Employee Participation System for the University of Otago

University of Otago Employee Participation System August 2008

Please see document attached for 2008 agreement.

The 2003 version of the agreement is below......

November 2003

1. Executive Summary

The Departmental Health and Safety Officer Working Party (DHSO WP) has been reviewing the current DHSO system to identify a method of ensuring time allocation for the DHSO positions to achieve the required outcomes.

The scope of the working party has been expanded this year to include review of the current systems and compliance with the Health and Safety in Employment Amendment Act 2002 and the requirement of a formal employee participation system.

Feedback on the draft employee participation system has been received from the University Health and Safety committee and the Inter Union Council. The following amended recommendations are now forwarded from the DHSO working party to the Vice Chancellor and Inter-Union Council for agreement as the University of Otago Employee Representation System:

a) That the proposed complementary systems of DHSOs and elected H&S Representatives is implemented within the University of Otago Employee Participation System, meeting the requirements of the Health and Safety in Employment Amendment Act 2002;

b) That the DHSO job description (appendix 2) applies to the University of Otago;

c) That the time allocation system for DHSOs applies to the University of Otago;

d) That the role description (appendix 3) of elected H&S Representatives applies to the University of Otago;

e) That the proposed Hazard Notification process (appendix 4) applies to the University of Otago;

f) That the employee participation system is reviewed after 12 months;

g) That health and safety representatives are elected;

h) That the University Health and Safety Committee membership includes 1 nominated health and safety representative; and

i) That the University health and safety committee membership includes 1 Inter Union Council member.

Parties in Agreement:

Dr Graeme Fogelberg, Vice Chancellor

Inter-Union Council Working Party Representatives:

Employee Working Party Representatives:

2. Background

The 2002 salary negotiations resulted in the following:
"To agree with the unions a policy for the recognition of time commitments of departmental health and safety officers within their normal work commitments."

Stephen Gray, Director, Human Resources, established a working party to progress the development of a suitable policy. The initial group membership was:

• Andrea McMillan, University Health and Safety Manager, Convenor
• Lynne Tana, Manager, Employee Relations, Human Resources
• Bryan Johnston, Divisional Administrator, Sciences Division
• Shaun Scott, Otago University Inter-Union Council
• Neale McGowan, PSA representative, School of Dentistry
• Irene Hall, AUS Representative, Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology
• Gordon Fleury, Union Trades Representative, Property Services

Initial discussions identified the need to address the legislative changes following the passing of the Health and Safety in Employment Amendment Act (Amendment Act) 2002 (appendix 1).

The Amendment Act requires the development of an employee participation system where more than 30 persons are employed agreed to between the employer, employee representatives and Unions on site.

A request was forwarded to Dr Ron Heath (Chair, University H&S Committee) and Stephen Gray to expand the scope of the working party to include the development of an employee participation system as required under the Amended Act. This was agreed, and to meet the requirements of employee (non-union) representation, an invitation was extended to employees for participation in the working party. This resulted in the addition of the following members:

• Cathy Bennett, DHSO, Chemistry
• Mark Gould, DHSO, Anatomy and Structural Biology
• Sandra England, Contracting Estimator, Property Services
• Anne Thornton, Pathology, Wellington School of Medicine and Health Sciences
• Karen Elliot, School of Physiotherapy, Christchurch School of Medicine and Health Sciences. (Wellington and Christchurch representatives are corresponding members of the group.)

A proposed project plan was forwarded to members, and a weekly meeting schedule established with participants. The working party has met 16 times:

21 February 2003
11 March 2003
31 March 2003
20 May 2003
27 May 2003
3 June 2003
10 June 2003
24 June 2003
1 July 2003
29 July 2003
5 August 2003
12 August 2003
2 September 2003
9 September 2003
9October 2003
14 October 2003

Information on the Amendment Act and the current DHSO system were circulated to all members as a starting point. The Inter-Union Council was asked to specify the Unions requirement for an employee participation system. The following minimum requirements were indicated by the IUC:

• Elected health and safety representatives (H&S Reps)
• Functions of the H&S Reps defined
• Ensure appropriate time is allocated for H&S Reps to carry out their role
• A review process after 12 months
• A minimum 2 days approved training for the H&S Reps per year
• Will need to be signed off on behalf of the Unions by the Inter-Union Council.

It was noted that there is a default position within the legislation whereby if an agreed employee participation system cannot be reached within 6 months of the implementation of the Amendment Act (5 November 2003), H&S Reps are automatically elected.

3. Employee Participation System

In view of the Union requirements for an employee participation system, the current role of the DHSOs was discussed in some detail, including the advantages of the current system and the improvements required.

The following key points were identified:

• The current DHSO system is an integral part of the University H&S management system for compliance with the current legislation (e.g.: Hazard identification).
• The current DHSO responsibilities, and the draft job description, are well in excess of the legislative H&S representatives' requirements.
• Having elected representatives fulfilling the DHSO role may reduce HOD/Manager ability to manage health and safety within the department.
• The experience and knowledge base required for the DHSO position has specific requirements that may not be met through an election process.
• The DHSO system is currently in place, and although improvements are sought, to remove the DHSO system will expose the University to significant and unacceptable non-compliance risk.
• The intent/function of H&S Reps within the Amendment Act (by way of OSH publications) was viewed as an opportunity to increase H&S resources, and complement the current H&S management systems.
• The role of the H&S Rep, as an alternative and confidential contact, is viewed as a positive aspect of the amended legislation.

After much discussion, the group agreed that an elected H&S Rep system would complement the current DHSO system and could be incorporated into the University H&S management systems, meet the Amendment Act requirements and the Union requirements.

The DHSO WP agreed:

• To propose a complementary H&S Rep system whilst retaining the DHSO system (see above), to be known as the University of Otago Employee Participation System.
• To draft a DHSO job description, consult on the draft through the DHSO network and nominated HOD's/Managers, then forward to the University H&S Committee for endorsement.
• To develop and propose a system of agreeing time allocation for DHSOs.
• To develop a draft H&S Rep role description.
• To develop a draft H&S Rep election process.
• To develop a draft H&S Rep. Hazard Notification process inclusive of H&S Rep ability to involve OSH.
• To present the proposals to the University H&S Committee and Inter-Union Council for endorsement.The remainder of the report discusses the progress to date supporting the recommendations in the executive summary.

4. DHSO Job Description

The group identified that prior to any time allocation system being developed the requirements of the DHSO position must first be clarified. The existing information on the expectations of DHSOs from the University of Otago Health and Safety Manual 1996, and current DHSO job descriptions was used as starting point.

The DHSO conference held in December 2002 also provided information on the current perceptions and limitations of the role. The DHSO WP developed a draft job description that was circulated for consultation. Consultation feedback resulted in minor changes to the draft. The final draft is now submitted to the University H&S Committee for endorsement (appendix 2).

4.1 Key factors of the DHSO system are:

• There must be an appointed DHSO for each identified work area, generally by department. Where the DHSO covers more than one department, or part of a department, the area must be specified in the job description.
• The DHSO and HOD/Manager must meet at least quarterly to discuss H&S compliance within the department.
• The DHSO job description must include required outcomes that must be reviewed as a part of the professional development review and contribute to salary review processes.
• The specific functions of the DHSO position can be divided amongst staff in a department provided this is documented in respective job descriptions and time allocations are specified.
• The DHSO and HOD/Manager may review the performance of the role more frequently as required. Where non-performance is identified, the usual management processes should be followed.
• The annual internal H&S audit will request specific information on the appointment, training, and resource allocation of the DHSO positions within departments.

4.2 System for DHSO time allocation

The DHSO WP have begun the process of identifying methods of allocating time required for fulfilling the DHSO position based on the draft job description. Formulas have been discussed; however, it is recognised that a formula cannot cover every work situation, as the health and safety complexity of departments varies significantly. The current proposal is:

• It is a HOD/Manager responsibility to appoint a DHSO within the school/department/unit.
• The time allocation is to be negotiated between the DHSO and HOD/Manager, and must be agreeable to both parties. Specific information and guidance on factors to be included in the negotiation are to be developed, but will include examples of existing time allocations for various departments, factors for consideration such as the nature and complexity of the hazards within the department/school/unit (e.g.: laboratories, office based, fieldwork, etc.).
• Formal notification of the appointed DHSO and time allocation to be forwarded to the University H&S Office.
• Where a time allocation cannot be agreed to, or where assistance or guidance is sought, a panel of 'experts' will be convened through the University H&S Manager, to review the situation with the department and recommend a time allocation requirement.
• The panel of experts (yet to be identified) will include a range of expertise in relation to the hazards and safety requirements of specific work areas (e.g.: laboratories, fieldwork, office based, etc.). It is proposed that a panel of up to four would be selected to review each situation and recommend a time allocation. The resulting recommendation will be forwarded to the HOD/Manager.

4.3 Evaluation of altered Job Descriptions

It is recognised that the inclusion of the DHSO job description may require evaluation of the altered job description. Following the agreement on the time allocation, the current job description and altered job description (including DHSO responsibilities) may be submitted for re-evaluation. To set the context of the responsibilities, an additional information sheet (to be developed) will need to be included, identifying the number of staff, and the complexity of environment (labs, office, etc.). The potential outcomes of job evaluation review are that the level of the position may increase, decrease, or remain the same.

An exit policy needs to be developed and applied for the potential situation where an employee wishes to stand down from the DHSO position results in a decrease of salary level, to define how this will be managed.

5. H&S Representatives

The function and role of the H&S Representatives is broadly outlined in the Amendment Act. The WP reviewed available literature and drafted a role description for H&S Representatives within the University of Otago (see appendix 3).

The principle advantages of the H&S Representative role are viewed as:

• Alternative contact for staff and students to raise H&S issues
• Support for the DHSOs
• Increase of H&S resources through the involvement of trained H&S Representatives
• Increased involvement by employees, and the Unions, on health and safety matters.

There may also be the situation where there is a history of contact regarding H&S issues with Management and/or the DHSO but resulting in an unsatisfactory outcome. The H&S Representative system would allow an alternative contact with the ability to maintain confidentiality. While this is not the expected first point of contact, an alternative system will have benefits.

5.1 Number of H&S Representatives

A process similar to that of the Ethical Behaviour Policy contact network was discussed, where H&S Representatives are available for staff to contact should a specific hazard or issue be of concern, or where the individual is not comfortable approaching management or the DHSO. Consideration and discussion of numbers identified the need to be realistic in the expectations for nominations of H&S Representatives, to meet the requirements of legislation and Union expectations, and to provide reasonable accessibility by staff. Human Resources provided EFT's the staff on a divisional basis (dated 31 March 2003). After much discussion, the WP agreed to a ratio of approximately 100:1 staff to H&S Representatives.

Note: The University Union has a significant number of part time and casual employees that are not recorded in Tangata. The number of health and safety representatives in this area would be addressed at a local level once the system is agreed.

5.1 Role and functions of H&S Representative

The draft Elected H&S Representative role is attached as appendix 3. In addition, there are the following key factors to be observed:

• Must be nominated and elected by staff.
• Must be employees who have worked for the University a total of 180 hours in the previous year in an employment capacity.
• Will receive 2 days training by an approved training provider.
• To attend a bridging 3-hour University Health and Safety training course.
• Any member of staff may approach any H&S Representative.
• A time allocation of up to 8 hours per month may be required to perform the required tasks, in addition to training allowance.
• Term of office is 12 months, when a review of the system will occur.
• Of the group of elected H&S Representatives, one Representative will be nominated by the group to attend the University H&S Committee meetings.

5.2 Hazard Notification Process

The University H&S Systems currently have a number of methods for staff to bring hazards to the attention of management. These include:

• Notifying the DHSO, supervisor, line manager or the health and safety team of a hazard or concern, either verbally or by a completed hazard notification form.
• Accident and near-miss investigations.
• Employer/employee forums, departmental meetings, staff meetings.
• Notification to Unions
• Continual updates in legislative requirements.
• Completion of Property Services request forms to address specific hazards.
• Hazard register and documentation maintained by DHSOs.

The Amendment Act specifically allows for trained, elected H&S Representatives to raise a hazard with the Occupational Safety and Health Service, following the notification to the employer without successful resolution. Appendix 4 is the draft hazard notification process to an H&S Representative, including notification to HOD/Manager for resolution before notification to OSH.

6. Election Process

The DHSO WP has begun considering the election process. The identified key requirements at present are that:

• Call for nominations by staff circular, notice on web site, all-departments email, posters etc.
• The nominations are received by the Returning Officer, an Employee of the University *
• A ballot system is the preferred option (postal or meeting based)
• Ballot papers sent centrally by the employer seems the most feasible option
• Union and non-union employee representatives as scrutineers of the ballot system.
• Management will be informed by the Returning Officer of the Health and Safety Representatives resulting from the election process.

* The process for selection of the returning officer has not been decided. The Inter-Union Council representatives would like it noted that they would like the Returning Officer to be nominated by the IUC.

7. Review Process

The working party has discussed particular elements of the review process to evaluate the employee participation system after a period of 12 months. The key points from our preliminary discussions are noted, but are not exclusive. The full review process will need to be documented prior to the 12-month review period.

• The review team needs to be of the same composition as the original working party
• Any proposed changes are to be agreed and signed off by all parties
• The review process is to cover the following aspects (not an exclusive list):
  • Outcome of job evaluation and promotion process evaluated for DHSOs/H&S reps
  • The election process
  • Number of representatives
  • Time allocations specified and provided
  • Training attendance
  • Hazard notices raised - process and outcomes, numbers, etc.
  • Hazard registers in place

Note: The Representatives from the Inter-Union Council indicated that the provision of an allowance for health and safety positions was their preferred option of recognition, and will revisit this position at the review period.

8. Appendices

Appendix 1: Summary of the Health and Safety in Employment Amendment Act 2002

Appendix 2: DHSO Job Description

DHSO Job description

Appendix 3: H&S Representative role description

You can download the H&S Representative role description in Word format.

Appendix 4: Hazard Notification Process

1. Individual notifier to remain confidential to H&S Representative.
2. Individual notifier to agree with H&S Rep most appropriate contact to refer hazard on to.
3. Hazard investigation team may access any resources to identify solution, including OSH.
4. Formal Hazard notices raised to OSH though an elected and trained health and safety representative.
5. University H&S Manager and HOD/Manager must be aware of the notification.
6. University H&S Manager and H&S Committee must be informed of process and outcome.
7. Individual is able to contact Union at any stage of the process.Appendix 5: Existing Hazard Notification.

You can download the University of Otago Hazard Notification Form in Word format.