Resources: Blogs

Out on the Full

Blogs
|

AFL Club fined for Work Health and Safety Breaches

Last year the Essendon Football Club was charged with breaches of the Victorian Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 in relation to the Club’s controversial supplements program by WorkSafe Victoria.

Last year the Essendon Football Club (the Club) was charged with breaches of the Victorian Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 (Vic) (the OHS Act) in relation to the Club’s controversial supplements program by WorkSafe Victoria.

In early 2013, it was announced that the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority and the World Anti-Doping Authority had investigated the Club regarding the nature of the Club’s supplements program in 2011 and 2012.

It was alleged that the players were injected with banned and / or experimental substances as part of the program. For their part, the players claimed innocence and that they did not know what they were being injected with.

The Club pleaded guilty to the two charges of breaching section 21 of the OHS Act (the duty of care that employers owe employees) in the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court in late January 2016. Specifically, the Club was charged with failing, so far as reasonably practicable, to:

  • Provide and maintain a working environment that is safe and without risks to health; and
  • Provide and maintain for employees a system of work that is safe and without risks to health.

The Club was convicted of the charges and fined a total of $200,000 for breaches of the OHS Act. The Club was also ordered to pay $20,000 for WorkSafe Victoria’s costs.

WorkSafe Victoria’s prosecution against the Club indicate that just like any other business, sporting organisations (professional or otherwise) have obligations to ensure the health and safety of its employees whilst at work, even if their workplace is a sporting field.

 

Information provided in this blog is not legal advice and should not be relied upon as such. Workplace Law does not accept liability for any loss or damage arising from reliance on the content of this blog, or from links on this website to any external website. Where applicable, liability is limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.

 

Similar articles

Court finds sole director failed to exercise due diligence in fatality prosecution

The Model Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (Cth) imposes a positive duty on officers to exercise due diligence to ensure the person conducting a business or undertaking complies with its work health and safety duties and obligations.

Read more...

Managing ill and injured workers

In her usual entertaining and informative style, our Managing Director and Principal, Athena Koelmeyer, will guide employers through the tangled web of legislative obligations they face when dealing with an ill or injured employee.

Read more...

Sole trader convicted and fined for WHS breach resulting in death of worker

In a recent decision of the NSW District Court, a sole trader has been convicted and fined $100,000 for breaching his health and safety duty under the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (Cth), which resulted in workers being exposed to a risk of death or serious injury.

Read more...

Unpaid parental leave entitlements and paid parental leave pay

My baby just cares for me

Employers should be aware of the amendments made to unpaid parental leave entitlements and the financial support provided by the Commonwealth Government, both of which provide parents with greater flexibility in taking leave.

Read more...

FWC confirms that employers are not required to discern employee’s capacity to work

No crystal ball required

When managing employees with medical conditions, employers are not expected to discern an employee’s capacity to work or identify appropriate workplace adjustments. Instead, decisions should be made based on the medical evidence available to the employer at that time.

Read more...

FWC rejects WFH request for employee with primary caring responsibilities

Caring is sharing

In a recent decision of the Fair Work Commission, an employer has had its reasons for refusing a flexible working arrangement request upheld on the basis that the employee’s primary caring responsibilities created a risk to the accurate and efficient performance of his duties.

Read more...

Let's talk

please contact our directors to discuss how ouR expertise can help your business.

We're here to help

Contact Us
Let Workplace Law become your partner in workplace law and sports law.

Sign up to receive the latest industry updates with commentary from the Workplace Law team direct to your inbox.

Subscribe

* indicates required