Are CAMS hell bent on killing club racing?

[Rachel Richards]

An interesting e-mail arrived this week from BS castle in Dandy Rd Malvern.

Any incident that occours at a permited event must now apparantly be notified to Worksafe Victoria. (the State workplace safety authority)

There is much consternation at this, with many senior people scratching thier collective heads as to where this has come from.

Many phone calls have been made to those knowledgable in matters OHS with most not grasping the reasoning of either the action or intention.

Opinion from those with knowledge in this area have painted a picture of doubt, apparantly the Victorian occupational health & safety act covers EMPLOYEES or Self Employed persons, at their place of employ, how can a club competitor fall under either of those definitions.

One concerned person is alleged to have even contacted Worksafe directly, with apparantly no answer as of yet.


And volunteers are not covered within that act, or covered by workmans compensation, hence the need for circuits having their own insurance.


The jungle drums are beating, and the natives are restless, it seems you need keys to open up a pandoras box, especially in Malvern.

[MPA]

RR.

If someone is making a buck out of the circiut it is a business enterprise and therefore Worksafe have the right of entry etc.

As for volunteers not being covered? wrong. All persons on the worksite are covered regardless of what they're doing there.

I guess we could argue forever about CAMS insurance and signing our rights away when we sign on to work at the track, but CAMS and all the promoters cant act outside the OH&S laws.

[hoffy]

Now, I cannot speak for Victoria and I have been out of the flagging game for a few years now, but this is hardly new. I remember at least 5 or 6 years ago, OH&S was a serious consideration for volunteer marshals in SA.

I can hardly see why CAMS are to blame. I think we should probably put the blame on the litigious society that we have become.

[Rachel Richards]

Clearly the message didn't sink in.

Motorsport & Volunteers are not covered by the Victorian OHS act, business enterprise or not.

CAMS have some very real responsibilities with regard to OHS, making clubs & Clerks of Course notify Worksafe, when clearly there is no formal requirement to, is a different thing.

CAMS need to manage their risk, by putting in place proper controls, simply making broard brush descisions can not & is not managing risk.

Litigation has everything to do with this, sadly the key component is that CAMS Insurance is so far removed from the OHS act.

Simply rubber stamping a requirement to notify when not needed will not earn brownie points from Mr Graeme Johnston, (Victorian State Coroner)



I pose this question:

Is this a Victorian knee-jerk, or has this same requirement been in place in every other state that requires the local workplace safety authority be notified of specific incidents.



This Victorian requirement is not new, it previously sat within previously existing legislation, the 2004 OHS act has not furthered the requirement to notify.


Knee-jerk descision, by some jerk who works at Dandenong Rd.

[woodpecker]

Actually, sad as it may seem, the call by CAMS is correct. Under the changes to the OHS Act in Victoria, any incident that occurs at a circuit that would be reportable in a "workplace" incident now applies to competitors, volunteers and even to spectators. WorkSafe has had a number of other similar scenarios put to them (eg. horse racing/jockey incident) and the answer is the same.

I understand that there are some questions being asked as the section in the Act is not explicit, and that this is an interpretation being made by the incident reporting division of WorkSafe, however, for the moment it applies.

Hardcore safety theory would suggest that if an injury occurs, then there are risks that are not being managed, and that this could lead to another injury which may be an employee. Not necessarily something that all would agree with, but that's the litigious world we are now faced with.

In terms of coverage, volunteers and spectators are not covered under the Worker's Compensation Act; that's what public liability insurance is for. Race drivers would only be covered if professional - otherwise, similar to spectators, although there should be limited liability if a person willingly takes part in a dangerous activity, and there are other laws that cover this.

On a slightly different note, not sure how this sort of incident reporting would "kill" racing - if the reporting becomes so freqent that it becomes onerous (ie. its basically a phone call and a follow up fax) might one suggest you are having too many incidents and should actually be concerned?

The reporting is only for serious (reportable) incidents (eg. broken limbs, amputation of a body part, etc.). Please don't take any of this as supporting of these new protocols - we wouldn't need them if people would stop sueing for frivilous injuries that they could have avoided by using their brain.

Woodpecker

[MPA]

We do report all incidents.

Any car/car or car/wall hits are reported in writing. Could you please define what sort of incident Worksafe want to hear about.

Promoters should have a plan in place to manage incidents and incident reporting and I'd like to hear more about the promoter in question please Rachel.

Could you tell this forum, what type of incident needs to be reported to Worksafe and the timelines on reporting.

Can we continue with the race meeting without waiting for an Inspector if two cars collide and continue?

Motorsport is not above the law and Volunteer workers are covered by the Act.

I'll quote you a bit of Section 22 of the Act...

Every employer and every self-employed person shall ensure so far as practicable that persons other than employees


That covers all sorts of people...

[woodpecker]

Agree with you MPA - and just to clarify on a few points.

Whether or not the requirements are new is ambiguous, depends on how you read the old Act. The changes made were deliberately to make it clearer, not necessarily to introduce new obligations.

In terms of incidents, the car/car and car/wall incidents are reported at meets, however the requirement now relates to reporting to WorkSafe. On track incidents are not necessarily included - unless they result in broken limbs or technically loss of consciousness (or any other on the list in the Act). These need to be reported through the hotline at the earliest possible convenience (I think 24 hours but could be wrong) with a full formal report within 48 hours.

Other incidents that would be reportable:

- Race official falls off the back of a trailer while being transported to post and gets knocked out
- Vehicle debris dislodged during incident, entering crowd and striking patron requiring stitches

It should be noted that technically when you report an incident you are covered by the "preservation of scene" rules as well which could interrupt a race meet - however you may need to clean up to make it safe for others. Any need to preserve the scene would be advised at the time of the verbal report and would most likely depend on the severity of the incident.

One final note - the specifics of this direction may not have been adequately filtered to all parts of WorkSafe and certainly not to OHS professionals. It is leading to some confusion and hopefully will be sorted out or at least rationalised in the near future.

Please note, I don't work for CAMS but am in the industry in a safety capacity and have had first hand experience trying to deal with these changes. I have empathy with those having to comply, but can also see the sense in treating everyone who comes to a meet as you would an employee.

[Rachel Richards]

Originally Posted by MPA

We do report all incidents.

Any car/car or car/wall hits are reported in writing. Could you please define what sort of incident Worksafe want to hear about.

Promoters should have a plan in place to manage incidents and incident reporting and I'd like to hear more about the promoter in question please Rachel.

Could you tell this forum, what type of incident needs to be reported to Worksafe and the timelines on reporting.

Can we continue with the race meeting without waiting for an Inspector if two cars collide and continue?

Motorsport is not above the law and Volunteer workers are covered by the Act.

I'll quote you a bit of Section 22 of the Act...

Every employer and every self-employed person shall ensure so far as practicable that persons other than employees


That covers all sorts of people...

I don't need to tell the forum anything, those interested can read the two relevant doucments as linked to from the CAMS website:
http://www.cams.com.au/downloads/VIC/1188.pdf

http://www.cams.com.au/downloads/VIC/1190.pdf


Anybody care to make a legal determination as to how, what & where notification to Worksafe of a motor racing incident needs to take place, and where is CAMS' definition of a serious incident.

Both documents are nowhere near explicit enough in their definitions, regarding Motorsport incidents.
(although the incident notification form is quite clear with regard to incidents at a workplace)


An official or a club competitor does not fall within the definition of employee or self-employed, and I'm not sure what licenced or registered plant is, but I doubt race cars all of a sudden need to be registered with worksafe.

Here are definitions quoted from the Act.

"employee" means a person employed under a contract of employment or contract of training (see also sub-section (2));
"employer" means a person who employs one or more other persons under contracts of employment or contracts of training;
"self-employed person" means a person, other than an employer, who works for gain or reward otherwise than under a contract of employment or training;
"volunteer" means a person who is acting on a voluntary basis (irrespective of whether the person receives out-of-pocket expenses);
"workplace" means a place, whether or not in a building or structure, where employees or self‑employed persons work.

Section 22 covers duties of employers to monitor employee health & conditions, did you mean Section 23?


Duties of employers to other persons
s. 23

(1) An employer must ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that persons other than employees of the employer are not exposed to risks to their health or safety arising from the conduct of the undertaking of the employer.
Penalty: 1800 penalty units for a natural person;
9000 penalty units for a body corporate.
(2) An offence against sub-section (1) is an indictable offence.


Here is a link to the Act, have a close look at Section 26, the one that would cover the circuit owners, namely The Linfox group, The Melbourne Racing Club, Benalla Auto Club & Bob Jane.

http://www.dms.dpc.vic.gov.au/Domino...04-107a004.pdf



Your sporting analogy is incorrect, Jockeys are employed persons, as are AFL footballers, I'd love to see a serious injury hold up an AFL game until a Worksafe Inspector attends to investigte.





MPA your slip is already showing, I didn't mention a Promoter you did:




Are you are intimating something about the most recently reported incident.

Wasn't the promoter the Austin 7 club?

A good & hardy CAMS stalwart if ever there was one, shame they may now be the ones under the microscope,


Time for a quiet cup of tea now, i'm all pent up.

[woodpecker]

RR - since you seem to have a copy of the Act handy, Section 37 and 38 are actually the ones that apply. No one is arguing that volunteers and participants are actually employees - but the reporting requirements cover "a person" who is at a premises under the control of an "employer".

[MPA]

Rachel, sorry I'm reading from reprint #5 17/11/98....

but you get the idea....Woodpercker does.

And I'm very sorry to tell you but I have not worked at an Austin 7 meeting since Winton Historics in 1994.....but thanks for the links. I'll read them soon.


Woodpecker is in a similar situation that I'm in. Making people accpet change and comply can be hard. Every day I hear the phrase "But I've alway done it that way!"

I can only tell them that they've been lucky not to hurt yet and we've found a safer way to do the task.



BTW registered plant can be a Forklift, a Crane or a big machine that goes thump and makes holes in stuff......that kinda stuff.

[MPA]

Thank you Rachel, I went and checked out the links. It may have been better if you put them in your opening post.

Nothing to dramatic in the CAMS guidelines, but I'll concede you're right about the need to define a "Serious" incident.

Worksafe seem to have defined it on page two of their form. CAMS should make sure that they pass on the same info.

[PVDA]

Originally Posted by Rachel Richards

Are you are intimating something about the most recently reported incident.

And if it's the event I think it is (I wasn't at the event by the way) it was in the Motorcycle area of the paddock so wasn't even CAMS's problem as they went to great pains to tell everyone a few years ago that at 2+4 events the motorcycles must be kept separate from the cars and have their own insurance (under MA) and have separate Race Control command when on track.

Oh, and my source of where it occured was from the Stewards Panel meeting report (event summary) which is posted on the CAMS web site for all to see.


I & several others have been saying that CAMS is going to OH&S "thier" motorsport out of this country but at least we now have AASA, who don't seem to have these problems, to keep the sport alive.

[MPA]

Paul, AASA have to do their risk management and controls too. Otherwise they'll lose the ability to provide a cheaper alternative.

I'm sure they know that. They just use another horse to travel to the same destination......one that has not been flogged so hard.

[PVDA]

Originally Posted by MPA

Paul, AASA have to do their risk management and controls too. Otherwise they'll lose the ability to provide a cheaper alternative.

I realise that but the main thing is they don't run things like the government with so many people in Admin roles and creating paperwork for no real apparent reason but to look like they are doing something.

As mentioned earlier by someone else, if Worksafe start seeing heaps of BS reports coming in or worse it ramps up the circuit racing stats to the level of motorcycle racing then we could be in trouble.

Now there's an interesting point, I wonder if MA will be applying the same reporting system as it will certainly cause a heap of paperwork considering the number of injuries that occur in bike racing.

[MPA]

I know you know Paul. As I said AASA dont flog their horse as savagely.

[Aquarius]

A racing incident on the inside of the conrete/armco fence is not considered the juristication of Worksafe, it is a "sporting arena" just like a footy ground or squash court, Worksafe don't become involved in issues on a "sporting arena". There could be spereate issues resulting from a compensation claim.

If what I am told is true and this information is a knee-jerk response to an issue at a recent Austin 7 Club run event, then it was a motorcycle issue and CAMS don't look after motorcycle racing in Australia, and secondly was the peson injured an employee of CAMS, if not what in hells name was CAMS doing reporting it to Worksafe? Was this a guised effort to draw some attention by CAMS to a track that has not always been user friendly to CAMS.

[Uncle Cranker]

Originally Posted by Aquarius

A racing incident on the inside of the conrete/armco fence is not considered the juristication of Worksafe, it is a "sporting arena" just like a footy ground or squash court, Worksafe don't become involved in issues on a "sporting arena". There could be spereate issues resulting from a compensation claim.

If what I am told is true and this information is a knee-jerk response to an issue at a recent Austin 7 Club run event, then it was a motorcycle issue and CAMS don't look after motorcycle racing in Australia, and secondly was the peson injured an employee of CAMS, if not what in hells name was CAMS doing reporting it to Worksafe? Was this a guised effort to draw some attention by CAMS to a track that has not always been user friendly to CAMS.

Touche:


How will the Austin 7 club feel, (as promoter) if Worksafe come-a-knocking on their door, after CAMS got cute & reported a non-reportable incident.

[woodpecker]

Folks, not wanting to harp on this issue but it seems that the point is being missed here. This is not a CAMS driven initiative, it has come directly from WorkSafe. I know that the second favorite sport on this forum is CAMS bashing, but in this instance I think its missing the mark.

It's not a knee-jerk, it's something that has been slowly gaining momentum since the start of the year and will continue until either sanity prevails or alternatively it gets picked up by other state safety authorities.

Again, for the record, the only incidents that need to be reported are those defined under Section 37 of the Victorian OHS act. It wouldn't surprise me that, in the current confusion that surrounds this issue, that there is over reporting, but better that than the fines you can cop for not reporting!

On the issue of jurisdiction - this applies to volunteers and spectators as well as these are all people "other" than employees. It is merely extending the concept of duty of care in a "workplace" to all who may enter. The rules apply equally to MA, and also to AASA - they just may not have realised it yet.

[Aquarius]

Sorry Woodpecker, this is a CAMS initiative, I can tell you that there are a number of people who are posting above us that know OH&S really, really well, in fact some do it for employment, and these are the ones saying CAMS is out of line on this one.

There in no dispute that some incidents do need reporting, we are not arguing that, what we are arguing is the concept of employer/employee relationships in relation to motorsport, what is defined as a workplace in relation to motorsport and WHO should be doing the reporting (if required at all).

CAMS have got half the story right and then push the info out to Clubs, maybe to show how important/invaluable they are to Clubs, but they are not right on this occasion.

And myabe Woodpecker, you should go and read what it says in the 2004 OH&S Act about volunteers and then tell of us.

[Aquarius]

BTW, for the record the incident refered to above was NOT a reportable incident as listed by Worksafe Victoria. There was no medical treatment required other than some first aid on-site.

[woodpecker]

Aquarius, this is a CAMS initiative only in the sense that it is their process by which they are trying to fulfil an obligation they have under the Act. I can assure you that this requirement is not something they have dreamed up - I have spent considerable time discussing and debating this requirement with WorkSafe directly over the past six months and it is clearly their expectation that any incident resulting in injuries consistent with Section 37 of the Act to any person, be they employee, volunteer, spectator or race participant, must be reported to WorkSafe following the normal protocols.

By your description of the incident that has been debated here, it is unlikely that it needed to be reported. This is, as described in previous posts, more likely to be due to confusion over the exact ins and outs of the rule, than it is any sinister motives. Let me give you an example of a scenario recently discussed with WorkSafe over a reported incident.

Spectator at event moving a piece of equipment in a facility, causing a plastic display to fall down and strike him on the chin, cutting him. WorkSafe reportable??

- Cut requiring bandaid - no
- Cut requiring a stitch - yes
- Cut requiring a butterfly strip - no

Having implemented this sort of reporting protocol many times over the past decade or more I can guarantee that the only way to get it to work is to get it over-reported and let a small group of people decide what needs to get passed to the next level. Otherwise, people just don't bother reporting.

I am one of the "people above" who has worked in OH&S for many years and whilst I don't believe anyone is an expert - I know this stuff pretty well. If anything, the procedure on the CAMS site probably doesn't go far enough if you truly want to follow the WorkSafe requirement.

As far as volunteers go - have read the Act many times and whilst it can appear ambiguous in places, it is quite clear in practice. Largely stemming from the CFA incident at Linton some years back, the view of WorkSafe is quite clear. Under the Act, an employer has the same obligations to a volunteer (in terms of protecting them from risks) as they do for an employee. The main difference is the obligations in the other direction - where an employee has clear obligation to comply with processes, training, etc., less clear that a volunteer has this obligation (but failure to comply would likely reduce - not remove - the liability of the "employer").

As stated, the reporting protocol is a directive of WorkSafe and until some further debate shrinks the boundaries of where it applies - CAMS are required to report these incidents.

Pain in the backside - not their fault.

[Aquarius]

CAMS are NOT required to report incidents that happen at Phillip Island, Calder, or anywhere else for that matter, EXCEPT for their own employees.

I will grant that as a supplier of Insurer for SOME events, then they should be giving tracks/promoters/clubs sound advice, but this is not sound advice, it has confused the living shyte of the smaller clubs.

You mention the Linton event, that was a loooong time before the last OH&S Act upgrade, and whilst I will acknowledge that the intent of the Act is to look after volunteers, it isn't very clear at all. In fact check out the link below I think it will shoot all your arguments in the ass and it is from the Victoria WorkSafe site. In fact go straight to the bottom and read "who is not a worker".

Who is a worker

Then recall the Act with all it's references to "worker", and I will remind about my previous post about volunteers being able to claim workers compensation.

[hoffy]

sorry, irrelevant argument from my behalf.

You Vics injoy your fun

[woodpecker]

OK - you make a couple of good points, but there are still a number of things that need to be clarified here. Apologies that my replies are epic, but safety is my life (sad) and I want the sport as safe as it can be without ruining the reason it is so loved.

Firstly - agree that CAMS will not be required to report incidents in all circumstances. The requirement is based around who is in "control" of the "workplace" or activity (see Section 26 of the Act). In the case of a race circuit, there can be multiple people in control - eg. owner, organsier, promoter. WorkSafes opinion on this is that they want all these people to report. Much like when you use a contractor - if they have an incident, you are still required to report in addition to their own obligation. Remember, the Act has not been written with motor sport in mind and a lot of the difficulties and confusion stems from this fact.

What I suspect CAMS is doing here is, as described in an earlier post, rather than trying to define exactly when you do and don't report, they are taking a blanket approach which minimises the chance that they miss one they should have reported. There are other benefits to someone centrally capturing these sorts of incidents - such as shared learning (ie. we shouldn't have to have everyone make the same mistake independently to fix a problem).

Second point - even if CAMS is not the person responsible for reporting, the fact remains that someone should be reporting these things. If its a simple club meet at a circuit then it's the circuit owner primarily, and possibly the club itself. Again, it comes down to who is in control.

Third - agree very much that the Act is not clear on volunteers, that is why I have spent considerable time talking to WorkSafe to clarify. The Linton incident indeed happened years before the new Act, but around 15 years after the previous edition and the Coroner's findings from it played a fundamental role in drafting the 2004 version with respect to volunteers. These things don't happen overnight.

Next - far short of shooting myself in any body part - go to the OHS Act via the link in an earlier post and do a search on the word "worker". It doesn't appear!!

This is where I think some posters here are getting confused between the Worker's Comp Act and the OHS Act. Volunteers (apart from some emergency services) are not covered by the WCA - as explained in a previous post. The reference to the OHS Act in the page you refer to is in relation to the employer-employee relationship which has a particular set of rules and is for a specific purpose relating mainly to Section 21 of the Act. The bit about volunteers and the public is covered under "other" people, which again was explained in earlier posts - there are a slightly different set of rules here, mostly from the person in control of the workplace to the "other" person - See Section 23 of the Act.

Now....all that stuff is purely in relation to whose responsibility it is to protect people from risks.

The reporting requirements are a totally different section (37&38) - and for the purposes of this topic a crowbar should be firmly wedged between the two to avoid further confusion. Section 38 talks about reporting "an" incident that causes any of the injuries defined in Section 37. It does not say the incident has to involve an employee, just that one has occured in a place under the control of someone. It is about as broad a piece of legislation as you can get, and the current interpretation by WorkSafe is that it covers (one more time...) employees, volunteers, members of the public and anyone else that etc. etc.

Take it from someone who has spent the last 6 months implementing this crazy new rule in their own operaiton - I have debated this at length with WorkSafe and this is their clear ruling. It's not a matter of whether we all think it is sensible or fair - it just is. What I would like from the forum (or maybe it's just you and me here Aquarius) is some suggestions as to how we can fulfil our obligations (including CAMS, Calder, Phillip Island and anyone else) with the minimum of confusion and additional work. I think that rather than sledging CAMS on this issue, people need to wake up to the obligation that exists and use this as an opportunity to let them assist the motor sport community.

If people still want to debate whether or not this is right - maybe WorkSafe need to put out a bulletin confirming it. The current Guidelines for notification do not adquately cover it (check out the website, the last question in the FAQ section of the guidelines is the only useful bit for this discussion). Otherwise - open to suggestion.

Final note - my objective as a safety professional is to remove risk wherever possible - but not to the demise of the sport.

[Aquarius]

I will agree with some of your post, however, explain to me "who" an employer is at a weekend race meeting, if in fact the track owner/s hire the facility to a club/company for the duration of the weekend, and ALL people there, officials, teams, drivers, first aiders etc are all volunteers, this is an important scenario because this is what happens most weekends at most race tracks (car/kart/motorcycle) across the State.


And explain to me "who" an empoyer is at the Morwell Car Club who happen to be running a motorkhana for club members in a paddock this weekend.