INTRODUCTION

There is increasing pressure being placed on companies to ensure that workplace safety is adequately addressed and managed. Boards and management are required to implement an appropriate system for risk identification and reduction and encourage a safety conscious culture. It is no longer sufficient to rely on a simple process or procedure and assume that the risk has been addressed.

An organisation’s risk profile for work related transport activities is determined by the nature of its business and its culture towards a safety environment or, put simply, the way it conducts its business.

Under current legislation the organisation will be held responsible for and can be held liable for any and all related (negative) outcomes from its transport activities.

Responsibility is extended from the individual driver to those tasked with determining the transport need, identifying and reducing or mitigating risk and actively managing the process. It puts responsibility on all those involved in the transport chain, whatever their capacity.

In broad terms, if the organisation and its management facilitates, either by direct action or inaction, any situation or circumstance that results in a negative outcome for either the employee or any other person that the employee’s actions affect, then the organisation and its managers can be held liable.

This places a clear responsibility on the organisation to carry out assessments and periodic reviews, of the organisation’s safety/risk/harm awareness and minimisation system.

An organisation has to ensure that the processes, procedures and systems that address workplace safety are sound and adequate to manage the potential risks associated with the company’s transport activities so that personnel, contractors and the general public alike are not put at risk.

All personnel, including contractors, need to be covered by a documented process that encompasses a defined and managed program including skills assessment, training and emergency response through proven processes and procedures. The consequence of failure could be as serious as criminal proceedings against the company’s management.

Traditionally, driver safety has focused on the individual and the vehicle. However, this neglects the context, the organisational culture, in which drivers at work are operating. Any system must acknowledge that organisational culture will define whether it can introduce, develop and nurture an effective safety culture.

Organisational culture can be thought of as the way an organisation ‘thinks’ or at a basic level ‘the way we do things around here’.

Three elements shape and define an organisation’s culture, these are:

• How the organisation represents itself (its beliefs, attitudes and values);
• How an organisation functions (its structures, practices, controls, policies and procedures);
• Whether or not these are positively managed by all levels of management, from senior through middle and lower management, producing an outcome that is successful by design.

If safety is not regarded as paramount by the organisation’s management then any system will struggle. Only through a cultural change and support process can an organisation’s safety philosophy be sufficiently developed to a level where it can still dominate when carried outside into the mobile workplace environment where it may be tested by external competing cultures.

BENEFITS OF MANAGING WORK-RELATED RISK

The true costs of incidents to organisations are always higher than just the costs of repairs and insurance claims. The benefits to the organisation from assessing, managing and reducing work-related risk in their fleet operations can be considerable. The introduction of a functioning safety system will:

• Allow for informed decisions;
• Allow better control over costs;
• Result in fewer days lost due to injury;
• Reduce insurance premiums;
• Reduce legal fees and claims from employees and third parties;
• Reduce risk of work-related ill health;
• Reduce stress and improve morale;
• Result in less lost time due to work rescheduling;
• Result in fewer vehicles off the road for repair so reducing replacement vehicle costs;
• Reduce running costs through better driving standards;
• Result in fewer missed business opportunities so reduced risk of loss of customer goodwill;

• Reduce wear and tear.

LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES

Duty of Care by employers arises from both common law and statute law and as such it changes over time as actual case law develops. By its nature this presents some difficulty as organisations are always working with a moving target. However, the fact remains that every employer has a Duty of Care to its employees and those performing work on its behalf.

So far as is reasonably practicable the organisation is required, by law, to ensure the health and safety of all employees while at work and those performing work on their behalf and to further ensure that the organisation’s transport activities do not negatively impact on the general public.

Section 4 of the Occupational Health and Safety (OH&S) Act defines the workplace to mean:

“Any place, whether or not in a building or structure, where employees or self-employed persons work.”

An organisation’s legal responsibility is clearly defined and extends beyond its internal activities.

FURTHER, SECTION 21 OF THE OH&S ACT REQUIRES AN EMPLOYER TO

• Provide and maintain a safe working environment;
• Provide and maintain safe plant and systems of operation;
• Eliminate unsafe use, handling, storage and transport of plant and substances;
• Maintain the workplace in a safe condition;
• Provide facilities for the welfare of employees;
• Provide information, instruction, training and supervision.

A recent additional responsibility has been the introduction by the ‘Chain of Responsibility’ concept. While new in transport law it has been quite common in occupational health and safety and environmental law.

The underpinning ‘Chain of Responsibility’ theme is that if you influence on-road behaviour you can be held liable for any and all related (negative) outcomes. It extends responsibility from just the individual driver and puts responsibility on all those involved in the transport chain.

WHAT DOES IT MEAN FOR THE ORGANISATION?

Organisations must ensure that members of the public are not exposed to risks to their health and safety arising from the organisation’s business activities.

The outcome of all this is that, in the broadest terms, if the organisation and its management facilitates allows the facilitation, either by direct action or by inaction, any situation that results in a negative outcome, for either their employees or persons performing activity on their behalf, or any other person that your employees’ actions affect, then the organisation and its managers can and will be held liable.

HOW TO BEGIN

The question then arises as to how to achieve this without being too disruptive to the organisation while ensuring that risks are adequately addressed and managed.

The Manual of Fleet Management ‘How to’ guide provides a framework and a step by step overview of a risk management process that can assist organisations in managing the risk within their fleet operations.

It provides practical guidance on the application of risk management which can be applied to any organisation regardless of size.

ADDRESSING THE PROBLEM

The ‘duty of care’ requirement places a clear responsibility on the organisation. It identifies a need to carry out assessments and periodic reviews of risk. This also includes a responsibility to ensure that others are not put at risk by work related transport activities.

Critical to meeting the safety responsibility is the concept of risk assessment and mitigation. First of all, have you done a risk assessment and what are you doing to mitigate the risks?

Employers have a legislative obligation to eliminate the risks. If risks cannot be eliminated they must be controlled by implementing action.  Even if an employee, contrary to your directions, has adopted an unsafe method of working, you may still be held vicariously responsible.

THE MANAGEMENT OF RISK

The management of risk is nothing more than making sure you have identified your risks and have adequate controls for your risk exposure and that adequate insurance cover has been provided for the vehicle and the driver. This exposure will most likely change over time and from organisation to organisation and is linked directly to the organisation’s industry profile, methods of working, policies, procedures and practices.

One characteristic of risk assessment is that it is dynamic and will be subject to constant change over time. This means that the controls required to effectively manage the risks need to change appropriately as knowledge and/or practices change or as the risk profile changes.

An organisation’s risk profile contains two components, “Exposures” and “Controls”. There are many types of exposures, some inherent and some produced. Controls are the protection that you create through competent systems and procedures within the organisation.

Having undertaken adequate measures for a risk reduction program, the organisation can be seen to have taken a ‘Reasonable Steps’ approach to providing a safe working environment.

The concept of a ‘Reasonable Steps’ defence relates to risk assessment and evaluation leading to risk mitigation in that it can be demonstrated that reasonable steps were taken to ensure that responsibilities were met.

In determining what is ‘reasonably practicable,’ account must be taken of the:

• Exposure to harm – the likelihood of a hazard or risk occurring;
• Seriousness – the degree of harm that would result if the hazard or risk occurred;
• Knowledge of the risk – what the person concerned knows (or ought reasonably to know*) about the hazard or risk;
• Any ways of eliminating or reducing that hazard or risk and remedies;
• Availability and suitability of ways to eliminate or reduce the hazard or risk.

*An important principle here is the understanding that should an incident occur and legal action be taken against the organisation then it is likely that the person with the management responsibility will be judged not only on what they know but what they ought reasonably to know for someone holding that position within the organisation.

For example should a vehicle have a low NCAP crash rating, not knowing about NCAP is no defence as it would be reasonable to expect someone responsible for the fleet to have knowledge and understanding of NCAP and its implications.

This is a tricky area in that an organisation might not be expected to provide a vehicle that exceeded a ‘fit for purpose’ evaluation (procuring a larger six cylinder vehicle when the fit for purpose evaluation indicates a small vehicle is adequate) whereas procuring the cheapest in a class of vehicle could be seen as failing the duty of care, even though that vehicle meets all the applicable Australian Design Rules.

Adequate measures require the organisation to have a multi-level system approach which needs to demonstrate the presence of:

• Risk assessment and evaluation leading to risk mitigation (this process must be documented);
• Control measures (procedures);
• Maintenance/compliance (management control system);

• Emergency plans where appropriate (contingency plan if the control fails).

PROBLEM OWNERSHIP

Within any functioning safety system there needs to be a clear understanding as to the responsibility of each person. Responsibility must be clearly assigned to ensure that all those in the chain of responsibility know what they have ownership of and what they must manage.

Senior management will define and communicate the organisation’s fleet safety policy and objectives and employ a risk reduction program to ensure that a system is in place to identify and mitigate risk.

The fleet safety policy statement should be accessible to all, be displayed throughout the organisation and given to drivers.

It is essential that senior management maintains a high level of commitment in fleet safety and supports its application. Failure from senior management to do so will be perceived by some as a sign that the organisation is not serious.

MANAGERS

Managers are expected to exercise control over vehicle operations by ensuring that drivers under their management fulfil their responsibilities.

DRIVERS

Drivers should be held responsible for the proper operation, care and maintenance of the vehicle entrusted to their care and this should be considered to be an integral part of their performance evaluation on the job.