loader from loading.io

#33 - National WHS Update: Industrial Manslaughter Laws and the Prohibition of Insurance

Employment Law for the Time Poor

Release Date: 05/19/2023

#44 - Employment Relations Podcast: When is the deal done? Resolving employment disputes show art #44 - Employment Relations Podcast: When is the deal done? Resolving employment disputes

Employment Law for the Time Poor

Authors: Emily Haar, Ben Motro Has this happened to your organisation? You’re negotiating an exit with an employee, or perhaps you are working through a conciliation or mediation following the filing of an employment-related claim, and you think you have a resolution, though nothing has been signed yet. You might wonder, do we have a binding or enforceable settlement, even without anything signed? In this episode of Employment Law for the Time Poor, Ben Motro and Emily Haar push past some of the legalese to work through when a settlement agreement is binding, how particular Court and...

info_outline
#43 – Federal Election 2025: What is being proposed for industrial relations reform? show art #43 – Federal Election 2025: What is being proposed for industrial relations reform?

Employment Law for the Time Poor

Authors: Emily Haar, Andrew Stewart In this special election episode of Employment Law for the Time Poor, just in time for your second April-long weekend, Professor Andrew Stewart, Consultant, and Emily Haar, Partner, discuss the various policy announcements from the major (and minor) political parties, stakeholders’ wish lists for reform, and other “things to watch out for” ahead of the Federal Election on 3 May 2025. Following the election result becoming known, Piper Alderman will be hosting a national roadshow of in-person events where Professor Andrew Stewart will provide...

info_outline
#42 – What could the proposed ban on #42 – What could the proposed ban on "non-competes" mean for Australian employers?

Employment Law for the Time Poor

Authors: Emily Haar, Andrew Stewart As part of the recent Federal Budget, the Treasurer plans to ban “non-compete” clauses in employment contracts for employees earning below the high income threshold (currently $175,000 per annum) from 2027, to much media attention.  But with the finer details to be the subject of further consultation (and a Federal election on 3 May 2025 in the meantime), what might be on the horizon in this space? In this episode of Employment Law for the Time Poor, Professor Andrew Stewart, Consultant, and Emily Haar, Partner, discuss the difference between...

info_outline
 #41 – Understanding the Employment Law Considerations in Defence Export Controls show art #41 – Understanding the Employment Law Considerations in Defence Export Controls

Employment Law for the Time Poor

Employment Relations Podcast #41 – Understanding the Employment Law Considerations in Defence Export Controls Authors: Emily Haar, Erin McCarthy, Travis Shueard In this episode, we delve into the recent amendments to the Defence Trade Controls Act 2012 (Cth) and explore the implications for employment law and anti-discrimination issues.  Emily Haar is joined by Erin McCarthy and Travis Shueard to discuss how these legislative changes impact businesses in the defence industry – which is defined more widely than you may initially think! The legislative grace period before penalties...

info_outline
#40 – Understanding the Australian Right to Disconnect show art #40 – Understanding the Australian Right to Disconnect

Employment Law for the Time Poor

Employment Relations Podcast #40 – Understanding the Australian Right to Disconnect Authors: Emily Haar, Lucie Lawrence-Wall The “right to disconnect” is commencing for most national systems employers on 26 August 2024 (small businesses have a further 12 months to get ready).  Does your organisation understand what this “right” actually is, and how it could impact your operations? In this episode of Piper Alderman’s Employment Law for the Time Poor Podcast, Partner Emily Haar and Senior Associate Lucie Lawrence-Wall discuss the international position and the “availability...

info_outline
#39 – Restraints on restraints! What the United States’ ban on non-compete clauses could mean for Australian businesses show art #39 – Restraints on restraints! What the United States’ ban on non-compete clauses could mean for Australian businesses

Employment Law for the Time Poor

The United States is planning to heavily restrict the use of non-compete clauses in employment contracts, and the Australian Government has released an issues paper discussing the subject in the Australian context. In this episode of Employment Law for the Time Poor, Emily Haar, Prof. Andrew Stewart and Dustin Grant discuss the current state of the law on post-employment restraints, what proposals for limitations on such restraints could look like, and what employers can do now to best protect their interests. . In April 2024, the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) voted to ban non-compete...

info_outline
#38 – Wage Theft: Go Directly to Jail? show art #38 – Wage Theft: Go Directly to Jail?

Employment Law for the Time Poor

One of the few constants in life and business is change.  Come 1 January 2025, a significant shift will take place for national system employers when criminal wage theft provisions come into effect because of changes in the Closing Loopholes Reforms.  But what does “wage theft” mean, and in what circumstances will criminal prosecution occur? In this episode of Piper Alderman’s Employment Law for the Time Poor Podcast, Partners Emily Haar, Principal Chris Hartigan, and Senior Associate Jack Bourke discuss: The differences between civil underpayments and criminal wage theft; ...

info_outline
#37 – Closing Loopholes No. 2: Considering Complexities show art #37 – Closing Loopholes No. 2: Considering Complexities

Employment Law for the Time Poor

February 2024 has been a big month for legislative change, particularly in the contentious arena of industrial relations.  Seemingly out of nowhere, the Government announced it had done a deal on the remaining areas of proposed reform that did not make it into the Closing Loopholes Act 2023.  Adding to the surprise, the Closing Loopholes No. 2 Bill contained significant and substantial amendments to what had previously been proposed, including the much discussed “right to disconnect” provisions.  In this episode of Employment Law for the Time Poor, join Professor Andrew...

info_outline
#36 – What does a psychosocially safe workplace look like? show art #36 – What does a psychosocially safe workplace look like?

Employment Law for the Time Poor

Following the 2018 Boland Review into the model Work Health and Safety provisions, workplace psychosocial safety has squarely been on the policy agenda.  Combined with recent changes as a result of the Respect@Work Report, the clear policy position, and expectation of society, is one of employers taking responsibility and being accountable for having workplaces that are both physically and psychologically safe.  In South Australia, its version of amendments to the Work Health and Safety regulations to deal with psychosocial safety commence on 25 December 2023, following similar...

info_outline
#35 – The Governance of Decision Making in the Post-Qantas Environment show art #35 – The Governance of Decision Making in the Post-Qantas Environment

Employment Law for the Time Poor

The recent High Court decision in Qantas v TWU focussed on the question of how the general protections in the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) work in circumstances where employees did not presently have particular workplace rights (in that case the right to take industrial action), but would have those rights in the future if not for the adverse action being taken.  While that analysis has rightly been the subject of a lot of interest, the outcome in that case turned on the other key concept in general protections claims – the “reverse onus” where employers need to prove that an unlawful...

info_outline
 
More Episodes

Industrial manslaughter may soon be an offence in almost all Australian jurisdictions. Recent amendments in certain jurisdictions have also introduced the recommendation of the 2019 Boland Review to prohibit insurance and indemnities for WHS penalties.  In this episode of Employment Law for the Time Poor, join Emily Haar, Partner, and Joseph Hyde, Associate, for a review of the current status of these provisions, with a particular focus on the South Australian proposed industrial manslaughter legislation. 

With Labor governments having been recently elected in South Australia, New South Wales, as well as federally, the issue of industrial manslaughter is back on the agenda.

South Australia, New South Wales, and Tasmania are the only remaining States that have not yet expressly legislated for this offence. However, public consultation on South Australia’s draft Work Health and Safety (Industrial Manslaughter) Amendment Bill has finished, with the Government now considering the feedback that was provided. The recently elected NSW Labor Government had attempted to introduce industrial manslaughter legislation in 2021. While there is no current Bill before parliament, it is likely to be on the Parliamentary agenda.

At the Commonwealth level, the national model WHS laws are planned to be amended to include the offence of industrial manslaughter, following Australia's WHS ministers agreeing to the move in late February 2023.

The offence generally captures negligent or reckless conduct of a person conducting a business or undertaking (PCBU) or its officers that breaches health and safety duties and causes the death of a person to whom a duty was owed. However, the details of the offence vary slightly in each jurisdiction.

Jurisdiction

Law in force

Law being considered

Maximum penalties

Elements of offence

Prohibition against insurance

SA

 

Body corporate: $15 million.

Individuals: 20 years

Would apply to officers or individuals acting as PCBUs who engage in reckless or grossly negligent conduct causing the death of an individual to whom a health and safety duty is owed.

Not presently included in Bill

Vic

 

Body corporate: nearly $18.5 million. Individuals: 25 years imprisonment.

Negligent conduct by persons, including an employer and its officers, which breaches a duty and which  causes the death of an employee or member of the public

Qld

 

Body corporate: $14.375 million.

Individuals: 20 years imprisonment.

A PCBU or a senior officer’s conduct negligently causes the death of a worker. Includes where a worker is injured carrying out work and later dies.

X

WA

 

Body corporate: $10 million.

Individuals: 20 years imprisonment and/or $5 million fine.

A PCBU engages in conduct that constitutes a failure to comply with their health and safety duty, knowing it is likely to cause the death or serious harm to another person, and causes the death of an individual.

Officers may also be charged but additional elements of the offences must be proven.

NT

 

Body corporate: just over $10.5 million.

Individuals: life imprisonment.

A PCBU or officer intentionally engages in conduct that breaches their health and safety duty and causes the death of an individual to whom that duty was owed, and is reckless or negligent about the conduct and causing the death of that individual.

X

ACT

 

Body corporate: $16.5 million.

Individuals: 20 years imprisonment.

A PCBU or officer engages in conduct that breaches their health and safety duty and causes the death of an individual to whom that duty was owed, and is reckless or negligent about the conduct.

X

NSW

 

(No current Bill before Parliament)

 

Note to Division 5 states:

“In certain circumstances, the death of a person at work may also constitute manslaughter under the Crimes Act 1900 and may be prosecuted under that Act. See section 18 of the Crimes Act 1900, which provides for the offence of manslaughter, and section 24 of that Act, which provides that the offence of manslaughter is punishable by imprisonment for 25 years.”

Tas

 

No current provision

 

 

X

Cth

 

Body corporate: $18 million. Individuals: 20 years imprisonment.

 

(Commences on a date to be fixed by proclamation or otherwise 22 September 2023)

 

Victoria, Queensland, and the Northern Territory adopt a penalty unit system, meaning the maximum penalties will increase each year.

Tasmania is currently the only jurisdiction whose government has not expressed their intention to introduce the offence. There have been recent calls for Tasmania to introduce industrial manslaughter laws, on International Worker’s Memorial Day (28 April 2023), Unions called on the Parliament to commit to introducing the offence. Unions Tasmania secretary Jessica Munday says that "Tasmania is now out of step with the rest of Australia."

The prohibition of insurance and indemnities for work health and safety penalties was recommended in the Marie Boland Review of the Model WHS Laws published in February 2019, and also the Senate Inquiry into industrial deaths published in October 2018.

This prohibition has been implemented in the recent Work Health and Safety Amendment Act 2023 (Cth), as well as in NSW, Victoria and WA.