TWU eye damage fears fail to overcome safety and management stance
Toll has won Fair Work Commission (FWC) approval to expand the use of driver-focused safety technology to other group operations.
FWC deputy president Richard Clancy ruled against Transport Worker Union (TWU) objections based on personal safety concerns and enterprise agreement powers.
The dispute relates to whether Toll has a right to further implement Guardian technology in its Toll Liquids (Liquids) and Toll Linehaul & Fleet Services (Linehaul) and digital video recorder (DVR) cameras in its Liquids business.
The Guardian technology relies on infrared technology to track driver eye behaviour with audio and seat vibration alarms which sound immediately to alert the driver of fatigue events.
The TWU safety objection focuses on questions surrounding such research as there is on the effects of low-level infrared beams on linehaul drivers.
In Clancy’s eyes, this foundered on expert opinion for Toll was given by senior optics academic Dr Stephen Dain, who insists the level of any impact is too low to cause damage.
It is acknowledged the research that has been done either was not specific to linehual drivers or conducted by and company not accredited to undertake the specific testing that was done, as well as that Dain had not tested the technology himself.
But Dain’s position as emeritus professor, at the University of New South Wales’ School of Optometry and Vision Science and his having chaired the National Association of Testing Authorities of Australia, Registration Advisory Committee in Optics and Radiometry, gave weight to his evidence.
This was helped by the TWU’s inability to find an expert to challenge it, though it was able to find other research that questions infrared impacts.
Clancy acknowledges the drivers’ concerns.
“It is not submitted that the material obtained by the drivers, in itself, proves that the Guardian system will harm the eyesight of drivers,” he states.
“However, the documents have raised concerns in the minds of the drivers which they believe should be addressed and warrant further study.”
Toll argues the technology is not new and already in operation in 225 vehicles in the Liquids business in its own operations and those of competitors.
Based on his own research, Toll Liquids national safety manager Sean states he is aware that Guardian technology is currently being used by Linfox, K&S, Kalari, Ron Finemore Transport and Wettenhalls.
Read about Ron Finemore Transport’s use of Guardian here
The TWU also objected to the lack of safeguards against misuse of video “footage” and states that the enterprise agreement fails to give management the requisite power to expand the rollout.
Hepburn points out that this is covered in the Standard Operating Procedure for Vehicle Camera Safety Systems (SOP-1), a new policy, drafted out of experience gained in Western Australia where the technology has been in use for some time.
In addition to SOP-1, Liquids has two further procedures, “The Toll Liquids – Guardian Fatigue & Distraction Procedure” (SOP-2) and “The Toll Liquids – Guardian Fatigue & Distraction Driver Procedure” (SOP-3).
He said the Guardian is primarily aimed at enhancing safety. While he could not rule out the prospect Toll would discipline a tanker driver as a result of video obtained, its scope to do so would be very limited as there would need to be a genuine fatigue or distraction event for Toll to receive any footage from the Guardian and further, the footage Liquids receives is “very limited”.
He was not aware of any misuse of DriveCam and has not been advised of any concern held by tanker drivers.
Clancy also took this on board.
“I am satisfied that SOP-1 adequately deals with this for Liquids and will likewise do so if it were to be adopted for Linehaul,” his ruling reads.
“I am persuaded by Toll’s submission that in circumstances in which it has obligations to provide a safe system of work, investigate incidents and complaints and is called upon to provide information to regulators and police regarding incidents involving its vehicles, a reasonable person could make the decision to further implement the DVR technology.
“While I acknowledge the employees have concerns that Toll will not comply with SOP-1, there are practical limitations that place some control over access and the safeguards contained in SOP-1 are comprehensive and a statement of Toll’s intent.
“In these circumstances, I am not persuaded that these concerns should act as a barrier to the further implementation of the DVR Cameras.”
The full decision can be read here.