Postal
Mercedes Sprinters: Comcare identifies risks, CEPU recommends members protect themselves
(27 April, 2009): Comcare has released its much anticipated report into the safety of the new SPB Mercedes Benz Sprinter vans finding Australia Post is in breach of section 16(1) and 16(2) of the OHS Act which imposes a duty of care on employers to their employees.
Comcare also found Australia Post in breach of various Regulations requiring employers to undertake hazard identification and risk assessment in relation to new equipment. In essence, the reasons for the Comcare’s investigator’s decision are as follows (download the full Comcare report here):
- The investigator was not satisfied that all reasonably foreseeable hazards associated with the use of the vans, such as environmental conditions and the presence of persons and other plant in the vicinity of the vans were accounted for.
- He believed that an operational risk assessment would have identified peripheral/ side vision issues, stating that Australia Post did not feed into its risk assessment process the additional health and safety information raised by the drivers and unions with respect to visibility.
- He was not satisfied that Australia Post took steps to consult or address the concerns of drivers regarding the intention to procure vans with no side windows.
- He was not satisfied that Australia Post consulted with either drivers or the CEPU about its desire to have vans without side windows for their uninhibited load capacity.
- Most importantly, the Comcare investigator stated this about the Mercedes Sprinter vans: “In view of the findings above, I am satisfied that there is sufficient evidence of a real risk to health and safety in relation to the introduction of the Mercedes Sprinter vans without rear side visibility, particularly in relation to reversing from angle parking.” (par. 133, page 16)
Comcare had issued an Improvement Notice on Australia Post giving it 60 days to prevent any further breach of the OHS Act or Regulations.
But in typical Australia Post style, it has lodged an appeal against the same investigation that it asked Comcare to carry out.
It seems that Australia Post does not mind spending a lot of money on lawyers but when it comes to fixing proven safety issues that affect Post drivers, pedestrians and other road users, the organisation is totally unresponsive.
CEPU urges members to protect themselves:
In view of the Comcare findings, we recommend that drivers request their managers to retrofit the new vans with side windows.If management refuse and you believe that there is an imminent risk to your safety then we recommend that you exercise your rights to decline driving these vans.
Under the Workplace Relations Act you are entitled to refuse to drive the vans if you have a reasonable concern about an imminent risk to your health and safety.
Contrary to Australia Post’s assertion that refusal to drive the vans may constitute industrial action, section 420(1) of the Workplace Relations Act makes it clear that refusing to perform a task you believe unsafe is not unprotected industrial action.
If you refuse to drive the vans based on your reasonable concern about an imminent risk to your health and safety you must not unreasonably fail to comply with the directions of Australia Post to perform other available work, whether at the same or another workplace, that is safe and appropriate for you to perform.
The CEPU intends to make representations to the AIRC on this matter.
In the meantime members should contact the CEPU if you require assistance with this matter.
Got a view about this? Let us know via feedback@cepu.asn.au