When swearing in the workplace becomes a psychosocial hazard

Fair Work Commission rules workplace abuse as constructive dismissal

Source: Australian Institute of Health and Safety

Aggressive swearing and verbal abuse in the workplace can create OHS risks that could lead employees to resign, according to a recent Fair Work Commission ruling that found such behaviour constitutes constructive dismissal regardless of employer intent.

The ruling highlights the power imbalance between employers and employees and establishes that intimidating conduct can leave workers with no choice but to resign.

An electrician was forced to resign after his employer engaged in confrontational behaviour during a performance meeting, according to the Commission, which determined that the employer’s aggressive conduct made resignation the probable outcome, despite the employer’s intention to retain the worker.

The case centred on a recorded conversation between the employee and company director, which captured the employer using profanity and raised voice during what was intended as a performance discussion. The employee had secretly recorded the meeting after previous incidents of alleged verbal abuse that occurred without witnesses.

The decision in Suhayl Ali v DMG Building & Electrical Services Pty Ltd demonstrates how workplace behaviour can cross acceptable boundaries, even in blue-collar environments where direct communication is common. 

The Commission heard evidence that the employer’s confrontational tone included multiple instances of aggressive language. During the recorded meeting, the employer stated: “The bulls–t about wear and tear on the phone is a f–king joke” and “Are you f–king serious, are you serious?” When the employee attempted to de-escalate by saying he did not need to get angry, the employer responded, “You’re making me angry!”

The employer’s behaviour escalated further during the performance discussion. The Commission noted the employer’s statement that “I don’t want any negative nancies running around my company f–king becoming toxic to other blokes. It festers. What we do with those people, we f–king weed them out… You need to be on the same page as everyone.”

The employee provided evidence that he felt intimidated during the workplace interaction, and the Commission concluded that given he was reasonably concerned for his mental and physical safety, he had “no effective or real choice but to resign”.

The case progressed after the employee took personal leave, texting his employer that “my mental health is not in the right place” before resigning the following day. Medical evidence supported the employee’s claims of psychological injury related to the workplace conduct through an independent medical examination that concluded the employee had suffered mental injury.

Commenting on the case, Martyn Campbell, cofounder of Humn and former head of SafeWork SA, observed that the Fair Work Commissioner stated that swearing was an “everyday work culture”.

“However, the challenge for business is, where is the line of acceptability? How much swearing is okay and what type? The challenge for OHS professionals like us, is helping organisations discover, or set that line,” said Campbell.

“In my experience, I think workplace swearing varies depending on the industry. Swearing is prevalent in every industry, but more so in blue collar and military roles. In many cases, it’s threaded into the fabric of normal work.”

Campbell noted that the DMG Building & Electrical case reinforces a firm position from the Commission about workplace swearing, which supports another decision where a CFMEU Organiser called a South32 worker a “f–king dog c–t”.

“Psychosocial safety is a blend of disciplines, including safety, HR, IR and psychology. This is a challenge of the profession as it easy to be sucked into a situation where we are asked for advice outside our area of expertise,” said Campbell.

“I read widely and constantly. I also connect myself to people with skills, knowledge, and experience I do not have. Collectively, we are much better placed to provide a whole of business solution to controls,” said Campbell, who is also a Fellow and Chartered Member of the AIHS.

“As a former WHS regulator, and Board Member of Safe Work Australia when the psych safety legislation was developed, I have said many times that psychosocial safety should be tackled by safety, HR and IR. To do so alone is destined to mediocracy or failure.

“When we look, the controls for psych safety hazards are distributed across those disciplines. As OHS professionals, we can help organisations find or develop them,” he said.

Campbell suggested businesses start by anonymously surveying their staff to reveal the psychosocial risk landscape. “Ask your workers and they will tell you how they feel,” he said.

“Then, map the feedback to the psych safety hazards and undertake a risk assessment. Work with HR, IR and psychologists to identify existing controls and fill the gaps.

“Remember, some controls will be behavioural change, such as moderating language. Swearing can be funny or make an average story hilarious,” he said.

“But swearing at someone, or when you are the boss, is clearly unacceptable, and the Fair Work Commission has reinforced that. Language moderation is a behavioural control; you can’t buy a barricade of guard for this type of hazard.”

Roof Pitch and Fall Protection: Why 15° Matters More Than You Think

Technical article by WAHA CEO, Scott Barber.

When we talk about working safely on roofs in Australia, there’s one detail that often flies under the radar, but has big implications for safety planning; roof pitch.

When it comes to working safely on roofs, pitch angle is one of the most underestimated risk factors in Australian workplaces. While most safety professionals are familiar with the 26° pitch threshold, commonly cited in state-based regulations, few realise that Australia’s Model Code of Practice also flags 15° as a critical risk point. This difference matters, especially for those designing or approving fall protection systems in housing, maintenance, and construction. As a critical marker, this is one that significantly influences the type of height safety systems required and should be implemented as defined under Australian Codes of Practice.

Why Pitch Angle Matters

In height safety, slope affects everything; worker footing, equipment stability, anchor effectiveness, and the speed/severity of a fall. The steeper the pitch, the less margin for error. But there is currently no single Australian regulation that defines all roof pitch requirements.

According to the Safe Work Australia Model Code of Practice: Managing the Risk of Falls at Workplaces, once the roof pitch exceeds 15°, the risk of slipping and falling rises significantly. This shift in slope is enough to trigger recommendations for additional fall prevention measures, particularly passive systems. Subsequently, they recommend risk-based decision making as the process adopted:

“On sloping roofs, particularly where the pitch exceeds 15 degrees, the risk of slipping is higher and additional controls are usually needed.”
— Safe Work Australia, Model Code of Practice, s2.4.2

While this isn’t a strict cutoff like the 26° trigger, it reflects a shift in best-practice thinking: fall risks aren’t just about height, they’re about angle, surface, and control.

Passive vs Active Fall Protection: What the Regulations Say

The Model WHS Regulations and related Codes of Practice clearly outline a hierarchy of control for managing fall risks, prioritising:

  1. Passive fall protection systems (collective controls):
    • Guardrails
    • Walkways
    • Edge protection
    • Work platforms
    • Safety mesh (for internal fall prevention)
  2. Active fall protection systems (individual controls):
    • Fall restraint systems
    • Fall arrest harnesses and lanyards (PFAS)
    • Self-retracting lifelines (SRLs)

Regulation Reference

WHS Regulation Clause 36 – Safe Design of Plant: requires that hazards (including falls) are eliminated or minimised so far as is reasonably practicable using the hierarchy of control.

Model Code – Managing the Risk of Falls (Section 2.3):
“Passive fall prevention devices… provide the highest level of protection and should be used in preference to work positioning or fall arrest systems wherever practicable.”

In practice, this means that passive safety systems, like edge protection or temporary guardrails, should be used before relying on a harness-based solutions, especially where slope and surface increase fall potential.

State & Territory Summary: Roof Pitch and System Choice

JurisdictionPitch ThresholdKey Requirements & Systems Referenced
National Model> 15°Use pitch in risk assessment and system selection (passive → active)
Victoria> 15° / > 26°“Roof work on a pitch greater than 15 degrees increases the risk of a fall and additional fall protection measures must be provided.”
Queensland> 26°Additional controls (e.g. scaffold, harness systems) for housing construction.
New South Wales (via Model)ImplicitAdopt hierarchy: guardrails > restraint > arrest systems.
Western AustraliaRequires AssessmentWA expects pitch to form part of your risk assessment and system selection but doesn’t quote an angle.
South Australia> 26°Builders and subcontractors should determine the critical angle… below the angle at which roof workers may reasonably be able to work and walk across the roof
TasmaniaUndefinedReplicates the National Model Code. The “critical angle” is defined as the maximum roof pitch at which a worker can reasonably stand and work without additional fall protection.
Northern Territory> 15°Aligns with National Model Code and applies the pitch angle in risk assessment and system selection (passive → active)
Australian Capital Territory>10° and > 26°Hierarchy based at > 26° and adjusts guardrail height for every 10° increase in angle

Passive vs Active Systems: Applying the Hierarchy of Controls

Under the Model WHS Regulations, Clause 36 (Safe Design of Plant) and related codes, employers and designers must:

  • Eliminate the risk where possible.
  • If not, minimise it using the hierarchy of controls.

That means:

  1. Passive systems first – guardrails, edge protection
  2. Then work positioning/restraint
  3. Lastly, fall arrest as a last resort

“Passive fall prevention devices provide the highest level of protection and should be used in preference to work positioning or fall arrest systems wherever practicable.”
– Model Code of Practice: Managing the Risk of Falls, s2.3

Choosing the Right System for the Roof Pitch

Roof PitchTypical Control Strategy
0–15°Edge protection, parapets, non-slip surfaces (passive)
15–26°Roof ladders, mesh, edge protection, fall restraint (mixed)
>26°Scaffolding, catch platforms, fall arrest (active+passive)

Practical Recommendations

If you’re supervising or designing work at heights:

  • Don’t wait for 26° to trigger controls, use collective protection, anchor points, and effective restraint/arrest systems proactively.
  • Consider pitch angle in your Safe Work Method Statements (SWMS) and initial design stage assessments.
  • Treat >15° as a tipping point for increased vigilance and system design, not a grey area.
  • Treat >15° as a trigger for formal fall prevention planning.
  • Default to passive systems first, as per the WHS hierarchy.
  • Use safety mesh and internal barriers during construction, not just external edge controls.
  • Include pitch angle in your Safe Work Method Statements (SWMS) and design reviews.

Final Thoughts

Too often, the industry sees passive systems as optional or overkill. But the WHS Codes and Regulations make it clear; passive fall protection is not only best practice, it’s the legal priority where reasonably practicable.

Whether you’re building homes, constructing commercial buildings, servicing roofs, doing maintenance or installing solar systems, remember,15° is not a safe slope without controls. The smarter and safer move is to plan fall protection early and plan it right.

Fine for fatal fall almost quadrupled on appeal

Source: SafeWork Vic

A Monbulk nursery and horticulture supplier has been fined $250,000 after the death of a worker who fell through a shed roof onto a concrete floor.

In February 2025, Van Berkel Distributors Pty Ltd was, without conviction, fined $65,000 in the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court after pleading guilty to a single charge of failing to reduce the risk associated with a fall by using a fall arrest system.

Following an appeal, the Melbourne County Court set aside the company’s original sentence last Wednesday and ordered it to pay a fine of $250,000 without conviction.

In June 2022, a 66-year-old maintenance manager was working alone on the roof of a shed at the workplace without any fall protection, attempting to replace polycarbonate roofing sheets.

He fell through one of the sheets, 3.3 metres to the floor below, and was taken to hospital where he underwent brain surgery, but died a few days later.

A WorkSafe investigation found the maintenance manager did not have any qualification in roofing and a Safe Work Method Statement (SWMS) had not been prepared for the task.

The court heard that it was reasonably practicable for the company to reduce the risk of a fall by using a fall arrest system, such as a safety harness.

WorkSafe Executive Director Health and Safety Sam Jenkin said the appeal outcome sent a strong message to employers that fall prevention is non-negotiable.

“WorkSafe is extremely serious about preventing falls from height as we continue to see too many lives lost or forever changed in incidents that should never have happened,” Mr Jenkin said.

“We’re doing a significant amount of work in this space and will continue to fight for stronger penalties against employers who choose to put workers’ lives at risk, particularly when the safety solutions are well-known and readily available.”

WorkSafe provides comprehensive guidance to duty holders on falls prevention as well as an information sheet on how to control risks during the removal of fragile roofing.

To prevent falls from height employers should:

  • Eliminate the risk by, where practicable, doing all or some of the work on the ground or from a solid construction.
  • Use a passive fall prevention device such as scaffolds, perimeter screens, guardrails, safety mesh or elevating work platforms.
  • Use a positioning system, such as a travel-restraint system, to ensure employees work within a safe area.
  • Use a fall arrest system, such as a harness, catch platform or safety nets, to limit the risk of injuries in the event of a fall.
  • Use a fixed or portable ladder, or implement administrative controls.

The WAHA announce partnership with WHS Show

We are pleased to announce that the Working At Height Association is returning as a Partner for Workplace Health & Safety Show — Australia’s leading event for champions of safety at work.

The WAHA continues to support businesses across Australia with essential guidance and expertise in height safety.

This year’s event will deliver even more value, with:
✅ New summits tackling emerging safety challenges
✅ New exhibitors showcasing the latest height safety solutions
✅ New insights to help you navigate complex regulations and improve your safety culture

📅 21–22 May 2025
📍 Melbourne Convention & Exhibition Centre
🎟 WAHA guests can access complimentary tickets for a limited time — register now before standard pricing applies

👉 https://bit.ly/WAHAWHSS

Standards Australia opens public comment on 5532:2025 for Single Point Anchor Devices

Standards Australia has introduced AS 5532:2025 – ‘Manufacturing requirements for single-point anchor device used for harness-based work at height’. This new edition is intended to supersede AS/NZS 5532:2013, and a draft is available for public comment.

The standard specifies manufacturing performance requirements, test methods, marking and product instruction requirements for single-point anchor devices for industrial fall-protection systems. It covers anchor devices for use with equipment that conforms to the AS(AS/NZS) 1891 series and the AS/NZS 4488 series.

KEY DIFFERENCES BETWEEN AS/NZ 5532:2013 AND AS 5532:2025

The key changes to this edition of the standard, as defined by Standards Australia, include:

  • clarified anchor design requirements;
  • modified test apparatus requirements, general test requirements, and test procedures;
  • clarified instructions and marking requirements;
  • Appendix A (formerly “Additional usage recommendations”) is now “Additional design recommendations for anchors”;
  • Removal of Appendix B (“Additional design recommendations”).

Those who wish to review the draft and provide feedback to Standards Australia, either individually or on behalf of their Member Company, can do so until 1st May 2025.  

To review the document, you must first register an account with Standards Australia. The draft can be accessed for comment using the link below:

https://comment.standards.org.au/Drafts/0a083b3d-40a0-4d1f-8db6-62baaa60e60e

Company fined $40,000 after worker’s fall through skylight

A demolition company has been convicted and fined a total of $40,000 after a worker fell through a skylight and fractured his spine at a residential site in Mornington.

Source: WorkSafe Victoria

City Way Demolition Pty Ltd was sentenced ex parte in the Broadmeadows Magistrates’ Court on Monday after being found guilty of failing to ensure the workplace was safe and without risks to health, and failing, without reasonable excuse, to provide WorkSafe with required information and documents.

The company was also ordered to pay $7,135 in costs.

The court heard that in October 2022, three City Way workers commenced demolition works at the single storey dwelling, including the manual removal of roof tiles by hand.

Witnesses observed at least two people working on the roof, which was more than two metres in height, with no fall protection in place.

During the works, one of the workers fell through a fibreglass sheet on the garage roof, sustaining vertebrae fractures that have left him unable to return to work.

A WorkSafe investigation found it was reasonably practicable for City Way to have reduced or eliminated health and safety risks by using a passive fall prevention device, a work positioning system, or a fall arrest system.

The court heard that following the incident, the company failed to comply with a WorkSafe notice requesting information and documents by the end of March 2023.

WorkSafe Executive Director of Health and Safety Sam Jenkin said working at height was too well-known a risk for these types of incidents to continue occurring.

“Despite there being clear regulations, extensive guidance, and far too many examples of preventable injuries and deaths, the company chose to bypass fall safety measures altogether,” Mr Jenkin said.

“The blatant disregard for safety – by not having any fall protection in place and then refusing to cooperate with WorkSafe’s investigation – is very disappointing.”

To prevent falls from height employers should implement the highest possible measures from the five levels in the hierarchy of controls:

  • Level 1 Eliminate the risk by, where practicable, doing all or some of the work on the ground or from a solid construction.
  • Level 2 Use a passive fall prevention device such as scaffolds, perimeter screens, guardrails, safety mesh or elevating work platforms.
  • Level 3 Use a positioning system, such as a travel-restraint system, to ensure employees work within a safe area.
  • Level 4 Use a fall arrest system, such as a harness, catch platform or safety nets, to limit the risk of injuries in the event of a fall.
  • Level 5 Use a fixed or portable ladder, or implement administrative controls.

Builder fined $80,000 for failing to manage risk of falls

A residential construction company has been convicted and fined a total of $80,000 after repeatedly failing to manage the risk of falls from height at two Doncaster building sites.

Source: SafeWork Victoria

Schintta Building Group Pty Ltd was sentenced ex parte in the Ringwood Magistrates’ Court on Thursday 13 February after being found guilty of five charges of failing to provide a safe workplace.

The company was fined $30,000 for three charges relating to safety failures at a site in McKenzie Street and a further $50,000 for two charges after it continued to put workers at risk at an Elizabeth Street townhouse development.

The company was also ordered to pay costs of $5068.

The court heard in October 2022, WorkSafe inspectors visiting the two-storey townhouse development on McKenzie Street observed, in addition to general housekeeping issues, subcontractors working more than three metres off the ground from a scaffold that was missing planks and guardrails.

Platforms across internal stair voids were found to be constructed of framing timber and particle board that could collapse under the weight of workers, while access to the second storey was via an unsecured ladder.

Workers also had to travel between the development’s split-level slabs by climbing up and jumping down a height of about 1.5 metres, or via a makeshift ramp made of a plank of timber only about 25 centimetres wide.

In May 2023, WorkSafe inspectors visited the company’s Elizabeth Street site where four double-storey townhouses were under construction and found similar issues regarding poor housekeeping and failure to manage the risk of falls.

Workers were observed about six metres off the ground working from a scaffold that was missing guardrails, planks and a scaffold tag, while the lap boards were unsecured and there were gaps greater than 225 millimetres between the scaffold and the townhouses.

Each townhouse had open, unprotected stair voids and access to the second storeys was via an unsecured A-frame extendable ladder that did not have a 900 millimetre overhang.

The court found Schintta Building Group should have reduced the risk of falls at both sites by providing a solid construction when working at heights, providing a passive fall protection device such as perimeter guardrails, or using a fall arrest system such as harnesses; and by installing a stair void fall protection system and a secured ladder.

It was also reasonably practicable for the company to have maintained a system of work for traversing the split-level slabs at McKenzie Street that did not allow workers to walk across an unsecured plank and provided workers with a secured plank and/or level stairs that incorporated a secure handrail and appropriately-sized treads.

WorkSafe Executive Director of Health and Safety Sam Jenkin said it was incredibly disappointing that workers had been repeatedly put in dangerous situations across both sites.

“Falls from height do not discriminate and sadly remain one of the biggest causes of death and serious injury in the Victorian construction industry, claiming 10 lives in the past three years alone,” Mr Jenkin said.

“The ways to properly manage the risk of falls are no secret and readily available so employers have absolutely no excuses if they leave their workers at risk.”

To prevent falls from height employers should implement the highest possible measures from the five levels in the hierarchy of controls:

  • Level 1 Eliminate the risk by, where practicable, doing all or some of the work on the ground or from a solid construction.
  • Level 2 Use a passive fall prevention device such as scaffolds, perimeter screens, guardrails, safety mesh or elevating work platforms.
  • Level 3 Use a positioning system, such as a travel-restraint system, to ensure employees work within a safe area.
  • Level 4 Use a fall arrest system, such as a harness, catch platform or safety nets, to limit the risk of injuries in the event of a fall.
  • Level 5 Use a fixed or portable ladder, or implement administrative controls.

Construction company fined $150,000 after fall

Source: SafeWork NSW

Richard Crookes Constructions Pty Ltd was the principal contractor at a construction site in Belrose NSW. ​

On 29 April 2020 form workers attended the site and removed panels covering penetrations in preparation for installing columns at the construction site. The form workers then flipped the panels to cover the penetrations.

However, the flipped panels were not adequately secured to the formwork deck, and they were not marked to indicate their purpose as a penetration cover.  ​

A crane crew entered the site and was assisting with loading materials onto the formwork decks. A worker from the crane crew stepped on one of the flipped panels, the panel gave way, and he fell through the penetration.

He fell approximately 2.9 metres sustaining serious injuries.

Richard Crookes Constructions Pty Ltd pleaded guilty to an offence under section 32/19(1) of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 and was fined $150,000.

Richard Crookes Constructions Pty Ltd has the right to appeal this sentence.

Construction company fined $270,000 after fatal fall

A construction company has been convicted and fined $270,000 after a man fell more than four metres to his death in February 2022.

Source: SafeWork Victoria

Minoan Constructions Pty Ltd was sentenced in the Melbourne County Court on Friday after pleading guilty to a single charge of failing to ensure that a workplace under its management or control was safe and without risks to health.

The court heard the family-operated company was building 10 commercial units at a Cheltenham construction site.

The 69-year-old man was not employed or contracted by the company, but was a family member who helped lay flooring and install timber guard railing on the mezzanine levels of the units.

To access these areas, he and others used unsecured ladders resting against the steel frames of the mezzanine levels. They worked while standing on the ladders or near unprotected edges of the mezzanine floors.

As the man was climbing down an unsecured ladder, it began to move, causing him to fall more than four metres to the ground. He died at the scene.

The court heard that it was reasonably practicable for Minoan Constructions to have reduced the risk of falls by providing a temporary work platform, such as a mobile scaffold; installing engineered guard railing on the internal and external sides of each mezzanine level; or providing appropriate staircases to connect the ground floor to the mezzanine level.

WorkSafe Executive Director of Health and Safety Sam Jenkin said health and safety should be a priority for everyone in the workplace, particularly when it came to well-understood dangers such as working at heights.

“When working with family members, there can be a dangerous tendency to relax safety standards. But fall risks don’t discriminate,” Mr Jenkin said.

“To see another life lost to such a well-documented and preventable risk – one that we have extensive safety information and resources for – is both painful and frustrating.”

“WorkSafe will continue to prosecute employers who fail to protect the health and safety of everybody at their workplace.”

To prevent falls from height employers should implement the highest possible measures from the five levels in the hierarchy of controls:

  • Level 1 Eliminate the risk by, where practicable, doing all or some of the work on the ground or from a solid construction.
  • Level 2 Use a passive fall prevention device such as scaffolds, perimeter screens, guardrails, safety mesh or elevating work platforms.
  • Level 3 Use a positioning system, such as a travel-restraint system, to ensure employees work within a safe area.
  • Level 4 Use a fall arrest system, such as a harness, catch platform or safety nets, to limit the risk of injuries in the event of a fall.
  • Level 5 Use a fixed or portable ladder, or implement administrative controls.

Introducing the WAHA Falls Prevention Program: A New Era in Workplace Safety

Falls from height continue to be a leading cause of workplace fatalities, particularly in high-risk industries such as construction, mining, and transport. Despite years of regulatory efforts and training programs, fall-related incidents remain alarmingly high. The Working at Height Association (WAHA) is taking decisive action to address this persistent issue with the launch of the WAHA Falls Prevention Program – an innovative initiative designed to bridge the gap between compliance and true competency.

Developed in collaboration with Area9 LyceumProgrammed, and John Holland Group, and supported by leading industry associations, this program introduces AI-driven adaptive learning to height safety training. Unlike traditional training models, which often focus on compliance over competency, the WAHA Falls Prevention Program leverages real-time data and personalized learning paths to ensure workers develop, retain, and apply critical safety knowledge effectively.

Key Features of the Program:

✅ AI-Powered Adaptive Learning – A personalized training experience that adjusts in real time based on individual learning needs.
✅ Competency Verification – A structured approach to assessing and reinforcing height safety knowledge, ensuring workers are genuinely capable, not just compliant.
✅ Industry-Wide Collaboration – Developed with input from major safety stakeholders to align with real-world operational needs.
✅ Measurable Impact – Early results show a significant reduction in knowledge gaps, directly improving workplace safety outcomes.

This initiative is more than just another training program – it represents a paradigm shift in how we approach fall prevention through competency verification. By integrating technology, behavioural science, and industry expertise, we are setting a new standard for safety training that saves lives and fosters a proactive safety culture.

🚧 Join Us in Leading the Change! 🚧
WAHA invites organizations, safety professionals, and industry leaders to participate in this game-changing initiative. Let’s work together to reduce fall-related incidents, improve safety outcomes, and drive meaningful change across high-risk industries.

For more details, visit https://waha.org.au/product-category/fall-prevention-program/ or reach out to us to explore how your organization can be part of this safety revolution.

#WAHA #FallPrevention #WorkplaceSafety #RopeAccess #AdaptiveLearning #SafetyLeadership