A recent study1 involving more than 8,800 employees shows that 39 per cent of us are sleeping six hours or less a night and are more stressed, have less energy and are working longer hours than those employees who get the recommended 7 – 9 hours a night.

The concept that workloads and work-related stress are keeping us awake at night probably isn’t far from the truth. Stress, both at work and at home, alcohol, lack of exercise and of course technology and screens are all impacting negatively on our day to day wellbeing.

Health experts recommend 7 – 9 hours’ sleep a night for optimal wellbeing and performance, but it would seem not many of us are reaching that target. Workers sleeping less than 6 hours a night recorded higher stress levels, additional work hours, less energy and almost 20 per cent difference in their work life balance compared to employees who get the recommended amount. It seems people who rest well, work well.

These findings show the less sleep you get, the more prone you are to be working additional hours with close to 30 per cent working 9 + hours extra a week. These people also take shorter lunch breaks and have considerably less energy during the workday.

This is even more concerning in an industry that using large machinery, power tools and other higher-risk items on a daily basis. Being ‘on the tools’ when a person is overtired can only lead to poor concentration, poor decision-making and potentially poor safety outcomes.

A recently released report by the Federal Government2 also found four in every ten Australians are not getting the sleep they need. The direct financial cost of this inadequate sleep is currently estimated to be $26.2 billion annually.

Trent Zimmerman MP, said in the report “If health and wellbeing costs are considered, the cost rises to $66.3 billion annually. Of even greater concern, in 2016-17 inadequate sleep was estimated to contribute to 3017 deaths in Australia.”

And it’s not just work that’s keeping us awake… insufficient sleep can be caused by a range of lifestyle pressures including shift changes, and the increased use of the internet and electronic media. Shift work, especially when it involves night shift, can be extremely disruptive to sleep patterns, and in the longer term, this disrupted sleep can have serious health impacts. Shift work has been linked to the increased risk of obesity, sleep disorders, mental health conditions, and cancer.

The overuse of smartphones and our growing love affair with the internet is also proving to have a massive impact on our sleep patterns. People are increasingly watching streaming services, internet gaming, and using social media late at night, potentially at the expense of sleep. This is also alarmingly starting to affect children, who are having their sleep continually disrupted by their smartphones or other devices.

If you’re an employer, or PCBU, responsible for the safety and wellbeing of workers, what can be done to help people get better sleep and more of it??

Your culture onsite has a significant effect on your team’s ability to sleep. Establish work-time limits and reduce the long hours your employees work where possible. Encourage workers to down tools, take a walk, remove themselves from their workspace and make lunch breaks compulsory for some much-needed downtime. It always helps to lead by example, too. Go easy on the alcohol during the week, bring a healthy lunch to work, cut back on the coffees. Small changes during the day help to achieve that rested state when it’s time for lights out.

It’s worth noting a recent study on wellbeing found that rude or offensive co-workers didn’t just cause stress at work, their behaviour can carry across into downtime at home and lead to anxiety and depression. This ‘spill over’ effect can cause insomnia and stress, even after the workday is well behind you.

With so many people not getting enough quality sleep, and then bringing the effects of that lack of sleep to work, it’s vital that employers look to managing this issue as part of their standard approach to safety in the workplace. Have the conversations about lifestyle choices, monitor behaviours, give workers breaks to refuel and refocus, and keep stress to a minimum. The benefits will be reaped by all, not only at work but 24-7.

 

1 Workscore.com.au

2 Bedtime Reading, Inquiry into Sleep Health Awareness in Australia

GPT’s Melbourne Central is set to undergo its biggest transformation in almost 20 years as part of a quest to become a ‘temple of meaning’ for Melburnians and evolve into a globally-recognised place of cultural and social exchange that nurtures and inspires its users.

As of 2021, the centre will reinvent itself with the addition of an expansive open-air space offering a 2,000m2 public oasis atop the city, a series of unexpected experiential spaces, a surprising new large-scale art installation, exciting hawker stalls and much more.

An experiential space, it will be a haven for emerging retail and cultural concepts, a place for events, education and learning.

Coupled with the centre’s recently announced new 10-storey commercial office tower Frame, as well as its newly opened 1,800 square metre boutique food and drink retail hub ELLA, it marks the largest transformation of the site since its 2001 redevelopment following the departure of Japanese department store Daimaru.

And in a nod to the past, Melbourne Central’s owner The GPT Group has brought back the original architects, ARM Architecture, responsible for the dramatic makeover that reimagined it as the distinct collection of precincts and laneways it is now known for.

Its full designs will be unveiled in the coming months but the new look will involve the addition of two new retail levels that transition to the new timber office tower’s skylobby and surrounding rooftop.

Existing Drewery Place will be reactivated, becoming an additional entry for the commercial tower and featuring a small cafe; while the rooftop will face to the north, commanding plenty of light and views of the iconic Melbourne Central cone.

ARM Architecture Principal Ian McDougall said Melbourne Central was the first CBD site to explore such dramatically transformative changes to its offer in order to maximise its relevance.

“Melbourne Central is really reconceiving the notion of what retail is and exploring what else it can be and seeing its own rooftop as a valuable site for more than just financial exchange,” he said.

 

Melbourne Central’s redevelopment plans are currently being considered by Melbourne City Council for approval, with construction projected to commence in early 2020 with minimal impacts to trading.

 

Source: Shopping Centre News

PPE (personal protective equipment) is defined as anything used or work to minimise risk to a worker’s health and safety. It includes many items like boots, ear plugs, hard hats, harnesses, goggles, gloves and more.

But is using PPE the safest way to get a job done and protect workers?

Model WHS regulations require you to work through a hierarchy of controls to manage risk in certain circumstances.

Under this hierarchy, using PPE is ranked as one of the least effective safety control measures, with a Level 3 rating. Level 3 control measures do not control the hazard at the source. They rely on human behaviour and supervision and when used on their own tend to be the least effective in minimising risks. Workplaces must not rely on PPE to satisfy their hazard control requirements.

What does this mean for you and your workers?

PPE should only be used:

  • as a last resort
  • as an interim measure
  • as a back-up.

It is best used as a supplement to higher-level control measures or when no other safety measures are available. Before relying only on PPE, you must do a risk assessment to determine if other controls could be used more effectively.

If you are unable to put better control measures in place, PPE may be used as an interim or last resort measure to address a safety issue. When used, it must be:

  • suitable for the nature of the work or hazard
  • a suitable size and fit for the individual who is required to use it and that it is reasonably comfortable
  • maintained, repaired or replaced, including keeping it clean and hygienic, and in good working order
  • used or worn by the worker, so far as is reasonably practical.

As an employer, or PCBU, you must:

  • consult with your workers when selecting PPE
  • ensure, as far as is reasonably practicable, that the PPE is used or worn by the worker
  • provide workers with information and instruction in the proper use and wearing of PPE, its storage and maintenance.

Workers also have responsibilities when PPE is used in the workplace. When provided with PPE by an employer or PCBU, workers must:

  • use or wear the PPE in accordance with any information, training or reasonable instruction provided by the PCBU, so far as they are reasonably able
  • not intentionally misuse or damage the PPE
  • inform the business of any damage, defect or need to clean or decontaminate any of the PPE if they become aware of it
  • consult their manager if the PPE is uncomfortable, does not fit properly or the worker has an adverse reaction using it.

If PPE is required on a work site, the PCBU is responsible for providing it to workers, free of charge. Under some circumstances, the payment for PPE can be negotiated e.g. whether the equipment can be generally used outside work (sunglasses, boots etc), a requirement for a personal fit, as well as relevant industry awards or enterprise agreements.

Regardless of who pays for the PPE, workers must be provided with enough information, training and instruction on when and how to use it.

When selecting PPE for different work tasks, you must:

  • match the PPE to the hazard – work tasks may expose workers to more than one hazard e.g. welders may need protection from welding gases, as well as ultraviolet radiation, hot metal and sparks,
  • consider how the work is to be carried out and the level of risk to the worker e.g. a more protective respirator may be needed in high air contamination areas.
  • make sure PPE that is to be worn at the same time can be used together.

It’s important to get PPE right for each job, but it’s equally important to look at the work environment as well.

You should consider the impacts of a hot and humid work environment, or if you’re working with hazardous chemicals or biological substances, think about how the substance could enter the body i.e. can it be absorbed through the lungs and skin.

Always choose PPE that meets current Australian Standards and make sure the PPE isn’t giving rise to any other issues. PPE can restrict visibility and mobility, some workers may suffer allergic reactions, it can hinder a worker’s national cooling mechanisms or exacerbate other health issues.

Monitor workers using PPE to ensure it is being worn and stored correctly. While this can be time consuming, as a PCBU you are under legislative obligation to do so, so far as is reasonably practicable.

While the use of PPE is not necessarily the best way to manage a work health and safety risk, when it is used correctly and is fit for purpose, it can be a very effective one.

For more information on managing risks, implementing control measures and using PPE, contact your state’s work health and safety regulator.

Members of the Master Builders Association NSW were recently advised that the Fair Work Amendment (Modernising Right of Entry) Regulations 2019, took effect on 1 July 2019.

In order to meet the new requirements, the Fair Work Commission will be issuing permits in a different form. Therefore, permits issued from 1 July 2019 will be the size of a driver’s licence and include a photo of the permit holder. Existing permits will continue to be valid until they expire (unless they are revoked or suspended).

Design of New Permits
All entry permits issued on or after 1 July 2019 must include the following:
 The permit holder’s full name
 The name of the organisation that applied for the entry permit
 An expiry date for the entry permit
 A recent photograph of the permit holder that:
o Shows the holder’s full face, and
o Meets requirements that are considered appropriate by the Commission, and
 The permit holder’s signature
 A permit number
 Any conditions imposed on the permit
 A QR code leading to a list of current permit holders on the FWC website Following is a sample of the new entry permit.

More information
If members have any further enquiries regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact the MBA NSW Industrial Relations Department in Sydney on 02 8586 3555 or in Newcastle on 02 4953 9400.

In a significant milestone, the Australian Building and Construction Commission has exceeded $1 million in recovered wages for almost 1400 workers.

The ABCC has been responsible for ensuring building and construction workers are paid correctly since 2 December 2016 and continues to build its work in this area.

The ABCC has so far audited over 350 employers to ensure they are paying their workers correctly and has undertaken over 100 investigations into alleged underpayments.

Money recovered by the ABCC for workers includes:

 Over $115,000 back paid to seven Queensland bricklayers after their employer failed to comply with their enterprise agreement

 Over $57,000 back paid to five carpentry apprentices in NSW after their employer failed to pay the modern award

 $54,000 recovered for 10 formwork workers in NSW after their company failed to comply with its enterprise agreement

 $23,500 back paid to 67 labour hire workers in WA after their employer misclassified them under the modern award and did not pay the correct rates for overtime work

 $10,223 back paid to 10 scaffolding workers in NT after it was found their employer failed to pay overtime and their fares and travel allowance

 The ABCC has also commenced legal action against an employer in Victoria who is alleged to have failed to pay a labourer $22,000 and threatened to sack the worker when he asked about his pay.

ABCC Commissioner Stephen McBurney said these results were a timely reminder for employers to make sure they are paying their workers correctly.

“The $1 million milestone achieved this week demonstrates our commitment to ensuring we are fulfilling our statutory mandate as a full service regulator,” Mr McBurney said.

“Some of the problems we commonly identify include non-payment of allowances, failure to pay minimum wage rates, failure to keep proper records and confusion about the correct industrial instrument.

“We stand ready to assist any employer who is unsure of the legal obligations or any worker who believes they have not been paid what they are owed.”

Anyone with concerns about wages and entitlements in the building and construction industry can call our hotline on 1800 003 338 or complete our anonymous reporting form at www.abcc.gov.au/anonymous-reporting-form.

The Federal Circuit Court in Brisbane has found Forest Meiers Construction liable to pay $200,000 in compensation for taking adverse action and discriminating against a tiling subcontractor because they did not have an enterprise agreement with the CFMMEU.

The Court found that Forest Meiers and its Construction Manager William Munro, contravened the Fair Work Act by discriminating against the subcontractor.

On 24 February 2014, the tiling company submitted a quote to Forest Meiers for a project in Hamilton, with the tiling company becoming the preferred bidder on the project.

When Forest Meiers asked if the tiling company had an enterprise agreement with the CFMMEU, the company’s managing director said he already had a (non-union) enterprise agreement registered with the Fair Work Commission but was happy to pay the union rates for the purposes of the project.

The tiling company’s managing director then agreed to a Forest Meiers proposal to register a new company so it could sign up to a CFMMEU enterprise agreement.

During a meeting on 18 July 2014, Mr Munro told the tiling company’s managing director.

“The Union contacted me at around 5:00 yesterday. They threatened action on the site if we signed you up.”

Judge Jarrett found that notwithstanding the possibility of union disruption, Forest Meiers had a choice to make:

“I accept that Mr Munro believed that the CFMEU or the BLF would cause disruption and delay which in turn would cause financial disadvantage and reputational issues for Forest Meiers.”

“They were faced with the prospect of industrial action if they engaged C&K and if they did not, the next closest tenderer who had an EBA with the CFMEU was $300,000 more expensive than C&K.”

“I find, that the fact that C&K did not have an enterprise agreement with the CFMEU was a substantive and operative reason for Mr Munro’s decision not to accept C&K’s tender for the Tiling Works.”

“… Forest Meiers had a choice to make. Mr Munro… knew that if the CFMEU was applying pressure not to engage C&K because it had no agreement with that company, that pressure was illegitimate… Notwithstanding that, Mr Munro made a deliberate choice not to award the Tiling Works contract to C&K.”

The matter remains before the courts.