Rules and regulations can only go so far in ensuring employees remain safe while they work. The most obvious areas of concern are in environments such as forestry and farming, but the recent conviction of the Ministry of Social Development, for having an unsafe office in Ashburton, takes the level of responsibility up another level.
The ministry was told its staff were not protected from violent clients. Chief District Court Judge Jan-Marie Doogue said had she been able, she would have imposed a fine of $16,000. She was unable to do so because MSD is a Crown entity and is protected by law from financial liability.
Russell John Tully had earlier been found guilty of the murders of Susan Leigh Cleveland and Peggy Turuhira Nobel and the attempted murder of Kim Elizabeth Adams. He received life imprisonment and must serve at least 27 years before he can be considered for parole.
Tully entered the Ashburton office of MSD on September 1, 2014, and fired at Mrs Nobel who was on the reception desk, killing her almost instantly. He fired at Ms Adams as she fled to the back room. He found Lindy Curtis hiding under a desk with a client and fired at her. Tully then moved to the back of the building, where he saw another of his specific targets, Ms Cleveland. She was the staff member he was most dissatisfied with. He shot her three times, killing her. The public had unrestricted access into the public area of the Ashburton office.
The MSD pleaded guilty to failing to keep its employees safe by not exposing them to violent clients but had continued to dispute the open plan design of its Ashburton office was unsafe. The judge found Worksafe, which prosecuted MSD, had proven its case over the hazard of the open plan design.
Public servants, particularly those dealing with members of the public on a face-to-face basis, can suffer the most appalling behaviour from those they are trying to help. Tied by government rules and regulations, it is not an easy job explaining to people why they cannot have exactly what they want, when they want it. And for those staff dealing with troubled clients, there is always a danger of physical violence.
Regrettably, Tully took his anger out in the most awful way possible when he shot and killed two staff and injured another. No-one wants to go to work thinking they may never go home. Yet, that is what happened. The danger for staff started well before Tully got access to the open-plan office; it began when he was allowed unrestricted entrance through the front door.
The need to place vulnerable staff behind some sort of barrier is necessary, at the very least. It could still mean a receptionist is killed, in the first instance. Again that is unacceptable. No barrier is going to keep staff safe forever from those determined to kill or create terror and the United States, this year, is the example of how bad things can become.
The union representing staff in the public service, the PSA, says its recent survey shows frontline public servants often bear the brunt of their clients’ frustrations. The PSA has been working with the ministry in establishing new guidelines for office lay-outs.
Designing an office lay-out to stop angry or violent people cannot be the answer. Every office, shop, service station and supermarket will then need to be protected in some way. However, identifying the workers most at risk from violent offenders and establishing best protection practices is the most practical solution.
