A recent Queensland WHS judgement holds vital lessons for anyone involved in developing WHS documents, or anyone who has a role in using them.
As WHS Auditors , we see some long documents. A key question we’re always asking is, “is the document content of value to WHS risk management in this organisation?”. The answer often depends on the intended function of the document. For those documents that are intended to serve as self-instruction for how to manage an operational safety risk, this recent court judgement is instructive.
Case Spotlight: Nicholson v GCMR Project Services Pty Ltd [2024] QDC 58
This case involved an incident where a contractor was injured after falling through a skylight on a roof. There had been a safety procedure in place for the activity (a Safe Work Method Statement i.e. a SWMS)….and here’s what the Magistrate had to say about the safety procedure:
- (39) “….. It was a verbose and complex document of some 17 pages in small font. I cannot understand how any practically effective safety system for labourers and tradesman is satisfied by such a document. On the balance of probabilities it is highly likely that such a document is not read entirely, if at all or properly absorbed or clearly understood.”
The Takeaway
Using long documents to communicate important safety information doesn’t provide a legal defense, and is often counter-productive to achieving a safe outcome.
Safety risk management documentation that you want to use to self-instruct the “doers”, needs to:
- match the actual task at hand;
- use the workers terminology; and
- primarily be reduced to the information that is operationally critical to managing the risks.
If you can’t achieve these three points, there’s probably better ways to achieve a safe outcome than a standing document.
