Improving crane licensing under the model work health and safety laws

[redacted] the CFMEU does not support the specific proposal that
slewing mobile cranes be licensed according to their function (e.g. wheeled vs. crawler
cranes, hydraulic vs. lattice booms) rather than their rated capacity. We are concerned that
this will lead to workers being required to operate slewing cranes of various sizes that they
have no experience on and be a safety risk not only for the operator but also all workers in
the vicinity of the crane operation.
We are however open to a stackable licensing regime for slewing cranes that caters for the
increased size and complexity of mobile cranes and different road licensing requirements
(e.g. keep the current C2, C6 and C1 licenses; change the CO license to mobile cranes up
to 250T and introduce new licenses for mobile cranes up to 600T, mobile cranes over 600T,
slewing cranes with luffing fly jib, slewing cranes with boom trailer, slewing crane with
Superlift type attachment, crawler/tracked cranes, lattice boom cranes and a license to
perform multi crane lifts).

As stated above we believe there would be negative safety consequences
through workers being required to operate slewing cranes of various sizes that they have
no experience on. This is especially the case for specialised heavy lifts where superlift
devices and the like are used.

Yes, introduce stackable slewing crane licenses which require the lower size
crane licence as a pre-requisite.

Yes, we support requiring a high risk work licence for vehicle loading cranes
of 1,000kg or more capacity. There have been a number of incidents involving vehicle
loading cranes including fatalities1 . Ensuring that operators of vehicle loading cranes are
trained in dogging and crane operation can only improve the safety of the industry.

Yes, we support the proposal that non-slewing mobile cranes require a licence
regardless of their rated capacity. Too many accidents occur involving non-slewing mobile
cranes. The recent Safety Bulletin from Resources and Safety Queensland demonstrates
what can happen when workers are not fully trained.

We support a requirement for experience working under supervision before a
person can be issued with a crane licence and the recording of the experience in a logbook.
We also support a pre-requisite of a person working as a licensed dogger before
commencing training for a crane licence.
The person signing off the logbook however should not just be a person nominated by the
employer but must be a person already qualified and licensed to operate the type/size of
crane that a worker is being trained on.

Adopting the proposals referred to in in response to Q11 above would increase the safety
of all workers at a site and give them confidence in the skills and abilities of the crane
operators.

For a logbook system to be successful it must have the support of employers, unions,
regulators and training organisations. The logbook must contain sufficient detail that gives
a casual reader sufficient information on the skills and level of ability reached and
performed by the operator.

Generally yes, although they could be employed by a Group Training
organisation on a traineeship and then hosted by a crane business.

The CFMEU has landed on a 100 operational hours minimum period for working under
supervision as we believe this will give sufficient time for a trainee to become familiar with
the equipment that they are using and will usually give them exposure to different loads
and tasks as required to enable them to complete their logbook.

We generally support a new licence for telehandlers but do not support a base
unit and electives. The licence should cover all aspects of what a telehandler could be used
for, and dogging should be a pre-requisite.
We support a new high risk licence for piling rigs with basic rigging as a pre-requisite.
We make no comment on straddle carriers and will defer to the views of the CMEU (MUA
Division).

Adopting the new licences would improve the safety of workers as the
operators will be fully trained on the equipment’s operations, not only improving their
safety but also that of those workers in close proximity to where the equipment is being
operated.

The content of the licence requirements and the training required to achieve
them will be a major factor in the success of the proposed new licences. Other significant
factors would be the confidence of industry in the training providers and the cost of
obtaining the licenses.

• Telehandler (non – slewing, only using tines and a basket)– 100 operational hours as a
minimum.
Telehandler (slewing) – 100 operational hours as a minimum and must have a slewing crane
licence if operated that way (noting that slewing telehandlers have even more functions
than slewing cranes).
• Telehandler (suspended load elective licence) - 100 operational hours as a minimum (with
experience as a licenced dogger as a pre-requisite).
• Telehandler (work platform suspended elective licence) - 100 operational hours as a
minimum.
• Piling rig - 100 operational hours as a minimum (with experience as a licenced rigger as
a pre-requisite). (Note that there are different styles of piling rigs now coming into play.
On the Northeast Link in Victoria, they have engaged overseas operators due to the
complexity of the machine.)
• Straddle carrier – no comment.

The problem with the existing training arrangements stems back to a
decision taken in the early 2000’s to remove stackable qualifications. Moving back to
stackable qualifications and applying the principles of recognition of prior learning should
remove the duplication of training that exists in the current system.

We do not believe that the proposals will improve WHS or increase worker
safety. Under the proposal a worker could be trained on a 20T slewing crane and once they
receive their licence, be expected to operate rough terrain cranes and mobile cranes of 200T
or more capacity. Heavy cranes often come with superlift devices and an operator on a 20T
cranes would have no idea how to operate a crane with a superlift device let alone set it up.

We do not support the proposed new crane licence model.

Yes move to a stackable licence arrangement as set out in our response to
questions 1 and 3. Stackable crane licenses would improve safety as it will ensure that crane
operators have been trained on cranes of a similar capacity and capability relative to the
crane licence they are operating under.

We do not support the model of elective licences.

Yes, see our response to question 25.

Yes. Firstly, we do not support the slewing crane base licence. Secondly, piling
rigs now operate quite differently from cranes and given the mix of rigs now being used
(and their applications) there are many unique hazards that can arise which differ from
cranes.