Did OHS Act apply to contractor’s employees?

The Supreme Court of Victoria has examined whether s23(1) of theOccupational Health and Safety Act 2004 also applies to employees of independent contractors. It concluded that, like s21, it does.

Breach involved employees of employer and contractor


The operations manager of a resort noticed that a tall eucalypt had fallen close to a road and was suspended in the branches of another tree. He asked three workers to remove the eucalypt. One of them cut the tree with a chainsaw while the other two directed traffic on the road. As the tree was cut, it suddenly dropped and fell on the cutter, who was seriously injured.


A safety inspector charged the Southern Alpine Resort Management Board, which managed the resort, with two offences against the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 (Vic). The cutter and one of the helpers were employees of Belgravia Health and Leisure Group Pty Ltd, which had been contracted to run the resort on a day-to-day basis. The operations manager and the fourth man were employees of the board. The first charge, under s21(1) of the Act concerned the two board employees. The second charge, under s23(1) related to the employees of the contractor.


Both charges were dismissed in the Magistrates Court of Victoria. The first because the magistrate was not satisfied that it had been proved, and the second because he found that s23 did not apply to employees of independent contractors.



The inspector appealed to the Supreme Court of Victoria against the dismissal of the second charge on the basis that the magistrate’s interpretation of s23 of the Act was not correct.

Had the magistrate misconstrued the Act?


Section 23(1) of the Act requires an employer to ensure, as far as practicable, that people other than the employer’s employees are not exposed to risks to their health or safety from the conduct of the employer’s undertaking.


The inspector submitted that the section did not expressly exclude independent contractors and their employees. The magistrate had limited the meaning of s23 in a way that could not be justified by the text or the purpose of the Act.


The purpose, according to s2, was after all to secure the health, safety and welfare of employees and other persons at work. In addition, the principles of health and safety protection, as set out in s4(2), provide that persons who control or manage matters that give rise to health or safety are responsible for eliminating or minimising those risks.


The magistrate and the board, however, had pointed to s21(3) of the Act which, although it provided that a reference to an employee included a reference to an independent contractor and the contractor’s employee, also contained an additional proviso in 21(3)(b), namely that the duties of the employer extended to an independent contractor in relation to matters over which the employer had control. The matter of control had not been included in s23(1).

‘Control’ was only an element of the offence


Justice Richards explained that control, in s21(3)(b), was merely an element of the offence. If Parliament had intended s23 to apply only to members of the public, or to exclude independent contractors and their employees, that intention could have been expressed in the provision. The duty of an employer under s23(1) should be taken to be owed to independent contractors and their employees concurrently with the duty in s21(1) as extended by s21(3).


The dismissal of the second charge in the Magistrates Court should be set aside. The inspector’s appeal was allowed.



The question arose whether the matter should be remitted for rehearing by a differently constituted Magistrates Court. Justice Richards, however, decided to remit the proceeding to the same magistrate for further hearing and determination according to law.

Contact Us

Zenergy News

February 11, 2025
A workplace health and safety regulator has explained what the "safest workplaces" look like, in revealing it finalised more than 100 successful safety prosecutions in 2024.
February 11, 2025
Two years after the release of the groundbreaking 2022 Everyday Respect Report, Rio Tinto has undertaken a thorough Progress Review to assess its ongoing cultural transformation. As one of the world’s largest mining companies, Rio Tinto has been working to create a safer, more inclusive workplace culture that fosters respect, productivity, and innovation. The 2024 Progress Review highlights significant strides made, ongoing challenges, and areas requiring further attention. The Journey Towards Cultural Transformation Cultural change is a multi-year effort that requires consistent leadership, structural support, and engagement across all levels of an organization. Since launching its Everyday Respect initiative, Rio Tinto has embedded this agenda into its core business strategy, focusing on reducing bullying, sexual harassment, and racism in the workplace. Key Progress Areas: Increased Awareness and Open Conversations: The public release of the original report acted as a catalyst for change, encouraging more employees to speak up and engage in discussions about respect. Stronger Leadership Commitment: Leaders are playing a more proactive role in championing Everyday Respect, with a focus on psychological safety and inclusive leadership. Enhanced Training and Education: Programs such as Everyday Respect Training and Purple Banners have been widely implemented to build awareness and response capabilities. Facility Upgrades and Safety Improvements: Investments in workplace infrastructure have improved the physical environment, making it more inclusive and conducive to employee well-being. Greater Workforce Diversity: There has been a notable increase in gender and cultural diversity across teams, fostering innovation and improved workplace dynamics. Ongoing Challenges and Areas for Improvement Despite progress, resistance to change remains an obstacle, particularly among certain groups. Survey data indicates that while improvements have been perceived in many areas, instances of bullying, sexual harassment, and racism persist. Key focus areas include: Building Stronger Buy-in: Engaging those who are resistant to cultural change, particularly male employees, to foster a collective commitment to Everyday Respect. Enhancing Reporting Mechanisms: Increasing trust in reporting systems to ensure that employees feel safe and supported when raising concerns. Strengthening Frontline Leadership: Providing additional training and tools to equip supervisors and managers with the skills needed to drive culture change at all levels. Maintaining Momentum: Ensuring that Everyday Respect remains a priority in the face of organizational changes and external pressures. Looking Ahead: Staying the Course The findings from the 2024 Progress Review reaffirm Rio Tinto’s commitment to long-term cultural transformation. While meaningful progress has been made, continued efforts are needed to sustain positive momentum and address persistent challenges. As one employee noted: “ Change is definitely happening, and it will get hard at times. We can’t back away ... I’m here at Rio Tinto because I want to see through this change. We need to stay the course. ” With ongoing leadership, engagement, and strategic initiatives, Rio Tinto is on the path to embedding Everyday Respect across all facets of its global operations, ensuring a safer, more inclusive, and more productive workplace for all employees. See full report “ here ”.
By Shazamme System User October 8, 2024
Australia's dating apps are getting a safety makeover.
By Shazamme System User October 8, 2024
National Safe Work Month
September 19, 2024
Meet the Outstanding 2024 Winners
Australia's highest WHS fine, for manslaughter, becomes law
September 19, 2024
NSW's industrial manslaughter laws
More Posts
Share by: