I take your point. I have always viewed PINs as an indication that consultation is absent from a workplace if a PIN needs to be applied. It is an admission of frustration, and sometimes a cry for help.

I have been involved in assisting with the lifting of a Provisional Improvement Notice many times and it is rare that the employer comes out of the process feeling that it was worthwhile. They feel \”bullied\” and sometimes believe that the PIN wouldn\’t have been raised if the employees better understood the economic status of the company.

I am not a supporter of the safety culture advocates, as I have seen too many shonky promoters (a bit like behavioural-based safety promoters) but discussion about safety, openly and throughout all levels of a company is the best way to avoid PINs.

Perhaps, any consultation that involves PINs is a different type of consultation than that concerning OHS in general.

The situation without the ‘one way street clause’ would lead to the following: In order for a PIN to be issued there needs to be consultation. Therefore, if I want to be obstructive I can refuse to ‘consult’. I then ‘win’ because I can’t be issued with a PIN.

Alternately, with the ‘one way street clause’ in place, if I refuse to consult I lose because the PIN can still be issued – even though I have been obstructive and unhelpful and would not consult.

In fact the real effect of the one way street clause is to encourage (force) me to consult, because if I don’t, I run the risk of being issued with the PIN without having had my say about things. Viewed this way the one way street clause is, in fact, designed to encourage discussion.