Подумалось, а вот если чтение WH&S правил вызывает стресс и желание убить всех вокруг, то может ли это служить причиной подачи иска против составителей правил? Ведь здоровье и безопасность моих коллег по оффису подвергаются серьёзному риску! Чувствую что без адвоката Аптекмана тут самому не разобраться.
А ещё очень понравились прецеденты, которые щедро разбросаны на страницах правил. Вот, например, такой:
David was employed as a clerk in an office. He assisted his manager to move offices by re-locating over 1,000 books, files and bundles of paper. This involved a lot of bending, lifting, twisting and stretching. Although David did have existing back pain before he commenced the task for his manager, the repeated twisting motions further strained his back and caused pain in his right leg.
David successfully sued his employer for negligence. David's employer did not ensure he was informed about safe lifting techniques. Also, there was a foreseeable risk of injury which could have been neutralised by using professional removalists.
Robert was hired as a self-employed project manager to oversee the construction of a booster pumping station. Robert was in charge of a number of workers, although these workers were employed by the construction company, not Robert himself. Robert had not given instructions for anyone to enter the pipes at the pumping station, however Alan entered one of the pipes to test for leaks. While Alan was inside one of the pipes, it accidentally filled with water and Alan drowned.
Robert was prosecuted for failing to ensure that people (who were not Robert's workers) were not exposed to risk. As project manager, it was Robert's duty to give precise instructions to those under his control. The court found that Robert failed to undertake a risk assessment of work carried out in the pipe and to provide appropriate training. Robert was fined.
И ещё на промышленную тему:
Construct Company undertakes the construction of underground tunnels. A system becomes available on the market which significantly reduces the risk of tunnel collapses. Construct Company does not implement the system because it decides that it is too expensive. A tunnel under construction collapses, killing two workers.
Construct Company is prosecuted for failing to take reasonably practicable steps to ensure the safety of the workers and found guilty. While the safety system was expensive, its cost was warranted given the severity of the risk to worker safety.
А вот ещё, чудесный:
Ruth was a secretary at B&B Lawyers. Ruth fell from a swivel chair in the storeroom while trying to reach some files from a top shelf. She was wearing high heeled shoes. This was an unsafe working practice and could have been avoided if a stepladder was kept in the storeroom. Ruth should not have used her chair as a ladder. Ruth should also have removed her high heeled shoes. Ruth had a responsibility to herself and others as well as obligations under WHS legislation to take reasonable care to protect her health and safety and the health and safety of others.
Ну не зайки ли? И правильно этой Руфи досталось. Должна понимать с кем можно связываться, а кого не тронь.
На закуску, душераздирающая история о том как в парке спасали человека из озерца глубиной чуть выше колена: The picture that shames Britain. Не спасли. Наверное плохо читали Work Health & Safety. Или слишком хорошо.