Click logo to go to main navigation page for program information

www.kabinstitute.com

 

 

Excerpts from
 

KAB Institute Information Kit

 

 

Why employers should offer training

 

To improve productivity and save money

·         Costly work errors, dangerous incidents and general productivity losses increase with the onset of fatigue.

·         Users of ergonomic suspension seats that are set up correctly for them will have less tiring stress exerted on them therefore will take longer to be affected by fatigue.

·         People who are comfortable in their work are more content and therefore have a more positive, productive attitude

·         Productivity and quality tends to be greater when workers aren’t tired

·         Misused equipment has higher failure rates and greater maintenance costs

 

To discharge their duty of care and stay out of court.

·         Performance seating is work equipment.

·         Employers have a legal responsibility to provide appropriate equipment to their workers. But it doesn’t stop here.

·         Employers also have a legal responsibility to provide their employees with appropriate training on hazards of their work environment and the health and safety equipment to be used.

KAB suspension seats and ergonomic chairs fit right in this category – equipment for the protection of worker health and safety

 

Do not think in terms of simple protection such as safety boots or hard hats that are either on or not. A KAB suspension seat or ergonomic chair should be recognised as sophisticated health and safety equipment with important controls that need to be set correctly.  Appropriate training needs to be provided.

Think of this in a different way. What employer in their right mind would leave someone to find out for themselves how to adjust the external air supply in breathing apparatus or make all the right connections on a high level safety harness.

 

Different situations maybe, but same principle. And same duty of care.

 

Employers that ignore their duty of care are committing an offence according to statutory law in many jurisdictions and can be fined heavily. Actual injury does not have to occur: just lack of care – lack of thought for the employee. The consequences of this neglect can be much worse if a work-related health or safety claim arises. Failure to exercise duty of care can make a legal defence very difficult and damages payouts may be in MILLIONS.

 

 

What is duty of care and why is it so important?

 

The ‘duty of care’ concept forms the basis of most occupational health and safety legislation. Common principles apply even though individual jurisdictions may vary specific wording of their laws. In an OH&S sense the term “duty of care” covers the broad responsibilities owed by one person to another in a work environment. For example, an employer must, as far as practicable, provide a work environment in which employees are not exposed to hazards. However, employees must also take reasonable care for their own safety and health, and that of others, at work.

 

Employers however are generally considered to have more control over working conditions and matters affecting occupational safety and health. Consequently there is a tendency to focus more heavily on duties of the employer.

 

Regardless of what statutory law says the courts have determined the common law duty to mean that all employers must take reasonable care for the safety of their employees.

 

In common law cases the courts decide whether the action taken by the employer is reasonable in any particular case. The standard of care that should apply is based on the way a hypothetical "reasonable person" might behave.

 

So where does this leave the employer? What has to be done to demonstrate duty of care? This statement from the judge of an actual court case is very clear:

·         "The overall test is the conduct of a reasonable and prudent employer taking positive thought for the safety of his workers in light of what he knows or ought to know;

·         where there is a recognized and general practice which has been followed for a substantial period in similar circumstances without mishap, he is entitled to follow it unless in the light of common sense or newer knowledge it is clearly bad;

·         where there is developing knowledge, he must reasonably keep abreast of it and not be too slow to apply it;

Note the employer’s action must be “in light of what he knows or ought to know” and where there is new knowledge available the employer must “not be too slow to apply it”.

 

If untrained equipment users are at greater risk than equipment users who have received appropriate training what does “common sense” say the employer should be doing? You work it out – but do so before a potential damages incident occurs.

 

Footnote:

Prudent employers may also realise that by providing appropriate training they are not just fulfilling an employer’s obligation. They are also making it easier for to employees to take reasonable care for their own safety and health. Any employees who then choose not to take care for themselves may be providing their employer with a strong argument to defend any subsequent damages claim that may arise.