But out of Pike River came the law that got Gibson, as former boss of the Port of Auckland, over the death of a worker.
He has been found guilty. He may appeal.
You would imagine if the verdict stands and a penalty is imposed, it would have a severe chilling effect in the world of CEOs.
Just where is the line for a boss in looking after the safety of the staff, beyond the broad-based and widely understood rules?
Do court cases like this now reset those boundaries as to what you must, or might do, in regards safety in a large workplace?
Some workplaces are inherently dangerous because of their nature.
Rules will be in place, but how tight do those rules need to be? And it's out of that sort of expectation that life in general can sometimes be brought to a sort-of standstill by the “just in case” mentality.
Work and safety is driven by good intention but is stifling in the real world.
In taking the very specific responsibility right up the chain to the corner office for a person falling off, or falling over, or into something, that's a tremendous amount of very specific expectation – especially in a large company when the numerical gap between the boss and a bloke on the floor, or the machine, might well be large.
It's an interesting concept, to judicially skip any number of people between the victim and the CEO.
What I know about Pike River was it was a top-down mess. If you were looking for blame, there was no shortage of it to spread around.
A lot of people wanted Peter Whittall to pay, but that was more predicated on him being an easy target, not because he, and he alone, was responsible.
How much of the new law came out of the same mentality?
"Don't worry about the detail or fairness, let's just look to have someone pay".
And if that is what drove it, is that good law? Or is it a lot of potential trouble and a reason not to be the boss?
Mike Hosking is a New Zealand television and radio broadcaster. He currently hosts The Mike Hosking Breakfast show on NewstalkZB on weekday mornings - where this article was sourced.
Just where is the line for a boss in looking after the safety of the staff, beyond the broad-based and widely understood rules?
Do court cases like this now reset those boundaries as to what you must, or might do, in regards safety in a large workplace?
Some workplaces are inherently dangerous because of their nature.
Rules will be in place, but how tight do those rules need to be? And it's out of that sort of expectation that life in general can sometimes be brought to a sort-of standstill by the “just in case” mentality.
Work and safety is driven by good intention but is stifling in the real world.
In taking the very specific responsibility right up the chain to the corner office for a person falling off, or falling over, or into something, that's a tremendous amount of very specific expectation – especially in a large company when the numerical gap between the boss and a bloke on the floor, or the machine, might well be large.
It's an interesting concept, to judicially skip any number of people between the victim and the CEO.
What I know about Pike River was it was a top-down mess. If you were looking for blame, there was no shortage of it to spread around.
A lot of people wanted Peter Whittall to pay, but that was more predicated on him being an easy target, not because he, and he alone, was responsible.
How much of the new law came out of the same mentality?
"Don't worry about the detail or fairness, let's just look to have someone pay".
And if that is what drove it, is that good law? Or is it a lot of potential trouble and a reason not to be the boss?
Mike Hosking is a New Zealand television and radio broadcaster. He currently hosts The Mike Hosking Breakfast show on NewstalkZB on weekday mornings - where this article was sourced.
7 comments:
Like you said Mike - we actually don’t know on what grounds was the CEO found guilty. Would’ve been great if the journalists were keen to dig in deeper to find out if the company had systemic issues or somebody is trying to make an example of the case.
Given the energy crisis facing New Zealand, shouldn't we be looking at reopening the mine to fuel the Huntly Power Station? Not raking over old coals in a pointless argument over culpability? Maybe this is something Shane Jones should take an interest in.
When does this insanity stop.
From memory, the Pike River boss had only been in the job for a few weeks, nothing like enough to discover how the place worked as apposed to how it should work. I've worked in heavy industry for many years and probably
have better understanding than most of the gap between should happen and does happen. Most of the safety issues start at floor level with people circumventing procedures to maintain production or to bypass regulations which make life difficult. The lower managerial levels are often complicit with this and occasionally the higher levels hear of it and choose to turn a blind eye.
I wouldn't expect the top management to know all of the details of how a business works but I would expect them to make sure that people working for them , those closer to the work, are checking that company procedures and H & S legislation are complied with.
Anon 1.39. Not all coal is burnt equal. Huntly coal is a different grade to West Coast coal at Pike River. Coking coal is blended for use in steel production, not power generation. It’s horses for courses when it comes to coal.
Under HSWA’15 the CEO has a “due diligence” responsibility for the primary duty of care. This is a foundational responsibility. If this clear leadership responsibility has not been undertaken, then the consequences are clear. In this case the law is being applied. That is all.
So where do you draw the line? Is health and safety the be-all and end-all, or should culpability and liability for cost/damages also be up there? Take for example that power pylon collapse that took out much of Northland's power. A cost/loss in the many tens of $millions, where does the culpability and liability for that start and end and who should ultimately pay and to what extent? Then you have the recent sinking of the Manawanui, where the cost and clean-up could exceed a $1bn and I'll wager that will come down to the negligence of one or two individuals. Who really should take the can for that when it's likely someone other than the Captain that is directly at fault and, even if so, to how far and to what extent should that individual liability extend? And then you have H&S NZ themselves, who have been alerted to a real problem in one of our essential services but, due to a massive funding issue, they conveniently turn a blind eye? When something inevitably happens, who will be held accountable and what will be the penalty?
Post a Comment
Thanks for engaging in the debate!
Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.