best inform perspectives on labour hire on a cross-country comparison basis.
2.2 Labour Hire Structure
Johnstone and Quinlan (2005) have reviewed the development of the ‘triangular’ relationship
in labour hire between the on-hire agency, the worker and the host employer. The
contractual relationship exists between the agency and the worker and the agency and the
host, but not between the worker and the host. However, legislation such as applies in
Victoria requires joint responsibility on the part of the agency and the host. These two
perspectives lead to what the authors point to as ‘contested terrain’. Because there can be
the appearance of uncertainty, notwithstanding legislation clarity, the agency and the host as
the major players with financial interests in reducing costs seek to shift elements of
responsibility away from each to the other.
Johnstone and Quinlan also identify what they consider a shortfall in most legislation: Acts
25

generally rely on employer duties in a broad sense and do not explicitly address the issue of
labour hire as a special factor in such duties; nonetheless, Acts, and court interpretation,
have favoured a comprehensive view of responsibility on the part of the on-hire agency.
The volume of legal review, however, suggests that, despite all such attempts at legislative
and judicial clarification, and legal enforcement, the sector itself is unwilling to fully accept
the general import of decisions in their current form.
The literature generally makes the following points, and Johnstone and Quinlan also set
these out.
The first is that lack of understanding of labour hire agency responsibility arises from
employment structure and from opportunistic use of legal claims of confusion or disputed
responsibility (notwithstanding the clarity of legislation, such as in Victoria). The second is
that there is no legal uncertainty of any significance at all. Claims to the contrary are at best
specious and at worst misleading or ill-informed. The third point is that, by inference,
amendment of the law may be required to specify more directly the role and responsibility of
labour hire agencies in respect of their on-hire employees. (This is not a practical course of
action within the scope of this project, for which the Victorian regime is a given.)
It is, however, also clear that, in the absence of rigorous enforcement, labour hire agencies
have incentives to manipulate and evade their compliance responsibilities, and that some
agencies will continue to press for legislative reform that reduces or shifts their duty of care,
with consequential further problems for OHS protection in industries and occupations where
labour hire is prevalent. Johnstone and Quinlan have pointed out that these trends in law
and in behaviour are not peculiar to Australia but appear wherever labour hire is a structural
feature of the workplace and where focused legal enforcement is weaker or absent.
Finally, there is, on the one hand, an informal but explicit and rhetorical tension between
promotion of workplace flexibility, to which are linked claims of increased productivity,
especially at the Commonwealth level and especially in legislation such as the Workplace
Relations Act 1996 as amended by the Workplace Relations Amendment Act 2005, and, on
the other, the responsibility for and implementation of detailed OHS regulation at the State
and Territory levels. Promotion of this tension is pervasive in media commentary, and it
communicates to owners and employers a sometimes-false sense of their entitlement to
impose a system of their own devising. It can suggest, misleadingly, a substantive shift of
focus away from State responsibility and authority. Employers, whether labour hire agencies
or host employers, confront conflicting messages, which in turn imposes on State regulators
a greater requirement for explanation.
26

2.3 Towards Best Practice
It is generally accepted that best practice involves organisations using the best-in-class
practices of competitor firms as a benchmark for their own practice in order to increase their
performance against such competitors (MacNeil et al 1993). The key feature of best practice
is that it is an iterative process with continuous improvement. It can therefore be reasoned
that best practice in the case of OHS refers to OHS Management Systems (e.g. policy,
procedures, training, etc). However, empirical evidence of the effectiveness of such systems
is limited. This project seeks to provide some exploratory indicators for supporting changes
to practice in the present and for empirical research later.
Both from Victoria’s viewpoint and from wider experience, two systemic approaches to
OHMS should be considered: SafetyMAP and AS 4801:2001. These are useful examples in
that they meet the advice that compliance systems should be voluntary, they are sufficiently
adaptable, and firms in Victoria have used them for some time. They are not, of course, the
only approaches available.
2.3.1 AS 4801:2001
The Standard is promoted as a systematic approach to developing a management regime
that reduces risk in the workplace, resulting in lower incidence of injury and associated cost,
and demonstrates commitment, internally and externally, to risk and hazard reduction. It is
built on an audit framework, in order to ensure robust assessment of an organisation’s
claims and performance. For accredited organisations an advantage lies in the capacity for
third party assessment, which enables promotion of organisational value to customers and
employees alike.
The model is the familiar cyclical one found in many normative policy schemas. In this
instance the steps are:
• OHS policy;
• Planning;
• Implementation;
• Measurement and evaluation; and
• Management review.
This then returns to policy development to provide for continual improvement.
A key to the successful implementation of the Standard is found in its definition of OHSMS (s
3.11):
27

That part of the overall management system which includes organizational
structure, planning activities, responsibilities, practices, procedures, processes and
resources for developing, implementing, achieving, reviewing and maintaining OHS
policy, and so managing the risks associated with the business of the organization.
(Emphasis added)
The Standard recognises the importance (inter alia) of adapting OHS policy to the “nature
and scale” of the organisation and its work (s 4.2a) and its documentation, implementation,
maintenance, communication to employees, as well as access and regular review (d, e, f).
Meeting these goals requires adequate resources (4.4.1.1) and accountability through the
organisation to senior (“top”) management (4.4.1.2). Competency in assessment and
appropriate task training are required (4.4.2). Direct employee participation in consultative
arrangements is required, also with appropriate training (4.4.3). The Standard includes in
detail provisions for record keeping and reporting that are an intrinsic part of legislated
systems.
The explanatory parts of the Standard point to additional sources for organisational
requirements that are relevant in Victoria. These include industry codes, agreements and
guidelines (A4.3.2). That is, the Standard looks beyond audit compliance within a narrow
framework to information and guidance from outside the organisation.
2.3.2 SafetyMAP
SafetyMAP (Safety Management Achievement Program) is a self-assessment audit tool
designed to assist organisations improve their management of health and safety. It applies a
similar but considerably more detailed model to developing OHSMS and ensuring its
measurability. Its overall goals of measurement, cyclical improvement and certification are
congruent with the Standard, but its focus on benchmarking is a practical step towards best
practice (Overview).
A higher level in SafetyMAP includes targeted questions to provide guidance towards
achieving certification and ‘walk around’ observations of actual practice and compliance. The
former are useful guides to instances of best practice. The latter demonstrate accountability
and transparency in the workplace. The targeted questions, in ‘open’ form, require sufficient
respondent understanding of context and significance to answer them. The walk-around
signals assist in ‘silent’ audit through direct observation. Depending on the capacity of the
auditor and the cooperation of the respondent, it is possible to acquire a clear picture of what
the management and employees understand about their roles and responsibilities in OHS.
This of course depends on the mode of administration (i.e., through active questioning rather
28

than through written responses, which can be completed by a tick-the-box response)
(against Gallagher et al 2001).
Best practice can be inferred from positive responses to the Advanced Level Criteria (82
initial-level criteria and 43 additional criteria).
2.3.3 Principal Elements of Best Practice in OHS Management
Systems
The principal elements of best practice drawn from the literature and from regulatory
documents are most easily reviewed in tabular form, and, as required in this project, set
against inferred and empirical obstacles to best practice implementation.
The ASCC comments that “Innovative health and safety management is defined as the
outcome of a conscious strategy to integrate health and safety into broader management
systems and practices such as Total Quality Management systems and other best practice
management methods” (http://www.ascc.gov.au/ascc/HealthSafety/ManagingHealthSafety/
OHSbestPractice/HealthSafetyResearchReport/3TypesofHealthandSafetyManagement
Systems.htm), and provides the following table.
Table 4
What is Best Practice?
The essential ingredients of Best Practice are:
(i)
Strong commitment and leadership by CEOs in identifying and implementing
comprehensive and integrated change in their organisations in a co-operative and
consultative manner.
(ii)
A vision and business strategy that are clearly understood and actively pursued by all
managers and employees.
(iii)
Progressive and innovative Human Resource Management (HRM) philosophies, policies
and processes, including a proactive and collaborative approach to industrial relations.
(iv)
Organisational structures that create open, two-way communication channels to enable
employees to have a greater say in the way they work.
(v)
The pursuit of continuous improvement in all elements of business operations, requiring
the development and use of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), Benchmarking, and
Total Quality Management (TQM).
29

(vi)
Building effective networks between the business and its customers, suppliers and other
organisations, to improve performance and develop competitive advantage.
(vii)
Improving technological processes, products and the environmental impact of business
operation.
Source: Mansfield 1994
The ASCC adds: “These approaches seek a fundamental shift in management, away from
traditional top-down autocratic decision-making, towards flexible, adaptive, learning
organisations. Integration, as noted, is a key concept in modern management thinking”. The
implications for labour hire arrangements are important, because this approach charges
management with the responsibility for ensuring that the firm or organisation is fitted for the
complex task of integrating OHS into management systems specifically in ways that
enhance performance of labour hire, returning benefits to management, the firm and to the
workers concerned. Assumptions that on-hire labour are separated from the permanent
workforce and need not participate in integrated arrangements are misguided.
The elements of best practice are further mapped against simplified flow-charts for the onhire
process. (These are detailed in Appendix I.)
30

3 OHS Best Practice in the Labour Hire Sector in Victoria: A
Framework
This section outlines in tabular form systemic features in labour hire that meet requirements
under law and aligns them with best practice for labour hire agencies and host employer
firms. Best practice, in this framework, is a truly joint management of the obligation to ensure
the safety of labour hire workers as far as is reasonably practicable.
Note that for the purposes of describing compliance and best practice no distinctions are
drawn on the basis of firm size.
Table 5
Compliance and Best Practice
A B C
Compliance
Requirement
– applies to
category B
and/or item
D Best Practice
Includes all of C and:
1. Organisation OHS goals
Both Agency and Host Employer
• Accept joint responsibility for worker
OHS
• Set targets for improvement to OHS
record
• Systems development to achieve target
of managing OHS
• Establish accountability for achievement
• Ensure training of accountable staff at
appropriate organisational levels
• Employ or engage suitably qualified
personnel to provide OHS advice
• Board designates member for
oversight
o
‘Safety champion’
• OHS assigned high(est) corporate
priority
o
o
Promoting a safety culture
Ensure resources for OHS
development, maintenance
• OHS integrated into business plan
with specific organisational goals
• Recognition of OHS as a sound basis
for business
• OHSMS
o
o
o
Board / CEO mentoring of
accountable manager(s)
Ensure trained ‘backup’
personnel if accountable
officer is unavailable
Establish meaningful KPIs
for incident reporting
• Annual publicised safety awards
• Regular publication of target
achievements and/or initiatives for
change
31

2 On-hire Agency induction
• Identify agency contact for reporting
• Identify agency HSR
• Provide induction on OHS
• Provide induction on site or with
employer-specific elements, where
appropriate
• Ensure understanding of personal
responsibility for safety
• Check for induction fatigue
• Check for knowledge transfer
• Test knowledge transfer effectiveness
3. Pre-placement information
Agency
• About the client (host employer)
o
Verify client OHS incident
record
• Agency reviews client’s OHS records
for preceding 5 years
o
Establish protocol for ongoing
access to relevant host
employer records (e.g., injury
register, hazard report forms,
incident investigation reports)
• Client reviews agency’s OHS records
for preceding 5 years
• Client verifies agency’s contact
systems with employees
o
• About the task(s)
Verify client systems (can the
host demonstrate a systematic
approach to managing safety
in the workplace?)
• Client verifies agency’s willingness
and capacity to monitor workplace
safety and to attend on site
• Client seeks agency’s agreement to
be involved in any incident or near hit
/ near miss investigation
o
o
o
Specific skills required are
determined (job description
and summary of tasks)
Hours of work
Duration of placement
• Agency tests skills and competence
where feasible
o Level of supervision /
information / instruction /
training provided
• About the worker
o
Certification/ Licence for task
• Limitations on
certification/ license
• Scope
• Time
32

o
Experience / competence
• How recent?
o
Skills / Knowledge
• Recent training?
o
Reference checking
• Paper record
• Verbal checking
• About the work environment
o
o
o
o
Location features (amenities
and facilities)
Interaction with other parts of
the site and equipment
(potential hazards and risks
identified and controlled)
Existence of procedures for
reporting safety issues
Employee representative
arrangements in place
o Weather effects (indoor /
outdoor)
4. Pre-placement inspection
Agency
• Ensure that legislative requirements are
met from preliminary information
• Ensure that risk control measures are in
place in accordance with the hierarchy
of control
Agency and Host Employer
• Site assessment – conducted jointly
o
o
o
o
Attend the site
Ensure competence of agency
staff to assess
Ensure competence of
supervisors on site to assess
Confirm information provided
by client matches on-site
situation
• Hazard identification and control
o
Host employer ‘owns’ the
hazard (plant, substance,
equipment, supervision, on job
training, systems of work,
33

o
o
premises, raw product)
Agency assists host employer
in corrective action (where
required)
Both agency and host ensure
level of risk control is adequate
• Risk identification and control
o
o
Host employer ‘owns’ the risk
(supervision, on job training,
systems of work, premises,
raw product)
Agency assists host employer
in corrective action (where
required)
o
Both agency and host ensure
level of risk control is adequate
• Rejection of host employer as client if
non-compliant with agency
requirements
Agency
o
Refusing to refer a rejected
host employer to another
agency
• Verifying OHSMS in the client firm
o
o
o
o
Sighting documentation where
it exists (safe work procedures
/ OHS manuals / Job Safety
Analysis)
Sighting OHS notice boards
Verify representation
arrangements (DWGs / HSRs)
where they exist
• Verify procedure for
electing HSRs
• Verify HSR is trained
• Verify appropriate
number of HSRs
Verify consultation
arrangements
o
Verify incident reporting
arrangements
o Verify procedures for first aid /
medical treatment
• Appropriate, accessible medical
treatment available on site
34

5. On-site Host Employer induction
• Provide induction
o
Agency verified induction
• Identifying on-site HSR(s)
• Supervised skill and competency
testing on site to verify competency
o
Agency verifies
• Verify representation arrangements
o
Agency verifies
• Verify consultation arrangements
o
Agency verifies
• Check for induction fatigue
• Verify knowledge transfer
• Test knowledge transfer effectiveness
6. Training
Agency
• Create pool of trained employees
• Verify training requirement
Agency and Host Employer
• Provide training by competent provider
or
o
o
o
Coordinate joint training
programs
Develop assistance for
upgrading
Integrate on-hire labour into
host training programs
• Provide assistance with approved
training
o
Identify providers
• Develop ‘bank’ of accredited /
approved training organisations
o
Verify competence and/or
accreditation
• Verify training knowledge transfer
• On-site testing of training outcome
before full deployment
7. On-site permit access (where relevant)
Host Employer
• Whole-of-site restriction
• Part-of-site restriction
• Consider merit of permit system for
site(s)
• Develop OHSMS to implement permit
system
• Ensure training is available to meet
permit requirements
35

8. On-site supervision
• Verifying on-site supervision
o
o
Identify supervisor
Verify contact details
• ‘Buddy’ system for new workers
• Toolbox meetings for all workers daily
o
o
Safety incorporated into
toolbox meetings
Safety issues raised
addressed and reported back
• Management ensures integration of
on-hire workers into workplace
• Management provides mentoring for
supervisors
• Supervisors regularly report to
managers on toolbox meetings etc.
• Board / CEO receive reports of
address of issues
• Provide aids for safety checking
(checklists)
9. On-site monitoring
• Verifying communication systems
• Ensure maintenance of risk control
measures
• Identify new risks and control measures
• ‘Management by walking about’
validates leadership interest in OHS
• Regular systems testing for
communication effectiveness and
response times
• Joint conduct of systems testing
• Provide feedback to workers on
identification of new risks and
measures to control them
10. Incident reporting
• Reporting to host employer
o
o
Reporting to supervisor
Reporting to HSR
• Reporting to on-hire agency
o
Reporting to HSR
• Reporting to WorkSafe where required
• Review of workplace safety
• Verify implementation of corrective
action
• All incidents analysed and reported to
CEO and Board
• Corrective action advised
• Initiatives advised
• Provide workers with user-friendly
aids for incident reporting
(transparent, easy-to-use KPIs)
• Regular systems testing for
communication effectiveness and
response times (joint testing)
• Elicit worker comment
• Establish feedback systems to
workers on results of responses and
reviews (including how KPIs are
used)
11. ‘Near hit/ Near miss’ reporting
• Reporting to host employer
o Reporting to supervisor
o Reporting to HSR
• CEO / Board receive analyses and
reports of near hits / near misses,
corrective action and proposed
initiatives
• Provide workers with user-friendly
aids for near hit / near miss reporting
36

• Reporting to on-hire agency
o
Reporting to HSR
• Review of workplace safety
• Verify implementation of corrective
action
• Reporting to WorkSafe where required
(including KPIs)
• Elicit worker comment and input
• Provide workers with feedback on
results of responses and reviews
• Publish in comprehensible form (such
as graphs or pie charts) progress or
shortfalls in the OHS record
12. Workplace change reporting
• Establish protocol for host employer to
consult with on-hire worker and agency
before implementing any task transfer
• Establish protocol for on-hire worker to
report workplace or task changes to
agency
• Provide workers with user-friendly
aids to assist reporting and
communication
• Integrate on-hire workers into
communication systems that
foreshadow workplace changes,
whether or not these are in the
timeframe of the current on-hire
workers
13. Consultation (legal duty)
• Verify that consultative arrangements
are in place
• Actively promote workplace consultation
• Ensure on-hire worker input into
consultative systems
• Agency has a system in place to ensure
changes in work activity are
communicated from the host
14. Representation (entitlement)
• Promote representation in one of the
following ways:
• LH employees represented by host
employer HSR
• LH employees establish own DWG
and HSR
• LH agency and other employers
establish multiple employer
arrangement
• Actively promote workplace
representation
• Seek on-hire worker input into
representative systems
• Train on-site HSRs in importance of
integrating on-hire workers into
representation
• Where unions are present on site,
facilitate union contact with on-hire
workers
15. Agency-client communication
• Establish protocol for regular
communication and meetings
• Establish protocol of incident reporting
• Establish relationship that includes
informal as well as formal
communications between agency and
client
• Establish protocol for notification of
change of task
37

16. ‘Return to work’
• Agency responsibility to return injured
worker to work is achieved by Agency
and Hosts working cooperatively to
manage injured workers and provide
suitable alternative duties
• Management recognises and actively
supports Return To Work obligations
(holding position offers open and
returning worker to the same or
equivalent role on Return To Work)
• Maintain contact with workers under
rehabilitation
• Establish a return to work program
o
Proactive approach to
identifying and providing duties
that match the worker’s
capacity
• Appoint Return to Work Coordinator
o
Train RTWC
• Agency uses attitude towards return
to work programs as a significant
criterion in decision making about
contracting with or retaining a client
• Agency develops a persuasive
business plan that emphasises the
business benefits of return to work
and retention of trained labour
• Providing agency placements for
returning workers on an interim basis
• Providing no-cost or shared-cost
placements for returning workers
o
o
Delegate appropriate authority
to identify duties and make
offers of employment
Position
• Establishing return to work
arrangements with host employers
• Establish a risk management plan
38

Table 6
Barriers to OHS compliance
The barriers, many of them better understood as challenges or issues, that are indicated in
this table emerged as themes from interviews and consultation. They are not insuperable
nor are they barriers that all participants in this study identify. Rather, many of them emerge
as challenges to good practice that must be addressed if progress towards best practice is
to be made. Whether the challenge belongs principally to the agency or to the host employer
is in some cases a matter of balance and of what is reasonably practicable.
Barrier or Challenge to OHS compliance
Labour hire
agency
Host employer
Is this (or likely to be) a barrier /
challenge?
(Yes)
(No or not relevant)
General
Extent of documentation for review
• (Non-)Availability of incident and reporting
records (e.g., for previous 5 years)
‘Tiers’ of regulation
Misperception of nature of joint responsibility*
Narrow understanding of Act (e.g., objectives limited to
business cost-benefit)
Commercial pressure on agent to accept a client
• Multiple sites and competences required
Commercial pressure on host to accept and use labour
quickly
Pre-placement inspection and worker assessment
Access to distant workplaces for inspection
• Reliance on paper systems
• Reliance on host cooperation for full access to
all sites
Agency competence in site and job analysis
• Reliance on client-supplied information
• Task definition unclear (determined post
placement)
39

• Capacity to identify risks and hazards
Management systems
Firm size / resources preclude OHSMS
• OHS expertise vested in an individual rather
than the firm and its systems
• OHS responsibility quarantined to sub-executive
level*
• Reliance on print manuals as sufficient evidence
of compliance
Certification / Licencing
Verifying qualifications and certification / licencing by
agency
Verifying references and experience by agency
• Worker misrepresentation of skills etc.
• Reliance on agency assertion of skills and
competence
On-site testing of competence in specific tasks
Induction
Cost of induction – lost time
• Incomplete induction due to other pressures on
induction provider
Induction fatigue
• Inappropriately directed induction
• Ensuring knowledge transfer
Agency relies on host to undertake induction for OHS
Host assumes agency induction is sufficient for OHS
Training
Verifying training required for specific tasks or sites
Cost of training and upgrades
• Verifying training provider qualification
Verifying knowledge transfer at training programs
Supervision
Ensuring supervision is qualified and appropriate
40

• Ensuring that effective supervision is maintained
Providing a buddy system for new workers
Ensuring regular toolbox meetings
Monitoring
Ensuring on-going monitoring in workplace
• Supervisor reluctance or inattention in reporting*
• Maintaining risk control measures
• Identifying new risks and control measures
Ensuring joint testing of monitoring systems
Attitudes and Perceptions
Integration of on-hire workers into workforce
• Countering on-hire worker negative perceptions
of role as transient participants
• Countering permanent workforce perceptions of
on-hire workers as lesser participants
Reporting
Ensuring incident reporting from host to agency
• Worker perception that reporting is a threat to
the worker
• Worker perception that reporting is only to the
host
• Worker uncertainty about responsibility for
rehabilitation and medical treatment
Review and follow up of incident reporting
• Involving agency and on-hire workers in review
and feedback
Reporting near hits / near misses
• Accepting near hit / near miss data as a base for
further review
• Ensuring board and senior management
attention to near hit / near miss analysis
Communication
Maintaining communications with host
Time and cost pressures on hosts in responding to
41

agency requests for meetings and reviews
Maintaining communications with workers
Conducting on-site meetings
Joint testing of communication systems
Consultation and Representation
Consultation
• Confusion with communication
Representation
• Misunderstanding the significance of recent
changes to the Act
• Confusion with communication
• Locating HSRs in the agency or in the
workplace
• Confusing representation with union
arrangements
Notifying task / workplace change
• Involving agency in planning for changes
• Involving on-hire workers in review of planned
changes
Return to work
Host employers not wanting to take injured workers
back as part of a Return To Work
Nature of host industries (i.e., higher risk work such as
meat industry)
Cost of return to work programs
External developments
• Media perceptions of (declining) role of unions
• Media perceptions of (increasing) workplace
flexibility
• Commonwealth Government promotion of
workplace flexibility and deregulation
• Contractors moving out of jurisdiction (e.g.,
transfer from State to Commonwealth
jurisdiction)
• Contractors operating across multiple
jurisdictions
42

Identified in this project.
* Emerged as an issue for possible non-compliance,
even though all interviewed agreed it was not a problem
for them.
43

4 Analysis and Discussion
4.1 Overview
This section reviews the major themes that emerge from analysis of interviews and
consultations (see Appendix III for more detail on each case study). Not all firms show all
features, and not all narratives may credit the detail of each firm (that is, the informant and/
or the case may include the practice, but cross-reference in this section is not exhaustive but
illustrative). In outline the narratives derived affirm a consistent model of behaviour that
amounts to good practice and aims to move towards best practice.
4.1.1 Best practice
Best practice will, by definition, retain essential features, irrespective of firm size, on the
labour hire side (this was a strongly expressed view from the sector association) and on the
host organisation side, because both have shared responsibility under legislation and must
therefore comply.
Best practice builds on those compliance requirements, which include incorporation of
social, ethical and environmental factors. However, best practice is unlikely prima facie to be
identical with regulatory requirements, not only because regulation at a general level seeks
to minimise intervention consistent with achievement of its goals, but because practice in the
labour hire sector is constantly changing and developing and because regulation in OHS is
not always prescriptive. Best practice is therefore likely to be in advance of any regulatory
developments seeking to promote it. When firms were invited at the end of the interview to
discuss the relationship of their claims to good practice with compliance requirements, they
typically acknowledged the importance of regulation, which provided the essential
framework, but that was the base on which they built to go forward, not a base at which they
sought to stay.
The ideal model for best practice OHS in the labour hire sector is not and cannot be a onesize-fits-all
model. Rather, there are systemic features of best practice that change
according to the structure of the labour hire firm, its target market, and its geographical
relationship to host employers and regions.
4.1.2 Data generalisation
These results cannot, of course, be generalised beyond the sample range selected, which
focused on a relatively small number of industries, nor can it be applied without qualification
44

to the sector at large.
4.1.3 Thematic analysis
The thematic principles used in analysing interviews and consultations were:
persuasiveness (how informants appeared to address issues of OHS, how they understood
the labour hire context of OHS, how they understood their obligations, etc.); consistency with
respondents’ understanding of issues; coherence; and usefulness (how, in this case, data
contributed to the scope of the project) (see Riessman 1993). Within this framework,
analysis focused on elements identified as fundamental to compliance and the base on
which progress towards best practice must be built. These were, in summary:
• Corporate objectives;
• Management commitment;
• Agency inspection and preparation;
• Induction;
• Training;
• Supervision and monitoring;
• Consultation and representation;
• Incident reporting; and
• Communication.
These also have sub-sections of specific interest, such as rejection of host clients, providing
assistance to hosts to enable compliance, etc.
4.2 Commitment to OHS and shared responsibility
4.2.1 OHS as a corporate value and objective
The highest level, most abstract issue for managing OHS in the labour hire sector, whether
from the agency side or the employer side is the safety culture. If a safety culture is
embedded in corporate values and assigned a high – or indeed the highest – priority, and if
commitment to that priority is demonstrated through management involvement, action and
responsiveness, then all parties to the ‘safety transaction’ can be committed to it.
45

A firm, through its senior executives and managers, needs to be seen to ‘walk the talk’. The
‘talk’ – the public commitment to values – is important for the signals it sends and the
aspirational targets it sets, but the ‘walk’ serves to emphasise that the commitment is not
rhetorical but practical. This perception of the importance of practical demonstrations of
commitment reappeared regularly, in a number of guises, such as CEO engagement, Board
involvement, public speeches, on-site observation of issues, and so on.
Almost all firms interviewed included OHS as a priority corporate value. One, candid about
commercial pressures, pointed to the care the firm took with OHS but commented that OHS
could not be the highest priority, because that had to be making a profit as a business
(Case N).
ACREW has found consistent evidence from organisations interviewed that on both sides of
the labour hire system there is a strong commitment to OHS as an essential component in
reaching a sound business decision (Cases A, C, D, E, G, L1, Q). 3 Repute in the sector and
in the community mattered (Cases A, F). (Workers understood similarly the importance of a
commitment to OHS: Groups 1-3.)
Appropriate OHS serves to support corporate values, business identity, commercial value,
worker loyalty, individual safety and overall cost reductions, whether of premiums, time lost
or replacement and training costs. Interviewees were often concerned to communicate how
a ‘good for business’ ethos was consistent and integrated with a ‘good for people’ culture.
Labour hire agencies and host employers, even when questioning the motives of the other
(Case J, for example), 4 maintained that for their sector a business built on strong OHS was
superior as a business to one that cut corners. Neither agencies (Cases A, B, C, D, G, H, R)
nor hosts (Cases J, P) would accept the short-term benefits of dealing with firms that did not
meet high OHS standards; all took a medium- to longer-term view on commercial value and
probity.
It was important that values and attitudes were shared, not only for OHS but also for the
workplace and its tasks as a whole. Conversely, workers who lacked a commitment to the
workplace were perceived as more likely to carry that attitude over to completion of tasks,
reinforcing stereotypical views of on-hire workers as being less committed and less reliable
3 As indicated above, these are selective examples.
4 Typically, firms on both sides were confident that they were dealing with committed, competent and
ethical agencies or firms, respectively, but that they suspected or knew of competitors and others in
the industry who lacked proper commitment to OHS. WorkSafe inspectors also pointed to opinions
that labour hire firms who acted ethically themselves might nonetheless refer ‘unsatisfactory’ potential
clients to a ‘less ethical’ agency that was willing to accept the contract without imposing too many
conditions. This populist or anecdotal view of behaviour among agencies and firms received no
explicit support during interviews, nor was it within the project’s scope to test the view.
46

ecause of transience. Hosts were very aware of the risks that negative attitudes posed
(Cases E, G) and they both focused their client arrangements on identifying good practice
agents who supplied quality labour and took steps themselves to include on-hire workers in
the firm’s culture (Case M, for example).
(Firms were not required to support their views by submission of documents, but many
chose to do so, providing these either as in-confidence information or for inspection on-site.
Where this occurred, such documents were analysed and were found to be consistent with
verbal claims.)
4.2.2 Challenges for management
Again and again informants pointed to the highly personal nature of OHS management as a
key factor in systemic design, implementation, maintenance and success. Behind this
therefore lies a best practice commitment to ensure that the system is not individualdependent
but values-dependent: when the OHS ‘expert’ leaves, the firm must have in
place a system that does not allow OHS to fall in priority or fail in effectiveness (Case G, M,
P).
Such commitment typically is sourced to the leadership of the organisation. Leaders,
including up to the CEO or chairman level, validate best practice by their example, in
speech and public commitment and in ‘management by walking about’, including an
understanding of the workplace that allows them to notice and address any shortfall in best
practice. In this respect, a small firm, in the hands of one or two or a few people, is by its
nature (its small, focused management) capable of maintaining OHS priorities as a core
value because the small team that remains after key OHS departures and prior to their
replacement already shares commitment to the core OHS values that contribute to best
practice.
4.2.3 Challenges for joint responsibility
Among stakeholders, especially employer and sector groups and unions, there was a
generally expressed view that the legislation created both problems in understanding
responsibility and capacity to evade it, through requirements that all parties shared in OHS
responsibility.
However, ACREW found that none of those firms (or their workers) interviewed saw
joint responsibility as an inherent problem, nor did they perceive it as an opportunity
to avoid their duty of care. Rather, they saw joint responsibility as providing an
47

opportunity for learning and improvement in health and safety.
This is not to say that perverse outcomes never occurred: some informants did point to
unnamed competitors who were less than adequate in their responses to shared
responsibility. But organisations (self-)designated ‘best practice’ were strong in their
rejection of such responses.
Though some host firms did not pursue OHS management systems in fullest detail, they
also did not see this as a problem related to the Act; the Act provided them with a minimum
framework for compliance, but in every case they saw their own practice, and best practice,
as exceeding minimum legislated requirements.
4.2.4 Learning from the workplace
An employer organisation and some interview subjects (Case E, M) discerned in shared
responsibility the opportunity for mutual learning for agencies and hosts. This could assist in
each planning to meet the other’s needs, for the benefit of both.
4.2.5 Resources for OHS
Only one informant expressed total satisfaction with resources made readily available for
supporting OHSMS development and maintenance (Case P: perhaps atypical, in that while
there may be ‘business’ pressures on a municipal council in meeting its budget, these are
not identical with private sector commercial pressures). For others it was a matter of
advocating strongly for resources and ensuring that management was aware of resource
needs.
4.2.6 Accreditation to standards
There was minor interest in complying with recognised accreditation systems: Cases C and
M were accredited under AS4801, and Case P was currently aiming for accreditation.
Some, like Case B, used (in this case) AS4801 as a measure of compliance without formal
accreditation. Most firms preferred to develop customised systems that they could
benchmark against others. There was no comment among such firms about the usefulness
of an ‘off-the-shelf’ system as a quick check for systems completeness.
4.3 Summary of perceptions
There was a consistent, pragmatic assessment of problems in areas such as:
48

• Induction fatigue (Cases B, G, K, Group 1) 5
o Induction fatigue was a ‘fact of life’ and it presented challenges to those
presenting the induction as well as those completing it. It was important to
ensure that the induction was appropriately targeted – for example, a detailed
concentration on legal matters was likely to prove unhelpful.
• Skills upgrading or renewal (Cases F, M, Q, Group 1)
o Skills upgrading remained a live issue, but a contentious one: who should
pay? Short-term cost savings for host employers (and for agencies) were at
the expense of long-term banks of skills, and undermined at the agency end
the quality of the ‘product’, which was the agency’s selling point, and at the
host employer’s end could result in diminished performance.
• Verification of competency (Cases D, F, J)
o Certificates and licences were important, but they were only reliable as a
starting point in assessing competence for a particular task and on a
particular site. Some host employers and agencies preferred competency
testing on practical tasks. Agencies also needed to ensure that competence
in one task was not allowed to be carried over silently into a related but
different task, such as the use of fork lifting equipment of varying classes and
capacity.
• Management of communication in complex or remote sites (Cases A, R)
o
Although agencies and host employers accepted the importance of inspection
and monitoring, remote sites could present challenges. Employers had other
options, such as recruitment of specialist monitors to act and report on their
behalf, and the use of technology to ensure that communication between
workers and managers was maintained.
• Promotion of a positive attitude to reporting both incidents and near hits or near
misses (both by workers and by management) (Cases G, Q)
o Good practice required not only reporting to comply with legislation but a step
further: reporting likely or potential instances of shortfalls, whether or not an
incident followed. This additional layer of reporting then required both
5 Note that these citations of cases are indicative, not exhaustive.
49

analysis and management address, but also, for maximum benefit, prompt,
open communication of the outcome to workers and supervisors. Above all,
fostering a positive, accepting environment for all reporting was a key to
ongoing improvement.
• Consultation and representation (Cases A, B, R; K, O, P, Group 1)
o Consultation and representation were the most significant areas where
legislative requirements were unmet or less than fully met. Most respondents
assumed that consultation and representation were equivalent to good
communication, which they had no trouble endorsing. But when consultation
and representation were considered in detail, some respondents could report
ways of improving these, through existing systems of HSRs and supervisors.
The main effort needed to go into connecting on-hire workers with supervisors
and HSRs at the induction stage, then in ensuring that this was maintained.
• The constant attention to OHS and changing regulatory requirements that
underpinned systems (Cases F, P)
o Most seemed to see the Act as ‘there’ and to be complied with. Despite some
dissatisfaction with the formal technical complexity of layers of regulation,
respondents recognised both the legal requirements of compliance and the
underlying significance of the Act in supporting welfare. Managers who had
thought more deeply about the problem proposed that a more proactive
involvement of WorkSafe would assist them – advice on what changes
meant, how they should be applied, and all before any incident or problem
arose.
Some such matters came down to the irreducible personal element: for example, induction
might be affected by fatigue or boredom (Case K), and, as a useful insight, misdirected OHS
briefings that focused on legalities at the expense of practical responses (Group 1). Others
were likely to be influenced by cost of time and resources, such as training.
Consultation and representation were typically confused with one another, and informants
assumed that good communication somehow amounted to the same thing, even when they
were aware of the Act’s requirements.
4.4 Pre-placement inspection of workplaces
In some key areas, such as home care visits, it was said that it was not always possible for
50

the agency or the host to control the actual ‘workplace’. This is a special case of a more
general problem of appropriate access, and therefore appropriate responsibility, which
arises from the nature of on-hire labour. However, agencies are capable of inspecting such
workplaces, and are required to do so, whatever their circumstances (Case K). Agencies in
the mining industry, for example, met this requirement by retaining a local consultant who
was qualified to undertake the inspection on the agency’s behalf and could provide
appropriate reports.
Agencies generally assumed that site inspection, whatever the logistical challenges, was an
integral part of their contract system (Cases A, B, C, D, G, H, K, R). One firm reviewed the
agencies’ records as labour suppliers for the preceding five years before awarding them a
contract (Case L1).
4.4.1 Risk assessment and management
Risk assessments generally appeared to focus on physical risks (Case B) but did not
always address less obvious risks, which some informants were aware (such as long-term
effects of exposure to hazardous materials undetected at the time of exposure). Due to the
nature of labour hire work, including its transience, as well as the youth of many of the
workers and their level of formal training and experience, longer-term problems were not so
readily perceived; they would emerge over a worker’s lifetime, but would not be apparent
from any one early placement.
At the same time, some workplaces, such as the meat industry (much discussed in the
literature) and, from this project, the entertainment industry and the chemical industries are
inherently subject to risk (Cases N, Q). The challenge for management and workers alike is
both to assess and control the risk (either eliminating risk, so far as is reasonably
practicable, or reducing it where elimination is not possible), and to continually monitor the
emergence of new risks and mitigate these as well.
4.4.2 Rejection of non-complying clients
All on-hire agencies interviewed were firm in their view that they would reject clients who
declined or were unable to comply with legislation and meet agency standards (see Cases
A, B, C, D, G, H, K, R). However, one host in the health sector, where the requirements
included police checks and appropriate specialist insurance, was surprised that an agency
would supply staff that did not meet formal requirements (Case J).
Agencies generally say they would also refuse to refer such clients to other agencies.
51

Larger agencies were more likely to be able to assist clients redress shortfalls in OHSMS
and once this was done there was no further obstacle to accepting the client (Cases A, C,
G, L1).
4.5 Pre-placement assessment of on-hire workers
4.5.1 Certification
Agencies, hosts and trainers were concerned about the adequacy of certification. Trainers
were concerned about time and cost pressures that reduced effectiveness of training and
often substituted class or simulation work for practical experience. Certification therefore
had to be taken at face value, including its inherent limitations as an assessment at a point
in time, but then checked (Cases J, K, M, N, P, Group 3).
All agreed that certification was a first step, but that it required validating in the workplace,
with qualified supervision and a willingness on the host’s part to reject workers whose
competence could not be demonstrated.
4.5.2 Reference checking
There was an interest in cross-checking and verifying references, as a normal part of
recruitment, and also some wariness about taking references at face value. Rather,
reference checking was a part of a large scheme of verification (Cases A, C, F, G).
4.5.3 Skills testing
Some agencies undertook their own practical skills testing, especially where the tasks were
physically locatable within agency premises or capacity, and were of a kind that lent
themselves to ready assessment (Cases D, F). The most obvious example was handling of
equipment to make hot beverages: testing whether a worker could safely handle the
equipment and complete the task quickly told the agency whether the worker was going to
be useful in this role immediately.
4.6 Induction
4.6.1 Agency and host induction
Agencies and hosts assumed the necessity of agency-provided generic induction and hostprovided
on-site, task-specific and workplace-specific induction, although one worker
52

(Group 3) reported that the agency offered no induction, which was supplied on-site by the
host. None offered support for computer-based or printed manual induction except as an
introductory and background preparation for induction (Case LI). Some preferred a system
of regular (such as annual) inductions (Group 1, Case K), irrespective of time- or site- or
task-specific inductions (Cases A, B).
4.6.2 Induction fatigue
‘Induction fatigue’ emerges in research and at interview as an issue for OHS. It is the
inattention through boredom or perceptions of irrelevance that workers may exhibit when
they attend repeated inductions or inductions that appear, to them, to exceed what is
required for OHS in a specific workplace. In short, whatever the importance of the topic,
workers simply ‘switch off’, and if they maintain an appropriately, but deceptively, attentive
pose (eye contact, neutral expression, etc.), they can successfully mask their lack of
interest, which in turn conceals lack of successful transfer of critical knowledge.
In this research, induction fatigue was recognised as a risk by many of those interviewed,
but all were alert to remedial measures to mitigate it, and some expressed a ‘zero tolerance’
for induction fatigue (Case P) because it reflected an unsatisfactory attitude to the
employing firm and to the workplace (Case G): workers unwilling to pay attention to their
own welfare were a risk to themselves, to their workmates and to their employer and host.
Induction fatigue as an issue is closely related to the more general question of knowledge
transfer and its verification (4.6.3).
4.6.3 Knowledge transfer
A number of firms, especially in the health sector, required workers to sign off on their
completion of the induction and their understanding of its content (Cases F, N). Some
required workers to complete a written test, with a fixed requirement for a ‘pass’, as a precondition
for entry to the site. One firm explicitly cited testing of knowledge transfer (Case
J).
4.6.4 Induction resources
One informant commented that although induction, coupled with monitoring and a
‘buddying’ system, were formally required, in practice staff allocated to these duties
occasionally had other duties competing for their time and the induction was therefore less
than complete. This informant emphasised the importance of allocating sufficient time for
new workers to absorb the induction, including with any appropriate supervision (Group 3).
53

4.7 Training
Training emerged as deep, longer-term concern in some areas where specialist skills were
required, such as nursing (Cases J, K, P, R, Group 3). If over time agencies reduce their
interest in maintaining a trained corps of on-hire workers, then over that period the body of
skills available to hosts will decline, resulting in a skills shortage (which in turn can lead to
high costs through wages competition) and higher workloads for existing skilled, permanent
staff, which in turn could affect capacity to provide mentoring, supervision and monitoring of
on-hire and new staff (Group 3).
This supported the concerns from the trainers that competency certification of itself was no
replacement for hands-on, long-term, experiential learning.
One host informant was not interested in supporting training: the cost of training was one
important reason why the firm had elected to use on-hire labour in the first place (Case J).
One firm simply said it was up to ‘staff’ to do training in their own time (Case N, and by
inference at their own cost). Others were inclined to see it as an instance of essential
specialist skills they were best placed to assist in providing (Cases M, Q, Group 1).
While in terms of cost to the host employer, reluctance to provide training and upgrading is
understandable, it assumes that some other party, either the agency or the worker, will
make up the shortfall. It is an example of cost shifting, but, as some employers were aware,
in the longer term it could also result in a less skilled pool of workers.
More subtly, it communicates implicitly to the worker and to the agency the host employer’s
lack of long-term commitment to quality and delivery, and a belief that the partnership is
rightly an unequal one.
On several levels, therefore, commitment to training as a joint / shared responsibility has
benefits that go beyond the host employer’s immediate needs.
4.7.1 Site-specific permits
In some industries, such as the chemical and petrochemical sectors, permit systems
restricted access to all or part of the site (Case K, Groups L1, L2). Permit compliance was
inflexible. Firms argued that only in this way could inherent risks be mitigated and managed.
However, for such permits to become an integral part of the system there must be available
an accredited system of training and upgrading, as well as certification of skills transfer.
Because this involved a substantial cost, it was more likely to be either provided by the host
54

employer directly or through a host-approved provider (Cases M, Q, Group 1) or by way of
agreed arrangements between the host and the agency, because the agency had the
capacity to organise the training and had included the cost in its price of labour.
4.8 Supervision
On-hire agencies were aware of the importance of ongoing, on-site supervision for all onhire
workers, in conjunction with the host employer, but confronted practical limitations,
such as distant locations, in ensuring that supervision was provided and appropriate (Case
K). Host employers were aware they must provide appropriate direct supervision of all
employees and ensure that the on-hire agency had the contact details of supervisors.
4.8.1 Buddy systems
The ‘buddy’ system for on-hire labour moves further from the supervision model to provide
team support as well as ongoing guidance and integration into the workplace. If made
effective, this system not only assists with training and monitoring, for the benefit of worker
and employer, but assists in communicating implicitly a supportive culture in the workplace.
It can therefore reflect in practice claimed values at management level of genuine concern
for worker wellbeing (Cases P, R).
Buddy systems for on-hire and new workers appeared where risks were perceived as high
for those less knowledgeable about the work site, particularly in utilities and in modified form
in the health sector (in the introductory period, as a mentoring system) (Cases P, R, Group
3). These amounted to closer supervision than a busy supervisor with multiple
responsibilities might provide. But a variant, also on industry sites with technical
requirements, included allocating a permanent staff member or ‘leading hand’ to supervise
a team (Case L, N, Groups 1, 2).
4.8.2 Toolbox meetings
Toolbox meetings were mentioned both by workers and firms as a useful way of
communicating essential information and as a standardised way of orientating workers each
day to the specific activities on site (Groups 1, 2; Cases E, G, L1, Q). Workers therefore
knew what was likely to be happening in their work area and could take account of these
tasks as well as their own. Workers expressed their keenness to have such daily toolbox
meetings, in which health and safety might be included, but they emphasised the
importance of an overview of workplace activity.
55

Toolbox meetings, as their name suggests, are more common on sites where tradesmen
are working, but they are a specific case of a general workplace orientation procedure.
4.8.3 Audit
Audit was not mentioned often by name (but see Cases D, P); nor might it be readily
distinguished from another less rigorous but practically effective monitoring system, but it
was implied in some monitoring arrangements (Cases K, Q).
It is likely that understanding of auditing would require further explanation and discussion,
because superficially it can be misunderstood as referring rather to issues of financial
probity.
4.9 Monitoring
Monitoring of safety in the workplace was generally left by agencies to host employers, and
was subsumed under supervision. However, one informant reported that the agency
undertook ‘walk-through’ or ‘drive-through’ inspections, not only to monitor safety and
condition but to reinforce with on-hire workers the agency’s interest in their welfare and its
presence.
Another reported that on-site monitoring and meeting with workers was either discouraged
or not feasible, and in that case the agency encouraged workers to use the agency’s
premises as a home base, providing workers with facilities such as computers and making
management available for informal meetings. However, agencies generally saw it as
important to have regular inspections of a client’s premises (Cases B, C, F, G, R). Firms did
not notice it generally, but there was no resistance: Case K gave the matter no attention,
but its workers, Group 1, saw agency presence as positive.
4.10 Reporting incidents and near hits / near misses
4.10.1 A reporting culture
Those interviewed at every organisation claimed full support for a ‘positive’ reporting
culture: not only should incidents and near hits and near misses be reported promptly but
workers were encouraged to do so without fear of adverse consequences. Indeed, in a few
instances firms claimed that failure to report was a problem of attitude that it was important
to redress.
56

In this regard, stakeholder consultation and interviews produced diametrically opposed
claims. Union health and safety officers were adamant that on-hire workers who raise OHS
issues are most liable to be returned to the agency and their employment at a host site not
renewed. They saw no evidence of such workers being encouraged to raise OHS issues;
the direction was towards discouragement. Agencies were equally firm that they would
regard a host employer who behaved in this way as an unacceptable client. A worker
returned by a host on such grounds would be sent to a new workplace. Hosts were equally
strong that only with reporting at every level, including near misses / near hits, could firms
be sure they were addressing problems and improving their systems.
This difference is accounted for in part in an early comment about perceptions: unions more
naturally become involved when there is a problem in a workplace, not when a workplace
follows best practice. Both perceptions, therefore, may be true.
Good practice in reporting brings benefits to the host employer, who is provided with useful
information to address defects in OHS, to the agency, who learns more of the risks of a
particular workplace, and is able to apply that learning for the future, while for the present
aiming to reduce premiums and/or rehabilitation costs, and for the workers themselves, who
not only gain from system improvements but are empowered in contributing to their own
welfare.
4.10.2 Measuring
Larger host employers emphasised the importance of establishing targets for reducing
incidents and therefore of the requirement for appropriate KPIs for measuring and reporting
incidents and near hits / near misses. In the short term, encouraging reports of near hits /
near misses might suggest system weaknesses, but only if these were reported, recorded
and addressed could a firm take preventive measures. This also encouraged proactive
management interest in identifying hazards and risks previously unknown or unreported.
4.10.3 Assistance in reporting
Agencies in some cases had created customised solutions to the problem of workers using
bulky manuals, providing workers in one case with a wallet sized plastic card that offered
multiple contacts on a 24/7 basis. This was particularly important if the workplace was
distant or the work occurred at irregular hours (Cases A, D, H).
57

4.10.4 Participation in investigation
Some agencies made a practice of seeking involvement with the host firm in investigating
any incidents (Cases A, D, F). Case L1 reported that contractors (not further defined, but by
inference, the firm or agency supplying contract labour) were involved by the firm in
investigation of incidents One host emphasised the importance of 24-hour capacity to
investigate incidents (Case N).
4.10.5 Medical treatment
Some firms made a point of reporting the medical treatment they made available on site (for
example, Cases L, M).
The crucial point was ensuring that workers were aware of first aid and medical treatment
options.
4.11 Consultation and representation
Generally there was confusion between consultation and representation, as if they were
near-identical, and they were subsumed under communication, where good systems were
said to substitute for consultative and representative systems. Because of the nature of onhire
work, host employers generally found the issues of consultation and representation ‘too
hard’, unless, as in a very few cases, the relevant union had an on-site presence. One,
Case N, expressed little interest in any real consultation structures (despite it being a
legislative requirement).
Group 1, however, pointed to Case K, where the firm sought input to its systems
development. Case L2 said that contractors were included in work practice reviews at the
firm.
4.11.1 The role of the Act
Even where there was an awareness of legislated requirements, this was regarded as
secondary to practical, effective, and, to informants, superior systems. Agencies, and some
hosts, see the Act’s approach to representation is inadequate or unrealistic: it generally
makes little sense to them for on-hire workers to become part of designated work groups
and have their health and safety representative at the agency; it makes more sense for such
workers to be a part of DWGs in the workplace itself and to be represented by health and
safety representatives in the workplace.
58

4.11.2 Representation versus communication
Representation emerged anecdotally as of relatively little interest to agencies or hosts. Not
many firms appeared especially strong or interested in developing and supporting robust
independent systems of representation. Cases K (strongly endorsed by Group 1), O, with its
emphasis on consulting with HSRs, and R, with elected HSRs, were significant exceptions;
and Case M was satisfied with arrangements it made with the relevant union (it also had
elected HSRs).
Rather, in line with their perception of the newer style (and predominantly non-union)
workplace, firms relied on a combination of informal face-to-face meetings, at agency and /
or host workplaces, feedback from toolbox meetings, and management-directed and / or –
managed consultation meetings (see Cases A, B, R; E, G). However, this also did not lead
to expressions of great concern that there was a shortfall in communication or an
unwillingness to listen to workers’ concerns. Some firms appeared to have developed
effective, multi-faceted systems that did work (Case L). Rather it was the mechanism that
had changed, with an emphasis on individual worker responsibility (see Group 2, who
assumed a share of personal responsibility was normal and appropriate), supported by
active management promotion of positive responses to OHS issues as they arose.
4.12 Return to work
The sector association expressed concern that agency responsibility for managing
rehabilitation of injured workers (despite being required by law) placed an unfair onus and
cost on labour hire firms. Interviews, however, confirmed that it was difficult but not
impossible to develop a regime that assisted workers to return to work, and it was better to
do so sooner rather than later, for the benefit of workers’ psychological as well as physical
capacity (Cases A, B, C, D, E, K, M, R; Group 1).
In one instance, a client’s expressed reluctance to assist with a return to work program
contributed to an agency’s decision to decline a contract with the host (Case G). However,
Case P, which had a strong systems-based OHS approach and the most generous
resourcing, excluded return to work because not having to provide ongoing support was a
key factor in the decision to use on-hire labour.
Options proposed included partial-cost support, or free placements, alternative duties, and
placements at the agency’s home base or in the workplace. There was no one-size
response, and in higher risk or physically demanding workplaces hosts were clear that a
placement may not be possible, but agencies were equally clear in most cases that they
59

could provide support from within their own systems, that this was indeed good business as
well as responsible behaviour, because it retained workers, ensured their loyalty, and
overall reduced costs. (There seemed to be no awareness that all such costs must be
somehow subsumed in agency charges.)
4.13 Industry-specific issues
Industry-specific problems have emerged in other research (e.g., in nursing, meat packing
and construction industries, and in group training environments, including for apprentices:
see AMIEU 2003; Underhill 2002a, 2003).
4.13.1 Nursing
In health, nursing is currently a special concern because of the shortage of trained nursing
staff, competition for this restricted pool, the ageing of the pool, and complementary interests
in reducing costs by using on-hire nursing staff, and substituting where possible with lowertrained
staff, such as personal care attendants and other aides (Case J; Group 3). Nursing
by its nature can involve manual handling, exposure to risks of infection, and dealing with
difficult or aggressive patients. Training to deal with these aspects of nursing practice is not
readily provided by host hospitals, which often seek to avoid incurring substantial training
costs for staff that are transient. Attending generic or simulated programs is a poor substitute
for closely monitored, on-site experience and feedback (Cases R, J; Worker Group 3; union
comment).
4.13.2 Meat processing
In the meat industry, union officials pointed to ongoing problems in ensuring worker safety
because of the implements in use, the training that workers had – or had not – undertaken,
and pressures to complete tasks in the shortest time possible.
One informant had indeed moved away from utilising labour hire workers because it could
not be accommodated within the quality framework the firm promoted.
4.13.3 Specialisation, scale and scope
What also emerged was the clear advantage in systems development and maintenance for
on-hire firms if they chose to specialise in an area, whether this was mining on a large scale
or entertainment on a much smaller scale, and concomitant advantages for hosts who could
draw on a known body of such skills (Cases A, D, H, P; health, Group 3; L1). However, very
60

large firms, with a multitude of interests and locations were able to provide an appropriate
level and diversity of service and monitoring because of economies of scale and scope,
which they were equipped to benefit from.
4.14 Regional issues
Analysis of regional issues depends on a small interview base, but the data provide were
informative.
4.14.1 The market size for agents
Regional issues are multi-faceted. For labour hire agencies, the problem is twofold: the pool
of labour may be limited in numbers and in skill; and the pool of clients may be limited in
number and in capacity to meet best practice OHS. The agency therefore faces commercial
pressures in declining both workers and employer-clients. However, countering this, regional
operators have pointed to the importance of local reputation, since word-of-mouth is an
asset in each kind of recruitment (Cases F, M).
4.14.2 Addressing location challenges
The issue of the region, however, also arises with larger firms, whether metropolitan,
regional, national or international, where placements are at a significant distance from the
home office and inspection and ongoing monitoring is not feasible. Agencies and firms need
to be able to have confidence in on-site reporting undertaken on their behalf by local
supervisors (Case R). A system of reporting must therefore include adequate documentation
and also appropriate verification. Mobile technology (telephones, web-cams) is likely to
provide acceptable forms of on-site inspection without the requirement for a senior manager
to be physically present. Records may therefore expand to include media other than the
traditional ‘paper trail’.
4.14.3 Community as stakeholder
The community interest also emerges in considering the role of agencies and hosts in
regions (for example, Case M). In towns, agencies and host employers are more likely than
not to know local people by name, and to be employing them, their families or their friends.
Commitment to safety therefore includes a deeply personal element, and incidents that
result in injury or fatality have a concomitantly greater effect on agents and employers who
must face families afterwards.
61

4.15 The significance of ‘size’ of firm
In the design phase of this project, there was discussion about the importance or relevance
of size as a factor in best practice. On the one hand, it was argued that best practice was by
definition irrelevant to size of either agency or host firm – best practice was best practice.
In a small firm, for example, the agency or manager’s capacity to inspect a site, assess the
workplace for hazards and risks, visit and monitor workers and maintain communications
might depend only on personal availability and nothing more technical than a clipboard. At
the other end of the scale, a very large firm, even a multinational, might provide an extensive
system of documentation (in some cases, such documents were made public on a firm’s
website) to underpin OHSMS and a high-level staff to ensure that reporting and action
occurred. In substance these need not be different: the desired outcomes are knowledge of
the workplace and of workers, reporting and responses, proactive awareness of issues, and
positive communications between workers and managers.
However, it was also acknowledged that the size of a firm, whether agency or host, could
affect its capacity to develop and sustain effective OHS management systems where these
were formal and complex. Certainly it affected capacity to undertake on-site inspections,
audits and on-site meetings with workers, especially where problems of location arose.
But there were observable advantages in differences in size. As firms grew, they shifted their
capacity from the owner-manager’s direct control of all aspects of the operation. This may
not have demonstrated a formal, documented and comprehensive OHSMS, but it could
include in practice all essential elements of an effective system. The tipping point comes
when a firm moves up the scale but its systems lag behind. Best practice firms of whatever
size, therefore, must take into account shifting demands on their capacity and proactively
develop a management system that anticipates change and is ready to meet it.
4.16 Innovative practices
Best practice should include constant attention to innovative practices in OHS management
that arise from technological change and from individual innovations.
Examples that have come to attention include:
• More effective use of mobile technology to communicate information to and from
supervisors. The mobile phone, with its messaging system, is an obvious candidate,
but more sophisticated devices, such as the Blackberry, and later generation devices
62

allow communication of pictorial and tabular information.
• Effective use of existing solutions for communicating problems. The most striking
example of this was the credit-card sized information card issued together with the
larger but pocket-sized OHS manual to workers. The size and convenience of the
card (including the immediate access to crucial contact information) commends it as
an easy, affordable measure for every firm.
What to do if you are
injured at work
1. Report the incident on site
2. Call the agency mobile number or
ask someone to do it for you
3. Seek first aid if needed
4. Attend the agency office on the next
working day to report the incident
[Reverse of card: all contact
details]
Any required medical treatment and
rehabilitation will be coordinated by
[the on-hire agency]
• Another solution that emerged was a reminder system to address likely issues at the
site before beginning a new task or a new day. An example was a formal requirement
(or strong encouragement) that workers spend 5 minutes ticking off possible risks
designated by the host employer, in conjunction with the agency, at the start of every
day and every new task or site.
Identify
Observer............................................Date.............
.....
Job
location:................................................................
Job
description:...........................................................
Yes = controlled No = uncontrolled
Am I trained, competent and know my job?
Risk of strains and sprains controlled?
Risk of trip or slip hazards controlled?
Do I have all correct PPE?
Do I have all correct equipment?
Is equipment tagged and good condition?
Are correct isolations in place?
Is there sufficient lighting?
Is risk of falls from heights controlled?
Are emissions controlled?
Are there any weather risks?
Are hazards effectively controlled?
Have I found anything for further action?
(Report it to supervisor)
4.17 Highly effective strategies
Some strategies and practices could not be called innovative but prove highly effective,
63

especially from the worker’s viewpoint.
4.17.1 Safety Ambassadors and Champions
At the corporate level, especially for larger firms, there was a realisation of the importance of
ensuring that the board and senior management showed their interest in and accountability
for OHS (Cases B, C). This could mean in some cases having board members visit and
inspect sites (sometimes through appointment of a designated member of the board), and,
more generally, ensure that managers ‘walking about’ paid attention to potential hazards and
risks and immediately dealt with what they observed. A ‘safety champion’ could represent
the priority of OHS throughout the organisation, and be the conduit for representations
through management to the senior executive level, and a conduit from that level through to
site supervision and the workers.
4.17.2 Safety Awards
Acknowledgement and promotion of a safety culture can contribute by validating and
promoting organisation-supported behaviour. Safety awards recognise publicly commitment
and achievement (Case L1). They validate the efforts of management and staff and provide
an enduring reminder of the value that management places on safety. For the firm itself,
seeking and gaining external awards also reinforces their claims to safety commitment and
may contribute to business value within the wider community.
4.17.3 Valuing the Community as Stakeholder
The boundaries of the organisation’s interests could also be enlarged. Firms involved in
mining have become accustomed to addressing environmental and cultural issues, but at a
more general level the community at large might be recognised by all organisations as a
legitimate stakeholder in their activities and therefore worthy of engagement in consultation.
Organisations should review their activities and interests to determine where the community,
whether local or more widely distributed, had a stake in an organisation’s operations and in
its success. A best practice organisation would include the community, whether through
interest groups, peak bodies or local representative systems, within its consultative
frameworks – and proactively wherever possible.
64

5 Conclusions
5.1 Management commitment
ACREW has found that firms that demonstrate management commitment to OHS as a
priority, and communicate that commitment throughout their organisation to every person are
well-equipped to claim that they are aiming to achieve best practice. Commitment to
achieving best OHS practice extends from the highest executive level down through to
supervisors and workers at their toolbox and other meetings.
The principal challenge to efforts to achieve best practice, then, is that commitment, from
which flow corporate values, systems development, sufficient resources and communication.
Best practice for organisations of every size is according safety of all workers the highest
priority. Conversely, a narrow focus on short-term competitive advantage through cost
reduction poses a risk to OHS and is unlikely to be associated with a sound business
decision. All those interviewed demonstrated broad understanding of OHS requirements, the
link between OHS and effective business and management, and the importance of
embedding OHS as a value in firms, their management and all their workers.
5.2 Management systems
The project identified that best-practice organisations in regard to their OHS practices have
well-developed, well-supported management systems, which have been customised for their
own circumstances, but they remain cognizant of alternatives that competitors may develop.
OHS management systems do not of themselves constitute best practice, but they provide
important assistance in aiming towards it.
These systems are comprehensive in addressing pre-work and task assessment, risk and
hazard identification and address: induction for OHS and for specific tasks; ongoing training
and skills renewal; supervision and reporting that is proactive and supportive; a culture of
partnership with the labour hire agency and the on-hire workers; and ongoing negotiation of
control between the agency and the host employer so as to identify, manage and reduce risk
to on-hire workers.
Host firms are proactive in setting targets and key performance indicators (KPIs) that
assume reduction in injury and incident rates, have an ultimate target of zero injuries, and
foster a culture of reporting not only incidents but near hits or near misses. They persist with
this reporting where it leads to adverse statistics, because this promotes learning and
improvement.
65

There was clear advantage in systems development and maintenance for on-hire firms if
they chose to specialise in an area, whether this was mining on a large scale or
entertainment on a much smaller one. However, very large firms, with a multitude of
interests and locations were able to provide an appropriate level and diversity of service and
monitoring because of economies of scale, which they were equipped to benefit from.
ACREW also found that although many firms were aware of SafetyMAP or As/NZ4804 or
other accreditation systems, they had not pursued them as a framework for their own
OHSMS, preferring a customised but largely ad hoc system devised in-house.
5.3 Workplace inspection and monitoring
5.3.1 Pre-inspection
Agencies that demonstrate progress towards best practice are proactive in directly verifying
workplace safety before placing workers. They seek access. They are willing to work with
hosts to rectify shortfalls in practice, but they are also willing to decline a contract where a
host will not meet the agency’s OHS requirements.
5.3.2 Induction
Induction at agencies and on-site are essential.
Generally there is no substitute for practical, site- and task-specific induction on site, but this
must also include a generic understanding of OHS, provided at agency level, and sitespecific
OHS, provided on-site by the host.
5.3.3 Monitoring
Agencies aiming for best practice inspect or review workplaces and practices regularly,
independently of the host.
5.3.4 Reporting
Agencies aiming at best practice are pro-active in pursuing prompt notification of incidents
and near hits or near misses. They seek to involve themselves in the investigation and any
associated review of workplace practice.
Hosts aiming at best practice collect data on near hits / near misses as well as incidents,
analyse these, develop corrective initiatives, and ensure that the organisation at board level
understands what is happening.
66

Involvement of HSRs in review and development of responses did not emerge as a theme.
Involvement of workers was seen rather as a passive matter: they reported, they were
advised of changes.
5.3.5 Workplace changes
There was not a strong understanding of the importance of involving workers in workplace
changes. Agencies expressed concern that they were sometimes powerless to learn if a
worker had been transferred to a new task, and whether or not competence to undertake
that task had been confirmed.
5.4 Consultation and representation
Such firms include effective mechanisms for consultation and representation between hosts
and agencies, and agencies and hosts and workers. ACREW found that organisations
moving towards best practice are willing and able to implement appropriate and responsive
communication with on-hire workers whether or not those workers are represented by a
union. Such organisations have a systematic, responsive approach to dealing with health
and safety representatives (HSRs) and, where appropriate to the scale of the firm, formal
meeting procedures for review and consultation with HSRs. Agencies aiming for best
practice do hold consultations with on-hire workers, on site where this is feasible but by
other means where it is not.
5.5 Communication
ACREW found that generally there was confusion between communication, to which there
was great commitment, and formal consultative and representative structures, which were
seen as superseded by good communication. This appeared to be so even where
informants indicated they were aware of the Act’s consultation and representation
requirements.
Generally, communication from the host viewpoint was top-down, although there were
exceptions. Agencies were uneven in communication, though they recognised its
importance, and those aiming for best practice had developed systems to provide their
workers with the greatest access to agency staff not only in reporting incidents but also in
making informal contact with the agency.
5.6 Mutual learning
67

Those interviewed almost invariably expressed enthusiasm for learning from the experience
of others as well as their own experiences, and they were therefore keen for information
about the findings of the project.
5.7 Summary
The narratives or stories in the case studies reveal a commonality of understanding about
OHS, about the interviewees’ positive perceptions of their own firms – and occasionally
doubts about some competitors. The agencies and host employers interviewed were
selected as ‘best practice’ after consultation with various stakeholders.
No one firm could be said to exemplify ‘best practice’, in that each had selected from among
a range of best practice features as a way of meeting compliance and business
requirements. Rather, collectively the organisations interviewed offer a broad
acknowledgement of the importance of elements of good practice in their pursuit of
corporate goals, especially in OHS.
The cases therefore illustrate, across the range from small to large agencies and host forms,
and metropolitan and regional firms, how progress towards best practice is achievable within
the available resources of firms, and how it can enhance business value, including
community, social, environmental and ethical goals.
ACREW found that the message of priority for health and safety for all workers, whatever
their source or relationship, underpinned sound practice on every level.
68

6 Recommendations on Joint OHS Responsibilities
6.1 Overview
These recommendations draw on analysis of ‘good practice’ models of OHS management
systems of labour hire agencies, group training companies and host employers. They
address the practical aspects of induction, training, monitoring and supervision of on-hire
employees.
This is a summary of recommendations only. It should be read in conjunction with section 3,
where initiatives and requirements are tabulated in detail, and in conjunction with the report
as a whole.
6.2 ‘Good for business’: corporate objectives and values
• On-hire agencies and host employers demonstrate a commitment to OHS as their
highest priority
• Organisational goals, made explicit in mission and values statements and in
business plans, include OHS goals, and social and environmental goals
• Best practice extends all the way to board level, to include active board involvement
in and promotion of OHS through commitment, designated targets, reports and
incentives
6.3 Management systems
• Host employers have in place OHS management systems commensurate with the
size and scale of their operations
• Best practice includes constant attention to innovative practices in OHS
management that arise from technological change and from individual innovations
• Agencies and host employers have in place procedures that accommodate
departures of key OHS staff, to ensure that attention to OHS maintains priority and
effectiveness
• Host employers ensure that management systems are adequately resourced for
their development and upgrading
69

6.4 Pre-placement assessments
• Agencies undertake pre-placement inspection that includes verification of all OHS
management systems, documentation, supervision, consultation, representation and
communication arrangements
• Agencies verify the host employer’s OHS incident record for a significant prior period
(for example, five years)
• Agencies independently assess hazards and risks of a workplace and advise host
employers of these
• Agencies assist host employers in taking corrective action to remediate identified
hazards and risks
• Host employers work positively with agencies in addressing concerns that agencies
raise
• Agencies decline as clients host employers who do not meet the agency’s OHS
requirements
• Agencies do not refer on a client who has been declined to another agency
• Host employers decline agencies as suppliers who do not undertake on-site preplacement
inspections and in any respect do not meet the host employer’s OHS
requirements
6.5 Certification and Licencing
• Agencies verify certification and licencing through inspection of original or
authenticated documents and check these against independent records of the
certifying authority
• Agencies verify written references through direct communication with the referee,
and ascertain the independence of the referee from the worker
• Agencies verify task-specific competence of on-hire workers and assign them to a
pool that is only available for those tasks
• Agencies ensure that host employers promptly notify any intended changes in
workplace arrangements or specified tasks before implementation, and that worker
70

competence for new tasks is again verified
• Agencies decline to retain workers whose competency cannot be confirmed in
respect of skills claimed
• Host employers verify task-specific competence on site, with competent supervision
and assessment
• Host employers return workers to agencies where competence cannot be confirmed
6.6 Induction
• Agencies provide OHS and workplace induction to all on-hire workers that includes
OHS but also builds a close, ongoing relationship between the agent as employer
and the worker as employee
• Host employers provide OHS and on-site workplace induction to all on-hire workers
that includes all information about supervision, contacts, and consultative and
representative arrangements
• Host employers ensure that on-hire workers are regarded, and regard themselves,
as fully integrated into the on-site workforce
• Agencies and host employers ensure that on-hire workers understand and accept
the key role of personal responsibility for their own health and safety in the
workplace
• Agencies and host employers ensure that on-hire workers are fully informed about
HSRs on- and off-site
• Agencies and host employers ensure that on-hire workers are fully informed about
first aid and medical treatment available in case of incidents
• Agencies ensure that on-hire workers understand that the agency is fully responsible
for and responsive to any health requirements arising from an incident
6.7 Training
• Training in all skills and for all tasks is specific to those skills and task requirements
• Training is undertaken on site, in real conditions, with qualified supervision
71

• Only suitably qualified personnel provide training
• Agencies assist on-hire workers in undertaking training through agency support,
training provision or facilitation of external, qualified training provision
• Host employers provide site-specific training with qualified personnel where because
of the nature of the tasks this can only be provided on site
• Agencies and host employers verify training outcomes by testing
6.8 Supervision
• Agencies satisfy themselves that on-site supervision provided by the host employer
is appropriate and qualified through direct verification of supervision arrangements
• Host employers ensure that all on-site supervision is appropriate and qualified
through management inspection, verification and on-going performance appraisal
• Host employers employ a ‘buddy’ system to assist in orientation and supervision of
new workers
• Agencies and host employers verify that regular toolbox meetings are held and
include on-hire workers, and that these meetings incorporate safety issues and
feedback as a matter of course
6.9 Monitoring
• Agencies have monitoring and reporting systems in place that are independent of
host employers and their systems
• Agencies and host employers conduct ‘walk-through’ and ‘drive-through’
observations of the workplace together (where feasible) and regularly
• Host employers allow agencies site access, subject only to permit requirements and
safety
• Agencies and host employers conduct regular systems testing for effectiveness of
communication and response times
72

6.10 Incident reporting
• Agencies satisfy themselves as to the comprehensiveness and timeliness of all
incident and near hit / near miss reporting as a pre-condition of placing workers on
site
• Agencies ensure that workers understand and comply with requirements that all
incidents and near hits / near misses are promptly reported to the agency as well as
to the host employer
• Agencies ensure that agency HSRs are integrated into the reporting system
• Host employers ensure that all incidents and near hits / near misses are reported
promptly to the agency
• Agencies seek involvement in investigation of incidents and near hits / near misses
and any subsequent review
• Host employers seek and facilitate agency involvement in investigation of incidents
and near hits and near misses
• Host employers involve HSRs in investigation of incidents and near hits and near
misses
• Host employers involve on-hire workers in investigation of incidents and near hits
and near misses
• Host employers involve on-hire workers in any consequential workplace review of
practices
6.10.1 Data capture and measurement
• Host employers develop KPIs appropriate to and effective for capturing data on
incidents and near hits / near misses
• Host employers ensure that KPIs are transparent and comprehensible (‘userfriendly’)
to HSRs and to all other workers
• Host employers ensure that incident and near hit / near miss data are analysed and
reported to the highest level of management
• Host employers ensure that all reports generate a review and a response that is
73

communicated to all workers
6.11 Workplace changes
• Host employers advise agencies of any potential or intended changes to the
workplace and involve the agency in review and consultation about those changes
• Host employers ensure that HSRs are aware of any potential workplace changes
• On-hire workers promptly advise agencies of any workplace change that in any way
impacts on the work to which they were first assigned
• Workers are not reassigned to new tasks until competence has been verified and
their agency informed and has provided its agreement
6.12 Consultation
• Agencies verify that consultation arrangements are in place for all on-hire workers
• Agencies verify that host employer systems ensure that the agency is notified of any
pending workplace change
• Agencies and host employers consult with on-hire workers about OHS
• Agencies and host employers ensure that their are feedback arrangements in place
that inform workers about the results of any consultation
6.13 Representation
• Agencies ensure that representation is included in agency induction
• Agencies ensure that on-hire workers are represented in the workplace
• Agencies ensure that on-hire workers with multiple employers have appropriate
arrangements for representation in place
6.14 Communication
• Agencies and host employers ensure communication with each other that supports
OHS
74

• Agencies and host employers ensure that on-hire workers have 24/7 (around the
clock and continuous) contact details for raising OHS concerns and for reporting
incidents and near hits / near misses
• Agencies have regular formal and informal communications with their on-hire
workers
• Agencies meet with on-hire workers in the workplace wherever possible
• Agencies provide on-hire workers with a physical home base at the agency
6.15 Return to work
• Agencies establish a return to work program
• Agencies appoint and train a return to work coordinator
• Agencies establish a risk management plan
• Agencies and host employers work together to achieve rehabilitation and return to
work for injured workers
• Agencies ensure that all on-hire workers are aware of provisions for interim
placements in the event of rehabilitation and return to work
• Agencies maintain contact with workers under rehabilitation, even where they are
not present at the agency
75

7 The Project Team
The Project Team was:
Professor Julian Teicher, Project Director and Project Consultant
Dr Jeff Keddie, Project Manager
Monash University Accident Research Centre (Dr Lesley Day)
Associate Professor Susanne Tepe, Applied Sciences, RMIT University
Ms Eve Anderson, Department of Management
Ms Christina Costa, Department of Management
Ms Audrey Bujdoss, Department of Management
Ms Chan Cheah, Curtin University and Department of Management, Monash University
Equilibrium Worklife Solutions (Ms Siusan McKenzie)
Administrative support: Ms Kirsten McLean, Department of Management
Mr Brian Cooper, Research Fellow in the Department of Management, provided initial advice
on methodology.
Acknowledgements
The Project Team and ACREW acknowledge the support and cooperation of:
Mr Robert Blanche, Bayside Personnel
Ms Julie Mills and Mr Brian Morrison, RCSA, and their staff
Ms Cathy Butcher, Victorian Trades Hall Council
Mr Peter Moylan, Australian Nursing Federation
Mr Michael Maine, Health Services Union
VECCI and AiG
76

From WorkSafe: Ms Elizabeth Kilduff, Dr Margrete White, and Ms Belinda Lowing; and
WorkSafe Inspectors, Messrs John Champion, Matt de Graves, David Mackie, Peter
Roberts, and Peter Warren
Although individual firms, managers and workers cannot be named, without their agreement
to interview and more than generous allocation of time the project would not have been
possible.
77

Appendix I: Charting the On-hire Sector and Best Practice
Placing Workers with Host Employers
Table 9 shows the conceptual framework applied in the project to map the processes of onhire
labour recruitment and induction, through to systems for reporting incidents or accidents
and response of the host and the agency, through to a planned return to work or
rehabilitation program. This framework also then provides the map for the structuring of
discussion with interview subjects. Although interviews were semi-structured, interviewers
used an outline build from this framework in directing discussion and in checking for
elements that remained unaddressed as the interview progressed.
Figure 1 simplifies this conceptual structure in a shorthand visualisation of processes of
labour hire. Figure 2 reproduces a further simplified structure for the industry, published by
Laplagne et al (2005), through the Productivity Commission. These maps are
complementary and they assist in understanding the essential structural features of on-hire
labour which in turn focus attention on points of tension or transition to be addressed by
communication. Laplagne et al. are also indicative of an orthodox economic analysis that
provides an empirical description of the labour hire sector.
78

Table 7
Recruitment and Induction Phase
Host/
client
Organisation
objectives
Key
personnel
OHSMS
Informs
agency of
need for
workers with
particular
skills*
Accepts
placement
Gets work
done
Pay agency
fee; pay
Agency for
worker
Labour
Hire
Agency
Organisation
objectives
Key
personnel
Assesses
worker
qualifications
and skills
Visits host
site to assess
OHS risks
and OHS
management
Assesses the
job, the host
employer and
the working
environment
Matches job
/host and
worker;
contacts both
If worker and
host agree
then do
induction to job
including risks
Contacts host
to inform of
impending
arrival of
worker and
associated
safety
requirements
Acquire
fees
Pay worker
Worker Inducted to
OHS in the
agency,
advised who
is the HSR
and who is
the manager
with
responsibility
for OHS
Accepts job
from agency;
receives
induction
Goes to host
company; gets
induction
Does job
Gets paid
HSR Elected by
employees
Involved in
development
of OHS
systems
HSR and
employees
consulted
about
change: need
for on-hire
HSRs informed
of on-hire
labour
recruitment
79

* Note that host informs agency of need for skills not need for people to do a job; if the host describes the job, the agency would need to understand the job, including its risks.
Monitoring and review
Host/
client
On-going
monitoring
and review of
systems
Regular
consultation
with agency
and worker
Review of
processes in
consultation
with agency,
worker and
HSRs
Labour
Hire
Agency
Regular
consultation
with host and
LH worker
Review of
processes in
consultation
with host,
worker and
HSRs
Worker
Work
monitored
Consulted
about H&S
Review of
processes in
consultation
with host,
agency and
HSRs
HSR
Consulted
about H&S
Review of
processes in
consultation
with host,
agency and
worker.
80

Reporting Incidents and Accidents
Host/client
If incident as defined in the Act,
notifies WorkSafe immediately and
within 48 hours give WorkSafe a
written record of the incident
Other hazards or incidents:
• Consult with agency and workers
• Assess and control the risk
Preserve site until inspected
Labour Hire
Agency
Other hazards or incidents:
• Consult with host and workers
• Assess and control the risk
Worker
Incident as
defined in the
Act occurs
OR
Other incident
or hazard
occurs
Notifies:
• Host
• Agency
• Agency HSR
• Host HSR (if applicable)
• Union, and/or
• WorkSafe
Notifies:
• Host
• Agency
• Agency HSR
• Host HSR (if applicable)
• Union, and/or
• WorkSafe
HSR Notified Notified
81

Injury to Worker
Host/ client
Labour Hire
Agency
Worker informs
host of injury
Worker/host
informs agency
of injury
Reassess
the work
environment
Develop
return to work
plan
Agree on
placement of
injured
returning
worker
Worker
Injured at
work
Treatment
for injury
Rehabilitation
for worker to
be back to
work
Back to work
at host
company or
back to
agency
HSR
Notified of
injury
Reassess
safety
system
Notified,
where relevant
Consulted
Notified of
action
This map was used to frame the questions and their order listed in Appendix II.
These questions are provided to show the general range and direction of the interviews;
that is, they are indicative of coverage but not prescriptive of intention or descriptive of
implementation.
82

Figure 1
The Labour Hire Process (1)
Fee
Firm
needs workers
describe the job
specify the scope
Labour hire
agency
Legal obligations:
induction etc.
Legal
obligations:
inspection etc.
define criteria;
define risks;
check qualifications;
check availability
Notify firm of risks
Notify firm of
proposed actions
Communicate with
workers
Legal obligations:
behaviour etc.
Labour hire
worker pool
critical
communication –
‘risk spots’
actions
required
83

Wage and
entitlements
Fee
Labour hire
worker
Assessment
Availability
Labour hire
agency
Requirement
Labour
Firm
Figure 2 The Labour Hire Process (2)
source: Laplagne, Glover & Fry 2005: 2 (Box 1.1)
The diagram above emphasises that the labour hire work arrangement involves three parties:
• an employee (of a labour hire agency), or a contractor, who supplies labour;
• a firm requiring labour (the client); and
• a labour hire agency that acts as an intermediary between the other two parties.
For a labour hire engagement to occur:
• A potential labour hire worker informs a labour hire agency that they are available for work. At first contact, the labour hire agency assesses the worker’s
qualifications and skills.
• A firm informs the agency of their need for a person with specified skills.
• The agency matches the needs of the firm to a person on its books with the required skills.
For the duration of a labour hire engagement, regular payments are made by:
• the firm to the labour hire agency for the provision of labour; and
• the labour hire agency to the worker. a
Although a relatively small number of labour hire agencies — such as Adecco, Manpower and Skilled — dominate the industry, and tend to have long term
relationships with large client firms, the industry has low entry costs and includes a large number of small, often specialised, operators (Hall 2000; Hartig
1999).
a Occasionally, labour hire contractors are paid directly by the client firm.
84

Appendix II: Interview Design Parameters
Although the interviews, focus groups and consultations were not structured directly as
formal questionnaires, the Project Team used the following questions to determine the
‘ambit’ for discussion, as is appropriate in semi-structured interviews.
A. WorkSafe Inspectors
1. Information about labour hire agencies and hosts inspected
• Are labour hire arrangements commonly inspected?
• Do you target labour hire workplaces (agencies or hosts) as high risks areas?
• What is the geographic spread of the labour hire agencies and hosts inspected?
• In which industries/jobs have you inspected the OHS of labour hire arrangements?
• How large are the labour hire agencies and host firms that you have inspected?
• Do you know the proportion of labour hire to direct employees in the host firms?
• As an inspector do you see best practice labour hire arrangements, or do you only respond to
poor OHS performers?
2. The role of the inspector
• Is your role one of education or enforcement of OHS standards? Or both?
• If both, how do you balance these two objectives?
• How does the inspectorate provide education about best practice OHS in labour hire
arrangements?
• Are firms open to learning about best practice from the inspectorate?
• If enforcement is required, how do you determine whether the agent or the host should be
pursued? Is this decision always clear?
• If prosecution is required, how do you determine whether the agent or the host should be
prosecuted? Is this decision always clear?
3. Access to firms
• Are required information, documents and evidence readily available when you visit agencies
and hosts?
• What challenges have you faced in obtaining required information, documents and
evidence and how have you overcome these challenges?
• What do best practice firms (agencies and hosts) do in relation to provision of
required information, documents and evidence?
• How do you assess psychological OHS risks at the workplace?
4. Organisational objectives and OHS
• Why do host firms decide to use labour hire?
• Are these reasons compatible with OHS objectives?
• What OHS challenges do host firms anticipate and how do best practice hosts
respond to these challenges?
5. Key personnel
• For best practice agencies and hosts, what role do key OHS personnel play?
• What challenges do key OHS personnel face and how do best practice firms
overcome these challenges?
6. OHSMS
• What systems do best practice agencies and hosts have for managing OHS?
• What challenges do firms face when establishing and implementing OHS systems
and how do best practice firms overcome these challenges?
7. Gathering Information about the worker, the work, the host employer and the work
environment
• How do best practice agencies gather information about the worker, work, the host employer
and the work environment?
• What challenges do agencies face in gathering information and how have best practice firms
overcome these challenges?
85

8. Agency visits to the host worksite
• When and how often do best practice agencies visit host sites to assess OHS risks?
• What challenges do agencies face in visiting host sites and how have best practice
firms overcome these challenges?
• How do best practice agencies assess OHS risks at host sites?
• What challenges do agencies face in assessing risk at host sites and how have best
practice agencies overcome these challenges?
• How do best practice agencies assess psychological OHS risks at host sites?
• What challenges do agencies face in assessing psychological risks at host sites and
how have best practice agencies overcome these challenges?
9. Consultation between agency and host
• What challenges do agencies and hosts have in consulting each other about OHS and how
have best practice agencies and hosts overcome these challenges?
10. Implementing Controls
• What challenges do agencies face in ensuring that hazards are managed effectively at host
sites and how do best practice agencies overcome these challenges?
• What challenges do hosts face in ensuring hazards are managed effectively and how do best
practice hosts overcome these challenges?
• What challenges do agencies face in ensuring that induction for labour placements is
effective and how do best practice agencies overcome these challenges?
• What challenges do hosts face in ensuring that induction for labour placements is effective
and how do best practice hosts overcome these challenges?
11. Labour hire consultation and representation
• What challenges do agencies and hosts face in ensuring worker consultation and
representation and how have best practice agencies and hosts overcome these challenges?
12. Labour Hire Workers
• What challenges do labour hire workers face in taking reasonable care for their own health
and safety and that of other people?
• How do best practice agencies and hosts overcome these challenges?
13. Supports
• What supports do agencies and hosts need to reach and improve on best practice?
• What can WorkSafe do that would assist agencies and hosts you with compliance?
• What contribution or role could or should unions (registered employee organisations) have in
OHS practice?
14. Injury to the worker
• When injury or illness occurs, what challenges do labour hire arrangements create for
rehabilitation and return to work arrangements and how have best practice firms overcome
these challenges?
15. OHS Act
• What adjustments to systems or arrangements in OHS practice and / or OHS management
systems have best practice agencies and hosts put in place to comply with the new Act?
16. Overall
• What would you consider to be best practice OHS for labour hire arrangements?
• Do you have any examples of best practice?
• What challenges do agencies and host face and how have they overcome them?
• What do you consider to be best practice inspection of labour hire arrangements?
• What challenges have you faced and how have you overcome them?
• On balance how helpful or unhelpful is the Act in relation to the management of OHS for
labour hire workers?
B. Employers and Managers in Labour Hire Agencies
1. Information about the labour hire firm and host firms
• What is the geographic spread of your firm?
• For which industries/jobs does your firm provide labour?
• How would you describe your firm? – e.g., the target market, any special interests in
employment sectors, blue collar/white collar, niche specialities, etc.?
• How long has your firm been in the labour hire business? Did it have a previous business
interest or focus?
86

• How many labour hire employees do you employ? What is the gender break-down of your
labour hire employees?
• What is the range of skills and qualifications that your labour hire employees hold?
• To how many firms do you supply labour?
• How large are the firms to which you supply labour (as measured by number of employees
and hired labour)?
• Do you know the proportion of labour hire to direct employees in these firms?
2. Organisational objectives and OHS
• What are your organisational objectives?
• How do your OHS goals assist in meeting these objectives?
• What challenges have you faced in aligning your organisational objectives and your OHS
goals?
• How have you overcome these challenges?
• What lessons have you learned?
3. Best/good practice
• What does ‘OHS best practice’ mean to you?
• What challenges do you face in achieving OHS best practice?
• How have you overcome these challenges?
• What supports have been useful (e.g. from VWA or other sources) and what other supports
are needed?
• What lessons have you learned?
4. Accountability
• What accountability mechanisms do you have in place for ensuring OHS?
• What challenges have you faced in ensuring accountability?
• How have you overcome these challenges?
• What supports have been useful (e.g. from VWA or other sources) and what other supports
are needed?
• What lessons have you learned?
5. Key personnel
• What positions in your organisation are accountable for OHS?
• What challenges have you faced in ensuring that suitably qualified staff are engaged, and that
they can carry out their responsibilities?
• What challenges do these positions face in meeting their OHS responsibilities?
• Do these positions meet the needs of staff and of management?
• How have you overcome these challenges?
• What supports have been useful (e.g. from VWA or other sources) and what other supports
are needed?
• What lessons have you learned?
6. OHSMS
• What OHSMS systems/standards, if any, do you have in place?
• E.g. SafetyMAP, AS 4804
• What challenges have you faced in implementing these systems?
• How have you overcome these challenges?
• What supports have been useful (e.g. from VWA or other sources) and what other supports
are needed?
• What lessons have you learned?
7. Induction (both on-hired and not on-hired)
• What challenges have you faced in ensuring that labour hire workers receive induction before
being sent to the host organisation as well as effective induction at the host employer?
• What challenges have you faced ensuring that new employees who are not on-hired receive
effective induction?
• How have you overcome these challenges?
• What supports have been useful (e.g. from VWA or other sources) and what are other
supports are needed?
• What lessons have you learned?
8. Training & supervision of employees (both on-hired and not on-hired)
• What challenges have you faced in training and supervising both on-hired and not on-hired
87

employees?
• How have you overcome these challenges?
• What supports have been useful (e.g. from VWA or other sources) and what are other
supports are needed?
• What lessons have you learned?
9. Gathering Information about the labour hire worker
• How and what information do you gather about the labour hire worker?
• What challenges have you faced in gathering information?
• How have you overcome these challenges?
• What supports have been useful (e.g. from VWA or other sources) and what other supports
are needed?
• What lessons have you learned?
10. Gathering Information about the work, the host employer and the work environment
• How and what information do you gather about the work, the host employer and the work
environment?
• What challenges have you faced in gathering information?
• How have you overcome these challenges?
• What supports have been useful (e.g. from VWA or other sources) and what other supports
are needed?
• What lessons have you learned?
11. Agreeing to provide labour hire
• What OHS challenges do you face in agreeing to provide labour hire to a host?
• How have you overcome these challenges?
• What supports have been useful (e.g. from VWA or other sources) and what other supports
are needed?
• What lessons have you learned?
12. Visiting the worksite
• When and how often do you visit host sites to assess OHS risks?
• What challenges have you faced in visiting host sites?
• How have you overcome these challenges?
• What supports have been useful (e.g. from VWA or other sources) and what are other
supports are needed?
• What lessons have you learned?
• How and what OHS risks do you assess at host sites?
• What challenges have you faced in assessing OHS risks at host sites?
• How have you overcome these challenges?
• What supports have been useful (e.g. from VWA or other sources) and what other supports
are needed?
• What lessons have you learned?
13. Consulting with the host employer
• When and how do you consult with the host employer about safe placement and on-going
safety of your labour hire workers?
• What does consultation with the host employer involve?
• What challenges have you faced in consulting with the host employer?
• How have you overcome these challenges?
• What supports have been useful (e.g. from VWA or other sources) and what other supports
are needed?
• What lessons have you learned?
14. Pre-placement communication with labour hire worker
• What challenges do you face in communicating host OHS risk management issues to labour
hire workers prior to placement?
• How have you overcome these challenges?
• What supports have been useful (e.g. from VWA or other sources) and what other supports
are needed?
• What lessons have you learned?
15. Labour hire consultation
• What consultation arrangements do you have in place for labour hire workers?
88

• What do you consider to be OHS best practice in worker consultation?
• What challenges have you faced in ensuring best practice worker consultation?
• How have you overcome these challenges?
• What supports have been useful (e.g. from VWA or other sources) and what other supports
are needed?
• What lessons have you learned?
16. Labour hire representation
• What representation arrangements do you have in place for labour hire workers?
• What do you consider to be OHS best practice in worker representation?
• What challenges have you faced in ensuring best practice worker representation?
• How have you overcome these challenges?
• What supports have been useful (e.g. from VWA or other sources) and what other supports
are needed?
• What lessons have you learned?
17. Implementing Controls
• How do you ensure that hazards are managed effectively at host sites?
• What challenges have you faced in ensuring that hazards are managed effectively at host
sites?
• How have you overcome these challenges?
• What supports have been useful (e.g. from VWA or other sources) and what other supports
are needed?
• What lessons have you learned?
• What challenges have you faced in ensuring on-going consultation with hosts?
• How have you overcome these challenges?
• What supports have been useful (e.g. from VWA or other sources) and what other supports
are needed?
• What lessons have you learned?
18. Reporting incidents
• What happens when an incident as defined in the Act occurs at the host site?
• What challenges do you face when this occurs?
• How have you overcome these challenges?
• What supports have been useful (e.g. from VWA or other sources) and what other supports
are needed?
• What lessons have you learned?
19. Injury and rehabilitation programs
• Do you have a risk management program?
• How effective is your risk management program?
• What challenges did you face in developing and implementing your risk management
program?
• How have you overcome these challenges?
• What supports have been useful (e.g. from VWA or other sources) and what other supports
are needed?
• What lessons have you learned?
• Do you have an occupational rehabilitation program?
• Is your occupational rehabilitation program effective?
• What challenges have you faced in developing and implementing your occupational
rehabilitation program?
• How have you overcome these challenges?
• What supports have been useful (e.g. from VWA or other sources) and what other supports
are needed?
• What lessons have you learned?
20. Injury to a worker
• What challenges have you faced in developing and implementing return to work plans for
individual workers?
• How have you overcome these challenges?
• What supports have been useful (e.g. from VWA or other sources) and what other supports
89

are needed?
• What lessons have you learned?
21. Records
• What kinds of information and records do you keep in relation to the health and safety of
employees?
• What challenges do you face in maintaining appropriate information and records?
• How have you overcome these challenges?
• What supports have been useful (e.g. from VWA or other sources) and what are other
supports are needed?
• What lessons have you learned?
22. Supports
• What would be most likely to assist you in reaching or improving on best practice?
• What would be most likely to hinder you in reaching or improving on best practice?
• What could WorkSafe do that would most assist you with compliance (e.g., advice,
information, procedure changes)?
• What contribution or role could or should workplace inspectors (from WorkSafe) make or
have in OHS practice?
• What contribution or role could or should unions (registered employee organisations) have in
OHS practice?
23. OHS Act
• How aware are you of recent changes to the OHS Act – those made in 2004?
• What is most important to you about these changes?
• What adjustments to systems or arrangements in OHS practice and / or OHS management
systems have you made to comply with the new Act?
• How aware are you of WorkSafe publications advising of these changes and the new
requirements?
• How would you rate your firm’s capacity to meet the new arrangements under the Act?
• On balance how helpful or unhelpful is the Act in relation to the management of OHS in your
organisation?
24. Overall
• How do you perceive your firm’s OHS record?
• Would you say that your organisation is ‘OHS proactive’?
o Why/why not
• What challenges have you faced in being OHS proactive?
• How have you overcome these challenges?
• What supports have been useful (e.g. from VWA or other sources) and what are other
supports are needed?
• What lessons have you learned?
C. Employers and Managers in Host Organisations
1. Information about host firms
• What is your form’s core business, or does it have a number of interests?
• How long has the firm been in business?
• What is the geographic spread of your firm?
• How would you describe your firm? – e.g., industry, blue/white collar,
• How many direct employees do have and how many labour hire workers do you have?
• For which industries/jobs does your firm require labour hire?
• What is the range of skills and qualifications that your labour hire workers hold?
• What is the gender break-down of your labour hire employees?
2. Organisational objectives and OHS
• What are your organisational objectives?
• How do your OHS goals assist in meeting these objectives?
• What challenges have you faced in aligning your organisational objectives and your OHS
goals?
• How have you overcome these challenges?
• What lessons have you learned?
3. Accountability
90

• What accountability mechanisms do you have in place for ensuring OHS?
• What challenges have you faced in ensuring accountability?
• How have you overcome these challenges?
• What supports have been useful (e.g. from VWA or other sources) and what other supports
are needed?
• What lessons have you learned?
4. Key personnel
• What positions in your organisation are accountable for OHS?
• What challenges have you faced in ensuring that suitably qualified staff are engaged, and that
they can carry out their responsibilities?
• What challenges do these positions face in meeting their OHS responsibilities?
• Do these positions meet the needs of staff and of management?
• How have you overcome these challenges?
• What supports have been useful (e.g. from VWA or other sources) and what other supports
are needed?
• What lessons have you learned?
5. OHSMS
• What OHSMS systems/standards, if any, do you have in place?
o E.g. SafetyMAP, AS 4804
• What challenges have you faced in implementing these systems?
• How have you overcome these challenges?
• What supports have been useful (e.g. from VWA or other sources) and what other supports
are needed?
• What lessons have you learned?
6. Objectives/rationale for using labour hire
• What are your reasons for using labour hire?
• How does this advance or challenge your OHS goals?
• How have you overcome any challenges?
• What lessons have you learned?
7. Specification of labour hire requirements
• How do you specify your requirements for labour hire?
• How do these specifications take account of OHS issues?
• What OHS challenges do you face in specifying labour hire requirements?
• How have you overcome these challenges?
• What supports have been useful (e.g. from VWA or other sources) and what are other
supports are needed?
• What lessons have you learned?
8. Choice of labour hire agency
• How do you choose an agency to provide labour?
• How do OHS issues influence this choice?
• What OHS challenges do you face when choosing an agency?
• How have you overcome these challenges?
• What supports have been useful (e.g. from VWA or other sources) and what are other
supports are needed?
• What lessons have you learned?
9. Initial discussion and/or negotiation with labour hire agency
• How are OHS issues dealt with when entering into discussions and/or negotiations with a
labour hire agency?
• What challenges do you face in these discussions/negotiations?
• How have you overcome these challenges?
• What supports have been useful (e.g. from VWA or other sources) and what are other
supports are needed?
• What lessons have you learned?
10. Labour hire agency access to premises and information
• What site access do you provide to labour hour agencies?
• What challenges do you face in providing access?
• How have you overcome these challenges?
91

• What supports have been useful (e.g. from VWA or other sources) and what are other
supports are needed?
• What lessons have you learned?
• What information do you provide to labour hire agencies:
• What challenges do you face in the provision of information?
• How have you overcome these challenges?
• What supports have been useful (e.g. from VWA or other sources) and what are other
supports are needed?
• What lessons have you learned?
11. Gathering Information about the labour hire worker
• How and what information do you gather about the labour hire workers offered?
• What challenges have you faced in gathering information?
• How have you overcome these challenges?
• What supports have been useful (e.g. from VWA or other sources) and what other supports
are needed?
• What lessons have you learned?
12. Induction
• What challenges have you faced in ensuring that labour hire workers receive induction?
• How have you overcome these challenges?
• What supports have been useful (e.g. from VWA or other sources) and what are other
supports are needed?
• What lessons have you learned?
13. Training & supervision of employees
• What challenges have you faced in training and supervising labour hired workers?
• How have you overcome these challenges?
• What supports have been useful (e.g. from VWA or other sources) and what are other
supports are needed?
• What lessons have you learned?
14. Labour hire consultation
• What consultation arrangements do you have in place for labour hire workers?
• What do you consider to be OHS best practice in worker consultation?
• What challenges have you faced in ensuring best practice worker consultation?
• How have you overcome these challenges?
• What supports have been useful (e.g. from VWA or other sources) and what other supports
are needed?
• What lessons have you learned?
15. Labour hire representation
What representation arrangements do you have in place for labour hire workers?
What do you consider to be OHS best practice in worker representation?
What challenges have you faced in ensuring best practice worker representation?
How have you overcome these challenges?
What supports have been useful (e.g. from VWA or other sources) and what other supports are
needed?
What lessons have you learned?
16. Consulting with the labour hire agency
When and how do you consult with the labour hire agency about the on-going safety of labour hire
workers?
What does consultation with the labour hire agency involve?
What challenges have you faced in consulting with the labour hire agency?
How have you overcome these challenges?
What supports have been useful (e.g. from VWA or other sources) and what other supports are
needed?
What lessons have you learned?
17. Implementing Controls
• How do you ensure that hazards are managed effectively?
• What challenges have you faced in ensuring that hazards specific to labour hire work is
effectively managed?
• How have you overcome these challenges?
92

• What supports have been useful (e.g. from VWA or other sources) and what other supports
are needed?
• What lessons have you learned?
18. Reporting incidents
• What happens when an incident as defined in the Act occurs at the site?
• What challenges do you face when this occurs?
• How have you overcome these challenges?
• What supports have been useful (e.g. from VWA or other sources) and what other supports
are needed?
• What lessons have you learned?
19. Injury and rehabilitation programs
• Do you have a risk management program?
• What challenges do you face in developing and implementing a risk management program for
labour hire workers?
• How have you overcome these challenges?
• What supports have been useful (e.g. from VWA or other sources) and what other supports
are needed?
• What lessons have you learned?
• Do you have an occupational rehabilitation program?
• What challenges have you faced in developing and implementing your occupational
rehabilitation for labour hire workers?
• How have you overcome these challenges?
• What supports have been useful (e.g. from VWA or other sources) and what other supports
are needed?
• What lessons have you learned?
20. Injury to a worker
• What challenges have you faced in developing and implementing return to work plans for
labour hire workers?
• How have you overcome these challenges?
• What supports have been useful (e.g. from VWA or other sources) and what other supports
are needed?
• What lessons have you learned?
21. Records
• What kinds of information and records do you keep in relation to the health and safety of
labour hire workers?
• What challenges do you face in maintaining appropriate information and records?
• How have you overcome these challenges?
• What supports have been useful (e.g. from VWA or other sources) and what are other
supports are needed?
• What lessons have you learned?
22. Supports
• What would be most likely to assist you in reaching or improving on best practice?
• What would be most likely to hinder you in reaching or improving on best practice?
• What could WorkSafe do that would most assist you with compliance (e.g., advice,
information, procedure changes)?
• What contribution or role could or should workplace inspectors (from WorkSafe) make or
have in OHS practice?
• What contribution or role could or should unions (registered employee organisations) have in
OHS practice?
23. OHS Act
• How aware are you of recent changes to the OHS Act – those made in 2004?
• What is most important to you about these changes?
• What adjustments to systems or arrangements in OHS practice and / or OHS management
systems have you made to comply with the new Act?
• How aware are you of WorkSafe publications advising of these changes and the new
requirements?
• How would you rate your firm’s capacity to meet the new arrangements under the Act?
93

• On balance how helpful or unhelpful is the Act in relation to the management of OHS in your
organisation?
24. Best/good practice
• What does ‘OHS best practice’ mean to you?
• How do you perceive your firm’s OHS practice?
• What challenges do you face in achieving OHS best practice?
• How have you overcome these challenges?
• What supports have been useful (e.g. from VWA or other sources) and what other supports
are needed?
• What lessons have you learned?
D. Questionnaire for Employees in Host Organisations
1. Information about your host employer
• What kind of work does your host employer do?
• What kind of work do you do?
2. Accountability
• How does your employer ensure OHS for your own work?
3. Key personnel
• Who in the firm do you deal with if OHS issues arise? For example, the foreman, the Health and
Safety Representative, or the labour hire firm that placed you.
4. Labour hire agency access to premises and information
• What site access does your host employer provide to your labour hire firm?
5. Induction
• What induction did you receive? (a) from the labour hire firm (b) from the host employer
6. Training & supervision
• What training and supervision have you received from your host employer?
7. Consultation
• What consultation arrangements about the job or workplace does your host employer have in
place for you?
• Would you like these changed, and if so, how?
8. Labour hire representation
• What representation arrangements does your host employer have in place for you?
• Would you like these changed, and if so, how?
9. Implementing Controls
• How do you and your employer ensure that hazards are managed effectively?
10. Reporting incidents
• What happens when an incident (accident) occurs at the site?
11. Injury and rehabilitation programs
• Is there a rehabilitation program or a return to work program for you in case of an injury?
• Would you like it changed? If so, how?
12. Injury to a worker
• What experience, if any, have you had with accidents on a job?
• How has this affected your view of OHS on site?
13. Supports
• What could WorkSafe do that would most assist you with OHS issues?
• What contribution could workplace inspectors (from WorkSafe) make?
• What contribution could unions have in OHS practice?
14. OHS Act
• How aware are you of recent changes to the OHS Act – those made in 2004?
• What is most important to you about these changes?
• How aware are you of WorkSafe publications advising of these changes and the new
requirements?
• How would you rate your employer’s capacity to meet the new arrangements under the Act?
poor satisfactory good very good no comment (circle one)
15. General views
• What does your labour hire agency do really well?
• What could be improved?
• What does your host employer do really well?
94

• What could be improved?
95

Appendix III: Cases and Narratives (‘Stories’)
It looks as if the on-hire sector is one-third larger than it was 10 years ago.... We exist to
differentiate between legitimate operators and those who are unscrupulous, and they are out
there. That’s the continuous struggle in a deregulated industry.
– Julie Mills, chief executive RCSA
I still don’t feel like I belonged.... If you turn them down because you can’t work for a few days
or you try to stand up for your rights when it comes to unsafe conditions, you end up with less
work.
– Brad Heath, labour hire worker
The real issue is the quality of the jobs, especially if they come through labour hire.
– Elsa Underhill, Deakin University
... the fundamental problem with employers today is that they’re like many young men. They
just don’t want to commit. Labour hire lets them maintain a casual relationship without ever
having to commit.
– John Buchanan, Workplace Research Centre, University of Sydney
(Quoted in The Weekend Australian June 2-3, 2007)
The first part of this section, which reports the stories of observers and participants, includes
perspectives from employer and sector organisations and employee organisations (unions).
These views are not comprehensive and there was no systematic canvassing of viewpoints,
but they reflect the main currents of viewpoints expressed elsewhere in the literature and
they are consistent with the opinions – whether in agreement or not – expressed in the
cases from on-hire agencies, employer firms and workers themselves.
Case data demonstrate how good practice models can inform and assist the labour hire
sector to move towards best practice. From the cases in this section, ACREW has
developed exemplifying cases (or archetypes) to develop this assistance further. 6
The Union Perspective
The unions’ perspective is that labour hire firms have established an employment
relationship with a niche role for themselves: they promote themselves as helping with
labour hire but they have not always understood nor have they accepted their
responsibilities. Case law, such as Drake in NSW, has continued to assert the law as it
exists and has been applied, but some larger companies continue to believe that they should
not be prosecuted for OHS breaches.
6 Unless otherwise stated, italics are used for quoted comments from informants in this section.
96

There is a problem for discerning good practice from the union perspective by the nature of
union work: union bodies know readily who is doing badly, and can identify whole industries,
such as the meat industry, as high risk and with high incidence of injury, but unions do not
easily identify good people either in the labour hire agencies or among host employers.
The sector has sought to have its approach in separating on-hire agencies from
responsibility for risk endorsed by government or regulators, but unions are strongly
opposed because this is simply wrong and does not represent the law, and it seeks to
establish a privileged position for the sector. Nonetheless, the sector remains influential in
developing and implementing safety regimes.
The sector seems to rely on paper defences against prosecution: if there is a manual that
complies with the regulatory requirements, that is seen as a sincere attempt to answer a
court. Such manuals may be on-sold for the purpose of such defences. The main sector
association, the RCSA, differs from other employer organisations in that it seeks to create
new markets for its members and to market its products to them. Other employer
organisations can and do show a good understanding of problems in the labour hire sector.
Agencies will not always refuse to send an employee to a known unsafe workplace, because
of the commercial imperative – if we don’t send them, someone else will. They have no
inclination to check or to monitor workplaces, such as through random inspections, but
prefer to shift the responsibility to the host employer, even though the law says both are
responsible; Johnstone’s work has shown that being an offsite operation in fact increases
the court’s acknowledgement of the labour hire organisation’s responsibility. The problem at
base is that the agency does not have a collective but an individual view of life.
Induction is a problem area, where most workers are not unionists and expect to be at a site
for a short time only. They therefore have little interest in time spent on induction.
Generally, problems are endemic and across industries; they are also accompanied by
widespread ignorance. In some jurisdictions such as NSW bad practice has resulted in
significant prosecutions. In some industries, such as nursing, it is the unions’ view that host
employers use contract or on-hire labour in an ongoing attempt to contract out of the OHS
responsibilities, whatever the wording of the Acts.
On the ground, there is a lack of worker participation in OHS discussions, and this is worse
in labour hire organisations, where there is also disjointedness and therefore perceptions of
uncertainty about responsibility. Employers have little interest in promoting representation.
For example, in building site work, there are the self-employed, labour hire employees,
contractors, and sub-contractors etc., but who will be responsible for all these? Best practice
97

will include consultation and representation, to ensure that people participate in discussions,
and have the opportunity to raise issues, and that time is provided for them to do so. The Act
provides for this, but the real driver is the benefit for safety that emerges from consultation
and representation. In fact, Workers who speak out are unlikely to be wanted back at a site.
At the other end of the process, there is little inclination among agencies to support return to
work programs,; despite the legal obligation to do so..
The main need is for a system that works. Regulators have shifted their attention between
compliance codes and practice codes. Their approach remains unresolved. If regulators put
more resources into publishing and explaining court decisions, they could get the message
across better that the legal system is clear about the nature of joint responsibilities between
labour hire agencies and host employers.
The Trainer’s Perspective
The training organisation personnel (from organisations supporting apprenticeship training
and those providing specific-job training) raised crucial issues about the reliance that labour
hire agencies and their clients place on certification, either because this is a commercial
reality or they do not fully understand the limitations of the wide variety of certification
systems and the competency levels these imply and provide.
It appears to the training organisation that host employers do not always understand the
implied limitations in certification in a specified skill or use of a specified piece of equipment.
An example is certification in the use of a forklift truck. Such certification, which asserts a
skill or competence level that the certifier has tested, is not to be regarded as the equivalent
in any way of formal apprenticeship training (our emphasis). Rather, such certificates attest
to a basic competence at the time of testing and within the limits (often unspecified) of the
tests applied. Many skills have a limited life and require refreshing.
The training organisation therefore identified a potential shortfall in skills acquisition and
certification that cannot be superficially remedied by interview, basic competency testing and
reference testing. These barriers to entry need to be tested also by experience and
supervision requirements, which may, of course, be completed on a work placement, but
with the proviso that a placement must be appropriately supervised and competency
acquisition tested. Only this way can host employers expect real OHS compliance and
expertise in tasks.
The example the training organisation suggested was the P-plate system for new drivers:
such drivers are qualified and permitted to drive motor vehicles under reasonable conditions
98

(such as speed controls) during their ‘probationary’ period, but they are not regarded as fully
qualified and experienced drivers until at the end of this period. Larger firms are generally
good at this, because they can afford the commitment. Smaller firms are more likely to cut
corners.
There is also considerable difference between trainer firms. The trainers acknowledge that
there are very good private registered training organisations, but commercial considerations
are now pressuring firms and training organisations alike to reduce training hours and
therefore costs. It depends on their attitude to their role in the industry concerned. There has
been a shift in the balance of funding provided: government used to fund fully, but currently
this organisation receives only 55% from government and must raise the balance from fees.
Fee dependency encourages longer courses. Annual budgeting, in municipal councils, for
example, can lead to perverse effects such as requiring training late in the financial year to
expend the budget rather than meet a need.
Labour hire firms with an industry link may offer a very good system of induction and
training. But the general problem with induction programs is knowledge retention: the only
way to retain knowledge is through experience in a course that simulates the workplace, and
then through placements on site.
Trainers are not confident that workers or apprentices will generally feel comfortable about
raising issues of safety, because of perceived threat to employment. They may not believe
they are being put deliberately at risk by work practices, but that this is the way the job is
done with this employer on this site. Trainers point to an understandable lack of initial
training knowledge among trainees, who do not know the Act or how to do their own job
safety analysis:
National best practice in training would ensure nationally recognised competencies, with
transferability between states to meet efficiency, but also enforcement of training standards
on the same basis. Trainers themselves should be accredited and audited, as assessors
are, in a system that includes rigorous enforcement.
Employer Organisation Perspectives
One employer organisation drew attention to the problems in the labour hire sector for
smaller firms, where resources were more likely to be stretched, especially in small regional
offices. This is an area where more attention is needed to assist firms meet their obligations.
WorkSafe expects small firms to meet the full gamut of compliance requirements. The
priority therefore must be to ensure that on-hire workers know that they can and should
99

eport OHS concerns to their agency.
Even if a firm’s resources do not allow for a full induction on a comprehensive scale at the
agency level, all new labour hire employees put on the agency’s books should be informed
clearly about OHS expectations.
One problem can be more easily addressed. The volume of information, although of value, is
too large to be readily absorbed. It should be provided in more ‘bite-sized’ forms.
The message that goes out to on-hire workers is the importance to a labour hire agency
itself of proper OHS, because this is a core business concern for the agency, and therefore
the continued operation of the agency is crucial to the workers’ employment. In this context,
all must take OHS issues seriously.
Training is a problem. There is a need for training but it needs to be made more accessible
and less limited by time. Workplace assessors, for example for group trainers who are often
not-for-profit organisations, the on-site assessors must do everything, but they themselves
may have little or no expertise in health and safety risk assessment. Cheap, accessible
training would provide a remedy for this problem.
Induction is a problem for smaller firms in some sectors, for short-term labour, such as a
receptionist: firms may be unwilling to supply a volume of policies and paperwork where they
perceived little risk. In practical terms, induction on a large, generic scale may be ineffective
in communicating knowledge.
At the other end of the scale, where risk is high, special arrangements are put in place to
control costs and try to stay in business. This can take some time.
Yet it is compulsory for all employers in Victoria to be covered by workplace injury insurance
as these compensation entitlements for injured workers are guaranteed. If a claim has
potential for recovery of compensation from a negligent third party this may result in VWA
pursuing a recovery claim against the host.
If these hosts do not have specific insurance that meets this need, and their public liability
insurance is of the limited kind, the agency is likely to go out of business. If the focus is on
moral or legal considerations, the message can be difficult to convey, but if OHS is recast in
financial terms the message is communicated much more effectively.
The link to best practice is through a mechanism that brings labour hire under standard
public liability arrangements. Otherwise the obvious answer may be not to employ on-hire
labour at all. However, for the employer organisation this raises a critical issue of its
100

elationship with its members: because it is a voluntary organisation, dependent on
membership fees, it can be limited in its capacity to inform its members about options they
do not wish to consider. It does not seek to mislead them, but it avoids focusing on
unwelcome messages. The message therefore must be to hosts to ensure that they are not
negligent: they need to know that they are responsible for the health and safety of on-hire
workers and cannot shift the risk by employing on-hire labour.
The employer organisation identified another issue: what happens to on-hire firms that move
rapidly from small, owner-managed, niche-directed operations to medium or large agencies
with diverse clients, geographic commitments and pressing system changes? Such firms
face significant challenges in meeting the pace of change, for example, in undertaking risk
assessments and inspections in the workplace of potential clients before such clients have
provided a cash flow to fund the ongoing systems development. Assessments may then be
undertaken too late to be as effective as pre-work inspections. The same problems arise
with rapidly shifting peak demands for labour.
For communication with labour hire firms, the organisation suggested that other avenues for
contacting small firms considering use of on-hire labour should be explored, for example
through firms that sell safety equipment. This could be a marketing tool for sellers of
equipment as well as a way of communicating information to small agencies.
But it also pointed to success in the advertising of safety and ‘homecoming’ and television
dramatisation of the reactions of an injured worker to ongoing contact from his firm, followed
by return to work in a different (perhaps interim) but rewarding role:
We have seen a significant reduction in the number of injuries since July last year,
which about coincides with those ads. Because it took it away from being a legislated
obligation and totally personalised it. And that is rubbing off on employers and also
on workers who say, “No, I don’t have to risk not being able to go home”.
Another employer organisation consulted represents some small and one large labour hire
firms, many of these regionally based; it also represents group training companies and firms
that use on-hire labour. This organisation pointed to joint responsibility for labour hire as
potentially positive, because it offered the opportunity for agencies and hosts to learn from
one another, and because it could afford workers double protection. But firms needed to
take care that request for information did indeed lead to sharing, rather than impose burdens
on one another.
Another aspect to dual systems is doubling risk assessments. From a practical viewpoint the
agency may not be in a position to assess all systems in place, nor can they ensure
101

appropriate ongoing supervision. However, they can take some practical steps by asking
what is an appropriate induction for the given level of risk, and do high-risk industries have
appropriate systems in place. Problems in these areas tend to occur in the less experienced
firms.
National competency standards are now providing licences, but a name change will not
affect the value of the licence. Issues of confirming on-site competency are general, not
specific to on-hire workers.
In reporting, KPIs should include serious issues (injuries, incidents and fatalities), which as a
first step should decline, but near-misses/hits would be likely to rise. Then both would
continue to decline as systems improved. Reporting systems therefore remain a problem, to
ensure that all appropriate data are captured and used.
Consultation and representation are separate issues for firms. Some small businesses do
well with consultation because they are close to their workers. For a larger labour hire
agency the problem lies in having a health and safety representative who is expected to be
across a wide range of industries.
Return to work should be subject to agreement between agencies and hosts, with half-cost
and no-cost interim placements, but premiums remain with the agency, as part of their core
business and obligation. Responsibility for an injury is not the issue in this area. The current
Return to Work campaign has proved positive in shifting away from a culture of blame and
divisiveness.
Best practice encompasses an essential place for training, mutual learning, understanding
the industry and developing relationships. The employer’s reaction when an issue is raised
is also a matter of best practice: willingness to address the issue encourages worker
confidence in raising them. Finally, best practice is going to exceed the requirements of
legislation.
Labour Hire Sector-Specific Perspectives
One sector association insists that employer behaviour is not as the unions paint it. The
association has codes and promotes the importance of OHS as a part of good business and
responsible labour hire provision. However, there are also obstacles in learning what firms
are doing because they are in competition with one another, and commercial-in-confidence
considerations encourage them not to share information.
In some industries, there are barriers to on-hire firms’ capacity to pre-inspect and to monitor
102

conditions for workers. In nursing, for example, hospitals are understandably reluctant to
allow agency managers entry to certain areas such as surgery, both as a health and as an
expertise issue. How then does a recruitment agency deliver an OHS methodology when
there is such a substantial barrier to an agency meeting its obligations? Similarly, in some
areas where security is a prime concern, such as production of bank notes, employers will
be keen to block access and limit discussion because of risk of breaches of security.
In ‘blue-collar’ industries, in particular, there is evidence of innovative practice – more so
than in ‘white collar’ areas, where there is less incentive because the nature of the work is
relatively unchanging.
The sector association has seen its role as promoting understanding of the sector and of the
legislation. The programs and products it has developed are intended to meet a perceived
need (for example, in pre-employment induction systems), meet good practice and
regulatory requirements, maintain consistency, and at the same time minimise additional
costs for member firms.
Labour Hire Agency Perspectives
This section reports the views of labour hire agencies, the practices that they implement to
achieve compliance and, in their view, best practice, and issues they have observed in the
sector that might be addressed in changes of regulation.
Case A 7
Background
Firm A supplies labour to mining, oil and gas, construction, energy and engineering
companies Australia-wide and also has international offices. Although Firm A is by some
measures large in its range of operations, on labour-hire measures it is medium. It has
decided to remain focused on labour areas in which it has expertise, rather than generalising
its labour supply functions. For this expertise it relies on former participants in the industry in
question, who are now consultants. It is important to [understand] each other’s business and
the role that we’ve both got to play.
On-hire labour is a smaller part of the firm’s operations; its major activity is provision of
permanent recruits at executive and professional levels. Firm A has been in business for
7 The narratives or stories provided in these cases are necessarily abbreviated: not all detail of
process or claim is recorded, so that no adverse inference about a firm’s practice should be drawn
from the narrative alone.
103

several decades, but its substantial interest in on-hire labour belongs to this decade. About
one-fifth of on-hire employees are women. Most on-hire workers are skilled, and a smaller
number are classed as professional.
Reputation
Firm A relies on its reputation as a supplier of quality labour: people seem to be proud to be
workers [here]. It therefore declines to supply labour to host organisations unless they are
deemed ‘quality’ employers, which includes provision of appropriate OHS. For an initial
assessment it uses Victoria’s WorkSafe information to develop a documented assessment,
which is then followed by an on-site inspection, which is also documented. However, where
risks or hazards are detected, Firm A works with the host organisation to develop an action
plan to address these. It will not retain or supply workers who are not willing to embrace
OHS practice that the agency expects.
Continuous improvement
Internally, procedures are always undergoing continuous review and upgrading. (Firm A
provided interviewers with its comprehensive documentation requirements used by its
consultants when undertaking assessment of clients’ workplaces. This guidance extends
down to practical implementation of meeting confirmation and arrangements, and equipment
the consultant must have on site. It appears to micromanage its consultant, but the checklist
is relatively brief, in both descriptive and tabular form, and can be applied to any
assessment. Its coverage is from pre-work inspection through to rehabilitation.)
The Firm maintains an active presence at and interest in its workers on-site:
The consultants as part of their activities going to the sites will invariably talk with any
of our people that are on the site, make time available to them, just to show their face
and say, “We are interested in them and we know they are our employees”. And from
minute one when they come into our organisation for our induction etc that is the
attitude we take. We have a very professional approach to the way we operate and
we treat our people in that way and our expectation is that they will operate the same
way. We are pretty well known in the areas which we work in and are a highly
regarded company and that’s very important to us.
Reference checks
Workers must hold appropriate licences and certificates; the Firm checks references. The
host organisation is involved in labour selection. The host then conducts site-specific
104

induction, which Firm A records.
Within the Firm, directors hold equity in the company, so that they are directly impacted from
any liabilities incurred through OHS incidents.
Where an incident occurs, Firm A becomes actively involved in the investigation, with the
host organisation, with the aim of amending practices to ensure future risk reduction. The
Firm also encourages client support for any rehabilitation required and uses client
willingness as part of its assessment of suitability for placement.
Best practice assessment therefore relies on assessment of the host organisation.
Induction
Because supply of labour in this industry involves considerable geographical variation, Firm
A requires completion of on-line induction for workers. This induction program must be
completed and is tested. Induction is required irrespective of previous inductions in
comparable activities or sites. New workers receive Firm-provided on-site and general
training.
All workers are equipped with mobile phones and are able to maintain contact with the Firm
through SMS, but Firm A provides three or four lines of communication via the nearest state
office also.
Representation
Firm A expects its on-hire labour to be represented by a Designated Work Group, because
the nature of the industries with which the Firm and its workers contract is that many tasks
are potentially high-risk, specialised and require experience. It encourages the workers to
make contact with HSRs as a key part of becoming a member of the team. The DWGs are
those already in the workplace.
Firm A was able to categorise clients according to their practices and record, describing one
host as having “an excellent regime”, and
A lot of companies ... have really woken up to [workplace dangers] ... and they really
now go out of their way and we [in Australia] have some of the most strictest, good
regimes. So us working with them is to a large extent is made easier for us because
they set the benchmark in many respects.
105

Summary
In Firm A’s words:
We look for host clients that have the same attitude that we have. We don’t want to
hurt anybody. It’s not good business to hurt anybody anyway, it costs you money and
it sours your reputation. There is nothing smart about it at all, that is the attitude we
have.
Case B
Background
Firm B is a large, metropolitan-based but globally networked labour-hire firm with a long
history, originally from the US but now with extensive international and Australian networks.
Nominally it supplies labour to any area and firm, irrespective of size or interest, though it will
not supply labour where it perceives an unacceptable business risk (construction is
excluded). It has some thousands of firms and workers on its records at any one time.
Clients range from small to very large firms.
Embedding safety
Firm B integrates OHS into its business goals, with the aim of no injuries in the workplace.
Implementation of this goal is through risk assessment of the client, the Firm itself and its onhire
workers. Assessment is through on-site inspection (how do you know a site is safe if
you haven’t been out to see it?), interview with clients, consultants and workers, and then
through a business decision. Clients must provide an accident register and walk the
consultant through the jobs under consideration.
If the Firm identifies a hazard, it asks if the client has identified it and has implemented
controls. Then it seeks proof. The client’s willingness to implement adequate controls may
be crucial to Firm B’s continued dealing with them.
Firm B’s overall business goal is to be recognised as a quality company. A positive OHS
record is critical to this recognition. A non-compliant client is declined.
Executive and senior management support
Commitment at a leadership level is demonstrated on a country-by-country basis, through
funding and supporting training for the national industrial relations manager who is in turn
responsible for training branch and regional managers and consultants:
106

It is such a cutthroat industry that [the best way] to differentiate ourselves from our
competitors is through our consultant, and our consultants have the skills and
knowledge to answer any questions that a client would raise, and the best way to
give them the skills and knowledge is through training.... The quality of our
consultants is that high that it differentiates ourselves from the other recruitment firm
that’s knocking on the same client’s door.
Because the Firm has many sites and activities, every position carries with it an OHS
responsibility, depending on its level, but there are key positions with direct responsibility for
OHS within the Firm. Firm B has established its own system as well as using the Australian
Standard, and although it is not certified it is compliant with the Standard.
Limitations and responses
However, championing OHS can depend very much on the position-holder. The Firm
therefore is seeking to balance central corporate control and local responsibility.
In the workplace, the Firm relies on client information to a large extent. It manages this
reliance through in-depth induction and training in OHS of workers, which is tested, and
contractual arrangements with clients. To meet the problems of irregular or changing labour,
induction is renewed each 12 months. Consultants are asked to include OHS questions in
their informal discussions with workers.
Legal compliance means that the final decision comes to a paper record stating that
induction has been completed. To counter disengagement, the Firm uses video and practical
demonstrations, question and answer sessions, and, where required, other-than-English
communication. Where a client has a partial or non-integrated OHS system, the Firm will
assist the client in improving its system. But in any case, depending on the industry, reviews
are required every 3 to 6 months.
Communication
Workers are encouraged to tell the Firm of any problems, and are assured of support and
protection. According to the legislation in each state, the Firm arranges internally for election
of OHS representatives, but it recognises that implementation in the workplace may be
difficult. It therefore relies also on its consultants’ informal discussion with workers.
If a worker is injured, Firm B supports a return to work through providing the worker as ‘free
labour’ for a short period. This is a short-term cost to the Firm but a long-term gain for all
parties. But the real key is prevention:
107

Not actually acknowledging there is a problem is a problem in itself.
Firm B’s record is its basis for its claims to best practice:
What we do best is we’ve had our Occupational Health and Safety MS tested in
courts of law and have been very successful in defence of that. So it’s an incredibly
robust system that we’ve got that has been tested on a legal basis. In the ... years
that we’ve been in business in Australia, we’ve never had a successful prosecution
for breach of [OHS] acts.... So we know that the system is fair and good. The
problem is making sure that the chain of employees within [Firm B] are aware and
have the skills and knowledge to carry out the [OHSMS] and that the client and
temps themselves know the system, know what they have to do, their rights and
responsibilities, their codes of conduct, legal obligations.
Case C
Background
Firm C, a large labour hire company, metropolitan-based, operates in Australia and New
Zealand to supply white collar and blue collar labour, but its main focus is blue collar,
temporary labour hire. It has a long history and a very large staff, labour force and budget.
Safety policy
According to Firm C’s presentation of itself, safety comes first in the way that it delivers its
services. The Firm’s innovation, at board level, has been to appoint a ‘Safety Ambassador’
who is responsible both for promoting a safety culture through engagement with
management and workers, and through being the ‘visible’ face of executive commitment to
health and safety, and to provide a means of two-way communication to ensure that the
board is aware of safety issues and responsive to them. Safety, in this way, is deeply
embedded in corporate governance. On the promotional side, the Firm also supports a
Safety Day.
Safety policy is centrally defined and promoted from an intranet site. Firm C is accredited
under AS4801:
We are ... the trendsetter, leader in [OHS]: As a value, you have to have [safety] as a
value you just can’t have it tacked on.
Competition means that good employees must be attracted and retained:
108

Come and work for us and we’ll keep you safer than the other bugger.
More formally, Firm C emphasises its commitment to safety through assistance to clients to
be or become ‘like-minded’. This supports the Firm’s business strategy. Clients who will not
meet this commitment are not retained. But firms that need assistance in getting to this point
are helped, because that is mutually beneficial:
We have a business adage which we use quite strongly called “We need to love
each other’s profit”. ... If we are not adding value to the process and [the client is]
going broke it is not doing anyone any good.
In business terms, Firm C’s assets are its people. Their clients’ assets, whatever their
general claims, are often their equipment and stock. But it emphasises to clients that is does
not supply cheap labour in the short term, but quality labour, which in the long term reduces
costs.
When Firm C takes on a worker, it undertakes qualification and reference checks, as well as
a health-safety check.
Systems Management
Its OHSMS on-line system is customised for each industry area: clients respond to generic
OHS questions, and next they respond to industry-specific questions. The system is
hierarchical and integrated internally.
It has a very intensive training guide behind it. It has a very intensive management
system procedure describing the outcomes necessary and how it links into the risk
management process. And it also had a very detailed operating procedure on top of it
which gives you the how and the why – how to record it, where to record, tips to use,
verification, consultation, links to various websites that can help you if you want to do
further research and is the fundamental cornerstone of our client selection process
and that training is delivered by subject matter experts to our troops.
Time and money invested in OHSMS are believed to be good business investments.
Induction
The Firm rejects views that labour hire employees are less interested in induction and
training, because its selection criteria focus on those who do accept these requirements:
At the end of the day we are ... definitely at the good end of the market but (a) we do
it and (b) it is structured, (c) it is validated, (d) it’s competency based and (e) I’ve just
109

finished paying for it so it had better be bloody good.
Firm representatives attend initial placements and verify host inductions. It revisits the host
to verify follow-up. The Firm also undertakes safety meetings with its workers, on-site,
regularly, according to size and location. Its standard conditions include communication with
both employees and clients on progress or problems. It also includes a commitment to a
return to work approach if an injury should occur. If necessary, this return can be in the form
of ‘free labour’ or temporary free placement of the employee with another host, such as a
charitable organisation.
Communication
Employees are assured that Firm C wants to hear of problems in the workplace. Workers
have responded to placements that support reporting and the OHS record has further
improved. To support this communication, the Firm has identified effective meeting
requirements and included these in its training programs.
Best practice
Best practice, in Firm C’s view:
Asks the right questions in the right order.
Summary
Firm C’s emphasis is on system and consistency:
We pride ourselves on doing all of [our processes] well within a structure, it is very
McDonald’s whether you go to Mackay or Maroochydore or Wooloolamba you will
get the same process when you knock on the door.
This approach extends to the very highest levels in the Firm, with director-level visits and
participation in safety presentations.
Case D
Background
Firm D is a large, national, labour hire firm that focuses on the hospitality and events
industry. It began as essentially a single-person / founder firm, and is still managed by its
founder, but it has expanded over time from a base in Melbourne to bases in other capitals
and regions, and, recently, to international operations. Although the Firm provides
110

ecruitment services for the tourism industry, it limits its on-hire business to hospitality. But
its business also addresses the full range from single-person clients to major employers.
Firm D is thus a ‘niche’ provider, but it exemplifies firms that have managed the transition
between essentially single-person and small operations up to major, complex providers who
have a clearly identified core business. It also varies from much labour hire in that its gender
balance is between 60:40 and 50:50 (male/female), rather than predominantly male.
The Firm’s primary objective is delivering a high-quality product, and this drives their mission
rather than profit:
Product, and that is where our passion is.
This means delivering reliable, high-quality staff, which in turn means staff who are OHSaware.
OHS Audit
Firm D always undertakes an OHS audit on the client’s premises. The smaller those
premises are, the more important is the audit, because this is where OHS is most likely to
fall short of required practice. Firm D has generally found that larger clients have good OHS
systems in place. If host firms do not accept this audit process, Firm D will not accept them
as clients or provide them with staff: it is not in the Firm’s business interests to do so, in any
case, because experience suggests that such host organisations are more likely to be
unreliable in paying their accounts and in other respects are more likely to be problematic
employers.
All Firm staff are required to undertake a shift at a host firm so that they keep in touch with
the industry and remain aware of the kinds of problems that might occur:
The clients appreciate that I have the insight into their business and how it runs and
also the staff appreciate having someone know what they are going through on a
daily basis... And also you pick up things that weren’t there because when you did
the audit it wasn’t in operation.
Checklists and pre-placement
The Firm has checklists against which host performance can be measured, such as wiring,
fire protection, dry floors, or general kitchen safety.
Induction
Induction for workers focuses on awareness of unsafe practices or hazards. Because small
111

firms may not undertake effective induction programs, workers are taught by the Firm how to
‘self-induct’, for example, in finding exits, safety systems, etc. On large sites, team leaders
may accompany groups of workers, remain for the induction, and attend further for a half a
day at least. For large events, such as the Commonwealth Games, team leaders remain
permanently on site. Firm D prefers events or clients at the larger end of the scale both
because such clients are better at paying for services and because they have good OHS
systems in place.
Skills testing
The Firm also undertakes skills testing through questioning about competence and in
specific cases where a risk might arise, such as operating a coffee machine, skills are
practically tested as well. The Firm expects workers to be open about any pre-existing
injuries.
Reporting
All on-hire staff are instructed to keep the Firm informed about problems that arise. Host
organisations occasionally do not report incidents, preferring to deal with them through their
own system, but the Firm expects its workers to provide it with the information. Workers
must also tell the Firm of any significant changes in the host workplace. If a worker is
unhappy for any reason with a host employer, the Firm will withdraw them from that host and
reassign them to another placement.
If a health and safety problem emerges on site, the Firm responds immediately. Sometimes
that response may be only telephoned advice, if that is all that is required, but if the incident
is more serious then the Firm attends the site immediately. In Melbourne, the Firm’s
representative in such situations is the head of the Firm, and in other centres it is the most
senior manager. In all cases the Firm’s head must be informed. Injury rates have generally
been low (about 10 incidents a year, on a large but irregular base).
Communication
All workers receive both a booklet on OHS and summary OHS-alert plastic card. The card is
the same size as a credit card, so that it can be included in a standard wallet or pocket, and
it lists telephone numbers for contact about OHS problems. Workers have 24-hour access to
the Firm for any such problem.
Conflict resolution
If the host employer refuses to respond to a request for a change in practice, or disagrees
112

with such a change, the Firm removes its workers until the problem is remedied. It will not
enter into discussion that undermines its position on such changes. Often issues require
immediate attention, for example when a hotel guest requires a service for which staff are
not trained: in those circumstances, staff must not attempt to provide the service.
If workers prove unsatisfactory in adhering to standards, it is easy to dispense with them:
none are permanent, so they are removed from the books.
Attachment to the Firm is encouraged, however: workers are welcome at head offices, they
are able to use office equipment such as PCs, and the Firm encourages a relaxed
atmosphere that helps workers feel comfortable in raising issues.
Return to Work policy
Injured workers are assisted to return to work, either in their local office or through a free
placement. Injuries are taken ‘personally’, because the business sees itself still as a
personal business. On the client side, the Firm believes it is important to be able to speak
‘off the record’ to hosts about what they can jointly do to assist an injured worker, especially
where there is trauma, because it is often not so much a matter of ensuring the correct legal
response as of assisting the worker go through stages to return to work and health.
Case E
Background
Firm E is a medium-sized, metropolitan-based labour hire firm that is also a regional
supplier. It supplies labour broadly across the on-hire sector, including professional and
executive, health, IT and blue-collar workplaces, and to small, medium and large clients. The
manager interviewed, however, operates principally in Melbourne, with some supply to
regions. (Another office of the Firm operates interstate.) The Firm has been established for
several decades. It has always included a labour hire component in its operations. Although
it has a high turnover in its workforce, it has a relatively small, stable group of clients.
Strategy
Firm E regards OHS best practice as a business strategy: a firm will get neither workers nor
clients unless they are assured of OHS standards:
[OHS], given the industry that we’re in, is critical to ensuring that we’re effective in
making sure the people we have on our books remain available to us for work.
Ensuring that they’re happy to work for us because they feel safe.
Workers in particular do not wish to be placed in unsafe workplaces. Host employers are
113

eluctant to take on workers who do not demonstrate an appropriately positive attitude to
OHS. Firm E therefore will not itself accept clients who do not comply with such standards,
but it will work positively with potential clients to enable them to meet the Firm’s
requirements:
What we do as professional employment consultants is we advise our clients that
[something is] probably not best practice. We’re happy to provide them with some
generic safety gear. We’ve got safety vests with our brand plastered all over it. We’re
happy for their staff to wear it, no worries at all. Ultimately we only have authority
over our own staff, so we can only enforce our rules upon our own staff, not on
theirs, but we can certainly give them advice and we do.
Safety culture
Attitude plays an important part in business because the community’s approach to OHS has
been changing, for example in response to WorkCover advertisements about safety. More
people now assume that safety is an important workplace priority:
I’ve only been doing this for about 6 years but certainly the attitude of on-hired
employees now is very different than it was 5 or 6 years ago when I started, where
they were prepared to do anything, regardless of the risks, and weren’t even really
cognizant of the risks involved. Now they are. They ask that question.
Good OHS follows from all stakeholders committing to it.
Induction
Firm E follows a structured pattern for induction, risk assessment, consultation with the
client, and so on, through a complete routine that includes on-site inspection and
assessment. It regards consultation with host firms as especially important because it offers
the opportunity to learn from each other.
Employees undertake a generic OHS induction with the Firm. It verifies that the employee
has ‘stepped through’ the induction booklet provided. It also administers a questionnaire, for
which a predetermined score must be achieved. Employees must also complete a sitespecific
induction.
Communication
The Firm consults with workers at toolbox meetings on-site and in informal meetings there. It
prefers to hold such consultations off-site, so that workers feel freer to talk through issues,
114

ut often this is not logistically possible. Firm E does seek to ensure that workers are willing
to speak up about OHS issues by itself actively canvassing their views. It has found
WorkSafe advertising campaigns useful in this regard in raising awareness and encouraging
willingness to raise problems.
Return to work
Its ‘return to work’ approach is to offer a returning worker free of charge to a client. This is
good practice and good business.
Summary
Overall, best practice, it believes, depends on commitment from all stakeholders – agency,
client and workers – for its effectiveness:
The best practice outcome is to ensure that our internal staff, our candidates and our
host employers place the highest possible priority on ensuring the safety of our staff
for the benefit of us, for their own benefit and ultimately for the benefit of the people
who are at work. The ideal outcome is to have zero harm, no injuries... The
processes that we have in place, all of those processes, all of those procedures,...
it’s about ensuring that there’s no harm done to our workers, and if having these
processes in place achieves that, great, but if there’s a better way to do it, then let’s
find a better way to do it because the goal isn’t to fill in bits of paper and tick boxes,
it’s to avoid injuring our staff.
Case F
Background
Firm F is a medium-sized regional supplier of labour hire. It mostly supplies labour to
commercial professional industries (about 90% or higher), focused on local regional
industries, but it will also supply labour generally if appropriate. When it comes to accepting
host employers as clients:
We can’t pick and choose because we don’t have the luxury of the amount of
available companies that they do in the city, so we just take everything unless we
know we can’t do a particular job. That is the only time we will knock a company
back.... [But] that is quite rare because of the way we conduct our processes in
taking briefs from our clients, is very, very detailed. So it is quite rare that we actually
say we can’t do it.
115

However, where breaches of OHS occur, the Firm will not hesitate to withdraw labour
immediately.
Strategy
Firm F says that selling people is their business, and therefore OHS matters:
We need to do our job properly to continually fund our growth. So ...,we go further
than I think a lot of people in actually recruiting and filling our jobs and making sure
the people are right, not just the skill fit but also the culture fit. We have strict
procedures on how we do that and they’re followed. I think relating back to OH&S,
that comes back more to our labour hire, doesn’t it, than our permanent placements.
An important part of their business strategy is to keep in regular contact with WorkSafe,
because WorkSafe provides important and useful information.
Pre-work inspection and interview
The Firm meets with clients and must be satisfied with the OHS procedures in place.
Because of the smaller focus of the region, word-of-mouth and reputation are very important
to the Firm; they lead to referrals. It is proud of its awards from the local business
community, which it advertises on its website (these are ‘best employer of the year’ type).
New employees are interviewed by a consultant and are skills tested. Experience has led to
reliance on verifiable skills and suitability, not ‘gut feeling’:
We will not compromise. There has been a few times we have, we call that ‘the gut
feeling’ and that doesn’t work. When everybody can look ideal absolutely in front of
you, they can be perfect on paper, their ref checks can be perfect but there is
something that tells you that there is something not quite right. And we have said to
ourselves “Oh don’t be so silly” you know, they are perfect and we have put them out
there and they have disappointed us. So we just don’t do it now, doesn’t matter how
desperate we are, we would rather ring a client and say “Sorry we don’t have
anybody to your standards, we can’t fill the job.”
They are also subject to two reference checks, including verification of referee roles and the
Firm prefers to use a landline telephone to avoid being misled. It will not rely on written
references. Induction of new workers is tested. Employees must read and sign an
acknowledgement of the OHS policy.
116

Checklists and pre-placement inspection
There is a checklist for new workers when they are placed on-site, and this includes verifying
OHS requirements and the identity of the local safety coordinator. They must go through this
list with the host employer. The Firm’s consultant telephones to ensure that the employee
and supervisor are satisfied and that checks have been completed. The Firm then aims to
remain in contact with its people to pick up any danger signs.
I guess we have been accused of over servicing or we accuse ourselves of over
servicing and we really truly try and develop a really good relationship with the client
and the candidate.
Incidents and reporting
Where an incident did occur, for example, it was quickly picked up, the host firm engaged
the agency in review and there was total agreement about corrective action. The Firm insists
that workers report problems or incidents to it.
The Firm also insists on attire standards, unless the host employer permits variations,
because this brands the agency as a supplier of quality people.
Management systems
The Firm’s OHS manager has informally assumed that role, but has then undertaken further
training that is regularly updated:
I think as well – also because I am senior consultant – I think it is important for a
consultant who is actually putting the temps into the positions to be fully aware of
about what’s going on.
Return to work
Firm F identifies as a problem the workers compensation system: the agency takes
responsibility for the injury but cannot ensure a return to work. Generally the Firm finds that
there are too many rules and regulations to be complied with – managers do not have time
to do with everything that is officially required. But –
It’s much tougher now, and so it should be... The bottom line is ... you have always
got to remember that you have got to be fair to people, you have got to try. I know
there is a line but you’ve got to try, and help people.
117

Summary
Best practices I believe comes back to the guidelines set to us and other employers
through WorkCover. And if we’re meeting all their requirements, then I don’t see how
we can be doing any more and OH&S comes back to just plain bloody common
sense too, doesn’t it. You know, you see an accident waiting to happen you fix it. You
just don’t, you can be as regulated as these people and these organisations want
you to be but a lot of it comes down to common sense and if you are not sure that
something may be a danger then you find out but if you have an uncertainty then you
follow that and you check it out. I mean, really so much of it is common sense and
we’ve got WorkSafe there, if you have got a question or whatever, we just ring them
or email them and they get back to us straight away.
Case G
Background
Firm G is a large, national labour hire firm. It caters to a wide range of clients in most
Australian states, including in industries such as mining in Western Australia (mainly at a
blue collar level), skilled staff (use of heavy machinery, for example), permanent and
temporary executive staff, and clerical and sales staff. It also offers services in the hospitality
and finance areas. Nationally its on-hire staff number in the lower thousands, and it supplies
these to approximately 250 host firms.
The Firm’s principal and advertised organisational objective is its concern for people, and it
relates this to its OHS strategy: it wants its workers to be able to walk into and out of a job
safely each day.
Management commitment
Firm G believes that positive attitudes towards OHS are top-down: they come from the CEO
through to the National Manager of OHS, then to all branch managers, and are then
promoted to all Firm employees (including the on-hire workforce). The program consists of
five modules. It is a thorough process using performance-based incentives to be ‘safe’ in the
workplace – that is, to use safe work practices. KPIs are linked to safety.
Although three national OHS managers have moved elsewhere over time, the Firm attempts
to maintain the integrity of its OHS management system on each occasion through
temporary appointments until a new manager can be recruited to take on the OHS manager
role on a permanent basis.
118

Client compliance
Because the sector is highly competitive, there are often conflicting desires: the need for
new clients and the retention of existing clients but also the costs of assuming risk. Firm G
occasionally must therefore terminate the relationship with a client who will not comply with
standards. A client, for example, who was advised not to allow a worker to use a piece of
equipment did so, and the worker was injured. The worker sought to return on recovery but
the client declined to re-employ him. Firm G therefore terminated the relationship with the
client.
OH&S specifically is ensuring that the clients that we trade with have the systems in
place to make sure that how our people walk in the beginning of the day, leave at the
same way at the end of the day.
Worksite checking
Information about client firms is gathered by site visits and by directly checking running
sheets and documentation. If anything looks out of place – for example, a chart or graph
shows an erratic pattern), the Firm may suggest tactfully that figures have been ‘massaged’
or ‘fudged’, and that the Firm will not deal with the client at that time and will advise the client
what needs to be done to meet the Firm’s requirements. Although it is logistically difficult to
manage all client visits directly, it requires a shared responsibility for safety by the employer,
the agency and the worker. Site checks are generally made quarterly, half-yearly or
annually, at the discretion of the branch manager.
The Firm does not rely on routine check-listing: ‘tick and flick’ is only applicable in some very
small workplaces where the Firm’s representative can see quickly and clearly where all of
the relevant OHS issues are; otherwise checking must be a thorough process.
Qualification checking
All staff come to the Firm with relevant qualifications and licences, and these are verified and
recorded through software systems that enable, for example, recording of differences
between a ‘transport forky’ and a ‘stores forky’ so that the right level of competence and
skills is assured.
Induction
The Firm’s induction process is first generic, focusing on scenario-based questioning, and is
undertaken initially at the relevant office and then, second, is conducted on-site. Induction
addresses the ‘big four’ issues – manual handling, fork lifting, electrical safety and lifting
119

injury.
The split in induction programs is applied flexibly to meet organisational and client needs. A
considerable component of the induction program is aimed at assessing the worker’s
attitude towards safety and OHS requirements. Induction fatigue can be a problem, since a
program may continue for up to four hours.
Reporting and toolbox meetings
Because reporting can be a problem, the Firm relies on toolbox meetings to bring out and
discuss ‘near misses’ as unreported incidents.
Best practice
Best practice, in the Firm’s view, relies on good communication and absence of any fear of
management when problems are raised or incidents reported. Agency and worker work
together to ensure safety, and this develops a culture of loyalty.
Firm G follows OHSMS standards that are based on AS4804, and has done so for four
years. In the past 10 years there has been a culture change in the workplace towards
workplace safety, according to the Firm. The transient nature of much of the labour hire
workforce has sometimes seemed to undermine OHS effectiveness, but workers themselves
sometimes suggest that they are compromised if they appear too reliant on (for example)
manual handling limitations that make them appear to be shirkers. These competing
pressures must be addressed.
Issues for change
Firm G suggests that legislation should require that companies found responsible for injuries
to workers should be required to offer them re-employment on recovery. However, the Firm
also believes that it, like many agencies, is doing what is legislatively required and is
responsive to any regulatory change. On the other side, there remains some belief that the
sector is a ‘body shop’ one and that the number one consideration is profit. Such firms do
not make the link between effective OHS and competitive advantage as a business.
The biggest change that I have seen in the last three years is the civil litigation where
they are targeting both the agency and the client and that needs to happen, but at the
same time the clients are now starting to ask us questions, “Well, how can we insure
against them on civil recovery”. So clients are actually specifically asking us to build
that into their quotes. And we just say no. You can’t insure against murder. What a
stupid question. And you would be surprised at how common that is.
120

Case H
Background
Firm H is typical of a small, niche, local firm that remains under the management and control
of its founder and has not chosen to grow or expand its business. It supplies labour in the
area of specialist tradesmen where there is a high demand and regular placement.
Management
The owner continues to operate the Firm personally, using only a family member for
additional administrative and record-keeping tasks. He knows all his workers personally, and
knows also their qualifications and experience in detail. Before he will enter into a
relationship with a client he must inspect the client’s premises and equipment and must
satisfy himself that these meet every required standard. As a result, he has no need for
additional OHS systems or management development, but this represents a choice on his
part to remain at his current level of operation and within a narrowly constrained market.
Nonetheless, he enjoys a high reputation, as do his employees, their services are in high
demand, and they are highly remunerated as specialists.
Summary
There is nothing innovative or unusual about Firm H: it is old-fashioned, successful, and
exemplary in its OHS aims and practices.
Case I
Background
Firm I is a large, national and international supplier of healthcare labour. It has a
metropolitan base but with extensive regional interests. It is a corporate, specialised division
of a still larger supplier of on-hire labour across the economy. It is equipped to provide
updating to training and competency in the healthcare field. It has an internationally based
accreditation.
The interview focused on a unit with metropolitan and regional focus. The proportion of onhire
employees is very small.
Management systems
A central system of OHS covers both direct and on-hire workers, on all sites. This includes a
121

two-way communication system in daily operation.
Each worksite is checked for compliance. Key personnel, from the CEO down, are keen to
spread the safety message and visit sites at least quarterly to ensure visibility for the Firm
and its interest.
Induction
Employees have both generic and site-specific induction. Employees are encouraged to
engage actively with ‘safety talk’ – to discuss issues of safety that arose on site as a normal
part of workplace communication. Training includes manual handling, infection control and
patient behaviour, as sector-specific induction, but also covers bullying and harassment.
Firm I advises a host firm of any perceived shortfalls, and if the host will not remedy these,
the Firm declines to use them.
The relevant union is very safety conscious, so there is no problem for the Firm in dealing
with the union.
Return to work
For injured workers, the Firm provides alternative duties in its offices as soon as possible,
until workers can return to the specific tasks. This keeps workers active mentally and
physically and aids in their return to normal work.
Best practice
Best practice for Firm I means full OHS compliance, minimal risk, client consultation and
feedback, and immediate report of incidents or injuries. This can be difficult to achieve on
every occasion but remains the goal. The medical treatment injury rate has approximately
halved over the previous two years, which has also brought down premium costs.
Case R
Background
Case R is a supplier of health care staff to metropolitan and regional hosts. These may be
individual medical practitioners or larger practices and facilities. The range is from personal
care attendant through to specialist nurses. But, unusually, it also has an interest in
supplying teaching labour at primary school level. Within Victoria, Case R is a small firm in
some respects but a supplier to a considerable number of employers. (It also has corporate
branches in other states. It is a separate firm under a major firm’s ‘umbrella’, and it therefore
122

has access to the larger firm’s systems development.)
The OHS manager interviewed also has a second role, for an entirely different corporate
operation that deals with call centres. However, this interview focused on the health care
provision role. The manager’s extensive prior experience was in defence in an environment
and risk role, and later as an inspector in workplace safety in another state.
Organisational objectives
The firm’s objectives are of the mission statement kind:
The best in the healthcare industry of supplying nurses and professionals to the
healthcare industry.
The CEO is very pro-safety, but this commitment is not currently well communicated down to
the workplace. The safety message is much stronger at boardroom and management levels.
I don’t think that there’d be many perhaps labour hire organisations where if you went
and asked one of their on hire employees if they knew that, that they would say, “Yes
they’ve said that and I’ve seen a communiqué on that”. There’s probably a good
point, that maybe we need to send something like that out.
Induction and risk assessments
The firm provides induction to all its employers.
We provide it when they come in at recruitment and then we check that the client
does provide on site induction as well. We have a checklist and we expect our
members to at least go through either a client site-specific induction. If not then we’ll
provide that checklist and make sure that they go through that and sign our member
off. So, basically site induction, induction into our system or into safety at recruitment.
We continue to engage with our members through safety talks, client site visits, we
would do that. We do undertake workplace risk assessments initially and at every
two-yearly interval.
Some smaller clients may resist providing on-site induction as a cost they believe they
should not incur, but the firm regards this as challenge that must be met, in the interests of
safety. A checklist system can help the client meet the agency’s requirements.
But if the host will not meet requirements:
At the end of the line, if something goes pear-shaped there, is it worth the risk? Yes,
123

we’ve earned some money there, but has it been worth the risk of all the fallout and
the pieces that you pick up downstream rather than getting it right upstream? So
we’ve made commercial decisions to say, “No we are not going to supply to that site
for these reasons”. And the CEO is quite across that and happy for me to make that
decision.
Induction fatigue has never emerged as an issue.
Training
Training focuses on getting messages across to nurse service managers:
We have what’s called a 10-module safety management system training unit that we
do which is a day and a half training. So we give them the keys to unlock this safety
stuff and to go out and use it.
This is followed up with a ‘buddy’ system.
Behaviour
Because nursing has undergone significant changes in training (from experience- and
certificate-based to degree-based), there are tensions between levels of nurses and
between permanent and on-hire staff. Occasionally this manifests itself in permanent staff
blaming an absent agency nurse for some mishap on the ward.
Systems
Inspection involves systems as well as the workplace generally:
What we do as part of that system or the workplace risk assessment is that we ask the
client what do they have in place and for them to demonstrate and show to us that
they’ve captured safety for their site. It’s impossible to create safety for every client,
but we do expect the client to have their system in place and we look at that system,
discuss that with the client and then see how that physically works in the work
environment.
The firm checks all standard client safety systems appropriate to a nursing environment.
To deal with distance issues for site checking, the firm uses an OHS consultant who can
work on the firm’s behalf and submit a written report.
124

Reporting
Workers are told they must report incidents both to the host and to the agency.
Representation
The nurses union is very pro-safety, and the firm believes they are both agreed on the
importance of safety.
Primarily a lot of the changes revolve around consultation, the consultative approach,
so we’re very much across information, structure, training and supervision. We’re
very much across that which is a legislative requirement.... That’s obviously been the
big flag change within the law, within the OH&S Act, plus the fact of rights of entry of
unions, etc.
Return to work
The firm undertakes its own investigations of injuries and capacity for return to work, but it
can use the ‘parent’ company’s more extensive capacity to provide return to work
placements.
What we try to do is keep the psyche going within the injured worker that they’re still
valued and that they still have a part to play and that we still want to engage them in
the work area. Not just send them home and forget about them.
Regime change
Safety expectations have shifted dramatically over the manager’s time in the workforce:
I’ve seen the whole chain swing from how I worked in the building industry back in, I’m
not sure how long ago, but last century. So last century in the building industry
compared to what it’s like now with full protection and working heights and compliance
space entry stuff, it’s a whole different field game.
We need to breed [out] people that have that old thinking of ‘she’ll be right mate, you
know I’ve been doing this the same way for the last 30 years, why do I need to
change’, and we need to get into the universities, we need to get into the education
system to start teaching our young people coming through the very fabric of safety and
how important it is.
I think we can improve, I don’t think there’s any doubt that we can improve our
processes by providing training to our people out there and making that training very
125

comprehensive and absolutely addressing the risks that’s out there.
You can’t take your eye off the ball. You can’t just sit back and think well, we’re doing
a good job, because it’ll become ‘woe is me’, because if you don’t keep on top of this it
will happen. It will resurface.
Host Employer Perspectives
This section reports the views of employers of on-hire labour, the practices which they
implement to achieve compliance and, in their view, best practice in dealing with the workers
and with the agencies, and issues they have observed in the sector which might be
addressed in changes of regulation.
Case J
Background
Firm J is a substantial employer of on-hire specialist labour in the health sector, located on
the intersection of outer metropolitan and regional areas, with key services to the latter. It
provides comprehensive health services and has formal placements and linkages with
professional education bodies, as well as its own in-house resources. Unlike most other
firms in this project, the gender balance at Firm J is overwhelmingly in favour of female staff
(about 91% in the sector reviewed).
To reduce the risk of availability and competence, Firm J maintains its own ‘bank’ of casual
staff, as well as using on-hire staff. Up to 70% of all newly recruited nursing staff make their
initial inquiry to the Firm through its website.
We’ve got our vision, our mission, we do go through our values quite significantly, we
tell them about our health service, about what sort of beds, what sort of patients you
will actually see within those particular ward areas. We do direct them to go to our
website, because that is probably one of our strongest links and we have just
recently reviewed our website to be more nursing-friendly. A lot of the websites you
might get on to for health services, some of them do it really well – depending on how
much money they have to put forward to their website and their designers.
Organisational objectives
Organisational objectives are to provide a safe workplace and to ensure that all employees,
whether core or agency, are given appropriate information about their own safety. This
includes ensuring that everyone is updated on any issues around OHS. Booklets are
126

distributed annually to agencies advising the Firm’s policies, procedures and key objectives.
The Firm also checks to see that agencies have adequate insurance to cover on-hire labour.
I am interested in their employment practices as well as to how they actually attain
their staff so that when they come and work here, then our Occupational Health and
Safety standards, which are very high are applied across all nurses.
Firm J believes that some agencies are not always conscious of or concerned about safety
issues, and such agencies are avoided as labour suppliers.
I find that they think a walk in the door and a chat to me is enough and I do actually
tell them that it is their responsibility. I have actually directed them to the website, the
WorkSafe website, about host and employer’s responsibility and what their actual
responsibility is. And they are actually very aware of it. They do talk about it.
Specifically coming out and going to the ward areas, I have encouraged it and some
actually do meet up with our Occupational Health and Safety Manager, so I can’t
actually speak about who he has met with. But I do find that I have recently had an
agency that was surprised that I wasn’t allowing the nurses to come to us, and I said,
“Well, we haven’t received your insurances”. I think a lot of people think that because
they have a supply of nurses that they can send them…
Qualifications
For recruitment, Firm J sights and checks qualifications through original documents.
Applicants must also undergo a standard police check. For nurses working in midwifery,
additional insurance is required and the Firm also verifies this. Induction is by the Firm, on
site.
Induction
The agency has information packs prepared by the Firm, which are provided to new workers;
workers must become familiar with these before they come on site. The pack includes
policies, procedures, maps of work locations (Firm J is multi-sited), safety information and
the names of key personnel. This aims to ease the transition of on-hire workers into the
Firm’s workplace.
OHS inductions are of great importance and orientation dockets (available over the internet)
are a way of checking who has completed the full orientation to the Firm. These dockets
indicate all the safety-related training that employees or on-hire workers have undertaken.
Induction fatigue is recognised as a potential problem, and so is highlighted. The Firm
actively promotes the importance of updating OHS skills, sending employees to complete
127

courses such as fire and safety; permanent employees are funded for such courses, but onhire
workers must fund them themselves or through their agency. Performance management
requirements direct that all employees must be up to date with OHS training, and this is
tracked via a computerised system. Firm J also promotes positive and negative feedback
about the workplace and encourages its people to feel they can be honest about any OHS
issue.
Training
Manual handling has been a traditional cause of nursing injury, so particular care is taken in
training in this area, but some injuries do still occur. The aim therefore is to rehabilitate the
worker but also to check again the worker’s knowledge about OHS compliance.
Once they leave then we have to ensure that our responsibility is to follow up as to
their wellbeing. So a call to the agency in regards to what the actual issue was and
whether there needs to be a supposed investigation as to was it that we didn’t induct
the person appropriately or did they fail to undertake some key measures that were
actually provided to them.
Computer tracking means that the manager can see who is in rehabilitation, and the system
prompts the manager to follow up such workers, but the number of cases is small and this is
therefore not a big issue for the Firm. Currently the Firm is producing a DVD to show more
accurately the issues surrounding work procedure such as manual handling, so that instead
of vague simulation exercises more specific practices are filmed, to make understanding
easier and bring home the lesson.
They used to be able to do our no-lift program but they paid for that. But the hospitals
just don’t have the resources or the space or the time to provide that. It was very
short lived. It was a lovely notion because we would love all our staff, including
agency, to be no-lift trained. One frustration I suppose is that we don’t do things the
same. We might have health, but there are all different types of no-lift. There is
manu-tension, there is no-lift, there is other manual handling. Some of the agencies
get their staff to do online stuff to do with manual handling. And I can’t see how you
can, online, simulate how to safely move a patient. And they classify that as their
manual handling.
Best practice
The Firm’s best practice is built on shared responsibility supported by its systems and
communication:
128

Best practice is providing a work place that is safe for all. In regards to that though,
you have to always continually review, question and update your services. That
should actually be done through a centralised process so that it can be transparent to
everyone else in the health service. Because it won’t just be one point of where they
are coming in. It will actually probably involve services. It might be kitchen staff – I
am trying to think of an example to use – making it everyone’s responsibility would
probably be our driving message. It is everyone’s responsibility and unless you have
that then it is not up to one person. But it is up to the health service to place
importance behind it. And I think we do that reasonably well in comparison to some
other things.
Case K
Background
Firm K is a regional, medium-sized provider of utility services and a significant, wellrecognised
employer in its region whose OHS commitment is also publicly recognised. Its
use of labour varies with specific project development but it is generally to be regarded as a
large employer within its region.
Much of Firm K’s employment is in the area of contracted services, because that is essential
to the nature of its business which relies on specialised skills, but it is also a significant
employer of on-hire labour, which is mainly deployed in administrative / clerical and support
areas. The safety coordinator insists that so well-integrated is the on-hire workforce that in
his role he would not know who is permanent and who on-hire. At his level, therefore, there
is little discussion with host agencies about OHS.
OHS challenges
The OHS challenge is particularly significant because of distribution of work across sites,
some relatively remote, and considerable work occurs from mobile sites, such as trucks, and
through a variety of contractors:
They supply us with a system of work that, a safety plan that they operate to but they
operate under our system. So basically we still are accountable to supply them with a
safe work place, a safe system of work. When we induct them, we induct them into
our systems and then they have their own induction type thing. So we’re still seen as
the principal even though they are principally our main contractor.
129

Worksite inspection
Firm K relies to a large extent on its inspection of site plans, but can do its own inspections.
It finds that contractors generally are open. Some do resist inspection, but –
It’s not about who’s right, it’s about what’s right.
Supplier compliance
The Firm will only employ reliable workers: it gets to know ‘grubby subbies’ (the informant’s
words) and will not retain them. If contractors will not comply, the Firm shuts them down
immediately.
Induction
The Firm supplies its own induction programs. It also believes it is important for workers to
demonstrate their competencies on recruitment, rather than the employer accepting a ticket
as evidence of competence:
If they were doing some manual handling, show me the manual handling training that
they’ve had and the content of it. Because some people are a bit confused between
what’s competency training or what’s actually information.
Induction fatigue is and will always remain a problem. Where training is required, or new
requirements are imposed by regulation, the Firm sends staff for training by registered
providers and expects the same of its contractors.
Labour hire workers are allocated to Designated Work Groups that have Health and Safety
Representatives.
Management commitment
Health and safety commitment must be demonstrated from the top of the organisation. If the
CEO walks past a hazard or violation without stopping to deal with it, that sends the wrong
message to all workers.
Management systems
On site, random safety audits are a must: although these can seem –
Very offensive to some people [they are] most productive.
The best thing you can do is randomly audit these processes and inform what the
expectations are before you actually go, so they’re actually doing what they say
130

they’re going to do. And one thing that I’ve found ... that the best quality systems in
the world, unless they’re adhered to aren’t worth the paper that they’re written on.
And some of them, what I’d call not the best quality systems might be poorly written
but if they’re adhered to, the work practices are a lot better. A lot of people produce
these, they got all these folders on there but they don’t actually do what they say
they’re doing in there.
Get them to show evidence, not only you look at the evidence but you check the
evidence yourself and they are actually physically doing what they’re doing.
Reporting
The Firm wants all staff and contractors to report not only hazards but near-misses or nearhits
(previously not sufficiently reported), and it has actively sought an increase in the
reporting of the number of such problems: a key performance indicator of health and safety
awareness is increased reporting, since that ensures that hazards are attended to – it’s a
reporting culture, [not dobbing]. A measure that sought to lower the number of reports could
discourage both reporting and awareness, and corrective action.
OHS is on the workers’ side. The Act supports them when insisting on compliance with
standards.
Return to work
The Firm sees itself as a carer for its employees. In addition to return to work programs, it
also has –
A very proactive work/life balance committee which is looking at bringing people back
into the workforce.
This program, which supports re-employment for people who withdrew from the workforce
for family reasons, has attracted government interest.
Issues for change
A new problem detected is the opportunity for contractors to move to ComCare, which
undermines the strength of Victorian legislation. However, the Firm will not work with a
contractor unless that contractor is OHS-compliant in terms of the OHS Act.
The Firm would like greater assistance in meeting its obligations:
Even though the laws sometimes are pretty non descriptive and I’m one that’s very
131

critical of WorkSafe because they’re very good with retrospective legislation but
they’re reluctant to come and tell you actually how to do something properly. A lot of
times they’ll only tell you that you do it wrong after you’ve done it. Whatever sits
behind not necessarily what’s written in law but how you actually comply.
Summary
Health and safety is a matter of doing the doing, not just talking the talk:
It’s not managing safety from the office. You’ve got to manage it from the field and
that’s how the message is for them is you can’t manage safety from the office.
Case L1
Background
Firm L1 is a large national manufacturer in the chemical industry, formed from a number of
firms, some old and some recent. It is overseas-owned, but has a metropolitan and national
base. Production methods and hazardous materials make this a high-risk industry. Most onhire
labour is needed for maintenance and project work.
It aims for long-term relationships with contractors who can supply skilled labour from their
pool, rather than supplying casual labour in response to irregular demand. A number of
skilled trades are routinely required; these are trades that the Firm does not have a full-time
demand for but requires them for peak demand. Numbers for such tasks can be in the
hundreds.
OHS as a business decision
Safety, health and environment issues (SHE) are integral to Firm L1’s business because of
the nature of the risks and hazards if safety is not observed. This focus on safety precedes
any response to legislated requirements as a business decision in the interests of efficiency:
You got to do it to stay in business in the base case but even prior to the major
hazards legislation. Our shareholders ... at the time basically drove that culture right
through all of their plants because we had to report back in to them on a worldwide
basis. You know, it was a business goal, over and above a legislative goal.
It does make business sense; we believe that if you run a safe facility then you will
run an efficient facility. One follows the other and I am not sure – yes the two go
together really.
132

Contractor approval
Firm L1 ‘pre-approves’ all potential contractors. Because of the complexity and range of
tasks, the Firm aims to keep that list of approved suppliers as small as possible. This aids
communication, which again is crucial because of the range of knowledge required
operationally. Assessment of contractors is solely on the basis of their SHE capacity, without
regard for commercial issues. Firm L1 requires information on training systems, QA systems
and hazard identification processes, and it reviews the supplier’s previous 5-year safety
record.
Induction
Before coming on site, workers must then attend an annual ‘electronic’ induction course,
which is competency based, mandatory, and must be completed 100% successfully. This is
a cost to the Firm, which is one reason for limiting the number of approved contractors, but it
is essential to have a pre-inducted pool available at comparatively short notice.
Site access
On-site access is subject to permit levels according to risk and required training.
Supervision
On site the Firm uses supervisors with task expertise to provide the interface between the
Firm’s systems and the contract crews.
Communication and culture
Firm L1 holds monthly meetings with contractor representatives – we use that as an open
sharing. Contractors may be relatively small and have difficulty in remaining abreast of all
requirements, so Firm L1 aims to assist them in meeting their, and the Firm’s, obligations.
Contractors must furnish their annual SHE plan, which is reviewed for its adequacy as a
whole system, not just in regard to specific requirements for Firm L1. The Firm offers SHE
‘excellence awards’ internally and externally. The Firm aims generally to develop and
support a safety culture in its contractors, beyond the specific work for the Firm, because the
effects of that culture return positively to the Firm in any case.
Reporting
Firm L1 does a lot of work to get contractors to report injuries and receive treatment, which
is available through on-site facilities. It strongly discourages failure to report or late reporting.
It maintains a reporting system, which it makes available to contractors, and it involves
133

contractors in any relevant investigations. Such information from both sides is shared at the
monthly meetings.
Because duty of care is general, Firm L1 makes no distinction between its permanent and its
contract workers:
We treat them all the same so our duty of care is not to injure anybody anytime.
It tries to involve contract workers in toolbox meetings. It has a system of leading hands to
provide safety monitoring and supervision.
Summary
The system is not perfect, but the goals are clear:
I think we manage contractors in general pretty well. We are always looking to
improve though because we can’t get our contract [Total Recorded Injury Rates]
down to the same level of our own people. Although some recent analysis would
seem to suggest that it may be close to the TRIR of our own people in the similar
role. Like if you look at our maintenance people and compare them with the TRIR of
the contractors who are largely maintenance, construction type people then you are
getting closer.
Yes there is still a gap and we are working at ways of trying to reduce that further.
Pick the right contractor in the first place and then work with them to improve. And
getting them to improve themselves as well.
Case L2
Management systems
At Firm L2 the workforce is regarded as everyone, irrespective of whether they are
permanent employees, labour hire workers or contractors. This means that the same
induction into safety standards and requirements for consultation apply to all those on site,
whatever the nature of their specific tasks or service contract.
The Firm strictly controls who is employed on site, because that control is vital to the
integrity of SHE. No access to any part of a site is possible unless there is an acceptable
SHE system in place.
Contractor engagement is all about integrating contractors into the business of the Firm. It is
134

therefore a requirement that contractors are included in reviews of technical and operating
processes.
Communication
Firm representatives meet on a monthly basis with all the Firm’s major contractors and in
these meetings SHE discussions are routine, as well as the usual commercial and technical
issues. Firm L2 expects that all contractors will engage openly in discussions to ensure that
all standards are met and improvements made, to the satisfaction of both sides of the
agreement.
Reporting
It is policy and practice to record all injuries, whether these arise among permanent
employees, on-hire employees or contractors.
Case M
Background
Firm M is a substantial utilities supplier with a regional base but a critical relationship across
the state and also interstate. It is a small employer for much of the year, but rises to a
medium size as a result of peak variations.
OHS challenges
Because of the intrinsically hazardous nature of its production it must attend carefully to
health and safety: any error and the costs and consequences are huge:
Any [industry] meetings, the first item on every single agenda is Health and Safety,
second on the agenda is the environment before we ever get to any financial of the
company.
Community impact
The Firm is also based in a comparatively small regional city, and this places great pressure
on managers and staff to be able to enjoy the community’s respect on a day-to-day basis.
However, this issue of size has the positive outcome also in familiarity with reliable, wellreputed
contractors and agencies.
Workforce characteristics
The workforce is highly skilled and accordingly also highly paid. It expects high OHS
135

standards and if they are absent the workforce will go elsewhere:
Keeping the right people, it’s all part of good HR management. We have pride in our
performance. We do judge ourselves against peers, nationally and internationally
and we rate very well, I believe, and that’s a source of pride for the company.
The gender balance is approximately 90:10 / male: female, with women more typically in
office work. While the firm has its own maintenance crews, it also brings in contractors and
on-hire workers for specific tasks or peak periods. Employment of labour is therefore a mix
of labour hire working with permanent staff and contractors with their own on-hire
arrangements who contract for a major project.
Organisational objectives
The Firm has 17 specific OHS objectives in its business plan. It has developed its own
system:
It was established back in [...] by our Health and Safety Coordinator. He had a
background in safety in other organisations and he in conjunction with our [OHS]
reps, you know our people on site developed the system that we have at the
moment. If you look at the systems they have a lot of common features in them.
They’re still based on the standard, plan, do, check, act, must improve cycle so it’s
not as if we have said we want to buy a safety system, it’s something that’s grown
organically in-house to suit the requirements of the site and the people who work
here.
Accreditation
The system is accredited to AS4801 and also the international standard.
Management and communication
Firm M treats all workers on site alike, irrespective of the nature of their employment with the
Firm.
The Firm’s health and safety culture is based on a model of continuous improvement. The
Firm is always looking for such improvement from top to bottom:
Not only do we always want to continually improve in Health and Safety we want to
continually improve in everything and everybody’s got a part to play in that.
HSRs are elected.
136

Its contractors hold their own health and safety meetings each month, but the Firm’s HSRs
will also attend. Contractors are expected to comply with the Firm’s health and safety
systems, even though they manage these themselves. Occupational health KPIs have the
highest priority. The Firm expects that it and its workforce will learn from one another.
Induction
All those on site attend an on-site induction. Training is also provided, where required,
whether status is permanent or on-hire. It is important to the Firm to deal with all relevant
issues when the contractors and labour hire workers first come on site so that they
appreciate how serious the Firm is about OHS and become comfortable raising and dealing
with any health and safety issue that arises. The Firm’s procedures are mandatory. All skills
must be documented. The Firm provides a contract supervisor as the point of contact for
issues of hazards. If incidents occur, treatment is available on site both for first aid and with
a medical practitioner if required. If necessary, the Firm would provide a return to work
program in conjunction with the agency or contractor.
Representation
This is a one-union site. The union has a legitimate interest in health and safety, but it is not
especially active because the HSRs do play an active role. Where a HSR is less active, the
union may step in to provide workers with a ‘voice’. Contractors generally act in such a way
as to manage OHS and without the need for union involvement and possible industrial
relations complications.
Best practice
Best practice for Firm M is treating all workers alike, focusing on continuous improvement,
and ensuring full communication with contractors and workers. People will then know that
the Firm is listening to their concerns. Legislation is not a problem:
It’s like lots of legislation you need to be aware of it. As it currently stands it’s got a
good balance between the obligations of the employer and the obligations of the
employer are consistent with our view of how Health and Safety should be managed.
We are the occupier of this site and we are responsible for everybody. If we can’t
control it, who can control it?
137

Case N
Background
Firm N, a small-medium, metropolitan company, employs a wide variety of labour that is not
readily categorised as white- or blue-collar (principally in the entertainment-hospitality
industry), though it does include some specific trades. It operates over a number of sites but
all are within fairly close proximity. It has a core staff and recruits labour according to peak
demand. Employment of on-hire labour is intermittent, tied to timing of events. Jobs are
significantly gender-specific: female front of house, male backstage and security, even
division in stage door staff.
OHS challenges
Firm N was very frank about the challenges for OHS posed by the nature of the industry and
its patterns of employment:
It’s like a front line soldier. Their job is risk, you can’t actually write an Occupational
Health and Safety for running downhill with a gun. The thing is that you just provide a
lot of training for these people to know their job and to minimise the risk to
themselves.
OHS is a cost to a business:
My department doesn’t necessarily make money it just costs money. So it’s not the
highest priority. I have to say Occupational Health and Safety from a business is not
the highest priority within a business because ... the main objective in a business is
to make money.
But because of public liability risk must be contained, and specialist skills among workers
are costly to substitute if a worker is injured.
Because the industry is entertainment, work culture plays a considerable part: the ‘show
must go on’ idea can encourage people to take risks or cut corners. Some performances
themselves are risky and must be closely monitored. Some associated jobs, such as
security, have implicit risk attached to them. Venues can also be very old.
Induction and supervision
It is therefore important to brief all staff who come on site. Labour hire workers always work
with supervising direct employees, who have charge and use specific equipment. The Firm
requires that all staff have appropriate certification: this is a contract condition with the on-
138

hire agency. In this regard, the Firm is looking to become a registered training organisation:
I believe that our induction and our training is certainly at top end, top level. We’re in
the process of becoming an RTO so we can actually deliver [OHS], emergency
training, on call first aid and qualified trainer. So I will be looking at doing first aid
training as well as [OHS] and emergency training. We are also in the processes of
moving someone to also become a qualified trainer and assessor to be able to
deliver customer service training and also a responsible service of alcohol. Bring all
that in-house, it’s cost effective for us. And we can train in accordance with our
company rather than having a generic training program or having to inconvenience
ourselves or inconvenience staff by sending them away for three weeks.
Training
Workers may also undertake training in their own time, under a contractor, because of the
odd hours they work in the industry. The Firm provides a manual and requires that it be read
and signed for.
Reporting
If an incident occurs it is important to investigate it immediately. Any delay produces further
problems for investigation because people involved disperse and move on to their next
activities. The risk manager will come on site at any hour to conduct an investigation. It is
important to learn how, where and why an incident occurred both for reporting and for
improvement purposes. The procedure is that the Firm takes responsibility and informs the
agency.
Communication and representation
Health and safety committees are management committees, with monthly meetings. The risk
manager conducts regular health and safety audits and risk reviews.
Consultation is with directly employed staff. Labour hire workers are usually too transient for
it to be meaningful or possible for the Firm to consult with them, with the exception of
security staff, whose employment pattern is more stable and consultation can take place as
a part of general security consultation.
139

Case O
Background
Firm O is a large host organisation, regionally based, that is heavily involved in export of
prepared meat as well as providing the national domestic market. Although it has been a
user of on-hire labour in greater proportions in the past, it is currently a low user, which
arises from the nature of the business and issues of quality assurance to customers. (In
particular, customer requirements about preparation and certification for religious reasons
impose considerable constraints on practice for Firm O.)
Strategy
The Firm’s OHS strategy applies to all workers on site, irrespective of whether they are
directly employed or labour hire. All workers receive the same induction and have the same
access to consultation and to HSRs.
Management systems
The Firm’s systems meet the demands of the market, which ensure that there are extensive
feedback and consultation systems, quality control systems that meet government and buyer
requirements and therefore continuous inspection and certification regimes. The Firm
advertises its employee commitment and training programs as a strength. It is not in the
Firm’s interest to have any OHS issues that might question the quality of its product and the
circumstances under which it is produced.
Case P
Background
‘Host’ P is a municipal council (it is inappropriate to refer to it as a firm). It is a large,
metropolitan organisation and a key supplier of services that may be regulated and for many
of which there can be no competition. Such organisations present different features than do
other hosts in the private sector and even in the public sector, because their structure,
operations and governance were substantially altered in the 1990s municipal reforms of the
Kennett Government. These reforms not only ‘recreated’ councils as new, enlarged entities,
with new structures and populations, but also imposed on them requirements for outsourcing
functions at least to a fixed proportion of their budget; this intervention was later amended
(and reduced) by the next government. Although there has been considerable realignment of
operations and accountability since that period, councils generally can be viewed as
140

functioning as businesses. Host R may in some respects not be typical in its retention of inhouse
service provision:
This is one of the very few Councils left that haven’t outsourced the majority of their
services. In saying that, we still have some outsourced services like family day care,
health, so instead of having a typical health department on the Council that has been
outsourced as to a third party
Inspectors recommended Host P, though they were uncertain how the system had survived
a change of manager:
[The council] had a very good system which shows where the key lies: it had a very
switched-on manager who put systems in place, but when the person moves on,
these can fairly quickly be dumped. The person therefore drives it, rather than the
system. A host’s management system overall is the key to good practice.
Host P uses on-hire labour to meet peak shortages or for projects. Most such workers are
skilled or semi-skilled and predominantly male.
The views expressed here are, of course, the views of the manager interviewed and are not
intended to be the views of the mayor or of the council itself as an elected body.
Management systems
Host P has a comprehensive risk management policy and practice that extend to everyone,
including the public (because the public must have access to many of the council’s ‘sites’).
There is no differentiation between direct and on-hire employees:
That policy or mission statement is clearly indicating about the controlling and
mitigating of risks, elimination of risk by whatever means appropriate through to
supporting and endorsing all of our employees, visitors, contractors to Council. So
the arms go out to encompass everybody and anybody that’s working on a site that
we are responsible for and that includes the members of the public, contractors,
including labour hire.
Resources for OHS
The council also commits expenditure to OHS initiatives without pre-determined constraints
– resources are made available if a case arises. The budget includes provision for training
and development:
I am actually finding nil constraints to the extent that I am able to obtain additional
141

funds for additional projects that may be required that have come up for whatever
reason. Or additional costs associated with a project which weren’t foreseen at the
time of doing the budget. So financially wise, the Council will support, the executive
will support [OHS] quite vigorously.
Accreditation
The council’s OHS action plan is linked to its objective to have AS4801 certification.
Implementation
Progress in OHS is reported to monthly meetings of managers and this forms part of the
relevant KPIs:
Implementation of all these systems is achieved by a number of different paths. It’s
achieved by inspections and it’s achieved by external audit. It’s achieved by the use
of systems like incident reporting and hazard reporting, which are measured on a
regular basis. Our KPIs also include the frequency severity of both incidence and
hazards that have taken place. So we are able to effectively measure it on an
ongoing basis, on a monthly basis, who is using the system, who’s not using the
system, the paths of the system, which parts of the area need additional work. [But]
it’s not auditing, no. It’s measurements of other systems. The incident has a reporting
system for example.... [We] are able to determine whether it’s being used, by whom,
when, where and how. In particular the departments, sections, areas or divisions
aren’t using it, are using it correctly or in fact including information as required.
Representation
OHS committees comprise elected staff health and safety representatives with some
management representation, and are chaired by management, which gives them effective
power for change:
All six committees have a legal representation of elected OH&S representatives as
well as management representatives with a slant more towards – by virtue of
numbers – of more OH&S representation rather than management representation.
So it’s not a one-for-one. There are more OH&S reps than there are management
representation. But in saying that, each of the committees is chaired by a general
manager so it has the power and the strength to be able to make decisions and
change.
In regard to the role of unions, the council has been proactive because it recognises their
142

legitimate interest in health and safety. It therefore puts no barriers in the union’s path.
Agency selection
In selecting labour hire agencies with which to deal the council relies on its own knowledge
and experience of reliable suppliers. Once the workers come on site, they are put into a
‘buddy’ system (paired with an experienced permanent employee). There is an annual
induction system. As for induction fatigue,
You either do it, comply with it and smile about it and show that you understand it,
otherwise we will find someone else. It’s almost a zero tolerance.
The council also undertakes to test skills and competencies, because it has found that
certificates may be inadequate evidence of competence and may on occasion prove to be
fraudulent. Any on-hire worker who does not meet the required standard is returned to the
agency.
The host organisation assumes control for its workers, because it is responsible under the
Act and it acknowledges that the agency is not in a practical position to control the health
and safety of on-hire workers once on site.
Management commitment
The council regards behaviour as important: from the CEO down all must demonstrate their
understanding of and commitment to OHS, because OHS management systems do not work
unless individual behaviour upholds OHS principles.
Return to work
However, it does not embrace a return to work policy:
It’s the employer’s responsibility ... to facilitate an early return to work program... [The
workers] have been engaged for a limited period of time to undertake a limited task
and that’s why the labour hire has been brought in.
Issues for change
The council is somewhat critical of the regulatory regime. It supports the current
rationalisation of regulations, but this will not overcome the problem of a range of tiers (the
Act, regulations, codes and guidelines). WorkSafe inspectors vary in their application of
codes and guidelines, with some interpreting these as an invariable part of the Act and some
as proposed ways of behaving. Such variation is onerous, especially for small business. The
143

council argues that codes, for example, are either important, in which case they need to
become a part of regulation, or they are unnecessary. For example, provision of first aid is a
part of a code, but for effectiveness it needs to be a part of regulation. Legislation on the
whole is an effective way to approach OHS because it provides a ‘big stick’ where it is
needed.
It’s nice to have the systems and the culture and all that sort of stuff, but if it doesn’t
work, at the end of the day then the rest of it is not worth the paper it is written on.
Best practice
Best practice requires communication, both to get resources from management to implement
systems and to get employee commitment. Listening is an important part of this
communication: all should have an opportunity to have their say about OHS, because it is
knowing that you have been heard that counts. Therefore, too, following up and
acknowledging comments or issues are minimum requirements for good communication.
And good communication means having good people who can simplify complex matters so
as to deliver the message more easily. Finally, best practice requires that OHS be accorded
priority by senior management.
Is it the best system in the world? Absolutely not. Is it trailblazing? Absolutely not.
There are organisations around that are trailblazers and one of those organisations
was [...] and look what happened to them. So it’s a matter of being able to do the
best for your clients and your clients being your staff and visitors and contractors and
all that sort of stuff so. If you prevent people ... from being hurt regardless of what
your system is or isn’t, then that’s the key to all this, isn’t it?
Case Q
Background
Firm Q is a large, multinational firm with interests in the mining industry. It has a very long
history through a number of corporate identities and amalgamations.
Because of the inherently hazardous nature of the industry, the materials and process with
which it works, and the concomitant risks for its workers and the environment, Firm Q
places high priority on health and safety. As a result of environmental concerns its profile is
very much on display and the Firm’s value as a company liable to be affected by adverse
events.
144

Management commitment
It publicly commits itself to the health and safety of its employees at any of its sites. It
undertakes performance reviews and provides training. Managers are expected to model
high standards of behaviour.
Management systems
At workplaces the Firm establishes annual targets for reduction in occupational health
problems and exposure to hazard and risk. Safety is a core value and the Firm’s goal is no
injuries. It promotes this through comprehensive policies, systems and procedures and a
supportive safety culture. Reporting and auditing are at several levels, including operational
and external. It explicitly claims its systematic, group-wide development of specific, detailed
safety standards as best practice. It uses its own industry and also other industries for
benchmarking its practice. Its KPIs for measurement of safety are tested against its own
targets, industry record and national and international records.
Risk assessment
For risk assessment it provides it managers with central guidelines and criteria which must
be adhered to, and it publishes these publicly. Its risk analysis framework is built on
business assessment principles.
Contractor requirements
For implementation of OHS, Firm Q has mandatory requirements that contractors must
meet. (Firm S made this document available.)
If they are not pre-qualified, they can’t even quote.
Accordingly, it has safety audit procedures for all its contractors, it undertakes pre-work
H&S analyses, it provides work training and site-specific induction, it has standard operating
procedures, and it holds regular toolbox safety meetings and conducts emergency drills.
Complaints and communication
The Firm provides an independent, internal complaint management system to investigate
issues identified by workers.
It is still seeking to improve communication in the workplace to promote a safety culture.
It is also seeking to improve accountability for safety among managers. Reporting has to
include near miss incidents as well as injuries.
145

OHS and business
It points to the link between workforce wellbeing and business success:
Keeping employees safe is not only the right thing to do. It’s the best business
outcome.
Our fundamental aim is prevention of injury to our people. We are not there to catch
someone doing something wrong. Not attaching to something or not isolating or not
properly going through the implementation of the controls. That’s not our intent to
catch someone. The intent is to prevent injuries to our people. And at the end of the
day, somehow because of the duty of care as part of the law ... and our internal
corporate governance. If we see someone’s behaviour at risk then we can’t walk
past, we have to definitely talk through and make sure that they are not at exposure.
That’s really the very important key to success.
Employee Perspectives
Note: ACREW found it very difficult to gain access to representative samples of
labour hire employees. Host organisations, understandably, were reluctant to commit
resources, since they were paying for the time and services of such employees.
Labour hire firms were similarly reluctant. Both were concerned about issues of
privacy. Employees themselves, as WorkSafe Inspectors had suggested, either did
not perceive the issues as especially serious or as likely to benefit from discussion or
could perceive the interview as raising the possibility of threat to their position. Onhire
employees at Firm K were willing to discuss their employment, and this was
greatly assisted by the Firm itself.
However, it was possible to gain further information from unstructured (rather than
semi-structured) discussion with workers, particularly in hospitality.
Interviews have been aggregated in this section, in the interests of clarity and focus.
Group 1
Background
Workers interviewed were experienced. Employed by a labour hire firm they work mainly at
one of the two sites for Firm K to do maintenance work. Both have worked on other sites and
146

overseas, and they confirm that health and safety standards are much lower overseas. They
believe Firm K has high health and safety standards:
I think what we have here is probably the best system that I have seen anywhere.
They believe that the agency, the workers and the Firm share the same attitude towards
OHS: without a successful system they are nothing.
Importance of systems
Workers at Firm K put most emphasis on the presence of good systems. The site insists, for
example, that a worker must hold an appropriate permit before touching anything. This
system has been in place since Firm K started operations, but the advent of computer
technology, such as swipe cards, means that even tighter controls now apply. Before on-hire
workers come on site, there is a risk assessment of the work and of the area; the area is
isolated, along with equipment. The permit issuer signs off on this, and the coordinator
checks the risk assessment and also signs off on it. The night shift also checks. Then,
before work commences, the on-hire workers confirm the risk assessment and the isolation.
All the supervisors meet at 3pm every day to consider the permit requests. All requests must
go to that meeting, but some smaller items can be isolated without the permit system. This
authority is programmed into the swipe card. Because it is a high risk site, checks must be
real and have meaning: this is in contrast to experience with other large firms with similar
high risk but whose systems to manage that risk simply do not work.
All those on site ensure that permits are given the proper attention, because without the
system lives are in danger.
Agency input
The agency comes on site and, like the Firm, is quick to point out if workers are not
operating to the right OHS standard.
Safety culture
Such attitudinal commitment to OHS is not just a matter of scale – the size of plants –
because on many large, complex sites the systems do not work. Aside from the checking
process, the other contributing factor at Firm K is cooperation: all parties work well together,
both management and the agency have a strong commitment to a positive OHS workplace.
OHS begins at first point of access: an ID card to pin on, with an emergency number to call
(which is always available) should there be an incident or injury. Footwear and dress must
147

not pose any risk. A hard hat must be fitted and worn. Then drinking water is provided, with
the logo, Safety is in your hands. In the lifts there are large signs saying Take 5*, which is
the local OHS slogan that says before doing anything, take five minutes to assess the safety
matters.
Induction
On-site induction occurs every 12 months. This covers First Aid, phone numbers to call,
evacuation procedures, safe driving on site, and OHS policies and procedures. At other
workplaces, on-site inductions generally occur wherever the worker is place, but all are
different and important because they are site-specific. One problem is that introductory
induction programs can be boring, because they address formal legal issues, even though
the site-specific induction is critical. For these workers, their agency also provides an
induction program every 12 months, using video aids that show worst case and horrific
injuries to get across the message that this must not happen.
Training
Most of those the agency employs have trade skills. The agency will also provide some
training and upgrading. New starters are sent away to do courses. There is a 4-step pay
structure. The ‘green employee’ is closely supervised, and is given a set of steps to work
through that are time-based, and is always sent out with qualified supervisor.
Consultation
Consultation at the agency involves monthly health and safety meetings for all workers,
where there is an opportunity to bring up issues and to hear what management has to say
about health and safety. There is no problem with voicing concerns: management will listen
and respond. That response is not necessarily exactly as a worker might prefer, but
management will always respond and provide explanations. This means workers understand
that health and safety is as important to management as it is to workers. These meetings are
paid time.
Representation
The agency also has health and safety representatives. There are daily toolbox meetings to
provide orientation for that day and serve as an important way of ensuring health and safety.
Health and safety representatives attend monthly meetings on site and meet with H&S
management and H&S representatives on the site. Communication back to the agency only
occurs if it relates specifically to the workers.
148

As regards unions, there is joint consultation with the AMWU. This is not a barrier. (One of
the workers is in fact the shop steward.) Unions provide many H&S courses; these are not
mandatory, but they are available. Generally unions are not at the forefront of H&S, as they
are not on-site, but they are somewhere to go if there is a problem – a last resort – so it is
necessary to have them, and having a shop steward is necessary as an avenue for talks.
The attitude is generally one of mutual respect, which enables openness.
Reporting and return to work
As regards injury, the agency has lost no time through injuries. Where aches and sprains
have occurred, workers have been brought back in on light duties – there are generally
lighter duties to do. This is not a cost to Firm K, as it is all part of the contracted price for the
job. Firm K does facilitate work experience: if there is the right job to enable gaining
experience, that means an extra pair of trained hands and is at no cost to Firm K because it
is also a part of the contract with the agency. Workers do not have a problem with reporting
injuries, because they know management will work positively to help their rehabilitation. The
agency wants to get workers back to full work capacity, so they want to find appropriate jobs.
Best practice
Best practice at Firm K is built around the permit system, which is done really well.
Commitment to it is important – everyone is told about the rules, what to do and what an
individual worker can do.
* This strategy involves each worker having a pocket size notepad, as a Take 5 record,
and is a checklist of things to identify before starting work. The issues covered, as
questions to the worker, are: training, competence and procedure; control of risk of
strains/sprains; control of risk of tripping or slipping hazards; control of risk of being
struck; correct PPE; correct equipment/tools, tagged and in good condition; correct
isolations in place; sufficient lighting; control of falls from heights; control of emissions
(dust/noise); control of any additional risks from adverse weather; effective control of all
hazards; and anything found that requires further action – to be reported to the
supervisor.
Group 2
Working arrangements
Both employees said that being employed by one firm but working under the direction of
another could result in conflicting OHS instructions. But this was not a major issue for them:
149

I guess we work with ‘Jack’, the site supervisor here to make sure things go the way
he expects them to be done, which is predominantly the same as we would anyway.
What made the difference was a common commitment to health and safety by both the
labour hire and host firms.
Induction
The labour hire firm provided an induction, and at each site workers also receive an
induction (basic site awareness). Although this is not specifically aimed at OHS, it covers
basic OHS issues then targets site- and task-specific issues, such as identifying ‘no-go’
areas (sewage treatment plant, for example), hygiene, and designated protective gear. Firm
K has a number of sites, and each requires an induction for its specific concerns but this is
not seen as too demanding. Because a number of trades may be involved, all must be a part
of the induction. While there is no testing of effectiveness of induction, both employees were
aware of problems posed by new equipment or tasks, and therefore expected to have to
think about such problems as they arose:
The process of going over it later on sort of cements it into your mind.
OHS responsibility
The employees are themselves in part responsible for OHS:
Basically whatever jobs we are doing that day or that week we are solely responsible
for ourselves as well as our Company has general labourers and they come to work
so I daresay us being the ongoing workers at each work site we are in control of
them so we have to make sure that they are wearing correct PPE and basically just
safe with basic hand tools. Just a knowledge of what to do and what not to which is
very basic.
The labour hire firm provides ‘company supplies’. When these need replacing, the
employees are responsible for contacting the labour-hire firm for repair or replacement.
Reporting
On site, when equipment is observed to be faulty and the fault is reported, Firm K addresses
this promptly.
If a safety issue arose on site, the worker would deal first with the foreman, but if this as not
satisfactory he would immediately contact ‘Jack’. Both have had positive experiences in
reporting issues:
150

There is no sort of bullying around here or anything like that, so it’s all pretty right.
Best practice and toolbox meetings
Best practice for these workers included a ‘toolbox meeting’ at the start of the day, so that all
workers understood the scheduled tasks:
It might only be a three minute little meeting but at least everyone knows about the
cranes or lifts etc.
Because communication with Firm K was effective, the workers had very little ongoing
regular communication with their labour hire firm, though that firm does come on site now
and then, just general wellbeing, how everything is going.
Neither worker thought their labour hire firm’s contribution was special, nor was there
anything special that Firm K supplied.
Summary
Their final summation?
It is nice to have health.
It’s nice to go home at the end of the day.
Group 3
Working arrangements and background
This worker has had extensive experience in nursing in the metropolitan area. In her current
employment, the workforce comprises a mixture of permanent full-time, part-time, ‘nurse
bank’ and agency (on-hire) staff. These include the grades of nurses, administrative staff,
personal care attendants and kitchen staff.
Labour hire workers are utilised by the hospital especially in times of peak demand. There is
a stable level of core employees and a reasonably high reliance on ‘nurse bank’ staff. The
hospital has found that on-hire workers can be expensive and are not always of the required
quality. Only two agencies are used.
Induction
No induction occurs at the agency; it is completed on-site when staff first report to work.
There are induction forms to be completed. Induction involves spending one shift with a
151

senior member of nursing staff in order to gain insight into the daily operations and what is
required in terms of the quality and standard of care of patients, because the welfare of
patients is paramount in this work setting. However, because of pressure of work for the
supervising staff member, sometimes induction can be ‘tick and flick’.
Other induction includes fire safety and emergency procedures and also procedures to deal
with aggressive patients. This type of induction is conducted in groups. Nursing staff are also
required to do manual handling induction where it is relevant to their job description. All staff
at the hospital must be aware of the code systems in place as well in terms of fire, bomb
threat, robbery, aggressive patient, and so on.
Mentoring
There is a mentor system for new permanent Division 1 nurses. Their mentor is meant to be
with them for 6 months to demonstrate and supervise aspects of the job such as drug
administration, pathology tests, and the reporting of results. As nursing is such an important
job, the margin for error should be virtually non-existent and it is a priority that this standard
is maintained. Hence, all staff, permanent, temporary and on-hire must be adequately
introduced to the hospital’s operating procedure and requirements. This includes OHS.
Safety culture
The safety message is communicated from the CEO down through the Director of Nursing
and line management and then to all staff. It is important for the welfare of both patients and
staff. An OHS officer is appointed; this is usually a member of the nursing staff. There is also
an OHS committee made up of various staff members. Regular meetings are held with the
CEO and Director of Nursing and other relevant management as to the status of relevant
OHS issues at the hospital. There are two areas – clinical (pertaining to issues relevant to
nursing staff) and clerical (issues relating to all other staff). These two areas have different
OHS issues.
The hospital also is keen to keep its premiums down.
Reporting
Incidents must be reported and written up for occurrences such as incorrect drug dosage.
The follow-up procedure involves counselling the staff member and ascertaining why the
incident occurred, and follow-up includes issues such as re-training. Reports must be written
and recommendations made. This is the procedure for all incidents whether related to staff
or patients. These incidents are graphed on a ‘pie’ chart every month. Any staff accidents or
152

patient mishaps (such as falls) are recorded and graphed and placed in an area where all
staff may peruse the information. All of these incidents are reported to the OHS committee.
Summary
The required procedures are in place for effective OHS practice, but it may be difficult
sometimes to ensure that the induction process, in particular, receives the time it should
have apportioned to it.
153

For more information
Please contact us at:
Australian Centre in Research in Employment and Work (ACREW)
Department of Management
Monash University
Level 7, Buliding N
PO Box 197
Caulfield East VIC 3145
Australia
Facsimile: +613 9903 2718
Email: acrew@buseco.monash.edu.au
Or visit the ACREW website at:
http://www.buseco.monash.edu.au/mgt/research/acrew/
Front cover photograph copyright Scott Mayson.