Employee surveys, also known as pulse or culture surveys, can often serve as an early warning system for employers. They reveal work health and safety risks that an employer may not otherwise know about before it’s too late. 

Conducted anonymously, and often by an external organisation, these surveys can uncover a range of issues, from physical safety hazards due to inadequate equipment, to intangible hazards like the psychological impact of high workloads or systemic discrimination and bullying.

While a physical safety hazard that is called out in survey results, such as lack of PPE or dangerous plants or equipment, may be quickly and easily mitigated, psychosocial safety hazards can be harder to address. 

This article offers a practical guide for employers on what to do when employee pulse or culture surveys results indicate psychosocial work health and safety risks in their workplace.  

Australian employer obligations around psychosocial risks

Ensuring the safety and wellbeing of employees is a critical priority for employers. The Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (Cth) (WHS Act) and various state and territory laws lay down a robust framework requiring employers (broadly defined in the legislation as “person(s) conducting a business or undertaking”) to ensure a safe working environment for their employees. 

Employers are required to eliminate risks to the health and safety of workers as far as is reasonably practicable. If elimination is not reasonably practicable, employers must minimise those risks as far as is reasonably practicable. 

“Health” is defined as both physical and psychological health, meaning that as part of its primary duty, an employer must manage risks to a worker’s psychological health as far as is reasonably practicable. Some states and territories also now have regulations expressly requiring psychosocial hazards be eliminated or minimised. 

Psychosocial hazards refer to aspects of work and workplace situations that may give rise to a risk of physiological harm caused by the associated stress response. For example: 

• bullying, sexual harassment, and poor workplace relationships 
• high or low job demand and low on-the-job support 
• low job clarity or control, or lack of recognition and reward 
• poor systems of organisational change management, and organisational justice (where policies/decisions are applied unfairly or unequally)
• poor environmental conditions, and remote or isolated work. 

Employers also have obligations under the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) and the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) to prevent the psychosocial hazards of sexual harassment and bullying from occurring. Employers can also be vicariously or accessorily liable for sexual harassment and bullying occurring. 

Assessing employee surveys to identify hazards 

Employers must scrutinise survey results for indicators of psychosocial risks. 

Some surveys will directly – but anonymously – allow employees to report disrespectful or toxic behaviour, bullying or sexual harassment. Depending on the structure of the survey, this can be through free-text responses, or targeted agree/disagree statements such as, “I have not experienced bullying or harassment at work” or, “I have witnessed or been subject to conduct of a sexual nature in the workplace”. 

Answers which indicate that the workplace is not free of bullying or harassment will put an employer on notice of a possible hazard that it must address.  

Other indicators of latent, unaddressed psychosocial hazards can be identified via poor scores in response to questions such as: 

• “I am confident I can report issues to my manager, and they will take them seriously.” (May possibly indicate poor organisational justice and possible unreported behavioural, bullying or harassment issues.)
• “I understand how decisions are made about my role and my career progression.” (May possibly indicate low job control, clarity or lack of reward and recognition.) 
• “I think the organisation holds people accountable for their unsatisfactory behaviour and actions.” (May possibly indicate unreported behaviour, bullying or harassment issues.) 
• “My manager allows and encourages me to make decisions and take responsibility for my work.” (May indicate low job control, low job demand and poor workplace relationships.) 

Acting on findings from employee surveys

Results from employee surveys that indicate a psychosocial safety hazard mean that an employer is on notice of possible safety risks. It must then take steps to apply the WHS risk assessment framework. Once a risk is identified, it must be assessed and controlled with measures to mitigate the risk. 

To properly identify and assess the risk, it is particularly important to be able to drill down into department, division, location or manager-level results. Where an employer can do so, it can use the survey results to decide on next steps, and assess and control identified risks more effectively. 

If not, a follow-up survey may be the first step, with more targeted questions and increased ability to filter results and determine areas of the business where psychosocial hazards are an issue.

Otherwise, depending on the scope and nature of the issue, and the extent to which results can be filtered to narrow in on where a problem may exist, we recommend the following identification and assessment measures: 

• HR meets with line managers or supervisors in an identified division or work group to discuss the survey results. HR representatives should be prepared to ask managers specific questions and may need to have hard conversations with managers about why the results are poor. These meetings should be followed up to ensure that managers are taking necessary action as required. 
• Additional monitoring by HR of an identified division or team, including arranging catch ups with members of the team to discuss wellbeing and experiences. 
• Engage experts to conduct wellbeing interviews with members of a team with poor survey results, to gather more specific information about concerns in that team.  
• Engage experts to conduct a culture review investigation by interviewing people throughout the organisation or selected teams to gather information about culture, leadership, organisational justice and misconduct management. 
• Review the practical impact of organisational policies and practices such as performance review processes, grievance handling procedures, remuneration and recognition.  
• Establish employee culture consultation committees or working groups to provide and collate information about psychosocial risks across business units and to provide specific and real-time feedback about how to address issues.   
• Review and promote the organisation’s grievance procedures and reporting mechanisms, including giving assurances about encouraging a “speak up” culture and having a no-tolerance approach to victimisation. 
• Introduce “contact officers” or “go-to” people for workers to report issues outside of the human resources and leadership teams. 
• Roll out training for line managers and supervisors on topics such as leadership, respectful behaviour, psychosocial safety, workload and capacity management and handling complaints. 

Understanding legal professional privilege 

When investigations, culture reviews, wellbeing interviews or other information gathering is conducted, we recommend seeking legal advice and, if possible, having external counsel conduct or engage culture reviews. This will ensure, as far as possible, that any findings about current psychosocial hazards in the workplace are covered by legal professional privilege* and legal risks can be mitigated confidentiality and effectively. 

In our experience, employers that take these steps following any concerning pulse survey results will be demonstrating compliance with their work health and safety duties. By acting on the early warning signs contained in survey results, employers can more effectively mitigate the risks associated with psychosocial hazards. The practical benefit of this, as well as being legally compliant, is a healthier, safer and more productive workforce, with higher retention rates and a reputation as a great place to work. 

*Legal professional privilege protects confidential communications and confidential documents between a lawyer and the client where they have been made for the dominant purpose of the lawyer providing legal advice or professional legal services to the client (or for use in current or anticipated litigation).

Aaron Goonrey is a Partner and leads the Australian and APAC Employment & Rewards practice at Pinsent Masons. Emma Lutwyche is a Special Counsel and Yuliya Chis is an Associate at Pinsent Masons. The advice in this article is general in nature and does not constitute formal legal advice.

The post How to respond when employee surveys reveal work health and safety risks appeared first on HRM online.

There have been plenty of cases in the United States of workers suing their employer because they caught COVID-19 at work. These mostly stem from the employer’s failure to provide a safe workplace or space during the pandemic, which leads to workers catching the virus at work. 

In Australia, the equivalent cause of action would be an employer failing to meet its obligations in relation to work, health and safety, which caused an employee to suffer illness and/or injury.

But what happens when an employee’s household catches COVID-19? In a US ‘first of its kind case’, a federal judge has recently weighed up a claim filed by an employee’s spouse, against their spouse’s employer.  

The spouse is suing the employer for bringing COVID-19 into their household via her husband, who she alleges caught the virus at work. The judge is still deciding whether to let the case proceed, considering the claims regarding the genesis of the virus are yet to be proven.

The spouse alleges her husband’s employer breached US COVID-19 safety guidelines by failing to take basic precautions when it moved workers from one site to another, which caused her husband to contract COVID-19, bring it home with him and infect her. As a result, the spouse was in hospital for weeks on a ventilator.

Allowing the case to proceed would require the judge to set a legal precedent about whether an employer’s duty to provide a safe workplace for its employees extends to the employee’s family members.  

Could this happen in Australia?

While the US and Australia are different jurisdictions operating under different systems of law, there are similar principles under Australia’s work, health and safety laws.

As many readers are aware, in Australia, employers have general work health and safety obligations under relevant work/occupational health and safety legislation in the states and territories, including in relation to COVID-19. Generally speaking, employers have a duty to, so far as is reasonably practicable:

• Eliminate risks to health and safety.
  
• Provide a working environment for its employees that is safe and without risks to health (including the provision of safe systems of work; provision of any information, training, instruction or supervision that is necessary to protect all persons from risks to their health and safety arising from work.
  
• Ensuring the health of workers and the conditions at the workplace are monitored for the purpose of preventing illness or injury of workers arising from work.
  
• Ensure that persons other than employees are not exposed to risks to their health and safety arising from the conduct of the employer’s operations.

If it’s not reasonably practicable to eliminate risks to health and safety, the employer has a duty to minimise those risks as far as is reasonably practicable.

If employers fall short of their obligations to provide a safe working environment there is a risk of liability under applicable work/occupational health and safety legislation.  

The penalties for breaching these obligations are severe for employers, and in some cases, individuals.  

This risk is higher if COVID-19 is contracted at the workplace. But there are also risks if the employer is aware that an employee or customer has contracted COVID-19 away from the workplace, or the source is unknown, and does not take steps to manage the risk of infection to employees and others.

“In allowing employees to attend work if they have not had the vaccine, would employers be failing to do everything “reasonably practicable” to prevent the risk of employees (and their households) catching COVID-19 in the workplace?”

What is “reasonably practicable”?

As an Australian employer’s duty is to eliminate risks as far as reasonably practicable, and otherwise minimise risks as far as reasonably practicable, it’s worth understanding constitutes as “reasonably practicable”.

By way of example, under NSW legislation it means what was, at a particular time, reasonably able to be done in relation to ensuring health and safety, taking into account and weighing up all relevant matters, including:

• The likelihood of the hazard or the risk concerned occurring.
  
• The degree of harm that might result from the hazard or the risk.
  
• What the employer knows, or ought reasonably to know, about: the hazard or the risk; ways of eliminating or minimising the risk; and the availability and suitability of ways to eliminate or minimise the risk.
  
• After assessing the extent of the risk and the available ways of eliminating or minimising the risk, identify the cost associated with available ways of eliminating or minimising the risk, including whether the cost is grossly disproportionate to the risk.

Vaccines at work: are employers liable?

With the COVID-19 vaccine recently being rolled out across Australia, it’s interesting to consider whether employers who do not mandate the vaccine for their employees would be liable for breaching WHS duties. 

That is, in allowing employees to attend work if they have not had the vaccine, would employers be failing to do everything “reasonably practicable” to prevent the risk of employees (and their households) catching COVID-19 in the workplace? 

This is bound to become a hot topic as the availability of the vaccine increases.  

Earlier this month, industrial relations minister Christian Porter said that the “overwhelming majority” of employers should assume they have no power to force employers to vaccinate against COVID-19.  

It is likely that mandatory vaccines could only be enforced by a public health order, and will largely be dictated by public health advice.  

If employers are satisfied that there is a low likelihood of its employees contracting or spreading COVID-19 by virtue of: being in the workplace; knowing what they ought to know about COVID-19 (e.g rate of transmission, number of community cases, circumstances in which it is more likely to spread); and there being suitable available ways of minimising the risk of infection and transmission, then it’s likely that an employer could assert that it’s not reasonably practical to eliminate the risk of COVID-19 all together.

Instead, it could claim it has taken all reasonable steps to minimise the risk through implementing robust risk-minimisation processes. In relation to the vaccine, this could mean, for example, suggesting and strongly encouraging employees to get the vaccine, without making it mandatory.  

Minimising the risk for an employee, and accordingly their spouse at home, from contracting COVID-19 in the workplace may prevent claims such as the US case outlined above from being successful in Australia. It would certainly minimise the risk of an employer being held liable for breaching its WHS obligations.

AHRI’s COVID-19 resource webpage is full of helpful information, including factsheets, guides, expert discussions, webinars and templates. Some information is free to the public, but other aspects are exclusive to AHRI members.

Practical tips moving forward

To further minimise the risk of breaching WHS obligations, we suggest employers:

• Follow all recommendations by health and government authorities.
• Observe and implement physical distancing guidelines.
  
• Ensure employees do not share equipment that may be more likely to transmit COVID-19.
• Ensure employees are provided with disinfecting equipment, e.g. wipes and spray, to further disinfect equipment if desired.
  
• Ensure employees are trained in proper personal hygiene e.g. handwashing, physical distancing, mask wearing, and staying home if they are unwell. 
• Put policies in place to ensure employees do not attend work if they are showing the faintest sign of illness.
  
• Ensure you have a robust COVID-19 safety plan in place in circumstances where an employee or close contact becomes infected with COVID-19. 

Aaron Goonrey is a partner and Isabel Hewitt is a lawyer in Lander & Rogers’ Workplace Relations & Safety practice. 

The post Wife sues husband’s employer because he caught COVID-19 at work appeared first on HRM online.

While most HR professionals will not have much responsibility regarding physical injury claims, they may be involved in the deliberation around psychological injury claims. So it’s worth them knowing that sometimes the amount awarded to such a claim will be mitigated by a legal concept called “contributory negligence”.

In Australia, the concept is an attempt to account for the fact that claims of negligence are rarely cut and dry. For example, if a building site fails to have required safety measures in place and a worker suffered a fall because of that, the employer will be found negligent. But often the worker’s behaviour also fails to meet safety standards – perhaps they didn’t follow correct procedures, or were even goofing around. If that’s the case, it’s likely that the employer’s injury claim payment will be reduced.

It seems simple enough, but determining differing levels of responsibility and negligence can get quite complicated. In the above example, it might seem as if the responsibility should be shared evenly. But lots of factors can change that. Did the employee have a compelling explanation for their own failures? Can the employer demonstrate that the employee had a history of poor safety behaviour?

Or, focussing on an area with more HR crossover, an employer that receives a psychological injury claim from a former worker complaining of harassment will tend to do worse in court if it has no policies around harassment and mental health when compared to an employer that does. And an employer who can prove they rigorously educate staff on those policies will tend to do better in court than an employer who fails to make those policies widely known.

But HR’s role can go beyond policy. For example, in a psychological injury claim, how HR responds to initial complaints from employees who later suffer such an injury may very well become evidence at a hearing.

Case study

In this case, an apprentice butcher was employed by labour hire service company Skillset, which contracted the apprentice to Ashcroft Supa IGA (the defendant). The apprentice was injured during his employment while working at the defendant’s premises. He was linking sausages when the trolley he was working on rolled away. In the rush to catch the trolley and the sausages that were falling off it, the apprentice slipped on sausage mince that was lying unseen beneath the trolley.

The plaintiff hit his back on the wall and suffered a ‘serious injury’, instantly feeling a pain in his lower back and leg. His condition worsened and he was treated with a spinal fusion.

The apprentice sued for damages against the defendant, and the defendant made a counter-claim against Skillset, on the grounds that:

• The defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff;
• The defendant had not breached its duty of care;
• If it had, the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence;
• Damages should be reduced by virtue of [section] 151Z(2) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW) because of the negligence of the [apprentice’s] employer Skillset.

On top of that, the defendant sought to be indemnified as their insurer wouldn’t cover costs.

The defendant’s cross-claim was represented by Toby Tancred, who spoke to HRM.

Contributory negligence acts as a defence to a damages claim and, as relayed by Tancred, consists of two main parts:

• The negligence must in fact contribute to the injury; and
• There must be fault of negligence on the part of the plaintiff (in this case; the apprentice).

Senior counsel for the insurer argued that the apprentice had 50 per cent negligence, counsel for the defendant put the number at 25 per cent and counsel for the apprentice argued that, if there was any contributory negligence, that it would be between 0-10 per cent.

The apprentice sought $714,431 in damages, but due to contributory negligence and reductions resulting from section 151Z, he walked away with $578,689 in compensation.

So if the decision had favoured the insurer’s interpretation, the apprentice would have received something in the range of  $357,000. Alternatively the decision could have said there was zero contributory negligence and the apprentice would have walked away a figure much closer to $700,000.

A ‘reasonable person’

In cases where an employer’s main defence is contributory negligence, a judge needs to evaluate just how much contributory negligence a plaintiff exhibits, while using the standard of a reasonable person.

To evaluate a ‘reasonable person’, according to FindLaw, a judge uses an objective test where the plaintiff is measured against a fictional person who has an “ordinary degree of reason, prudence, care, foresight, or intelligence whose conduct, conclusion, or expectation in relation to a particular circumstance or fact” as the standard.

“For example, if the apprentice had some sort of learning difficulty that meant he couldn’t read then there would be a need to use the standard of a reasonable person. Would a reasonable person have been able to take notice of written instructions?” says Tancred.

The judge in this case decided the apprentice was of the reasonable person standard. “He impressed me as a very straightforward person who was careful and reliable in giving evidence and in answering questions.”

Once it had been established that the apprentice was a reasonable person, he had to decipher whether his evidence was reasonable too.

The apprentice’s evidence was as follows:

• Yes, he knew sausage mince was slippery;
• But he also knew qualified butchers had cleaned up prior to his task in linking sausages and;
• He didn’t look under the trolley as he trusted the area would be clean and without any hazardous materials.

Russell found that the apprentice’s only contributory negligence was that he knew the sausage mince was hazardous as it is a slippery substance.

“Looking for spilt sausage mince, and cleaning it up, was not a complex task,” he says.

“The [apprentice]…knew of the risk and knew how to take precautions for his own safety against the risk. That having been said, there is much force in the [apprentice’s] answer, to the effect that…the sausage mince [was] hidden underneath the tray of the trolley on which he was directed to work, the meat room floor looked to be clean, and he saw no reason to question whether qualified butchers had done a good job of cleaning or not.”

Due to this evaluation, Russell set the apprentice’s level of contributory negligence at 10 per cent. 

Subjective objectivity

There remains the question of how Russell arrived at this figure. He obviously went with a finding that was within the plaintiff’s suggested range of zero to 10 per cent. But why did he decide on 10 per cent as opposed to five per cent, or some other figure?

Interestingly, Tancred says there is no formula to follow when it comes to nominating a percentage for contributory negligence.

“The judge is left with his or her own evaluative judgement and they really don’t need to say much about why they have put it at a certain per cent,” he says.

“Judges will have regard to a person’s particular circumstances, as the judge did in this case, in referring to the fact that the [apprentice] was an inexperienced apprentice butcher surrounded by experienced and qualified butchers, and that was relevant to determining what the [apprentice] knew or should have known when determining the extent of his contributory negligence, but it is still an objective test.”

Tancred says that’s not the end of the matter. Unavoidably, a judge’s own sympathy when evaluating a case will play a part, even if it would be ideal that the decision was completely objective.

“You would like to think that judges don’t permit notions of sympathy for a plaintiff to be a factor in their decision making and I don’t think you’d ever get a judge expressing the fact that they are taking into account their own sympathy for an injured person in their decision making process,” he says.

It’s something of an unavoidable reality that the reputation or attitude of an injured employee could affect the findings around contributory negligence.

“If they are troublesome, evasive, overly defensive or aggressive and don’t answer questions or only answer questions to advance their own case then they could be assessed by the judge to be lacking in credibility,” says Tancred.

The post What HR needs to know about contributory negligence appeared first on HRM online.

On 1 March earlier this year, a man was crushed to death when a large metal beam fell on top of him at the Barangaroo Ferry Hub worksite, in Sydney’s CBD. His death is one of nine already this year in the construction industry.

It’s all evidence of a startling rise of physical risk in Australian workplaces, according to a new national survey commissioned by Australian law firm Slater and Gordon.

It found that 42 per cent of those surveyed have agreed to take on an unsafe task at work – with over half of those aged 25 to 34.

More worryingly still, 11.9 per cent said they were forced to do an unsafe task even after expressing reservations about their safety – and in only 21.7 per cent of cases the task was made safer. Some of the reasons given for doing the unsafe task included pressure from their boss and fear that they would lose their job as well as time constraints .

Of those who spoke up, the dangerous task was assigned to someone else in nearly a quarter of cases, while a small number were actually fired for not completing the task..

Almost 44 per cent of people said they had witnessed a colleague agreeing to do an unsafe task, with 59.7 per cent pointing out concerns about a dangerous task to their co-worker or their manager.

Keep up to date: read our round-up of the most important IR stories so far this year.

Workers in harm’s way: Who’s responsible?

Lawyer Meghan Hoare, Slater and Gordon senior workers compensation, released a statement along with the research reiterating that the safety of workers should be the most important priority of employers, but that workers continue to be placed in situations where they are at serious risk.

“These numbers show that Australian employees are still being put in harm’s way in the workplace,” says Hoare.

It’s an argument that has also been made by Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union’s (CFMEU) NSW secretary Brian Parker, who said in March that there had been an “unacceptable” spike in deaths at building sites in NSW and across Australia. “Every nine minutes there’s been a severe injury to a worker or a death. Already the death tally across the country is running at one per week,” he said.

Parker said that the federal government’s construction watchdog, the Australian Building and Construction Commission (ABCC), was making work sites more dangerous by preventing union organisers from entering them.

“We can make it safer by not having legislation like the ABCC that restricts union and union officials from entering the workplace,” he said. “Where we have got good access to building sites, the statistics show there is a drop in the amount of serious incidents and serious accidents and also deaths in the industry.”

Though annual workplace deaths had been dropping since 2003 (between 2003 and 2014, the rate of work-related injury fatalities fell by 41 per cent) according to Safe Work Australia, the statutory body agreed the number of deaths this year was “unacceptably high”.

SafeWork NSW statistics showed that 60 people died at workplaces during 2015-2016 and they have since launched a $3 million campaign in response to the statistics.

Is it time for you to place WHS top of mind? Here’s our guide to reassessing your current workplace safety policies. 

Can the “Internet of Things” make workplaces safer?

Today, over 88 per cent of Qatar’s 2.6 million inhabitants are foreign born; expats and foreign workers, predominantly in the nation’s booming construction industry. Though relatively isolated from the prominent technology hubs, the sector has leapt ahead when it comes to risk-management technology.

Of course, it’s important to note that conditions at construction sites for the upcoming FIFA world cup have been condemned as “appalling” by Amnesty International, along with other organisations. However there’s also evidence of innovation within the construction industry.

At QDVC, a thriving local construction company, all cranes on site are programmed with 3D anti-collision software.

Using an internet IP address and via a system of tagging machines and equipment – and giving people wearable devices or smartphones, all machinery on-site is armed with anti-collision technology to cut out the risk of workplace accident and injury.

“We’ve been using the solution for seven years,” says Philippe Garnier, corporate plant manager for QDVC “and have not had a single accident or injury in all that time.”

Unsure about an HR issue? Gain access to AHRI:ASSIST – an online resource centre with info sheets, guidelines and templates on different HR topics. Exclusive to AHRI members.

The post Would you risk your life for your job? appeared first on HRM online.

When employees are ill or injured, things just don’t get done. Corners start to get cut. Staff wellbeing suffers, activity dips, productivity takes a dive, culture sours and people start to disengage from their work. Often, employees resign. The remaining employees are overloaded with work to compensate. They become stressed and disengaged. The cycle continues.

It’s no surprise that if you asked any business owner or manager whether they want to keep staff safe and healthy, their answer would be a resounding ‘of course!’ However, the reality is staff health and safety often takes a backseat to other business priorities because the perceived time and cost is too high. What’s important for businesses to understand is that these two priorities are not mutually exclusive; in fact, numerous studies have proven that safe and healthy staff lead to a healthier bottom line.

The health and safety ROI

According to research conducted by NSW Government, businesses that invest in the health and safety of staff see an increase in productivity, morale and engagement. The study found that small to medium sized businesses are $100,000 better off over a five year period than businesses with unhealthy staff. In fact, effective workplace health and safety strategies produced a cash return of $3-$6 for every $1 invested.

Staff retention

There’s also a big payoff in terms of staff retention. Employees are expecting more from companies in terms of staff wellbeing initiatives, parental pay, flexible work and more. Last year Medibank and Deloitte launched the Wellbeing@Work index to give staff of SMEs around the country a chance to rate their companies on ‘soft’ measures (including culture, employees’ sense of meaning at work and diversity) as job seekers increasingly look at these factors when assessing potential employers. Indeed, a recent Gallup study found that well over half of millennials (57 per cent) say that work-life balance and staff wellbeing in a job are “very important” to them.

It’s clear that a strategy for health and safety can improve the profitability of your business, so how do you go about putting it in place?

Ways to build a strong safety culture

If you want to reap the financial benefits of a safe workplace but don’t have the resources of a large organisation, focus on getting the following basics right:

• Implement a secure and comprehensive system to record and report hazards, risks and incidents.
• Cultivate a culture of staff wellbeing and safety through a formal induction of new staff and formal training for all.
• Encourage a “safety first” mentality through strong leadership and communication.
• Develop clear communications about what good and behaviours look like in the workplace.
• If injury occurs, have a clear and transparent process to deal with any resulting claims.

Ways to build a strong health culture

• Read our article about health programs for Australian organisations
• Or this one on how to promote back and spine health at work
• And take a look at this easy guide to encouraging healthy employee practices

The post The unexpected benefit of staff wellbeing? a healthier bottom line appeared first on HRM online.