Falls from heights are still a leading cause of injury and death.

admin • February 24, 2025

Falls are still a leading cause of injury and death, and they have been for a very long time. So why aren't we better at eliminating the risk of falls in the workplace?

Falls from heights can occur due to various hazards. These includes scaffolds, ladders, roofs, trucks, holes, pits, shafts, trenches, and mezzanines. in addition, we can at a risk of fall when working on machinery, on slippery or unstable surfaces, on sloping surfaces, or near an unprotected edge.

Don’t forget that falls risks can include a fall from an elevated position or a fall into a pit.

Even a fall from a relatively low height can cause very serious injuries, if not death.

As per the requirements of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 - all fall related hazards must be controlled in the workplace. In addition, when there is the risk of a fall of 2 metres or more, then Part 3.3 of the OHS Regulations comes into play.

Employers must control the risk for falls:

1. You must ELIMINATE the risk if at all possible – by working on the ground or on a solid construction

If this can’t be done, then you could use the following control measures in order of priority:

2. Passive fall prevention device – guarding, railing or scaffolding

3. A work positioning system – so that workers are within a safe area

4. Fall arrest systems – safety harness, safety net or catch platform

5. Use of ladders, or administrative controls – safe work procedures and signage

In addition – you must establish emergency procedures, which includes how you will rescue a fallen worker and provide first aid.

Employers must also provide training and supervision of workers.

As always, you must review the controls that are put in place:

if things change
if the HSR requests it
as part of your obligations to monitor health and safety

Don’t forget there is also a duty to consult with employees and HSR’s when identifying hazards and deciding what control measures to use.

For more information, take a look at: A guide to falls prevention | WorkSafe Victoria

As always, BeSafe is available for help and support HSR Training and support | BeSafe | Regional Victoria

< Older Post

Newer Post >

Reasonably Practicable?

By admin • March 25, 2025

The Victorian Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 requires that the employer has a duty to ensure a healthy and safe workplace. This duty must be met as far as reasonably practicable. But what does this actually mean? The following must be considered when determining what is reasonably practicable: (according to section 20(2) of The Act): (a) The likelihood the hazard or risk concerned eventuating; (b) The degree of harm that would result if the hazard eventuated; (c) What the person concerned knows, or ought to reasonably know, about the hazard or risk; (d) The availability and suitability of ways to eliminate or reduce the hazard or risk; (e) The cost of eliminating or reducing the hazard or risk. This is often an area of confusion – primarily because the test for what is ‘reasonably practicable’ is in fact objective. When we consider this, it is best to look to WorkSafe for guidance. WorkSafe Victoria provides some clarification in their Position Statement on the matter: ‘a person is to be judged by the standard of behaviour expected of a reasonable person in the duty-holder’s position who is required to comply with the same duty and is: • Committed to providing the highest level of protection for people against risks to their health and safety. • Proactive in taking measures to protect the health and safety of people.’ - WorkSafe position statement - reasonably practicable There must be a weighing up of each of the 5 points listed under section 20(2) of The Act (above), but with a clear presumption in favour of safety. This means that the likelihood of harm occurring, and the seriousness of the potential outcome, must be the most important factor. The cost must be considered to be the least important factor when deciding what is reasonably practicable. ‘If the degree of harm is significant, e.g. death or serious injury is highly likely, then it is extremely unlikely that the cost of eliminating or reducing the risk would ever be so disproportionate to the risk to justify a decision not to implement an available and suitable control measure.’ - WorkSafe position statement - reasonably practicable When considering what the person concerned should reasonably know about eliminating the hazard, the state of knowledge regarding hazards and controls must be considered and this must be applied in line with the ranking under the hierarchy of control. The definition of what is ‘reasonably practicable’ is often one which causes some contention. It is important to go back to the WorkSafe position statement to make sure that you are making decisions in line with the intentions of The Act . Of course, it is always required that the highest level of protection from a hazard is provided in order to ensure a safe workplace. To read more about this: How WorkSafe applies the law in relation to Reasonably Practicable | WorkSafe Victoria

10 Pathways to Death and Disaster

By admin • March 18, 2025

Michael Quinlan’s book ‘Ten Pathways to Death and Disaster’ includes a review of fatal mine incidents. What he found was that the each disaster was preceded by common causes. There are 10 recurring reasons why disasters happen in the workplace. He describes 10 pathways: Pathway 1: engineering, design and maintenance flaws Pathway 2: failure to heed warning signs Pathway 3: flaws in risk assessment Pathway 4: flaws in management systems Pathway 5: flaws in system auditing Pathway 6: economic or reward pressures compromising safety Pathway 7: failures in regulatory oversight Pathway 8: worker or supervisor concerns that were ignored Pathway 9: poor worker or management communication and trust Pathway 10: flaws in emergency and rescue procedures In most cases, at least 3 of these pathways will be present. However, some cases will have features of all 10. The 10 pathways don’t just apply to mine incidents – they have been applied across other high hazard workplaces and have found to be equally relevant across industries. Ultimately, this shows that death and disaster in the workplace is predictable and preventable – so why do major industries continue to kill in the same old ways? If the 10 Pathways approach defines the issues which lead to major incidents, then why aren’t these being used to prevent such events? In other jurisdictions, the 10 Pathways Theory has been used to inform prevention. Perhaps it is something which regulators, employers, and also HSR’s could consider when thinking about how to prevent death and injury in Victorian Workplaces. Ten Pathways to Death and Disaster eBook - The Federation Press