WICEN Vic: Communications Tower Best Practices - Something of interest to all..

[John and Bronwyn Morrissey]

Interesting.  Thanks Ian. 

Sounds like they have identified the core issue here:  

... carriers and tower owners

may not know who is performing work for

them, or when work is being performed.

Thus, responsibility for employee safety

is fractured into many layers. Instead

of a single company having control and

responsibility for employee safety and tower

integrity, employer responsibilities can be

spread over numerous small employers.

Obviously the law in the US is quite different to here.  This situation
cannot occur here.

In Australia (all States are the same), the responsibility for OH&S on a
work site ALWAYS rests with the owner / occupier of the site.  As such they
are responsible for ensuring that all subbies, employees, whatever, toe the
line on OH&S, and this is regardless of the number of "layers" in the work
structure or how many companies are involved.  It is not possible to
"contract out" of this responsibility. The OH&S Act is framed in such a way
that if anything happens, there is ALWAYS a way someone can be pinged, for
failing to provide a safe workplace, failing to provide a safe system of
work, failure to adequately supervise work, or whatever...

So quite a lot of the document addresses this problem, most of the rest is
just good practice.  So far as I know, work on towers in Australia is
licensed - no licence, no climb, similar to many other designated 'high
risk' occupations (eg elevated working platform operation).   Again,
obviously different in the US.  

It's also worth mentioning the difference between OH&S Regulations and Codes
of Practice in Australia.  OH&S Regs sit directly under the Act, compliance
is mandatory, non-compliance can be prosecuted regardless of whether an
accident occurred, and it is up to Worksafe to prove to the Court that a
breach of the Act occurred (in line with normal prosecution practice). . 

Codes of Practice are not mandatory BUT if an accident occurs and the CofP
was not followed, the onus of proof reverses.  In the event of an accident,
failure to comply with a CofP is considered  'prima facie' evidence of a
breach of the OH&S Act, and then the onus is on the employer to prove to the
Court that the system of work they used is at least equivalent to or better
than the CofP.  If they cannot do this - more-or-less automatic conviction,
the 'prima facie' evidence means it is not up to Worksafe to demonstrate a
breach of the OH&S Act.  

 

Cheers,   John

 

  _____  

From: wicenvic [mailto:wicenvic-bounces at vic.wicen.org.au] On Behalf Of Ian
Branch
Sent: Friday, 9 June 2017 9:58 AM
To: 'WICENVIC'; jdjapatterson at gmail.com
Subject: WICEN Vic: Communications Tower Best Practices - Something of
interest to all..

 

http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2017/db0601/DOC-3451
50A1.pdf

Regards,

Ian - VK3YEA

It is better to be prepared for an opportunity and not have one, than to
have an opportunity and not be prepared. -Whitney M. Young, Jr.  

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://vic.wicen.org.au/pipermail/wicenvic_vic.wicen.org.au/attachments/20170609/4711fd65/attachment-0001.html>