Today’s question poses the scenario of:
A Security guard in a shopping centre is usually the appointed First Aider [as part of the Emergency Control Organisation [AS 3745-2010], dealing with the public. The security guard must hold a valid first aid certificate and normally this is the cheapest/ easiest course available. WHAT IF, when confronted with a life threatening first aid scenario such as a young child suffering from a possible anaphylactic reaction to a known trigger age and displaying symptoms, the security guard does not know what to do. I mean if they are qualified BUT NOT competent. Are they or the security firm liable as surely they are not covered under the good Samaritan act as this is part of their scope of practice and they are the nominated first aid officer.
No the security guard would not be a ‘good Samaritan’. He or she is at work and if his her duties including providing first aid they are not acting without expectation of fee or reward. The good Samaritan legislation in each jurisdiction would be irrelevant.
Could they be liable? The security firm could be vicariously liable for the negligence of its employee but there will only be liability if it can be shown that in the circumstances some other treatment would have made a difference to the outcome. That begs the question of what was the outcome? If the patient recovers without long term injury then there is no damage. If they do have long term disability what could the security guard have done? A first aid certificate does not necessarily authorise someone to carry an epipen (a schedule 3 drug). If there was no epipen available then there’s nothing the guard could have done even if he or she had wanted to do something.
The answer is we can’t know. It all depends on the facts.
For a related answer see First aid by security guards (May 26, 2014).
Australian Emergency Law 
As a Victorian Security Guard for a small company that have their own collective agreement which has no provision for first aid allowance, yet at some work sites eg shopping centres we are expected to render first aid – As the job sop states.
Should we then legally be paid a first aid allowance?
Do we still have a duty of care anyway due to holding a first aid certificate (As part of security licence).
Or is it a matter of not being paid the allowance then we cannot have the duty of care?
Looking forward to some advise on this…
If you are employed as a security guard then you are part of the client’s emergency response. You must have a duty to do something but exactly what is hard to say. Just imagine a person collapsed on the ground and the security guard is standing there, watching and doing nothing because ‘I’m not paid a first aid allowance’. The outrageous nature of that story would suggest that everyone would expect a security guard to do something – to take some action – to at least control the scene and ring triple zero.
And it is a condition of getting a security licence that you hold a first aid certificate with the obvious implication that security guards are meant to be trained and therefore can be expected to do something. That doesn’t mean you have to be a paramedic, or save the person’s life, but you are expected to have some idea and do something.
Further if the client has contracted with your company and part of the job is to provide first aid and there’s no first aid allowance in your collective agreement then you have collectively agreed to do first aid without an allowance. You don’t have to be paid a first aid allowance if you have negotiated one (I say remembering that I am not an industrial lawyer).
If you’re a security guard and someone on your watch gets injured and you’re asked to help you have a duty to that person and the contractor who has engaged you. The duty is to do what is reasonable in all the circumstances. What that means we cannot say in the abstract but it could not be permissible to do nothing.
Hi,
I have worked 20 years in the NSW security industry and still today this is an issue with clients and security company’s, there are more companies slowly paying the first Aid allowance but still more don’t pay then do, only recently I started with a new security company and my client is a property group for a high rise in Sydney 35 levelled office building and was informed that the Client did not add first aid to the scope of the contract with the security company so did not add that cost to the contract and we would not be paid 1st aid allowance and we are not the nominated first aiders on site, But as usual the client has put 1st aid kits and signs on the security control room door to advertised to the there customers of 1st aiders and makes requests for security to attend and provide 1st aid in incidents, my question to you would be In NSW, (there’s generally no legal obligation to provide assistance in an emergency, unless a duty of care exists) this is under first aid laws, I understand that we cant do nothing and our job would be calling for emergency services and controlling the area, but due to us not being being nominated there seems to be no established duty of care to provide 1st aid that should be the job of the onsite nominated official, there seems to be mayor holes in the laws here, I understand there is NSW work safe laws but why is this put on the guard and not the company’s after all should they not have to officially name there nominated first aiders on site including to the security company so the guards can demand there rightful allowance, really in most cases its $25 dollars a week for most guards.
Why has WorkSafe/Fair work not sorted this con job out if the guard is not nominated in an official capacity then first aid laws should apply meaning no duty of care apart from calling the emergency services and controlling the area.
Thanks for hearing me out its very frustrating for guards and the customers that may need 1st aid.
See also https://australianemergencylaw.com/2014/05/26/first-aid-by-security-guards/
I suspect the WHS regulator in each state/territory has not ‘sorted this con job out’ as it would not be the most pressing issue on their agenda – if it’s on their agenda at all. I’m sure they take the view that it is up to the PCBU in each case to ensure that there is adequate first aid made available at each workplace but how they do it is a matter for them. And it is up to each employer to meet the provisions of any industrial award regarding the payment of a first aid allowance and that is a matter for the Fair Work Commission or state/territory Industrial Relations Commissions (depending on the employer) not the WHS regulator.
The Security Services Industry Award 2020 cl 17.2 says:
We have seen that every licensed security guard (assuming the NSW provisions quoted above are nationally consistent) meets (a)(i). The question is are they ‘requested or nominated by the employer to act as a first aider’? The employer is the firm they work for, ie the security firm not the client. Does their employer expect them to act as a ‘first aider’? There has to be first aid kits in the security room or somewhere accessible by the security staff as the security staff themselves have to have access to reasonable first aid services. A security guard nominated by their employer to be the designated first aid officer for the security team is clearly entitled to the first aid allowance.
If however it is the client putting the kits in the first aid room and signs on the door, and is telling its staff that if they need first aid they should go to security then clearly they are expecting the security staff to do first aid and to the extent this is permitted by the security firm then the employer is also ‘requesting’ or ‘nominating’ its staff to act as a first aider and so arguably every security guard should get the allowance.
The critical issue is that the entitlement to the allowance depends on the request or nomination by the employer directed to the security guard to act as a first aider. It does not depend on the terms of agreement between the security firm and the client. If you’re entitled to the allowance you’re entitled to it whether or not the security firm has built that cost into its contract with the client.
You say ‘we can’t do nothing and our job would be calling for emergency services and controlling the area, but due to us not being nominated there seems to be no established duty of care to provide 1st aid that should be the job of the onsite nominated official, there seems to be major holes in the laws here …’ but I’m not sure there is a hole there. You’ve probably identified the relevant law so there is no ‘hole’. Yes you should provide security, and the client should provide the first aiders. If they want the security staff to do both that should be in the contract and yes you should be paid the first aid allowance.
If you want Fair Work to sort it out you would need to apply for the first aid allowance, get knocked back and then lodge a dispute with the Fair Work Commission. They are not going to ‘sort it out’ unless someone brings proceedings before them asking them to sort it out. This is a matter to take up with your trade union.