This paper examines McDonald's Australia's obligations and responses under the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) framework, with particular reference to Work Safe Victoria regulations. It outlines relevant OHS legislation, including Code of Practice No. 20 on confined spaces, and the industry expectations these place on fast-food operators. The paper then analyzes McDonald's internal policies on risk management, employee communication, and training investment, including its "New Look Workplace Safety" program. A 1998 case in which McDonald's was fined $180,000 following a worker's paralysis is presented as a cautionary example, followed by a review of the company's subsequent prevention hierarchy and injury-reduction outcomes.
The fast-food industry is one in which adherence to occupational safety standards is absolutely essential to the health and well-being of workers. Such compliance is also essential in preventing injury, mortality, and the assessment of fines or even closures resulting from lapses in identifying and eliminating risks. This condition applies in different legal contexts according to existing legislation, such that multinational firms must be particularly cognizant of the nuances between those standards. For McDonald's Australia, an American fast-food giant operating in Australia, compliance with the standards unique to Australia is necessary to protect the company from liability, to protect employees from risk of injury, and to safeguard all personnel from the array of risks produced by poor training and inadequate policy review. The discussion here considers the responsibilities placed on a company such as McDonald's as it attempts to operate safely and responsibly in Australia.
Specific elements of the Occupational Health and Safety Act which apply to the fast-food industry must be given consideration as McDonald's pursues its internal policy orientation. According to Work Safe Victoria (WSV) (2000), it is incumbent upon those managing facilities with inherent risks — such as heating elements, cooking machinery, and fry ovens — to ensure that proper hazard identification, risk assessment, and risk control have been implemented. A specific element of importance is that identified in Code of Practice No. 20 (1996), which refers to Confined Spaces. This applies most certainly to the kitchen space, refrigerator space, and restaurant area of many McDonald's locations, and advises of the need for proper ventilation, necessary fire safety conditions and training, availability of emergency and first aid treatment, and the prevention of obstructed walkways, exits, or work areas (WSV, p. 1).
Industry expectations produced by the OHS legislation largely center on the responsibility for self-monitoring and, as the Victoria State Government (2005) indicates, proper cooperative efforts with Health and Safety Representatives (HSRs). Accordingly, OHS provides "a basic understanding of the role and powers of health and safety representatives (HSRs), WorkSafe inspectors and authorized representatives of registered employee organizations" (VSG, p. 2).
Among the common risks and hazards that OHS describes in relation to an operation such as that stewarded by McDonald's, those relating to work with foodstuffs — including the protection of employees against hazardous materials — and those related to food service facilities such as kitchens, heating and cooling spaces, storage areas, and waste disposal areas are most pressing. According to Work Safe Victoria, it is imperative that "all hazards (potential to cause injury or illness) associated with work in a confined space are identified; an assessment is made to determine whether there is any risk (likelihood of injury or illness) associated with the identified hazards; and any risk is eliminated, or if that is not practicable, reduced so far as is practicable" (VSG, p. 1).
McDonald's Australia has shown an active willingness, at the level of company management and in the deliberation of its policies, to work toward total compliance with the terms of OHS. Its policy centers on an array of methods designed to reduce the risk of accident. Among these, McDonald's reports that personnel at both the employee and managerial levels are trained to "ensure that we comply with OHS, Workers Compensation and Injury Management Legislation, associations regulations and standards across Australia" (McDonald's, p. 58).
Its adherence to these legal conditions is underscored by its own internal commitment to managing risk through effective monitoring, reviewing, investigating, and improving its standards and procedures as these relate to safety, health, and procedural norms (McDonald's, p. 58). The responsibility for these assurances runs from upper management through employees at the crew level. Accordingly, McDonald's states explicitly that it is primarily the responsibility of management to ensure that all policies relating to health and safety are implemented and adhered to fully. Management tasks relating to this responsibility include the training, instruction, and supervision of employees with respect to all health and safety policies.
An important mechanism in place at McDonald's is a multidirectional channel of communication that includes agents at the government level, leadership at the corporate level, management, and personnel. Accordingly, McDonald's reports that "consultation with crew and managers is essential to create a safe workplace. We believe that employee involvement in developing and updating workplace safety systems is critical" (McDonald's, p. 59). Therefore, each restaurant location creates a safety staff of between six and eight employees, including one manager and selected crew members. This promotes leadership at the crew level and creates a channel through which the crew can communicate concerns and complaints to higher levels of management.
At the base of its prevention strategy is McDonald's preliminary investment in the training of its personnel. In light of regulations imposed by OHS, it is incumbent upon the company to invest significant and meaningful resources in training its personnel in both the effective performance of job roles and adherence to safety regulations. Accordingly, McDonald's (2010) reports that "more than $40 million is spent annually on training crew, managers and corporate staff" (McDonald's, p. 45).
Today, training objectives are being channeled through a program that McDonald's calls "New Look Workplace Safety." This initiative centers significantly on re-engaging employees in the process of training and recognizing adherence, with the multidirectional communication strategy applied to the achievement of core training objectives. According to McDonald's, surveys on the subject found that 95% of managers agreed they had been trained effectively in matters of workplace safety, and 86% expressed the view that workplace safety was taken seriously by the company. These figures were 85% and 88% respectively for those working at the crew level (McDonald's, p. 59).
In the absence of proper training, significant risk abounds. This is demonstrated in instances where McDonald's personnel have been placed outside of familiar roles. One such case occurred in 1998, when McDonald's pleaded guilty and settled for an amount of $180,000 after a company truck driver was left paralyzed by a stage collapse. This occurred while the driver was unlocking the stage from a latch on the truck. According to Kirby (1998), "in handing down her penalty, Justice Trish Kavanagh said McDonald's had failed to provide a safe system of work or sufficient training, and the associated risk to the safety of its employees was significant" (Kirby, p. 1). This case illustrates how WorkSafe Victoria enforcement can result in substantial penalties when employers fail to meet their duty of care.
"Worker paralysis and $180,000 penalty case"
"Injury rate reduction and management prevention structure"
For McDonald's Australia, the regulations established by OHS provide a suitable blueprint for how to maintain effective safety standards. Internal policy reflects the prioritization of compliance therewith.
You’re 86% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.