He was the head of the Port of Auckland, a worker died and he was charged under health and safety and found guilty.
It was the Health and Safety at Work Act of 2015, and he was the first person of a large operation to be charged and found guilty under it.
This in no way takes away from the tragedy and seriousness of the accident.
But the question for us all though, is can you reasonably hold a single person responsible in a company where so many people, if you were looking to cast a wide net, potentially could also be responsible?
And if you can, what sort of chilling effect does that have around the running of large companies in which you can potentially be held to account for Lord knows what?
The court found he had overall responsibility, which in theory is not unfair. It’s the buck-stops-at-the-top argument.
But what about the board? What is the point in having management and managerial responsibility if it all eventually gets sheeted back up top?
In a business where safety is a key aspect of operation, you presumably have people and groups, or committees, that operate procedures and rules.
What level, if any, of responsibility do they hold, or share?
Can one person really be held to account for the singular accident, on one day, in one incident, in a company of hundreds, or potentially thousands?
And if you answer 'yes', as the court seems to have, then how does a CEO change the way they approach the running of that business?
Are they risk averse? Do they take longer to make decisions? Does progress get slowed as we guess, second guess, then guess one more time just in case?
Do you overspend or invest in areas "just in case"? How much sleep do you lose doing all this?
If the rules around being on a board are increasingly arduous, and they are, is making life as a CEO harder, productive?
Or is finding a single person culpable for any event in the workplace an easy out, of a complex problem allowing everyone else to wash their hands?
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.
But the question for us all though, is can you reasonably hold a single person responsible in a company where so many people, if you were looking to cast a wide net, potentially could also be responsible?
And if you can, what sort of chilling effect does that have around the running of large companies in which you can potentially be held to account for Lord knows what?
The court found he had overall responsibility, which in theory is not unfair. It’s the buck-stops-at-the-top argument.
But what about the board? What is the point in having management and managerial responsibility if it all eventually gets sheeted back up top?
In a business where safety is a key aspect of operation, you presumably have people and groups, or committees, that operate procedures and rules.
What level, if any, of responsibility do they hold, or share?
Can one person really be held to account for the singular accident, on one day, in one incident, in a company of hundreds, or potentially thousands?
And if you answer 'yes', as the court seems to have, then how does a CEO change the way they approach the running of that business?
Are they risk averse? Do they take longer to make decisions? Does progress get slowed as we guess, second guess, then guess one more time just in case?
Do you overspend or invest in areas "just in case"? How much sleep do you lose doing all this?
If the rules around being on a board are increasingly arduous, and they are, is making life as a CEO harder, productive?
Or is finding a single person culpable for any event in the workplace an easy out, of a complex problem allowing everyone else to wash their hands?
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.
5 comments:
The public is glad that someone has finally been held accountable. What Mike calls a chilling effect is confusing…if someone is not capable of running a large company and commanding the salary that accompanies that job, then they should never have had the job in the first place. If the company has risk to life and safety then of course the responsibility sits at the top. The CEO makes all trade off decisions regarding profit vs safety.
Gibson made his decisions for the business and we did see what happened under his watch. Any other approach to justice for what happened at Ports is obviously unconscionable.
The CEO should not be held personally responsible for the foolish actions of every member of staff.
How is a Court going to define " foolish " ?
I have had staff who have repeatedly done stupid actions despite repeated demands that they stop it.
If they hurt themselves, its not my fault, its Darwinian Law in action.
Remember that half the people have an IQ of less than 100, and the rest are not so clever.
I find this article interesting. Interesting in that "you can show a monkey how to perform trick, work a machine" but sadly when left to their own devices, and they make a mistake, who then becomes responsible.
I use as an example - the teaching of the use of a chain saw.
The hours that are spent on -
- health & safety, particularly when in a forest area
- the wearing of specific clothing (by the Company) and why & when it is worn
- the use of a chain saw, pre use, during use and when it fails
The other one, was pre work, having breakfast, carrying fluids (approved) and not - NOT, arriving at work hungover of still under the influence of any drugs.
Note last comment - sadly, a common factor amid those who worked in the forestry domain.
All work, on site conducted under the "eyes" of a supervisor.
So dear readers, which of the above would often lead to an accident?
The Forestry Industry has across years past had many horrific accidents - and the WorkSafe People took the Companies to task, in Court (Mike H, must have missed these) - but again - well re-read my opening comments.
Anon 145 not undertaking safety procedures, risk registers, incident registers, and team and employee incentives and penalties. I hope she isn’t running a business, much less one with safety aspects
A CEO cannot micro-manage every employee. There are middle managers and supervisors who should also be held responsible if equipment was not maintained or procedures not followed. Also personal responsibility for following said procedures. It should not only be the CEO in the gun.
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.