11.06.2013

Leading from the front on Health and Safety – what all directors need to know

The government is committed to holding directors to account for their company’s performance in health and safety, and assisting them to understand and manage their responsibilities.

When it comes to matters of governance, the buck stops with the directors of a company. In matters of health and safety, this concept has perhaps become a little forgotten. The government is committed to holding directors to account for their company’s performance in health and safety, and assisting them to understand and manage their responsibilities. One of the recommendations to come out of both the Royal Commission into the Pike River tragedy, and the Independent Taskforce on Health and Safety, was the need to ensure directors are taking overall responsibility for managing health and safety within their workplaces.

To this end, the Ministry of Business, Innovation, and Employment (MBIE), together with the Institute of Directors, has introduced a guideline document: Good Governance Practices Guideline for Managing Health and Safety Risks.

This Guideline does not have the force of Legislation or a Code of Practice, but is certainly something that the Court “may” (and in fact, is likely to) take into account in deciding whether a director has met his or her statutory obligations. Under the present Act (the Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992), a director can be liable where the company has committed a breach of the Act. A director can be charged where it is clear that he or she directed, authorised, assented to, acquiesced or participated in the company’s failure to comply with a provision of the Act.

There are certainly cases when this has occurred – the fatal explosion and fire at a coolstore at Tamahere near Hamilton in 2008 being one example. Following this tragedy, a director of Icepak Coolstores was convicted and fined $30,000 for acquiescing in the company’s failure to take all practicable steps to ensure the safety of employees. There are also a number of other, often smaller, companies where both company and directors (or other officers) have been prosecuted for health and safety failures. Following Pike River, Peter Whittall was charged with a number of counts of acquiescing in the company’s breaches of the Act. Those charges have yet to be heard.

The Independent Taskforce’s review of Health and Safety has recommended that the current Act be repealed, and replaced with something more akin to the Australian Model Work Heath and Safety Act. Under this legislation, officers of a company are required to take reasonable steps to:

  • a. Acquire and update knowledge on health and safety matters
  • b. Understand the operations being carried out , and the hazards and risks associated with them
  • c. Ensure that the person(s) operating the business has and uses appropriate resources and processes to manage health and safety risks
  • d. Ensure that the person(s) operating the business has appropriate processes in place to receive and respond to information regarding incidents, hazards and risks, and
  • e. Ensure the person(s) operating the business has and uses processes for complying with duties or obligations under the Act.

It is likely that the proposed new legislation for New Zealand will contain provisions very similar to these. We understand that the government is aiming to have the new legislation in place, and coming into force by October this year.

In the meantime, the Guidelines are certainly something with which all directors should familiarise themselves. It is clear that the courts will take a dim view of those directors who fail to take health and safety seriously, or who plead ignorance as to their obligations.

The Guidelines set out four key element for directors. These are:

  • Policy and Planning (setting a Health and Safety Policy, targets, and managing the managers’ performance in health and safety)
  • Deliver (exercising due diligence to ensure that health and safety system is fit for purpose, keeping informed about industry best practice, and how the company is measuring up, ensuring that sufficient resources are available)
  • Monitor (outline expectations on health and safety reporting, review reports, failiarise themselves with risk audits, assessments and incident investigation, and seek expert advice if needed)
  • Review (ensure there are formal reviews to assess the effectiveness of health and safety management, if necessary, by an independent advisor)

The document goes on to outline the respective responsibilities for directors and managers under each element, and includes ‘diagnostic’ questions to assess the current state of compliance, and guide directors’ future actions.

Directors ignore the Health and Safety Guidelines at their own peril. It is incumbent upon all directors to familiarise themselves with their obligations, ensure that their managers are doing what they should, and that the company is doing what it ought with regard to keeping workers safe. As the Guidelines state; “Directors should never turn a blind eye to health and safety information. If they become aware everything is not as it should be they need to take decisive action”.

As always, if you need assistance with understanding and meeting your obligations under the Health and Safety in Employment Act, please contact us to set up a discussion.

 

Do you need expert legal advice?
Contact the expert team at Hesketh Henry.
Kerry
Media contact - Kerry Browne
Please contact Kerry with any media enquiries and with any questions related to marketing or sponsorships on +64 9 375 8747 or via email.

Related Articles / Insights & Opinion

empty wallet finance concept
Intentionally not paying employees their wages to be deemed theft under the Crimes Act 1961
An amendment to the Crimes Act 1961 (Crimes Act) – the Crimes (Theft by Employer) Amendment Bill has been passed by Parliament. The Bill now awaits royal assent, after which it will be an enfor...
14.03.2025 Posted in Employment
Time’s Up: Late Redelivery and the Assessment of Damages in Hapag Lloyd AG v Skyros Maritime Corporation and Hapag Lloyd AG v Agios Minas Shipping Company
The English Commercial Court gave an instructive judgment on the assessment of damages in Hapag Lloyd AG v Skyros Maritime Corporation and Hapag Lloyd AG v Agios Minas Shipping Company; an appeal brou...
11.03.2025 Posted in Trade and Transport
Team Hands in small
Cartel conduct: Do not pass “GO”, go directly to jail
Until 8 April 2021, cartel conduct was punishable only by civil penalty in New Zealand.  In R v Kumar [2024] NZHC 3955 the High Court imposed the first criminal convictions and sentences for cartel c...
06.03.2025 Posted in Construction & Disputes
Employment
2025 Insights: Proposed Legislative Changes and Employment Team Update
Team update and proposed legislative change – hello from the Hesketh Henry Employment Law Team 2025. Click here
20.02.2025
photo  dbe
When Sweet Turns Sour: The Costly Consequences of Contamination
The New Zealand Sugar Company (NZSC), trading as Chelsea Sugar, recently found itself in hot water after being fined nearly $149,500 by the District Court due to a prosecution brought by the Ministry ...
19.02.2025 Posted in Insurance & Trade and Transport
Mind your business: What happens when an employer uses an employee’s personal information?
A recent decision by the Human Rights Review Tribunal (the Tribunal) provides a noteworthy reminder of the importance of privacy rights and obligations in the workplace.  In BMN v Stonewood Group Lim...
14.02.2025 Posted in Employment
Construction Framework Wide BW
Public consultation on NZS 3916:2025 and NZS 3917:2025
Public consultation on the draft DZ 3916 Conditions of contract for building and civil engineering – Design and construct and DZ 3917 Conditions of contract for building and civil engineering – F...
13.02.2025 Posted in Construction
SEND AN ENQUIRY
Send us an enquiry

For expert legal advice, please complete the form below or call us on (09) 375 8700.