News

NEPT Regs, OH&S and contract concerns raised by members.

The Victorian Ambulance Union Incorporated (VAU) were recently contacted by several members of Medical Edge Australia (MEA) to address concerns they had with multiple aspects of their employment. The VAU wrote to MEA to raise these concerns and have since engaged in constructive discussions with the company which we believe will result in significant improvements for VAU members.

NEPT Regulations Clinical Competency Standards

Since November 2021, updates to the NEPT Regulations require new Patient Transport Officers (PTOs) to have been clinically supervised in active patient care for their first 100 hours. This must be done by an Ambulance Transport Attendant (ATA) or Clinical Instructor (CI). The VAU raised concerns that this was not taking place at MEA.

MEA have advised the VAU that new PTOs are given a ‘transition to practice’ book in induction to log completed hours. MEA confirm that this instruction is ‘currently’ being provided by an ATA, though their initial response included PTOs as also being able to provide this clinical supervision. Any instances of new PTOs not being supervised by the appropriately qualified individual (ATA or CI) can be reported to the VAU or to the NEPT Regulator by emailing:

• [email protected]

Reports to the Regulator can be anonymous, but this may limit investigation and real outcomes. The VAU can assist members in this process.

OH&S Concerns on CPAV

MEA members raised various concerns around CPAV, including training, loading and unloading of stretchers, and fatigue management on 12-hour shifts in Warragul.

The VAU were advised that the crewing configuration on CPAV consisted of one ‘credentialled’ CPAV operator and one who was not. The credentialed operator was then expected to ‘familiarise’ the other employee with the equipment. The VAU requested the Risk Assessment that was done for this process. One was not provided.

A staff member who is not familiar with the specialised equipment operating on a vehicle, represents a risk to themselves, their crew mate, the patient, the public and those contractors they are liaising with for transport. Clients, such as Ambulance Victoria and hospitals, would have an expectation that all crew attending cases would be fully trained in operating all equipment.

MEA advised the VAU that uncredentialed staff meet with management to determine competency and suitability, as well as completing a mandatory bariatric unit. MEA commit to providing subsequent training sessions to staff in the future.

If you are rostered to work the CPAV vehicle you should have completed all of the above. The inherent risks associated with a specialist vehicle like CPAV can be reduced significantly by appropriate training, delivered by an appropriately credentialed individual and outside of shift time. If this does not occur, raise the issue with your manager. If this fails to remedy the situation the VAU will assist you in raising the matter with WorkSafe.

In addition to training concerns, members have raised concerns with the loading of the stretcher into the rear of the Volkswagen vehicle. The VAU asked for the Risk Assessment that was done for this type of vehicle with this type of stretcher. MEA has not provided this to the VAU.

Instead, MEA provided a study on the Ferno INX stretcher and its superior performance against the Stryker Powerlift when angles were introduced at left side of ambulance, right side, rear and front. However, this does not constitute a Risk Assessment when matched with the Volkswagen vehicle. If you are having issues with loading and unloading of your stretcher and excessive ‘taking of the weight’ of CPAV patients as a crew member, ensure you have made an incident report and reported it to your HSR. The VAU can assist members with making a report to WorkSafe.

Members instruct the VAU that they felt pressured to take shifts rostered at Warragul. As the workforce is largely casual, members instruct the VAU they feel like they are ‘blacklisted’ if they don’t accept the offer. The employer and employees both have a duty, under the Act, to manage hazard and risks, including your fatigue, when accepting the shift and the potential for overtime. Both the employer and employees need to consider these matters when deciding whether or not to accept any shift. MEA state that should you not want to work at Warragul, you can make yourself unavailable for this location.

Other OH&S matters – Designated Work Groups (DWGs), Health and Safety Committee and Health and Safety Representatives (HSR)

The VAU are pleased that MEA has advised they will be negotiating with employees on establishment of DWGs, as outlined in the OH&S Act. Should MEA not commence the DWG process, an employee can request to do so by email and MEA is required under the Act to start within 14 days.

In addition, MEA advise the VAU that a Health and Safety Committee will be commencing, and employees have already expressed an interest in being on the committee.

It is important that there are employees on this committee who are elected HSRs as defined under the Act, as they have additional powers other employee committee members won’t have. Once DWGs are established, you can put yourself forward as a potential HSR for your DWG. Election is determined by a vote made by employees, not the employer, or by default if you are the only person to nominate in your DWG.

If MEA does not commence any part of this process, or should any members have concerns over nomination or election as an HSR, please contact the VAU promptly and we will assist.

Issues resolved or with commitment to resolve

Unpaid pre-shift vehicle checks – As members will be aware, there is often pressure on those within the NEPT industry to arrive to work prior to rostered shift start time and complete a pre-shift vehicle check in unpaid time.

Any work performed by an employee for their employer must be paid, by law. There is no obligation to perform work for free and any work including ‘set up’ must be performed during paid time. If employees are being instructed to perform work outside of paid hours, employers may be liable to backpay those employees and may be liable for penalties for contravening the Fair Work Act.

Prior to the VAU raising the issue with MEA, they had already issued communication to employees that this is not a requirement and MEA have improved processes to ensure there is little work required to be ready for shift start.

This is how it should be and if MEA staff or other NEPT members are being ‘encouraged’ to be completing work in unpaid time please contact the VAU and we will follow it up.

Allowable deductions – Whilst attending a meeting with a member, the VAU noted that MEA informed the member they may be liable to pay the excess for damage to a company vehicle. The VAU also note there is a clause in MEA contracts, clause 20.2 (d) that is of a similar nature.

Sections 324 and 325 of the Fair Work Act prohibit employers from deducting amounts or requiring employees to deduct amounts where:

• In the case of a deduction, the deduction is not authorised by the employee and principally for the employee’s benefit, or otherwise authorised by law or an industrial instrument.
• In the case of a requirement to pay an amount, the payment is unreasonable and/or principally for the employer’s benefit.

The VAU felt that MEA stating this in meetings and having it in contracts was misleading, as it is unlikely to be an allowable deduction.

MEA have sought advice and reviewed their policy. They commit to amending the policy and cease advising members they may be liable for payment for damages or insurance excess.

Policy and contract concerns in relation to casuals – Members instruct the VAU that they are being required to notify MEA >24hrs in advance if they cannot fulfill a shift due to illness, and if they cannot meet this time frame expectation, they are required to complete a workplace incident report in their own time. Members further instruct the VAU they are asked to find their own replacements and can be met with hostility from office staff if they are unable to fulfill this request.

Employees are entitled to be absent from work due to illness or injury and are not obliged to find their own replacement. MEA has full access to names of employees that may be available to fill vacant shifts and putting that responsibility on a casual employee removing themselves from a shift is unreasonable.

MEA responded that casual staff are encouraged to find shift swaps if they elect to withdraw from a rostered shift. Any sick or personal leave is a sick call to the Duty Manager and there is no expectation or request for the staff member to locate a replacement. 

The VAU understand if you need to remove yourself from a shift for reasons unrelated to illness, you may be encouraged to organise shifts swaps. However, in both these instances if a staff member is casual there is not an obligation to shift swap nor find a replacement for illness. Though MEA assert that there is no such requirement, VAU members instruct this pressure from office staff is often aggressive in its nature and they are made to feel as if they are obligated to do so. The VAU have requested comms be sent to all staff that you are not required to find your own replacement for illness and are ‘encouraged’ to find replacements for withdrawn shifts, though it is not an obligation for casual staff. We believe this would be sufficient in addressing the problem. MEA have noted this request. Should members feel that any of the issues are still occurring or are not being addressed satisfactorily it is important to report to any of the following where relevant: MEA managers, HSRs, WorkSafe and/or the VAU.

In Solidarity.