Browsing: WHS decisions (National) | Page 12

A Melbourne business and its directors have been fined, and a worker compensated, after the worker claimed he was subjected "to unreasonable health and safety risks because of his race" and unfairly sacked.

A major employer did not need to prove an "immediate and current issue" existed to justify implementing its new fatigue-busting roster, which was influenced by the transition to more prescriptive safety obligations, a commission has found.

A worker's safety complaints, including around an employer's failure to cease operations during a severe weather event, "aggravated" his managers and led to him being unlawfully excluded from a site, the Federal Court has found.

The Federal Court has rejected claims by union officials that they genuinely believed they did not need right-of-entry permits to enter a site for the purpose of "resolving" WHS issues.

A supervisor's plan to maximise employees' sleep and prevent fatigue would have reduced the amount of sleep one worker could get, a commission has found in finding the worker was unfairly sacked for defying the supervisor's instructions.

A worker with anger management issues breached his safety obligations when he threatened to cut a co-worker's throat, but a number of factors meant the employment relationship remained viable, a commission has found.

A Sydney Trains health and safety representative, who claimed he was exercising his WHS rights when he detained a customer during a COVID-19 lockdown, has failed to overturn his dismissal.

Chain-of-responsibility parties like schedulers that fail to ensure drivers are properly trained in managing fatigue, and don't speed, must face penalties that are heavy enough to deter similar offending by others, a superior court has found in increasing a business's fine twelvefold.

A supervisor's conduct in allowing a crew to drink alcohol at a lunch was "much worse" than that of the team members who drank, a commission has found in upholding his summary dismissal.

The dismissal of a worker who wasn't fully vaccinated against COVID-19, because he suffered a severe reaction to his first dose, was valid and backed by safety considerations, but ultimately unfair, a commission has found in awarding him compensation.