The Tribunal found that the applicant did not meet the requirements of regulation 5.45B of the Occupational Safety and Health Regulations 1996 (WA) because he provided limited evidence of his work and experience with non-friable asbestos-containing material, which was not satisfactory or verified by a referee.

Background

On 27 May 2021, the applicant applied to WorkSafe for a restricted asbestos removal licence, which was subsequently refused on the basis that his training and experience did not satisfy the requirements of regulation 5.45B of the Occupational Safety and Health Regulations 1996 (WA).

The licence application required that the applicant nominate a person “to provide a detailed description of at least 12 months of verifiable (via referees) experience in asbestos removal that occurred within the last five years from the date of the application”.

The applicant provided four examples of experience. Two examples occurred in March and July 2016. A restricted licence number was not provided for the remaining two examples.

On 2 July 2021, the respondent wrote to the applicant stating that it could only consider one of the examples provided because the others did not meet the application requirements.

In February 2022, a letter sent by the respondent to the applicant stated that his licence application was refused because the applicant had:

1. not provided verifiable evidence and the respondent could not be satisfied that he is able to do asbestos work involving non-friable asbestos-containing materials in a safe and proper manner, or that he has the experience to properly supervise and manage asbestos work done under the licence; and
2. not addressed the respondent’s concerns that his referees did not corroborate the experience he provided.

Contention

The applicant’s grounds of appeal were:

1. the respondent took too long to make its decision;
2. the respondent should have considered all of the applicant’s experience;
3. there is a shortage of people with such licences; and
4. the applicant has organised training with a training service provider so that more people can become qualified to remove asbestos.

The respondent submitted that its decision to refuse the applicant’s licence should be affirmed under s 61A(3)(a) of the OSH Act.  Such decision was made on the basis that the applicant had not provided sufficient evidence of relevant and varied industry experience to demonstrate that he had the skills necessary to supervise and manage asbestos work in a safe and proper manner.

Findings

The Tribunal dismissed the application and affirmed the respondent’s decision because, as contended by the respondent, the applicant had not produced satisfactory evidence.

The applicant provided limited experience, which could only result in a finding that the experience the applicant pointed to in his Licence Application (including the supplementary evidence/example) was not verified by a referee.

The decision can be read here.