REPORT ON INVESTIGATION QUEENSLAND WORKPLACE RIGHTS OMBUDSMAN

CONTRACT TRAFFIC CONTROL INDUSTRY

CONTENTS

HEADING

PAGE

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2-6 INTRODUCTION 7-8 GOVERNANCE 8-9 METHODOLOGY 9-12 OTHER INFORMATION SOURCES 12 INDUSTRY BACKGROUND INDUSTRY PERCEPTIONS INDUSTRY PROFILE

12-14 14-15 15-16

INDUSTRIAL INSTRUMENTS – COVERAGE 17-19 PAYMENT OF WAGES & SUPERANNUATION 19-20 FINDINGS RECOMMENDATIONS – INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

20 20-21

SAFETY TOILETS FATIGUE BREAKS

ENFORCEMENT/COMPLIANCE RECOMMENDATIONS – ENFORCEMENT – COMPLIANCE

21 22

22-26 27-29 30-31

OTHER WORKSITE SAFETY ISSUES 31-33 FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO SAFETY ISSUES RECOMMENDATIONS – OTHER SAFETY

33-34

34-35 TRAINING AND ACCREDITATION 35-39 RECOMMENDATIONS – TRAINING ACCREDITATION

39

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 39-40 ATTACHMENTS 41

2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Following approaches from unions, employers and serious complaints from employees, the Ombudsman resolved to conduct an investigation into the working conditions of employees of entities whose business is to provide accredited traffic controllers to perform work for a third party under contract or THE CONTRACT TRAFFIC CONTROL INDUSTRY. The investigation revealed shortcomings in the provision of basic amenities, the provision of fatigue breaks, safety and training, and a propensity for those responsible for the work of traffic controllers to undervalue their contribution to projects and treat them accordingly. It revealed an attitude in many motorists best described as an ingrained resentment arising from a view that traffic controllers are an obstacle and an inconvenience impacting on their timely arrival at a destination. It revealed that the propensity to ignore reduced speed zones through road works had reached a level where it can be regarded as a culture among Queensland motorists. The investigation took far more time than first anticipated, primarily because of the complexity of the legislation, regulations and the plethora of other interacting statutes and codes relevant to the industry. Stakeholders were afforded and took advantage of the opportunity for extensive input through the ability to provide written submissions, participate in surveys and participate directly in interviews with the Ombudsman. In the time since the investigation commenced, there have been three motorists killed and four workers injured at or in connect ion with word works. There may be others of whom the Ombudsman is unaware. Recommendations are listed in total as part of this Executive Summary as well as at the conclusion of the information provided under each subject heading in the body of the report. It is the earnest wish of the Ombudsman that the recommendations are evaluated and, if adopted, implemented quickly. The Ombudsman wishes to thank officers of the Queensland Workplace Rights Office in particular Mr Tim Kennedy for assistance in the investigation and compilation of this Report. Thanks also go to the other entities that have provided information and assistance during the investigation including but not limited to the Department of Justice and Attorney-General, Workplace Health & Safety Queensland, the Department of Transport and Main Roads, Queensland Police Service and RACQ.

I am happy to provide further information or comment if required.

Yours faithfully COMMISSIONER DON BROWN Queensland Workplace Rights Ombudsman

3

RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDATIONS – INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS 1. That the State Industrial Inspectorate and Federal Workplace Ombudsman

continue to conduct compliance inspections of traffic control employers. 2. That the Liquor Hospitality and Miscellaneous Union (LHMU) and The

Australian Workers’ Union (AWU) and any other employee organisation claiming an interest in the coverage of traffic controllers, engage in dialogue aimed at reaching agreement over the rationalisation of union coverage and representation.

3. That employer organisations representing businesses with an interest in traffic

control engage in dialogue aimed at rationalising the representation of employers.

4. The unions, or union, together with employer organisation/s, seek to establish

a broadly applicable set of enforceable industrial minima to regulate the pay and conditions of traffic controllers.

5. That the users of contract traffic controllers including Government

departments, local authorities, civil and building contractors, play their part in the promotion of professionalism among traffic control employers by regularly monitoring and auditing the undertakings given by principal contractors and traffic control companies to abide by relevant (industrial) laws.

6. Nobody, Government or otherwise, should knowingly use the services of a

traffic control contractor that underpays workers or fails to provide employees with proper working conditions.

RECOMMENDATIONS – ENFORCEMENT - COMPLIANCE 1. The Government form a reference group comprised of the Department of

Transport and Main Roads, Workplace Health & Safety Queensland, appropriate employer groups, appropriate employee unions and any other relevant entities as determined by the Government, to collectively develop a single document for use by site supervisors and traffic controllers regarding the site supervisors’ responsibilities as they relate to traffic controllers and traffic management.

2. The reference group facilitate the development of a training package aimed at

ensuring that all site supervisors and potential site supervisors are familiar with all of their obligations with respect to traffic control as it relates to workplace safety and that the training be delivered separately from Occupational Health and Safety training.

3. Appropriately placed officers of the Department of Transport and Main Roads

and Workplace Health & Safety Queensland conduct regular compliance

4

audits of road work sites and include in the audits a focus on the provision of toilets and fatigue breaks for traffic controllers. (See also Queensland Transport’s (as they then were) responsibilities at TCASAP, s.1).

4. All Workplace Health & Safety Queensland, Queensland Police Service or

State Coroner examinations of incidents or accidents at roadwork sites where appropriate, include a thorough investigation of all relevant aspects of traffic management including whether or not the traffic controllers were relieved for fatigue breaks or were working fatigued.

5. The Government introduce a regulation providing that traffic controllers

maintain and keep available for inspection by properly authorised persons, a personal log book recording work details including the date, the site, start time, fatigue breaks, rest pauses, lunch times, finishing times and site supervisor’s name.

6. Assuming the adoption of (5), the Government introduce a requirement that

the site supervisor or appropriate responsible person, sign signifying the correctness of the traffic controller’s log book entries at the end of each shift and further, the Government establish that entering false data in a log book and/or knowingly signing to authenticate false data is an offence.

7. Amend the MUTCD Part 3, s.1.6 by deleting the word “should” and inserting

the word “shall” in the first sentence so that the first paragraph reads:

“The person in control of construction, maintenance or other works which require the use of a traffic guidance scheme shall give attention to the following”.

8. Amend the MUTCD Part 3, s.1.6 by adding a provision which ensures that the

person in control of the work site SHALL ensure traffic controllers are given fatigue breaks in accordance with s. 3.2.14 of the TCASAP.

9. Amend the MUTCD Part 3, 5.1.6(c) by inserting the word “shall” before the

word “ensure” so that the sub-section reads:

“Shall ensure that personnel assigned to signing the works are adequately trained to perform the task and that traffic controllers are appropriately trained and informed of their duties”.

RECOMMENDATIONS – OTHER SAFETY 1. Amend the Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995 s.75,

“Unlawful Installation of Traffic Signs” to provide that the failure to remove signs when the reason for their installation no longer exists, is an offence carrying the same penalty as “unlawful installation”.

2. Amend the Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995 s.75,

“Unlawful Installation of Traffic Signs” to provide that failure to install signs

5

in strict accordance with the approved Traffic Management Plan carries the same penalty as “unlawful installation”.

3. The Government facilitate the formation of a reference group charged with

developing and, in a timely fashion, providing to Government, advice on appropriate measures to prevent motorists from speeding through roadwork and other areas where lawful temporary reduced speed zones have been established.

4. The reference group include, but not be limited to, representatives of the

Queensland Police Service, RACQ, WHSQ and the Department of Transport and Main Roads.

5. The reference group consider the following suggestions that were put to the

Ombudsman:

establish by legislation that the act of throwing an object at or near a road work site is an offence regardless of whether there was an intent to injure or other malicious intent and further, regardless of whether the act could also be considered littering.

the use of audible “rumble” strips or mats at the approach to roadwork sites to alert inattentive motorists.

introduce a requirement to record by CCTV and the use of Automatic Number Plate Recognition cameras, the passage of all vehicles through sites in order to detect and provide evidence of unacceptable practices such as motorists throwing objects at traffic controllers or cars or trucks deliberately swerving towards traffic controllers in order to intimidate them.

The erection of prominent signage advising motorists of the presence of cameras.

Increasing the activity by police in detecting and penalising motorists where appropriate and practicable.

consideration of increased monetary penalties and higher demerit points for speeding offences at road work sites.

public education campaigns including forewarning the public that police enforcement of speed limits at road works will be a constant in future.

the use of pilot vehicles to lead motorists through these particularly difficult sites thus preventing vehicles from speeding.

amending the Workplace Health & Safety Act 1995 (Qld) and Regulations to include traffic controllers as a prescribed occupation.

6. The Government introduce a licensing regime for business operators providing

the services of traffic controllers to third parties under contract. 7. The Department of Transport and Main Roads continue their well received

advertising campaign promoting safety at road works. 8. The Government establish and advertise the existence of a central contact

point possibly within the Department of Transport and Main Roads capable of

6

receiving and promptly investigating complaints related to traffic management at road works or other sites.

RECOMMENDATIONS – TRAINING AND ACCREDITATION 1. The Department of Transport and Main Roads, together with representatives

of other appropriate bodies, form a reference group to review all aspects of the current system of training of traffic controllers and the system of accrediting trainers.

2. That any review of training practices address the issue of testing standards in

order to ensure candidates have sufficient knowledge and skills to be accredited.

3. The Department of Transport and Main Roads review the current entry and

candidate suitability procedures so that potential traffic controllers may quickly assess their prospects of successfully passing a criminal background check prior to investing time and money to participate in training.

4. To remove current procedural restrictions on training auditors so that they are

able to monitor and assess the quality of training from a position of anonymity.

5. The Government facilitate the formation of a reference group charged with

developing a more complete set of medical criteria for traffic control eligibility against which a person may be better assessed.

6. If Recommendation 5 is adopted, apply any revised set of medical standards to

all new and existing traffic controllers.

7

INTRODUCTION In December 2008 the Queensland Workplace Rights Ombudsman (the Ombudsman) decided to conduct an investigation of the Contract Traffic Control Industry (the industry) for the purpose of compiling a report and recommendations for consideration by the Attorney-General and Minister for Industrial Relations The Honourable Cameron Dick MP. The catalyst for the decision to investigate this industry was the number and seriousness of complaints made to the Queensland Workplace Rights Office (QWRO) by employees, employers and unions. The complaints involved allegations of unfair, inappropriate and in some cases, unlawful workplace activities. They included:

Underpayment of wages Non or underpayment of occupational superannuation Workplace conditions/amenities Employment arrangements/sham contracting Licensing Safety Fair competition between employers when tendering for work

Following the decision to investigate, the Ombudsman convened a meeting of interested parties. The parties included representatives of 10 traffic control companies, three employer associations, two employee unions, the Department of Main Roads (as it then was) and Workplace Health & Safety Queensland. Whilst no formal vote was taken, the meeting was generally supportive of the decision to investigate. This meeting also assisted the Ombudsman to develop the objectives and scope for the investigation which were: Objectives 1. To determine the level of compliance within the Traffic Control Industry in

Queensland with industrial laws and thus to determine the existence of unlawful, unfair or inappropriate industrial relations and other work-related matters in Queensland;

2. To identify factors which might lead to pressures on traffic control providers

to avoid their obligations under an industrial instrument; 3. To identify measures which would best discourage inappropriate activity

without infringing on the ability of the Traffic Control Industry to operate profitably whilst at the same time providing secure employment;

4. To compile a report based on the information gathered from activities

undertaken pursuant to 1, 2 and 3;

8

5. To provide information to Traffic Control Industry entities which will enable informed decision making and, as a consequence, fairer workplaces; and

6. To formulate recommendations for consideration by the Minister, appropriate

government departments, industry bodies, employers, employees and consumers.

Scope The investigation will include information gathering and interviews with: 1. Employers whose business primarily or exclusively involves the provision of

Traffic Control Officers under contract to a third party; 2. Employers whose business primarily involves activities other than traffic

control who from time to time provide Traffic Controllers under contract to a third party;

3. Employees of businesses that primarily or exclusively involve the provision of

Traffic Control Officers under contract to a third party; 4. Employees of businesses that primarily involve activities other than traffic

control which from time to time provide Traffic Controllers under contract to a third party;

5. Unions whose coverage extends to employees of either of the above 2

categories of employees; 6. Officers of relevant departments of the Queensland Government whose

knowledge and experience would assist the investigation;

7. Officers of local government authorities and/or officers of the Local Government Association Queensland whose knowledge and experience would assist the investigation;

8. Other entities that regularly use the services of traffic control companies e.g. general and civil construction companies; and

9. Entities whose business is not traffic control yet employ and use for their own business a licensed traffic controller.

GOVERNANCE The investigation was conducted pursuant to s.339D of the Industrial Relations Act 1999, (IR Act 99) Functions of Ombudsman which states:

"(1) The ombudsman has the following functions –

9

(a) to consult with any persons the ombudsman considers are affected by industrial relations and other work-related matters;

(b) to inform, educate and promote informed decision-making by persons the ombudsman considers are affected by industrial relations and other work-related matters;

(c) to facilitate and encourage fair industrial relations and work practices in Queensland, including by developing codes of practice;

(d) to investigate and publicise unlawful, unfair or inappropriate industrial relations and other work-related matters in Queensland;

(e) to refer instances of possible unlawful industrial relations and other work-related matters to appropriate authorities or services;

(f) to make representations to an appropriate person or body about industrial relations and other work-related matters;

(g) to monitor and report to the Minister on industrial relations and other work-related matters in Queensland;

(h) to investigate and report to the Minister on the impact of any aspect of industrial relations and other work-related matters affecting Queenslanders;

(i) to advise the Minister on the operation of this chapter and generally about industrial relations and other work-related matters;

(j) to inform the Minister about strategies to – (i) mitigate the negative effects of legislation from any

source about industrial relations and work-related matters; and

(ii) improve protection for vulnerable workers; and (iii) promote fair and equitable industrial relations and work

practices in Queensland; (k) to ask for help or information from any public entity about work-

related matters; (l) other functions conferred on the ombudsman under this or any

other Act. (2) The ombudsman may carry out the ombudsman’s functions and

exercise the ombudsman’s powers if asked by the Minister or any other person or entity or on the ombudsman’s own initiative.

(3) In this section –

Public entity means – (a) a government entity under the Public Service Act 2008; or (b) a corporation formed for a commercial purpose the shares of

which are held beneficially on behalf of the State”. METHODOLOGY The gathering of information followed the process outlined in the scope of the investigation having regard to the objectives. In each category the Ombudsman sought to elicit information from relevant cross-sections within the category. The task

10

of interviewing every organisation or business in each category was simply not possible having regard to the time, cost and resources needed for such an exercise. In order to ensure the freest possible flow of information, the Ombudsman gave those interviewed an undertaking that the source of information would be treated as confidential, save as required by law or as authorised by the information provider (see s.706 IR Act 99). Employers and employees were asked to complete and return surveys aimed at establishing a profile of the industry as well as industry attitudes, perceptions and expectations. They were further invited to make specific submissions as to how perceived problems might be addressed. There was a difficulty in communicating directly with traffic controllers, in that the only register of accredited traffic controllers maintained by the Department of Transport (as it then was), contained the details of some 33,000 currently accredited traffic controllers, the vast majority of whom were not employees of contract traffic control companies but rather direct employees of construction companies, Local Authorities and State Government Departments. Employee survey forms and notices inviting employees to meet with the Ombudsman were, of necessity, distributed via employers. It was apparent that many employers co-operated in this exercise but just as apparent that some did not. The Ombudsman was advised by one traffic control employee that her employer had made it known to employees that any contact with the Ombudsman would result in termination and yet another employer failed to distribute the employee information despite claiming to have done so. While acknowledging that not all employers and employees have been consulted, the Ombudsman is satisfied that in addition to the aforementioned entities and organisations, almost all employers and a representative cross-section of employees have had input. Activities within each section of the scope were as follows: 1. Employers whose business primarily or exclusively involves the provision of

Traffic Control Officers under contract to a third party. Activity (A) The Ombudsman interviewed 24 contract traffic control companies.

a. The businesses ranged in size from six to several hundred employees. b. The businesses interviewed were, in the main, corporations, two

were not. c. Most of the larger Brisbane based companies interviewed provided

services in other regions. d. Regionally based companies with head offices in Cairns, Mackay,

Emerald, Rockhampton, Hervey Bay, Toowoomba, Dalby, Gold Coast, Sunshine Coast, Caboolture, Pine Rivers and Logan were interviewed as part of the investigation.

11

2. Employers whose business primarily involves activities other than traffic control who from time to time provide Traffic Controllers under contract to a third party.

The number of companies in this category was negligible. The Ombudsman did interview 2 companies involved in both traffic control and security. These companies had no difficulty administering employee entitlements across the two streams. None of the major security firms remain involved in traffic control. (A more detailed account of the origins and development of the industry is contained under the heading “Industry Background”, p.7). 3. Employees of businesses that primarily or exclusively involve the provision of

Traffic Control Officers under contract to a third party. Three hundred and seventy-three traffic controllers participated in the investigation through the completion and return of a survey. Many of the returned surveys contained additional comments/submissions. Further to this, meetings were held both collectively and individually with employees in the regions visited. The Ombudsman spoke directly with about 200 employees.

4. Employees of businesses that primarily involve activities other than traffic

control which from time to time provide Traffic Controllers under contract to a third party.

The Ombudsman spoke with 2 such employees. 5. Unions whose coverage extends to employees of either of the above 2 categories

of employees. Unions with a possible interest in representing traffic controllers were advised of the investigation and invited to make submissions. The Australian Workers’ Union provided a written submission (Attachment 8) and the Liquor Hospitality and Miscellaneous Union did so orally. Both emphasised the need for improved conditions and safety. 6. Officers of relevant departments of the Queensland Government whose

knowledge and experience would assist the investigation. Representatives of the Queensland Police Service, Department of Transport and Main Roads and Workplace Health & Safety Queensland provided relevant information and assistance. 7. Officers of local government authorities and/or officers of the Local

Government Association Queensland whose knowledge and experience would assist the investigation.

The Ombudsman met with relevant officers of the Local Government Association of Queensland, Brisbane City Council, Redland City Council, Cairns Regional Council,

12

Mackay Regional Council, Central Highlands Regional Council (Emerald), Rockhampton Regional Council, Fraser Coast Regional Council, Toowoomba Regional Council and Dalby Regional Council. The Ombudsman wrote to all councils advising of the investigation and inviting comment. The Ombudsman determined that it would be the most appropriate use of public funds to confine direct interviews with councils to a representative cross-section. 8. Other entities that regularly use the services of traffic control companies e.g.

general and civil construction companies. The Ombudsman met with representatives of Queensland Master Builders Association, the Civil Contractors Association of Queensland and RoadTek, a division of the Department of Transport and Main Roads.

9. Entities whose business is not traffic control yet employ and use for their own

business a licensed traffic controller. The Ombudsman interviewed one civil construction company and one building construction company.

SOURCES OF OTHER INFORMATION

In addition to the foregoing, the Ombudsman met with a number of construction site supervisors employed by local authorities and the Department of Transport and Main Roads (RoadTek). The Ombudsman also met representatives of the Royal Automobile Club of Queensland (RACQ), the largest Queensland based organisation representative of motorists and spoke with Mr Hughie Williams, State Secretary of the TWU Queensland Branch, who agreed to highlight the problems of traffic controllers to his members in the hope that they (his members) might be more understanding of the problems of traffic controllers. The Ombudsman conducted a number of site inspections including inspections of fixed long term road works requiring traffic controllers, shorter term road works sites involving temporary road or lane closure, mobile work in the vicinity of roads such as mowing requiring traffic controllers, traffic diversion, work on power or telephone lines requiring road/lane closure and involving traffic controllers and building construction sites utilising controllers to facilitate the entry and exit of vehicles, goods etc and manage pedestrian movement.

INDUSTRY BACKGROUND The Contract Traffic Control Industry has its origins in the Contract Security Industry. It was quite common in the 1980s and 1990s for a security company to provide security officers to work as traffic controllers under contract to a third party. However, as demand for traffic control rose, so too did the number of companies

13

specialising in traffic control. The point has now been reached where less than a handful of companies are engaged in both pursuits. Paralleling the rise in the numbers of specialty traffic control businesses was the development and refinement of laws governing the work of traffic controllers and the requirement for their use. The legislative and regulatory history. In February 1996, the Transport Legislation Amendment Regulation (no. 1) 1996 amended the Traffic Regulation 1962 (at the time a regulation under the Traffic Act 1949) to include a definition of a “traffic controller”. On 1 December 1999 the Road Transport Reform Act 1999 repealed the Traffic Act 1949 and incorporated some provisions from the Traffic Act 1949 into the Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995. The Traffic Regulation 1962 became a regulation under the Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995. However, the definition of “traffic controller” was removed from the Regulation on the same date. From 1 September 2003 the Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Regulation 1995 was amended to include a definition of traffic controller, accreditation requirements and necessary training and expertise to become a traffic controller and to introduce the Traffic Controller Accreditation Scheme – Approved Procedures (TCASAP) (Attachment A of this Report). On 1 September 2005, the Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Regulation 1995 was superseded by the Transport Operations (Road Use Management – Accreditation and Other Provisions) Regulation 2005 but the previous provisions from 2003 remained. The regulation deals with the appointment of accredited persons. It provides:

for the appointment of accredited persons, inter alia, a traffic controller (s.21) a definition of a traffic controller to mean a person who holds an appointment

under part 2 as an accredited person with the function of a traffic controller (schedule 9);

that a person must not employ, or otherwise engage, an individual to perform the function of a traffic controller unless the individual [so employed] is a traffic controller (s.16); and

that the function of a traffic controller is to direct traffic in a way stated in the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD Part 3)(Attachment B of this report), the Traffic Controller Accreditation Scheme – Approved Procedure (TCASAP) (Attachment A of this report) and schedule 3 (s.26).

The MUTCD Part 3 was first developed in 2003 with the first edition being issued on 1 August 2003. There have been two amendments to that edition, the first on 1 February 2007 and the second on 2 April 2007. The TCASAP was the first accreditation scheme for traffic control and was introduced on 29 September 2003. The current version is the January 2007 edition.

14

Schedule 3 of the Transport Operations (Road Use Management – Accreditation and Other Provisions) Regulation 2005 by way of three diagrams shows the use of signage and hand signals to direct traffic.

The Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995 provides that the responsible Minister may make a code of practice that states ways to manage exposure to risks common to industry or a part of industry and that such code will expire 10 years after its commencement. If a code of practice exists for a risk at a workplace, the employer must:

do what the code says; or adopt another way that gives the same or greater level of protection against

the risk; and take reasonable precautions and exercise due care.

The Minister made the Traffic Management for Construction or Maintenance Work Code of Practice 2008 (“the Code”) (Attachment C) on 31 July 2008. The Workplace Health & Safety Act 1995 provides that a code of practice has no effect unless the Minister gives notice of its making and notification of its making occurred in the Workplace Health and Safety (Codes of Practice) Notice 2005 for this code to operate from 1 September 2008 and a subsequent amendment to operate from 12 December 2008. This code of practice states at 5.1.2 that it:

“provides information about some of the hazards and risks associated with traffic management for construction or maintenance work;

provides information on traffic control measures; clarifies the roles and responsibilities of traffic controllers and associated

persons; and provides recommendations for training in the application of the Manual of

Uniform Traffic Control Devices part 3 (MUTCD Part 3) for persons associated with construction or maintenance work on, or adjacent to, a road”.

INDUSTRY PERCEPTIONS Employers and employees were afforded the opportunity to participate in a survey, 13 employers and 373 employees did so. Not all survey forms were completed fully therefore some of the results shown do not tally with the total number returned. The 13 employers surveyed had 1713 employees of which 1508 were traffic controllers and of those, 1280 were casual. All but two were corporations. Of the 13 businesses 12 believed that overall demand for traffic control services had increased in the previous 12 months, eight of those 12 stated that their business had expanded. Three said they had experienced no change in levels of demand and two indicated that their business had contracted.

15

When asked about expectations for the next 12 month period, seven employers expected their business to increase. One business expected a decrease and five predicted no change. Regarding employee training and licensing, ten of the employers surveyed believed the current arrangements were inadequate. Three thought the current arrangements were about right and one regarded the current position as excellent. There were 11 companies that thought the motoring public’s appreciation of the work of traffic controllers was inadequate, one said it was about right and one believed it to be excellent. On the question of “client appreciation”, that is whether or not their clients had an appreciation of the value of their role and service, three industry employers regarded their clients’ appreciation as excellent, seven as inadequate and five as about right. PROFILE Of the 373 employees participating there were 298 males and 75 females; the average age was 49.72 years with the highest concentration falling into the 36-55 age bracket; 158 were aged between 56 and 65; 20 were over 65; 9 were under 25 and 27 were aged between 25 and 35. The employment status information showed one sub-contractor, 262 casuals, 81 part-time and 29 fulltime employees. Sixty-one permanent and part-time employees were engaged for less than 38 hours per week and 35 were engaged for more. Casual weekly hours were:

Less than 10 hours - 6 employees 10 to 20 hours - 27 employees 21 to 30 hours - 71 employees 31 to 40 hours - 80 employees Over 40 hours - 55 employees

Not all surveys were sufficiently clear to assign a category. Information on training levels revealed that these were:

Level 1 - 151 employees Level 2 – 139 employees Level 3 – 41 employees Level 4 – 9 employees Some failed to nominate a level.

16

Industrial Instrument The knowledge (or lack of it) in relation to award or industrial instrument coverage demonstrated a need for education. There were 264 who indicated that they were unsure of what instrument regulated their employment; 15 indicated State Award coverage; five stated that they were employed pursuant to either the Civil Contracting or Security Contracting NAPSA; 59 indicated coverage by a Certified Agreement and eight believed they were employed pursuant to an “employment contract”. The statistics regarding lunch breaks, rest pauses and fatigue breaks require some explanation. Most industrial instruments provide for rest pauses (smoko) in the first and second half of a shift of work. The TCASAP provides that a traffic controller should have a fatigue break every two hours and must have a 15 minute break every three hours (s.3.2.14). Although the specific question is not addressed in legislation or industrial instruments, in the opinion of the Ombudsman, it would be fair for the smoko break to count towards the fatigue break. It would also be fair to regard a lunch break as having fulfilled the requirement for one fatigue break. An example of a shift of work for a traffic controller able to access all statutory fatigue breaks would look something like this: Start 6.30am Relief required Smoko 8.30am 10 mins Fatigue Break 8.40am 5 mins Resume work 8.45am Relief required Fatigue Break 10.45am 15 mins Relief required Lunch 12.45pm 30 mins (includes fatigue break) Finish 3.00pm Of the responding employees 208 employees took lunch breaks (½ hour) most of the time; 91 had a break for lunch sometimes; 24 rarely took a lunch break and 45 indicated that they never had a break for lunch. Regarding rest pauses, 156 employees had them; 33 rarely had them; 72 sometimes had them and 100 mostly had them. Regarding fatigue breaks, 24 employees stated that they “mostly” had them; 37 sometimes; 26 rarely and 271 never. Access to toilets was always available to 14 employees; sometimes available to 283 and never to 78.

17

INDUSTRIAL INSTRUMENTS – COVERAGE It is fair to state that providing a definitive answer to the question of award or industrial instrument coverage for traffic controllers has been most difficult and made even more complicated by the (previous Federal Government’s) WorkChoices legislation. To explain, the task of a traffic controller is by and large obvious. Put simply, it is to provide appropriate guidance and direction to site workers, vehicles and pedestrians in circumstances which warrant it. In award coverage terms, prior to WorkChoices, the function “traffic controller” appeared in both the Civil Construction, Operations and Maintenance General Award – State 2003 and the Security Industry (Contractors) Award – State 2004. There were various agreements between the relevant unions and employers based on what they believed to be the appropriate award. Arguments over which award applied were never entirely or definitively resolved despite protracted efforts to do so in the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission. Some employers opted to pay pursuant to the Civil Construction, Operations and Maintenance General Award – State 2003 or by an agreement underpinned by that award. Some paid by the Security Industry (Contractors) Award – State 2004 or an agreement based on it. Unfortunately, some ignored both and simply underpaid or claimed that their employees were somehow sub-contractors and not employees. Following the introduction of WorkChoices, 27 March 2006, for trading corporations, the two awards listed above became Notional Agreements Preserving State Awards (NAPSAs) for those businesses operating by them and related existing agreements became known as Preserved State Agreements in the federal industrial relations system. Immediately added to those levels of regulation was the ability to establish Australian Workplace Agreements (AWAs) without the need for them to pass any fairness test and also a provision allowing businesses which started post 27 March 2006 to avoid any of the requirements of the above levels of regulation and be bound only by the statutory federal minimums as they then were. After May 2007 all new collective agreements and new AWAs were subject to a fairness test. The Workplace Authority (Federal), established pursuant to WorkChoices, had and has, the task of testing proposed agreements for fairness and in that process, designating, where necessary, an appropriate industrial instrument as the benchmark for the test. In a matter currently before the Federal Court, Evolution Traffic Control is challenging a ruling by the Workplace Authority that the Civil Construction NAPSA is the NAPSA against which traffic control AWAs should be tested for fairness. Whilst, prima facie, this does not appear to be a major issue, the circumstances leading to the challenge and the current situation in which Evolution Traffic Control

18

Pty Ltd now finds itself are examples of (a) the uncertainty and (b) the consequences of that uncertainty. Précised, the Ombudsman’s understanding of the situation is as follows: In the time following the introduction of the WorkChoices fairness test, Evolution Traffic Control and many of its employees developed and agreed to the terms of Australian Workplace Agreements. Evolution Traffic Control and its employees also agreed that the Security Industry (Contractors) Award – State 2004 NAPSA was the relevant instrument for the fairness test. The AWAs were lodged for approval with the Workplace Authority in accordance with the requirements of the Workplace Relations and Other Legislation Amendment Act 1996 and over time many approvals were forthcoming. The problem arose when the Workplace Authority altered its original position and determined (1) that the Civil Construction NAPSA was now deemed as the appropriate benchmark document, (2) the AWAs previously approved now failed the fairness test, and (3) the AWAs awaiting approval also failed. That meant that the AWAs already approved and in force had their approval withdrawn ab initio and those awaiting approval were rejected. In the case of Evolution Traffic Control, the provisions of the AWAs had been applied from the date of lodgement as permitted by the provisions of the Workplace Relations and Other Legislation Amendment Act 1996, and the resultant labour costs had been used in the compilation of tender prices when quoting for work progressively from 2007. Had the Workplace Authority dealt promptly with the issue, little damage would have eventuated. However, the Workplace Authority historically had a backlog of some 18 months for agreements awaiting approval and the agreements in question numbered in the hundreds. Therefore the Workplace Authority decision, if upheld in the Federal Court, could result in the requirement for Evolution Traffic Control to pay substantial amounts of back pay to affected employees, amounts which are not recoverable from clients. It is the case that other companies face similar circumstances. Understandably, the uncertainty and high levels of concern over industrial coverage in the minds of employers and employees was palpable during the Ombudsman’s investigation. As mentioned, of the 373 surveyed, 264 employees stated that they were unaware of the appropriate industrial instrument for them. A further example of the level of confusion over industrial coverage was to be found in documents sighted by the Ombudsman containing conflicting advice. One document contained an assessment by a State Industrial Inspector that the work of traffic controllers was award free. Another from the office of the Federal Workplace Ombudsman cited the Security Industry (Contractors) Award – State 2004 (NAPSA)

19

as the appropriate instrument for the assessment of underpayments. Add this to the fact that the Workplace Authority, which initially accepted that the Security Industry (Contractors) Award – State 2004 (NAPSA) applied, now say that the appropriate NAPSA is the Civil Construction, Operations and Maintenance General Award – State 2003 NAPSA. PAYMENT OF WAGES AND SUPERANNUATION Being mindful of the confusion caused by the industrial instrument complications outlined above, the Ombudsman adopted the approach of establishing whether or not employers were meeting minimum obligations under either the Civil Contracting or Security Contracting NAPSAs or other appropriate industrial instrument at the time of the investigation. Most employers provided evidence of payment of wages and superannuation in accordance with one of the two abovementioned NAPSAs or agreements based on them. Those that did not were referred to the Federal Workplace Ombudsman, the Australian Taxation Office (superannuation) or the State Industrial Inspectorate for investigation as appropriate. Many employers and employees complained of the negative impact on profitability and job security caused by businesses prepared to underpay. The services of contract traffic controllers are mainly used in connection with road construction and maintenance, sporting or cultural events, power and telecommunications work over or near roads and other civil and building construction projects which impact on the usual flow of vehicles or pedestrians. Problems with correct payment of wages were less prevalent where a utility such as RoadTek or a local authority directly engaged the traffic control provider. More problems arose where the construction work was performed by a contractor who in turn engaged the traffic controllers. On each occasion where, for example, a contract to provide traffic control services was let by RoadTek, or a local authority, those bodies obtained contractual undertakings from traffic control employers tendering for work that relevant laws and regulations pertinent to the work to be performed would be complied with. If the information provided in interviews is to be our guide with respect to laws regarding wages, that was the end of it. To the Ombudsman’s knowledge, with the exception of RoadTek and one local authority, no follow up, checking or audits occurred. Nothing was done to ascertain whether or not the assurances and undertakings to abide by relevant laws were fulfilled. The users of contract traffic controllers would greatly contribute to raising the level of professionalism in the traffic control industry if they were to insist that the traffic control employers abide by a relevant industrial instrument. A good corporate citizen would do this much to assist in eliminating or improving the practice of that end of the traffic control employer spectrum who willingly cut corners (and wages) to win contracts.

20

To RoadTek’s credit their practice is to ensure that traffic controllers are paid in accordance with the industrial instrument applicable to RoadTek’s operation. FINDINGS 1. No conclusion was reached regarding the levels of remuneration paid to traffic

controllers for the time prior to this investigation.

2. At the time of investigating, the Ombudsman was reasonably satisfied that most employers were applying standards of pay and conditions consistent with either the Security Industry (Contractors) Award – State 2004 or the Civil Construction, Operations and Maintenance General Award – State 2003, or NAPSAs formed from each or agreements underpinned by these NAPSAs. A small number of employers including one employer of substantial size, purported to engage subcontractors rather than workers. In the view of the Ombudsman, these arrangements are sham arrangements and have been referred to the appropriate bodies for audit.

3. Some employers were avoiding payment of overtime and other penalties and

have been similarly referred. 4. Evidence supports that the activities of Unions, the State Industrial

Inspectorate and the Federal Workplace Ombudsman have been a noticeable factor in encouraging employers to pay employees correctly.

5. There exists difficulty in establishing which industrial instrument is the legally

enforceable document for the purposes of prosecuting underpayment breaches. RECOMMENDATIONS - INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS 1. That the State Industrial Inspectorate and Federal Workplace Ombudsman

continue to conduct compliance inspections of traffic control employers. 2. That the Liquor Hospitality and Miscellaneous Union (LHMU) and The

Australian Workers’ Union (AWU) and any other employee organisation claiming an interest in the coverage of traffic controllers, engage in dialogue aimed at reaching agreement over the rationalisation of union coverage and representation.

3. That employer organisations representing businesses with an interest in traffic

control engage in dialogue aimed at rationalising the representation of employers.

4. The unions, or union, together with employer organisation/s, seek to establish

a broadly applicable set of enforceable industrial minima to regulate the pay and conditions of traffic controllers.

21

5. That the users of contract traffic controllers including Government departments, local authorities, civil and building contractors, play their part in the promotion of professionalism among traffic control employers by regularly monitoring and auditing the undertakings given by principal contractors and traffic control companies to abide by relevant (industrial) laws.

6. No body, Government or otherwise, should knowingly use the services of a

traffic control contractor that underpays workers or fails to provide employees with proper working conditions.

SAFETY Safety concerns expressed by traffic controllers and traffic control employers formed part of the investigation and were taken into account to the extent possible considering the resources and expertise of the Ombudsman and the staff of the QWRO. All persons raising specific safety issues were immediately and strongly advised to refer these issues to the appropriate person or body including Workplace Health & Safety Queensland and not to wait for the outcome of this investigation. The general safety concerns expressed repeatedly by employers and employees constituted work related matters and accordingly the investigation of these complaints were regarded by the Ombudsman as falling directly within the functions of the Ombudsman listed at s.339 of the Industrial Relations Act 1999. (See page 3-4) and as such formed part of the investigation. WORKPLACE CONDITIONS The working conditions for most of these employees are at best arduous and on occasion, appalling. Attempting to portray the lot of a traffic controller as anything but difficult and dangerous would not only be pointless but misleading. These people have it tough by any standards that the Ombudsman has experienced or witnessed. When it’s hot, they swelter, when it rains, they get soaked. Dirt and dust are constant companions. Traffic controllers cited sun damage to skin and eyes, dehydration, respiratory problems, cuts from rocks thrown up by passing vehicles, being the target of abuse, the target of objects thrown from vehicles and having angry motorists swerve in their direction as issues with which they contend daily. The job can be dangerous, repetitive and mentally draining but it is undeniably an important job. On a positive note, most employees interviewed or observed during inspections, appeared to be wearing appropriate protective equipment including high visibility clothing, hats and footwear.

22

TOILETS Basic workplace standards taken by many for granted are denied to traffic controllers. Only 4.75% (14) of the 373 traffic controllers that participated in the survey of employees indicated that they had consistent access to toilets; >75% (283) had occasional access to toilets and >20% (78) had no access. The additional oral evidence from employees directly interviewed by the Ombudsman supported that the vast majority of traffic controllers had no access to toilets for most of their shifts. None of the employers interviewed offered workable solutions regarding the provision of toilets. It was obvious that employers generally regarded this as a matter for the entity responsible for the primary work in question, except for one instance known to the Ombudsman, namely traffic control at the Amberley Air Show, where the employer was proactive in arranging access to toilets. The overall situation with toilets is simply inexcusable and must be promptly addressed by the industry. In saying this, I include in the “industry” the site supervisors, the employers of the traffic controllers, the principal contractors at the sites and their subcontractors and the road and utility authorities which have contracted out the work as well as authorities empowered to enforce this standard. FATIGUE BREAKS The occasional provision of toilets did not, for traffic controllers, equate to access to them, as to access a toilet a traffic controller must first be relieved of his or her duties at their allotted post. This rarely occurs and almost never occurs in the manner prescribed by the various regulatory documents pertaining to procedures for traffic controllers. The TCASAP provides at s.3.2.14 that:

“Traffic controllers should have a 15 minute break every two hours. However traffic controllers must have a 15 minute break after three hours if they have not had a break previously in that three hour period”.

The provisions of the TCASAP are statutory provisions. Both the Code developed pursuant to the Workplace Health & Safety Act 1995 and the MUTCD Part 3 developed pursuant to Australian Standards AS1742.3 – 2002 and approved by the chief executive pursuant to the Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995 provide that site supervisors “should” relieve traffic controllers “as necessary” [see the Code 7.2.3 and MUTCD Part 3 Appendix A,3.3(d)]. While “should” is defined as an advisory term in the MUTCD Part 3 and the Code, the TCASAP uses the term “must”. The MUTCD Part 3 at s.4.6.5 states:

“Traffic controller competency

23

Traffic Controllers shall be appointed and operate in accordance with the “Approved Procedure for Controlling Traffic”.”

Here the term “shall” is used and whilst “shall” is not defined in the Code, it is defined as a “mandatory” condition in the MUTCD Part 3 definitions. In other words, it is an enforceable provision that a site supervisor shall (will) ensure proper fatigue breaks as contained in TCASAP, the “Approved Procedure for Controlling Traffic”. All of the evidence and material presented to the Ombudsman supports a finding that the designated fatigue breaks for traffic controllers are almost completely disregarded by those responsible for ensuring they are taken and attempts by some to justify the failure to provide such breaks showed a distinct lack of understanding of the effects of fatigue on concentration levels. Of the 373 employees who returned surveys 80% (297) stated that they were rarely (26) or never (271) relieved for a fatigue break. Again this was consistent with the additional information provided to the Ombudsman in meetings of employers and employees throughout the State. Traffic controllers were aware of their own obligations to insist on a break under TCASAP however, many, especially the casual employees, feared for their jobs should they “make waves”. Information provided included: - the confirmed widespread practice whereby the traffic controllers recorded a time

of cessation of work half an hour later than actual ceasing time to compensate for the lack of a lunch break.

- men kneeling in deep gutters to keep their lower torso out of view in order to urinate and still remain in touch with their work station.

- women standing at their station soiling themselves, unable to ‘hang on’ any longer having not been relieved for a fatigue break.

- traffic controllers contacting their base in a vain effort for relief. - traffic controllers being required to remain at station for up to 17 hours ducking

off to a nearby tree to relieve themselves, carrying their own supply of toilet paper in their pockets.

- traffic controllers being required to commence work immediately on arrival after being required to drive for long periods to a site - in one instance, 3 hours.

- traffic controllers minimising their intake of food and water in order to minimise the need for a toilet break.

- traffic controllers being hospitalised with heatstroke and dehydration. - a female traffic controller having to drive 15 minutes to the nearest toilet and

subsequently being berated for having been absent for what her supervisor regarded as an excessive period of time.

It would be trite to report in detail the possible dangers associated with a busy site controlled by a fatigued traffic controller and probably also trite to cite the results of various studies which equate the effects of fatigue to the effects of alcohol.

24

These workers must be alert and this is reinforced in that all traffic controllers MUST maintain a zero blood alcohol concentration whilst working (TCASAP 22.2). In my view it is simply not acceptable for the users of traffic control services to be allowed to continue to ignore their responsibilities regarding this vital safety issue. If there be some doubt regarding the value of the work of traffic controllers, the reader is invited to consider the possible consequences of a traffic controller’s mistake. During the investigation the Ombudsman received assistance from the office of the State Coroner who provided information including the investigation and findings regarding the accidental death of a traffic controller at work. The file contained:

The record of Coroner’s findings and comments and notice of completion of Coronial Investigation

Police Report of Death to a Coroner Supplementary Coronial Report by a police officer Workplace Health & Safety Queensland Investigation Report Autopsy Report Toxicology Report

Out of a desire to avoid unnecessary distress to the family of the deceased, no mention is made to the identity of the deceased or circumstances which might identify the deceased. According to the summary contained in the “Police Report to a Coroner”, the traffic controller died from injuries received when he stepped into a line of traffic. The conclusion of the Coroner was that the type of death was a “violent/unnatural [work related death]”. Several witnesses provided statements which were broadly consistent on the point that the traffic controller stepped backwards into the line of oncoming vehicles. The Supplementary Coronial Report provided by police stated:

“The Division of Workplace Health & Safety support the opinion of the investigating officer that the deceased’ [sic] action of failing to check for oncoming traffic … caused the incident to which this report refers …”.

The report further stated:

“Workplace Health & Safety Queensland were satisfied that … (the employer) and …(the principal contractor) responsible for the site in question had “fulfilled their obligations to provide a safe workplace”.

By anyone’s account this traffic controller’s death was a direct result of a lapse in concentration. However, from the Coroner’s Report, and other information provided, it seemed that none of the enquiries into the accident were directed at determining the

25

reason for this lapse in concentration. For example, there appeared to be no examination by anyone as to whether or not this traffic controller had been relieved for fatigue breaks in line with the statutory requirements of the TCASAP, or the provisions of the Code and MUTCD Part 3. Information provided by the employer is also of concern. The employer stated that apart from an initial request by Workplace Health & Safety Queensland for the provision of company policy documents, they have received no contact from anyone. They have not been interviewed by anyone, and they have received no feedback from anyone or any of the authorities connected with the investigation of the incident, despite over two years having lapsed since the accident. It also appears that a second traffic controller at the site at the time was not interviewed by anyone. It could have been that he was not an eye witness, however he could have been instrumental in establishing whether or not the deceased was able to access fatigue breaks. The breaks may have been taken, however it seems that the questions were simply never asked. If the information provided is accurate and complete, then this appears to be an area in need of attention (see recommendations). As part of the educative functions of the Ombudsman, in the round of meetings with employer organisations, traffic control employers, councils, RoadTek and the Department of Transport and Main Roads, the Ombudsman stressed the importance of the role of site supervisors in ensuring workers were given fatigue breaks in line with the earlier stated requirements. Some councils and RoadTek ensured that site supervisors were present when they met with the Ombudsman. This presented a good opportunity for the Ombudsman to press home not only the importance of traffic controllers having appropriate fatigue breaks but the serious onus placed on site supervisors to ensure that it happened. Some site supervisors were surprised to learn of their responsibilities as they related to traffic controllers. It later became apparent that at least one council had followed up by reminding their site supervisors of these responsibilities. This was a positive first step. However the problem persists. After all this, the Ombudsman was contacted by a council site supervisor who advised that, pursuant to being reminded of the need to pay heed to his responsibilities for traffic controllers’ fatigue breaks, he duly contacted the company responsible for providing traffic controllers regarding a particular job. The conversation between the site supervisor and the traffic control company related by site supervisor to the Ombudsman was along these lines – Site Supervisor - “I’ve got a job that requires 2 traffic controllers for 10 hours.

26

Company Manager - Okay Site Supervisor - I’m the only qualified traffic controller in the gang and I won’t

be able to give these guys a break, how will we handle this? Company Manager - No problems – our guys are used to working 10 hours straight”. As this was essentially an invitation to the traffic control company to provide, and charge for, extra staff to provide relief, the reasons for the invitation being declined must be examined. The name of the company involved was provided to the Ombudsman by the site supervisor. The company was also known to the Ombudsman through their participation in an earlier interview. On the information available the company was/is a prominent traffic control provider with a substantial number of employees. The company was paying employees in accordance with a registered industrial agreement and no direct employee complaints had been received by the Ombudsman regarding this particular company. The Ombudsman had no reason to believe that this company was not as reputable and professional as any in the industry. So why did they refuse the invitation to provide, and charge for relief. In a word – competition. The competitiveness in this industry is as fierce as any of the service contracting areas where the bulk of the cost of providing a service is the price of labour (eg: security and cleaning). In all probability, this company assumed that their contract with this council would be under threat were they to commence charging an amount that could be easily undercut by competitor employers. Bear in mind this request was from one conscientious site supervisor to one company. The council in question has several other site supervisors and the combined councils of Queensland would have hundreds, none of whom have made a similar request to a traffic control company to the knowledge of the Ombudsman. At the risk of appearing to have reached a robust conclusion, the Ombudsman believes that a traffic control employer unilaterally adopting employment practices that include the provision of porta loos (mobile toilets) and providing the extra staff necessary to ensure proper breaks and then building those costs into their tender prices would, along with their staff, soon feel the bite of market forces. Put simply, unscrupulous competitors, not similarly burdened, would savage them, jobs would be lost and the business would suffer. For acceptable standards to be achieved there must be an intense and ongoing focus by the appropriate authorities to ensure compliance with existing enforceable standards. Only in this way will the propensity to dangerously cut corners be addressed.

27

ENFORCEMENT – COMPLIANCE There are already laws ensuring workers have access to toilets and water to maintain acceptable standards of hygiene. There are already enforceable standards for fatigue breaks. What hasn’t existed to any effective extent, is an energetic state-wide approach to enforcement of these standards. Currently the task of “compliance/enforcement” of the provisions of the TCASAP (the document that provides for the fatigue breaks) falls to Queensland Transport or the Department of Transport and Main Roads as they are now known (see s.1 TCASAP which contains “statutory” provisions one of which is the breaks). Many of the site supervisors that met with the Ombudsman were surprised to learn of their direct responsibilities for traffic controllers and their fatigue breaks. When alerted to the possible consequences impacting on site supervisors following from a mistake by a fatigued traffic controller, one site supervisor questioned the wisdom of remaining in the site supervisor’s role. The legislation, regulation, codes and procedures relating to the work of traffic controllers are complex and broad-ranging. Nonetheless they must be understood by site supervisors to ensure safe and lawful working practices. For an idea of the complexity of the information that site supervisors and traffic controllers MUST understand, reproduced for the benefit of the reader, is s.1.4 of the Workplace Health & Safety Code: It states: “1.4 Legislation

In order to understand relevant workplace health and safety requirements for work associated with construction or maintenance work on roads, a person MUST CONSIDER AND UNDERSTAND (my emphasis) the following legislation:

Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995 Workplace Health and Safety Regulation 2009 Electrical Safety Act 2002 Electrical Safety Regulation 2002 Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995

- s 72a Way to install official traffic sign - s 166(2) Official traffic sign approvals

Transport Operations (Road Use Management-Accreditation and Other Provisions) Regulation 2005

Risk Management Code of Practice 2007 Manual Tasks Code of Practice 2000 Plant Code of Practice 2005 Tunnelling Code of Practice 2007

28

Noise Code of Practice 2004 Concrete Pumping Code of Practice 2005 Mobile Crane Code of Practice 2006 Tower Crane Code of Practice 2006 Tilt-up and Pre-Cast Construction Industry Code of Practice 2003 Formwork Code of Practice 2006”.

This is but one section of the Code which in total is 35 pages in length. It is cross referenced with the MUTCD Part 3, (188 pages) and the TCASAP (34 pages) both complex relevant documents and interestingly not directly mentioned in s. 1.4 above. The following is a further example of the confusion caused by the interaction of the documents TCASAP, MUTCD Part 3 and the Code. MUTCD Part 3 – Appendix D, INFORMATION FOR CONSTRUCTION SUPERVISORS - D8 states inter alia: “CONSTRUCTION UNDER TRAFFIC

Construction under traffic saves the cost of building and maintaining a side track. However there are hidden, though nevertheless real costs in terms of delays, restrictions and disruption of plant usage, and reduced production on the job. These costs may be minimised by providing effective control measures.

Regarding the safety of the motorist, the construction supervisor must consider the following questions: Can I provide two-way traffic by using the road shoulders? If so, what would be a safe travelling speed? Should channelisation (such as temporary kerbing) be provided? What advance warning signs will be required? Where should these signs be placed? (Signs must be easily seen by

motorists, taking into account colours of natural backgrounds, travelling speed, traffic queues etc).

Are regulatory speed signs necessary? What action can be taken to ensure construction plant does not encroach

on the traffic lanes unnecessarily? Are traffic controllers necessary? What additional precautions (if any) are necessary for the safety of night

and weekend traffic when the job is unattended? Are there any obstacles? If so, what action must be taken to protect

motorists?

The safety of job employees is an important consideration when constructing under traffic. Conditions at the works may affect employees causing apprehension which can lead to nervous strain, increased accident potential, lowering of morale and a lowering of production. Consequently the construction supervisor MUST (my emphasis) take measures to afford the best possible protection to job employees. Such measures SHALL (my emphasis) include:

29

ensuring that employees wear high visibility safety garments and safety

helmets as set out in Appendix C. (Protection by improved visibility) keeping the working area as short as possible to reduce the risk area.

(Economic lead, location of accesses and provision of turning circles for plant well clear of traffic lanes need consideration here)

erecting effective barriers between the motorists and the workers using traffic controllers to control traffic as necessary using police to control high density traffic”.

Consequently the construction supervisor MUST (my emphasis) take measures to afford the best possible protection to job employees. Such measures SHALL include –

using traffic controllers to control traffic as necessary using police to control high density traffic

Nowhere in the MUTCD Part 3, the Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995 or Regulations, or TCASAP, is there a definition of “high density traffic”. However, the MUTCD Part 3 provides the following at s.1.4 DEFINITIONS: “1.4.4 HIGH - VOLUME ROADS Roads carrying more than 1500 vehicles per day 1.4.7 LOW - VOLUME ROADS Roads carrying between 400 and 1500 vehicles per day VERY LOW - VOLUME ROADS

Roads carrying less than 400 vehicles per day”. Compare the TCASAP at 3.2.4 which states “…where … traffic volumes are HIGH (more than 400 vehicles per day)”. That is to say that HIGH volume under the TCASAP is regarded as being in excess of 400 vehicles per day and that HIGH volume roads under the MUTCD Part 3 are regarded as carrying in excess of 1500 vehicles per day. This alone must confuse people quite aside from the fact that the mandatory requirement to utilise police in high density situations appears to be rarely if ever fulfilled. Few site supervisors interviewed displayed more than a passing knowledge of the Code, the MUTCD Part 3 and the TCASAP. Many were surprised at the requirements placed upon them especially in relation to fatigue breaks and given the confusing nature of the jumble of inter-connected documents containing relevant information, it is little wonder.

30

RECOMMENDATIONS – ENFORCEMENT - COMPLIANCE 1. The Government form a reference group comprised of the Department of

Transport and Main Roads, Workplace Health & Safety Queensland, appropriate employer groups, appropriate employee unions and any other relevant entities as determined by the Government, to collectively develop a single document for use by site supervisors and traffic controllers regarding the site supervisors’ responsibilities as they relate to traffic controllers and traffic management.

2. The reference group facilitate the development of a training package aimed at

ensuring that all site supervisors and potential site supervisors are familiar with all of their obligations with respect to traffic control as it relates to workplace safety and that the training be delivered separately from more general Occupational Health and Safety training.

3. Appropriately placed officers of the Department of Transport and Main Roads

and Workplace Health & Safety Queensland conduct regular compliance audits of road work sites and include in the audits a focus on the provision of toilets and fatigue breaks for traffic controllers. (See also Queensland Transport’s (as they then were) responsibilities at TCASAP, s.1).

4. All Workplace Health & Safety Queensland, Queensland Police Service or

State Coroner examinations of incidents or accidents at roadwork sites where appropriate, include a thorough investigation of all relevant aspects of traffic management including whether or not the traffic controllers were relieved for fatigue breaks or were working fatigued.

5. The Government introduce a regulation providing that traffic controllers

maintain and keep available for inspection by properly authorised persons, a personal log book recording work details including the date, the site, start time, fatigue breaks, rest pauses, lunch times, finishing times and site supervisor’s name.

6. Assuming the adoption of (5), the Government introduce a requirement that

the site supervisor or appropriate responsible person, sign signifying the correctness of the traffic controller’s log book entries at the end of each shift and further, the Government establish that entering false data in a log book and/or knowingly signing to authenticate false data is an offence.

7. Amend the MUTCD Part 3, s.1.6 by deleting the word “should” and inserting

the word “shall” in the first sentence so that the first paragraph reads:

“The person in control of construction, maintenance or other works which require the use of a traffic guidance scheme shall give attention to the following”.

31

8. Amend the MUTCD Part 3, s.1.6 by adding a provision which ensures that the person in control of the work site SHALL ensure traffic controllers are given fatigue breaks in accordance with s. 3.2.14 of the TCASAP.

9. Amend the MUTCD Part 3, 5.1.6(c) by inserting the word “shall” before the

word “ensure” so that the sub-section reads:

“Shall ensure that personnel assigned to signing the works are adequately trained to perform the task and that traffic controllers are appropriately trained and informed of their duties”.

OTHER WORKSITE SAFETY ISSUES Quite apart from the lack of toilets and fatigue breaks, there are several situations which can and do adversely affect the well being of traffic controllers and workplace safety generally at the sites at which they work. Most prominent in the comments of traffic controllers was the safety problems caused by drivers of vehicles travelling in excess of the prescribed speed through roadworks. The potential effects of this dangerous practice are obvious. The Ombudsman is aware of three motorist fatalities in connection with roadworks that have occurred in the time since commencing this investigation (December 2008). In the gathering of information regarding this aspect of safety, the Ombudsman has met with officers of the Queensland Police Service (QUEENSLAND POLICE SERVICE), the Royal Automobile Club of Queensland (RACQ), and spoken with the Transport Workers’ Union (TWU). Some traffic control employers and some employees reported a co-operative relationship with local police who, it was said, attended troublesome sites when requested. That is not to say that the police issued infringement notices, although this has occurred infrequently. The main purpose of attendance was to provide a visual police presence which, according to the information provided, had a positive effect in reducing vehicle speed at the sites. Police officers who met with the Ombudsman were extremely helpful with their knowledge and explanations as were officers of the RACQ. Both the Queensland Police Service and the RACQ made written submissions to assist the investigation. Comments made by the Queensland Police Service Representatives of the Queensland Police Service were consulted on the issue of enforcement of temporary speed zones at work sites. It was highlighted to the Ombudsman that there are various obstacles faced by police when enforcing speed limits at work sites. The layout of a work site can be a restriction both on the use of

32

technology as well as the ability to be able to stop motorists. A paradox can exist where as much as a speeding motorist impacts adversely on the safety of workers and the general public, so too must the method of enforcement not endanger the safety of the general public or the police officers themselves. It was recommended that the use of CCTV surveillance cameras in conjunction with Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras be considered as this would not only have a deterrent aspect but also assist with the investigation of accidents and other incidents. While the Queensland Police acknowledged the frustration with incorrect signage experienced by motorists, they highlighted their own frustration when the same was cause for failed prosecutions. As such, it was suggested that there was a need to consider that traffic control companies be licensed and thus held accountable. It was also submitted that consideration be given to regular safety and compliance audits of road works. Comments by the RACQ Officers of the RACQ provided oral and written comments to assist the Ombudsman (Attachment 6). RACQ representatives indicated that problems associated with road works were high on the agenda for RACQ members. It was said that RACQ members complained about problems with signage at road works. The problems included signs not being removed when no longer necessary, no reintroduction of the permanent speed zone at the end of a site, the introduction of a temporary speed zone too far in advance of the work site and that it appeared that there was only one applicable temporary speed zone that being 40 kilometres per hour, irrespective of the work being done or the closeness of the work to the road. A very valid point was made by the RACQ that motorists lose respect for signage if it is not appropriate. The RACQ advised that they had expressed concern about non-compliant roadwork sites to the Department of Main Roads in September 2006. The RACQ sought to encourage road authorities to be more proactive in monitoring road works. As a result, the department undertook an audit of roadwork signage and traffic management in 2007 and compiled a report. The report, a copy of which was supplied to the Ombudsman by the department (Attachment 4), reveals the audit team visited the districts of Nerang, Toowoomba, Gympie, Mackay and Townsville as well as the Metropolitan District which included a night review. The report reads that the audit team visited all sites where the flow of traffic had been interrupted by road works activities. The audit team visited not just main roads sites but also local authority and utilities sites. The audit team reported that 112 sites were audited but only 55 were fully compliant with the MUTCD Part 3 requirements. Almost all of the non-compliant sites were reported as not complying with signage requirements although many were said to be minor infringements. The RACQ also indicated there was no incentive in the form of

33

fines for the construction organisation and/or the traffic control companies to ensure signage was correct. Further, the RACQ linked the performance of a contractor at a site with the road authority which engaged the contractor. Considering all of the material provided and information gathered through inspections and interviews, the inescapable conclusion is that: Reduced Speed Limits Through Roadworks in Queensland are Rarely Enfored by Police or Complied with by Motorists

This causes Occupational Health and Safety (OH&S) issues for traffic controllers (and others) such as:

increased risk of being hit by a vehicle higher dust levels increased risk of being hit by a rock thrown up by a vehicle

These are major factors reducing the safety, and thus the fairness, of a worksite.

FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO SAFETY ISSUES Mentioned in submissions and interviews and witnessed directly by the Ombudsman on numerous occasions were the large numbers of “Roadwork Ahead”, “Reduce Speed” and “Traffic Controller Ahead” and other such signs that are scattered on roadsides throughout the state for seemingly no good reason. They were simply not removed when they should have been. It was generally accepted that the effect of this was to lessen the likelihood of motorists heeding the genuine warning signs when so often the signs they encounter are simply “crying wolf.” Additionally, the “END ROADWORK” sign signifying an end to the reduced speed requirement was frequently not in place causing more frustration for motorists. Motorists’ disregard for the instructions contained on roadwork signage is known in the industry as “sign complacency” and while in some circumstances it is understandable, the causes must be addressed if attitudes and safety are to improve. While traffic controllers have in the past lost their lives at work, the Ombudsman is not aware of any workers killed by vehicles in the time since the investigation started. Unfortunately the same cannot be said for the travelling public as one passenger and two drivers have died at roadworks in two separate accidents. The Ombudsman is aware of four workers injured in the time since commencing the investigation (12.12.08). WH&S data reveals that 22 serious injuries and 6 deaths have occurred between July 2003 and March 2008.

34

While traffic control employees must be licensed and act in accordance with various legislative regulatory requirements, there is no similar requirement for traffic control companies to be licensed. That is to say that there is currently no legislative ability to prevent a traffic control company from operating regardless of issues of business performance or professionalism. It is the view of the Ombudsman that this situation must change and this view was supported by many submissions including:

The Queensland Police Service Building Service Contractors Association of Australia – Queensland Division –

Industrial Organisation of Employers The Traffic Management Association Queensland

In fact, it was the overwhelming view of those interviewed that traffic control companies should be licensed to operate in the industry and thereby placed in a position where the licence could be withdrawn or not renewed in appropriate circumstances. In the process of the investigation, the Ombudsman was privileged to meet with some very knowledgeable and experienced people, such as traffic engineers and OH&S experts in addition to the officers of the Queensland Police Service, the RACQ and many others. All made suggestions and provided ideas to the Ombudsman on the issue of vehicle speed and signage as it related to worker and public safety. Roadwork sites are inherently dangerous for traffic controllers and the Workplace Health & Safety Regulations 2008, s.25g, ss(1)(vi) lists work “on or adjacent to a road” as a high risk construction activity. RECOMMENDATIONS – OTHER SAFETY 1. Amend the Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995 s.75,

“Unlawful Installation of Traffic Signs” to provide that the failure to remove signs when the reason for their installation no longer exists, is an offence carrying the same penalty as “unlawful installation”.

2. Amend the Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995 s.75,

“Unlawful Installation of Traffic Signs” to provide that failure to install signs in strict accordance with the approved Traffic Management Plan carries the same penalty as “unlawful installation”.

3. The Government facilitate the formation of a reference group charged with

developing and, in a timely fashion, providing to Government, advice on appropriate measures to prevent motorists from speeding through roadwork and other areas where lawful temporary reduced speed zones have been established.

35

4. The reference group include, but not be limited to, representatives of the Queensland Police Service, RACQ, WHSQ and the Department of Transport and Main Roads.

5. The reference group consider the following suggestions that were put to the

Ombudsman:

establish by legislation that the act of throwing an object at or near a road work site is an offence regardless of whether there was an intent to injure or other malicious intent and further, regardless of whether the act could also be considered littering.

the use of audible “rumble” strips or mats at the approach to roadwork sites to alert inattentive motorists.

introduce a requirement to record by CCTV and the use of Automatic Number Plate Recognition cameras, the passage of all vehicles through sites in order to detect and provide evidence of unacceptable practices such as motorists throwing objects at traffic controllers or cars or trucks deliberately swerving towards traffic controllers in order to intimidate them.

The erection of prominent signage advising motorists of the presence of cameras.

Increasing the activity by police in detecting and penalising motorists where appropriate and practicable.

consideration of increased monetary penalties and higher demerit points for speeding offences at road work sites.

public education campaigns including forewarning the public that police enforcement of speed limits at road works will be a constant in future.

the use of pilot vehicles to lead motorists through these particularly difficult sites thus preventing vehicles from speeding.

amending the Workplace Health & Safety Act 1995 (Qld) and Regulations to include traffic controllers as a prescribed occupation.

6. The Government introduce a licensing regime for business operators providing

the services of traffic controllers to third parties under contract. 7. The Department of Transport and Main Roads continue their well received

advertising campaign promoting safety at road works. 8. The Government establish and advertise the existence of a central contact point

possibly within the Department of Transport and Main Roads capable of receiving and promptly investigating complaints related to traffic management at road works or other sites.

TRAINING AND ACCREDITATION

Since the commencement of the investigation the Department of Transport and the Department of Main Roads have merged to form the Department of Transport and Main Roads (the Department).

36

Previously the Department of Transport issued the documentation and maintained the register of accredited traffic controllers while the Department of Main Roads administered the industry training component of the scheme which included the appointment of approved training providers and the administration of a compliance/audit process for approved trainers. The Department of Main Roads also administered the (MUTCD Part 3). There is a requirement to successfully complete training in traffic control before the Department will licence a person to perform the duties of traffic control. There are four levels of training: 1. The basic course is the traffic controller course. It is regarded in the industry as

level 1. This essentially allows a person to operate a stop/slow bat but does not authorise a person to place signs at a roadworks site.

2. Traffic management level 2 involves training in reading traffic management plans.

All static sites need to have traffic management plans which indicate the placement of traffic control devices (signage). The training includes how to read the plans as well as providing a person with the skill to modify placement of signs as the need arises. This occurs where analysis of the site reveals structures, vegetation or other obstacles which prevent the placement of signs as was first envisaged or where unforeseen changes occur at the site requiring changes to signage placement. This may occur where a vehicle is parked in a manner which blocks a sign from the view of an approaching motorist.

3. Traffic management level 3 enables a person to design traffic management plans. 4. Traffic management level 4 is the top level and enables a person to perform all of

the above and conduct audits of sites. All training courses were developed by the Department of Main Roads, Technical Training Solutions. In order to obtain a traffic control licence from Queensland Transport a person must complete a Main Roads training course. The training required to be undertaken is restricted solely to training courses developed by the Department of Main Roads. While access to the basic level training seemed sufficient, access to the higher levels appeared to be greatly problematic with many employers, again including road work authorities, complaining there were too few trainers and that businesses are waiting up to six months to have employees placed in a course. Access difficulties are exacerbated for businesses away from major population centres. Access to training appears restrictive. Only those private training providers who are accredited by the Department of Main Roads to deliver the department’s courses may do so. It is quite apparent that they have accredited an insufficient number of training providers to meet demand at level 2. The department has not accredited any private training provider to deliver either level 3 or level 4 training courses. These courses are delivered in house.

37

Many complaints were voiced about the content of the courses. Quite a number of employers spoken to indicated they thought the level 1 training was insufficient in terms of producing an acceptable level of competence and preferred level 2 training for their workers. This included RoadTek and various local authorities. There was widespread complaint about the content of the basic level of the department’s course. The complaints included the course content was out of date the course content was minimal as evidenced by the course length, between 3 to 8

hours, depending on the provider - one person claimed to have travelled to Brisbane to obtain his blue construction card, attend level 2 training and attended an interview for another job all in 4.5 hours

the course content was insufficient given the duties and responsibilities on traffic control - further content was required in respect of – i communication including radio communication ii conflict resolution iii risk assessment

the courses would not meet national accreditation standards the minimum level of training for traffic controllers should be level 2 training.

The Ombudsman is aware that the basic course including the training video is being reviewed and updated. However, the Ombudsman questions the wisdom behind the system of accrediting training providers who are not Registered Training Organisations (RTO). The department appears to be channelling to itself all responsibility for the standard of the training providers. The testing rigour is questionable. Again, there was almost unanimous derision about the standard of testing when referring to private training providers and level 1. As one person put it, there is a 100% pass rate for persons who sit the basic course. It was alleged that among those who have been licensed to work as an accredited traffic controller are some who can neither read nor write or others who have difficulty with English. There is little evidence to show that the department, having complete control over who delivers their courses, ensures the trainers deliver the courses at an acceptable standard. Various claims came from persons across the state. Complaints including trainers being intoxicated, attending to personal business during courses, delivering training under their residences using a toilet door as the screen for slide presentations and engaging in various unethical methods to ensure course attendees’ test results show successful completion of the course were made. The Ombudsman was advised of one trainer whose accreditation was cancelled following complaints from course attendees, however most traffic controllers stated that they did not lodge formal complaints. The Ombudsman is of the understanding that training auditors are required to identify themselves before auditing thus denying themselves the opportunity to witness the usual and customary practice of a trainer from a position of anonymity. This should be addressed (see recommendations).

38

A number of accredited private training providers are themselves traffic control businesses, but they are only accredited to provide in house training, not to the public at large. One area of complaint to the Ombudsman was the claim that there are businesses which guarantee employment to those who attend their courses but the employee finds the work on offer very quickly diminishes. The inference was that some businesses continue to charge a fee and train new casual employees despite having no need of new staff. This seemed to support the complaint of a Local Authority site supervisor who stated that there was a never ending supply of new traffic controllers each having to be taken through the induction process at the work site. The code of practice requires traffic controllers not only to have been trained and accredited but also to have experience to operate in the traffic control environment in which they are located. This experience can only be gained at a relevant site. Compliance with this aspect was varied. There were claims that newly trained traffic controllers had been placed on sites alone with no mentoring or supervision. The benchmark proffered by one business was providing 300 hours work under supervision and mentorship on less busy sites before rostering them onto busier sites or alone. This practice would seem appropriate in the circumstances. The adoption of the recommendation that traffic controllers maintain a log book would enable a site supervisor to satisfy themselves as to a traffic controller’s experience by inspecting the log book. Some complaints received concerned the procedure for accreditation as a traffic controller. There were complaints that approximately one month elapsed before a person newly trained in traffic control could put their skills to practice, the inference being that their skills and knowledge quickly disappear. The reason for this delay is the timeframe required to conduct a criminal check to ensure the applicant has not been convicted of any crime rendering the applicant ineligible to be accredited. A further concern was that a person who is subsequently refused accreditation has already paid their fee for the training course. A person could be justifiably angry at having invested both time and money on training for an occupation in circumstances where it should have been clear at the outset that they would not have eligibility for accreditation. It was suggested that a list of convictions which would prevent accreditation be published or, alternatively, that the criminal check be undertaken at an earlier part of the process. Both suggestions appear reasonable. A comment by one site supervisor was very interesting. He suggested that traffic controllers can create problems by not thinking and acting quickly. The skills of situation analysis and prompt decision making are indispensable. The question is, though, how much attention is given to this in a training course lasting a matter of a few hours? How much attention is given to this when sending a newly trained person to a site either alone or 150 metres from another traffic controller? This comment reinforces the complexity of the role. If a person is unable to make such decisions properly and promptly but is nonetheless accredited, that is the fault of the training and accreditation process and should be addressed.

39

The TCASAP requires as part of its traffic controller accreditation process that in order for a person to enter the Traffic Controller Accreditation Scheme a persons must meet medical fitness and suitability criteria. The criteria specified at s5.5 of the TCASAP covers eyesight, hearing, mobility and endurance aspects of the work of traffic control. It was suggested to the Ombudsman that the criteria are inadequate. It was put to the Ombudsman that there were other aspects of a medical assessment which would reveal a person not to be fit for the occupation of traffic control. These included any condition which prevented the ability to concentrate for extended periods; alcoholism, and mental conditions which prevented a person giving appropriate levels of attention to their role. RECOMMENDATIONS – TRAINING AND ACCREDITATION 1. The Department of Transport and Main Roads, together with representatives

of other appropriate bodies, form a reference group to review all aspects of the current system of training of traffic controllers and the system of accrediting trainers.

2. That any review of training practices address the issue of testing standards in

order to ensure candidates have sufficient knowledge and skills to be accredited.

3. The Department of Transport and Main Roads review the current entry and

candidate suitability procedures so that potential traffic controllers may quickly assess their prospects of successfully passing a criminal background check prior to investing time and money to participate in training.

4. To remove current procedural restrictions on training auditors so that they are

able to monitor and assess the quality of training from a position of anonymity.

5. The Government facilitate the formation of a reference group charged with

developing a more complete set of medical criteria for traffic control eligibility against which a person may be better assessed.

6. If Recommendation 5 is adopted, apply any revised set of medical standards to

all new and existing traffic controllers. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Ombudsman wishes to acknowledge and thank representatives of the various organisations listed below that were consulted during the investigation for their valuable and informative assistance.

Workplace Health & Safety Queensland – in particular Mr Steven Powney whose expertise in the area of traffic control in conjunction with his excellent

40

customer service skills was a major source of information and greatly assisted our understanding of the complex traffic management rules.

Officers of the now combined Departments of Transport and Main Roads.

RoadTek

The Australian Workers’ Union, the Liquor Hospitality and Miscellaneous

Union, and the Transport Workers’ Union Queensland Branch

Queensland Police Service

Local Government Authorities, particularly Redland City Council – about which traffic control companies had only praise, Brisbane City Council, Cairns Regional Council, Mackay Regional Council, Central Highlands Regional Council (Emerald), Rockhampton Regional Council, Fraser Coast Regional Council, Toowoomba Regional Council and Dalby Regional Council.

Note: Confronted by the inability to personally visit all areas, the Ombudsman chose a cross-section of Local Authorities based on size and region. Smaller, more remote councils, rarely if ever engaged contract traffic controllers. However, all councils were contacted through correspondence and given the opportunity to contribute to the investigation.

The Traffic Management Association of Queensland, the Local Government

Association of Queensland, the Queensland Master Builders Association, the Building Service Contractors Association of Australia and the Civil Contractors Federation.

The Royal Automobile Club of Queensland.

The employers and workers who participated in the investigation in such a

constructive manner. Minister I commend the Report for your consideration. COMMISSIONER DON BROWN

41

ATTACHMENTS Attachments

1. The Traffic Control Accreditation Scheme Approved Procedure (Document accessed at this link)

2. The Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices – Part 3 Works on Roads (Document accessed at this link)

3. Traffic Management for Construction or Maintenance Work Code of Practice 2008 (Document accessed at this link)

4. Department of Main Roads Audit Report on Roadwork Signage and Traffic Management 2007 (Document accessed available at this link)

5. Submission – Department of Transport and Main Roads (Document accessed available at this link)

6. Submission – Royal Automobile Club of Queensland (Document accessed at this link)

7. Submission – Australian Workers’ Union Queensland Branch (Document accessed available at this link)

8. Submission – Traffic Management Association of Queensland (Document accessed available at this link)

9. Submission – Building Service Contractors Association of Australia (Document accessed available at this link)