❓ A parliamentary question regarding the handling of a bullying and victimization complaint at the KCGM Superpit, specifically questioning the accuracy of previous responses and the actions taken by the Department of Mines and Petroleum (DMP). The response from the Minister largely deflects responsibility to the employer, KCGM.
AnsweredQoN 2471Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to the KCGM Superpit operations, and question on notice No. 2287, and ask -
(1) In light of the answer provided in part (7) for question on notice No. 2287, can the Minister explain why incorrect and misleading information has been provided, given that the complainant has received no communications in writing, confirming that the company has agreed to put the complainant back to her original duties upon, getting full medical clearance?
(2) If no to (1), why not?
(3) Has the complainant received any notification in writing or verbally that KCGM staff involved in this matter have been disciplined?
(4) If no to (3), why not?
(5) Will the Department of Mines and Petroleum (DMP) write to the complainant, specifically detailing the results of the investigation with respect to the bullying and victimization, over raising safety concerns at KCGM operations including what specifically this person can return to as original duties?
(6) If no to (5), why not?
(7) If yes to (5), when will this happen?
(8) Can the Minister explain and define what is meant by the term original duties, in the context of the answer provided for question on notice No. 2287?
(9) If no to (7), why not?
(10) Does the DMP agree that the complainant or any worker should be subjected to a psychiatric assessment, when there is no evidence to support the necessity of such an assessment?
(11) If no to (9), why not?
(12) Can the Minister explain why every employee who is employed with KCGM in the first instance is not subjected to a psychiatric assessment, in order that they can perform the duties expected of them on a mine site in Western Australia?
(13) If no to (12), why not?
(14) Can the Minister explain and define what is meant by the term full medical clearance, in the context of the answer provided for question on notice No. 2287?
(15) If no to (14), why not?
(16) Is the DMP strongly committed to stopping all occurrences of victimization, bullying and intimidation and ensuring that the complainant is satisfied with the outcome of the investigation, given this person should never have been subjected to this type of conduct, behaviour in the first instance?
(17) If yes to (16), will the DMP expediently take action which facilitates this to happen without further stress and grief imposed on the complainant?
(18) If no to (16), why not?
(1) In light of the answer provided in part (7) for question on notice No. 2287, can the Minister explain why incorrect and misleading information has been provided, given that the complainant has received no communications in writing, confirming that the company has agreed to put the complainant back to her original duties upon, getting full medical clearance?
(2) If no to (1), why not?
(3) Has the complainant received any notification in writing or verbally that KCGM staff involved in this matter have been disciplined?
(4) If no to (3), why not?
(5) Will the Department of Mines and Petroleum (DMP) write to the complainant, specifically detailing the results of the investigation with respect to the bullying and victimization, over raising safety concerns at KCGM operations including what specifically this person can return to as original duties?
(6) If no to (5), why not?
(7) If yes to (5), when will this happen?
(8) Can the Minister explain and define what is meant by the term original duties, in the context of the answer provided for question on notice No. 2287?
(9) If no to (7), why not?
(10) Does the DMP agree that the complainant or any worker should be subjected to a psychiatric assessment, when there is no evidence to support the necessity of such an assessment?
(11) If no to (9), why not?
(12) Can the Minister explain why every employee who is employed with KCGM in the first instance is not subjected to a psychiatric assessment, in order that they can perform the duties expected of them on a mine site in Western Australia?
(13) If no to (12), why not?
(14) Can the Minister explain and define what is meant by the term full medical clearance, in the context of the answer provided for question on notice No. 2287?
(15) If no to (14), why not?
(16) Is the DMP strongly committed to stopping all occurrences of victimization, bullying and intimidation and ensuring that the complainant is satisfied with the outcome of the investigation, given this person should never have been subjected to this type of conduct, behaviour in the first instance?
(17) If yes to (16), will the DMP expediently take action which facilitates this to happen without further stress and grief imposed on the complainant?
(18) If no to (16), why not?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
10 August 2010
Responded by
Minister for Mines and Petroleum
Response time
75 days
1) There has been no misleading information provided. So far as the Department of Mines and Petroleum is aware the employee is being assessed on a regular basis with regard to progress on a rehabilitation program.
2) Not applicable.
3) It is not the role of the Department of Mines and Petroleum to provide such information.
4) Not applicable
5) No
6) This employee has been advised verbally by the District Inspector on more than one occasion that it is understood that return to normal duties is dependent upon meeting the progress standards relating to medical treatment.
7) Not applicable
8) This is a matter that must be addressed by the employer.
9) Not applicable
10) This is a matter that is the responsibility of the employer.
Where an employer has concerns relating to an employee's behaviour and emotional state which they believe necessitates the employee undergoing a psychological assessment before returning to their normal duties it may be deemed appropriate.
It is part of the company's 'duty of care' responsibilities to ensure that employees are fit for work and do not present a hazard to other workers.
.
11) Not applicable
12) Pre-employment psychiatric testing of employees is not a matter that is regulated under the
Mines Safety and Inspection Act 1994
.
13) Not applicable
14) An employee must be fit for work in accordance with employer requirements. It is not the role of Department of Mines and Petroleum to be involved in personal medical matters.
15) Not applicable
16) The Department of Mines and Petroleum is committed to the prevention of victimisation, bullying and intimidation in the workplace. The level of satisfaction of any complainant in any matter investigated depends on the individual circumstances.
17) The Department of Mines and Petroleum has taken all the appropriate action it can with regard to this case.
18) See response to Question 17
Notice: This document is created or edited using unregistered or evaluation copy of rtLib valid for testing or development purposes only. To use it for productive or any other purposes please register it. You may purchase the license on
http://www.rtlib.com
2) Not applicable.
3) It is not the role of the Department of Mines and Petroleum to provide such information.
4) Not applicable
5) No
6) This employee has been advised verbally by the District Inspector on more than one occasion that it is understood that return to normal duties is dependent upon meeting the progress standards relating to medical treatment.
7) Not applicable
8) This is a matter that must be addressed by the employer.
9) Not applicable
10) This is a matter that is the responsibility of the employer.
Where an employer has concerns relating to an employee's behaviour and emotional state which they believe necessitates the employee undergoing a psychological assessment before returning to their normal duties it may be deemed appropriate.
It is part of the company's 'duty of care' responsibilities to ensure that employees are fit for work and do not present a hazard to other workers.
.
11) Not applicable
12) Pre-employment psychiatric testing of employees is not a matter that is regulated under the
Mines Safety and Inspection Act 1994
.
13) Not applicable
14) An employee must be fit for work in accordance with employer requirements. It is not the role of Department of Mines and Petroleum to be involved in personal medical matters.
15) Not applicable
16) The Department of Mines and Petroleum is committed to the prevention of victimisation, bullying and intimidation in the workplace. The level of satisfaction of any complainant in any matter investigated depends on the individual circumstances.
17) The Department of Mines and Petroleum has taken all the appropriate action it can with regard to this case.
18) See response to Question 17
Notice: This document is created or edited using unregistered or evaluation copy of rtLib valid for testing or development purposes only. To use it for productive or any other purposes please register it. You may purchase the license on
http://www.rtlib.com
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.