Back to RJ Archive

Restorative Justice and Work-Related Death

August 26, 2009

Three working hypotheses emerged from this discussion, which were then tested in a consultation process. This involved interviews with bereaved families, employers, unions, criminal defence lawyers, OHS investigators and prosecutors, and the coronial service. The findings are presented in the “Consultation Report”, with full transcripts available in the “Consultation Interviews”. 

This second part of the project aimed, above all, to give a ‘voice’ to those who had lost their loved ones and their work colleagues in a work-related incident. It presents their stories, their thoughts and their feelings. It reveals their enormous generosity, courage and humanity, as well as their raw pain, anger and profound grief. 

We found that almost everyone wanted a better way of dealing with the fatality. No one suggested that the current legal system should be entirely discarded or by-passed. But did want it to be more effective, efficient and more considerate. They also wanted the kind of outcomes that RJ is, uniquely, able to offer.   For example:

While most interviewees were in favour of RJ, they also expressed a number of important concerns and caveats. Many of these involved best practice issues – such as making sure that RJ facilitators are properly qualified and trained. People could see that an RJ process, done badly, could easily do more harm than good.

One concern that virtually everyone mentioned was the threat of prosecution, and the way in which this could inhibit employers or employees from meeting with the family and speaking openly about their part in what happened. But most felt that this issue could potentially be resolved if RJ was placed after the legal process had been concluded. As one employer put it:

Others felt that the threat of prosecution might not be such an issue if RJ was an integral part of the legal process, for instance, if it took place in the context of a court-ordered undertaking. Some suggested that there may be ways of ensuring that whatever was said in an RJ process could not then be used in a court of law. Whatever proposals were put forward, everyone agreed that the needs and wishes of the bereaved families should come first. 

On a personal note, I have been involved in RJ for over ten years; and this has probably been the most challenging and rewarding project in which I have been involved. My deepest hope is that it might contribute to the development of a RJ service in this area, so that those who have suffered the impact of a work-related death might, someday, be given the opportunity to experience the kind of unique benefits that restorative justice can offer.

 

Dr. Derek Brookes
Research Fellow
School of Social and Political Sciences (Criminology)
University of Melbourne
Email. derekb@unimelb.edu.au or dbrookes@relationalapproaches.com

Tags:

Blog PostRJ and the Workplace
Support the cause

We've Been Restoring Justice for More Than 40 Years

Your donation helps Prison Fellowship International repair the harm caused by crime by emphasizing accountability, forgiveness, and making amends for prisoners and those affected by their actions. When victims, offenders, and community members meet to decide how to do that, the results are transformational.

Donate Now