SMEs warned to focus on safety after worker awarded $1.26 million from Gary Morgan-owned company

The awarding of $1.26 million to a former employee of a company owned by pollster Gary Morgan who suffered a serious injury to his foot should serve as a warning to SMEs to make occupational health and safety a key part of their culture, an expert has warned.

The Supreme Court of Victoria found Linton Shirreff, who was employed by Elazac to supervise the refurbishment of a building in the Melbourne CBD, is now owed $1.26 million after he sustained a serious foot injury in an elevator shaft in 2002. Shirreff has subsequently been advised to amputate the foot.

Morgan was contacted for comment this morning, but no reply was received before publication. Roy Morgan Research referred SmartCompany to law firm Hall & Willcox, who said they are not prepared to comment.

Norton Rose OHS legal expert Michael Tooma says businesses must be absolutely clear about their OHS policies and ensure safety is paramount.

“Companies need to go back to basics. They need to systematically identify risks, and change the culture in the company. A lot of companies get sucked into gimmicks, they have systems that are never really applied.”

“OHS is all about making practical decisions. It’s making sure the work environment is safe, thinking through tasks, supervising staff, and so on.”

Tooma says businesses, especially those in the construction and engineering sectors, should regularly conduct reviews of their business to determine if they are up to scratch. Even basic standards like safety gear and supervision should be regularly reviewed, he says.

“Good safety is good for business. It allows you to have greater mobility, good staff and in the long run, attracts good clients back to your business. Safety isn’t a cost, it’s an investment, an investment in the long-term success for your business.”

The Elazac case also represents why companies should be completely clear about employment standards. A major point in the case debated whether Shirreff was a contractor, or employee, and the subsequent level of care owed to him.

“It was for all practical purposes one of master and servant. [Sherriff] was retained in part because of his electrical expertise,” Justice Robson said in his ruling.

“That characteristic is determined by the totality of the relationship between the relevant parties which involves not only a consideration of the contractual relations between them but also how the parties in practice conducted themselves one to the other.”

“An employer owes a non-delegable duty to an employee to exercise reasonable care in providing a safe place of work and a safe system of work. The standard of care owed to an independent contractor is normally not quite as high as he is normally responsible for the safety of his own system of work.”

Tooma says companies must be clear about employment standards, safety standards and should “outperform their peers” with regards to sustainability.

“Many studies have shown that on a productivity basis, safety performance is often a lead indicator of financial performance. If you look after your safety, the rest of the business will follow.”

Sherriff sustained his injury when he was working on a ladder inside the lift shaft, attempting to fix a problem, when he fell. Robertson ruled the lift shafts “where not serviced by qualified maintenance people”.

“The lights in the lift shaft were not working and it appears the accident happened while Mr Shirreff was on the ladder with the lights out. I find this failure also contributed to Mr Shirreff’s fall. If he lost his grip in the dark, which I found probably happened, it is likely he would have found it more difficult to save himself in the pitch black lift shaft.”

Slater & Gordon lawyer John Karantzis, who represented Shirreff in court, says the case serves as an example for any companies owing a duty of care to their employees.

“Clearly, a safe and systematic workplace would have prevented such an accident. Cases like this show how important it is for employers to take responsibility for workplace safety – as the consequences can be devastating.”

Just Robson said the damages are being awarded for pain, suffering, loss of amenities and damages for pecuniary loss, plus interest.