News
Fined for not squealing
Any child starting school would be well advised to make themselves aware of the three rules of the schoolyard.
These are the things that you must do which - even though they are unwritten - represent universal law in any school in the country (or probably, the world).
Never, ever, squeal. Only say something out aloud if you are absolutely sure that everyone who hears it will agree with it. And always pick on people who are different to you.
Obey these rules, and you will almost certainly avoid getting beaten up (at least on your first day).
For some reason, this fundamental disinclination for humans to "tell on" each other transcends almost every aspect of human life. Regrettably, however, the law sometimes obliges us to "squeal" on each other – often with disastrous consequences.
The Health and Safety in Employment Act is one such law. Amongst other things, it requires employers to report their own serious harm accidents to the Department of Labour.
Why? Because the Department - and indeed society at large - has an interest in knowing about terrible accidents that occur in our workplaces. In the worst case, of course, the Inspectorate of the Department of Labour might decide to prosecute the employer for failing to prevent harm.
One would imagine that employers wouldn't be naturally inspired to report this sort of thing - especially where there is the possibility that they may be prosecuted having done so. But, as a recent case illustrates, an employer can be penalised for failing to report as well.
The starting point in Villages of New Zealand (Pakuranga) Limited v Department of Labour (Unreported, High Court, Auckland, Heath J, 10 October 2005) was a relatively minor incident involving a few bottles of milk.
Ms Watkins, a worker in a retirement village, went outside to bring in some milk bottles. It had been raining, and the bottles were wet. As she was putting them into the fridge, some water found its way on to the floor. Watkins and one of her colleagues attempted to mop the water up – but to no avail. A greasy portion of floor was left, and Watkins unfortunately slipped over, injuring her wrist.
Regrettably, the injury to Watkins - whilst relatively minor (a small fracture) - had to be treated by placing her arm in a cast which went all the way up to her elbow. She could do little more than move three fingers on her hand for a period of three weeks.
The question for the employer was whether this was an incident of "serious harm". If it was, the employer was obliged to report it to the Department of Labour.
Probably for its own reasons, the employer decided that it didn't have to report the incident. When the case later made its way to Court, the employer argued that the legislation was set up to capture severe or acute injuries - and that a requirement to report this sort of injury was a little bit silly.
The law does, however, provide a pretty blunt definition for this type of thing - and (believe it or not) what happened to Watkins was an example of serious harm. Anything which results in "temporary severe loss of bodily function" comes within the definition of serious harm. And what happened here resulted in Watkins being unable to use her hand for a few weeks (which also meant that she couldn't work for a little while).
Under the law, therefore, the employer should have reported this incident.
The Department of Labour appears to have been unimpressed by the employer's failure to report. It prosecuted the employer for its failure and, in the District Court, a fine of $5,000 was imposed.
The employer appealed. While it failed in its arguments about the application of the definition of "serious harm" the employer did succeed in getting the sympathy of the Court concerning the fine that was imposed against it. In essence, the High Court found that the imposition of a fine for failing to report the incident served no useful purpose – and reversed this aspect of the District Court's judgment.
So, in the end, the moral of the story was simple: if something which constitutes "serious harm" happens in your workplace, you are bound to report it - or, put another way, to "squeal" on yourself. What constitutes an event of "serious harm" may surprise some employers - and resulted in the application of what some might consider to be a low threshold in this case.
Be that as it may - and irrespective of whether a prosecution is brought in respect of any workplace accident - serious consequences can follow for an employer who fails to breach the first rule of the schoolyard.
