PCBU vs Officer vs Worker: Who Holds Responsibility Under the WHS Act?

I’ve spent fifteen years explaining Work Health and Safety obligations to directors and executives, and honestly, there’s one question that comes up in nearly every boardroom: “Who’s actually responsible when something goes wrong?” The answer isn’t as straightforward as most people think.

Here’s the thing. The WHS Act creates a web of overlapping duties between PCBUs, officers, and workers that can genuinely confuse even experienced business leaders. What strikes me is how often I see directors assume they can simply delegate WHS responsibility and walk away – but the law doesn’t work like that.

I remember sitting in a board meeting last year where the chair confidently declared, “Our PCBU handles all the safety stuff, so we’re covered.” The silence that followed was telling. Nobody wanted to point out that the PCBU – their company – couldn’t actually do anything without them making it happen.

The PCBU: The entity that can’t act without people

Look, let’s get this straight from the start. A PCBU (Person Conducting a Business or Undertaking) sounds like it should be a person, but it’s usually not. It’s typically your company, your partnership, your trust – basically, the business entity itself.

But here’s what genuinely trips people up: entities can’t think, plan, or implement anything. They’re legal constructs. Your company can’t walk around a worksite identifying hazards or developing safety procedures. Only actual humans can do that work.

In my experience, this creates the biggest blind spot for executives. They think the PCBU responsibility sits somewhere “out there” with the business, when actually it requires real people – specifically officers – to make it happen. The PCBU has the legal duty, but officers have the practical obligation to ensure it gets done.

The WHS Act places eight core duties on every PCBU:

What I always explain to clients like this: the PCBU owns these responsibilities legally, but someone has to actually do the work. That someone is usually you.

I’ve seen too many companies get caught out thinking they could outsource PCBU compliance entirely. One manufacturing client tried to hand everything over to an external consultant, assuming that transferred the legal obligation. When WorkSafe investigated an incident, they quickly discovered the directors had barely engaged with the consultant’s recommendations. The PCBU – their company – was still liable, and the officers faced personal penalties for failing their due diligence duties.

The officer: The human face of PCBU obligations

Actually, let me be completely honest here. When I first started in WHS consulting, I thought “officer duties” were just corporate governance fluff. Boy, was I wrong.

Officers under the WHS Act aren’t just board members having quarterly meetings. They’re the people who genuinely control or influence how the PCBU operates – directors, sure, but also senior executives, managers with real decision-making power. Basically, if you can affect WHS outcomes for the business, you’re probably an officer.

The law requires officers to exercise “due diligence” to ensure the PCBU complies with its duties. This isn’t passive oversight. It’s active, ongoing responsibility that includes:

• Understanding the WHS obligations that apply to your business

• Verifying that appropriate resources are allocated to WHS

• Ensuring suitable processes exist for receiving and responding to WHS information

• Implementing systems for compliance monitoring and review

What I’ve learned is that due diligence failures often happen gradually. Directors get comfortable assuming someone else is handling the details. They stop asking probing questions about incident reports. They approve budgets without considering WHS resource needs.

I worked with a transport company where the managing director genuinely believed he’d done enough by appointing a safety manager. He rarely attended WHS committee meetings, never reviewed incident data, and couldn’t explain their risk management process when WorkSafe arrived after a serious incident. The PCBU faced significant penalties, but he also received personal fines for failing his officer duties.

The thing is, officer responsibilities can’t be delegated away completely. You can assign tasks, absolutely – but you can’t transfer your duty to exercise due diligence. That stays with you personally.

The worker: Essential participant with defined limits

Workers have their own set of WHS duties, but honestly, their responsibilities are more limited than many executives realise. Here’s what the law actually requires from workers:

• Take reasonable care for their own health and safety

• Take reasonable care that their actions don’t adversely affect others

• Comply with reasonable instructions from the PCBU

• Cooperate with reasonable PCBU policies and procedures

Sounds straightforward, right? But I’ve noticed something interesting over the years. When executives don’t properly engage with their PCBU and officer duties, workers often get caught in impossible situations.

I remember visiting a construction site where workers were reporting scaffold issues to supervisors week after week. The problems weren’t getting fixed because nobody at management level was actually reviewing incident reports or allocating resources for maintenance. When an accident eventually happened, there was a lot of finger-pointing about worker compliance – but the real failure was at the PCBU and officer level.

Workers can’t fix systemic problems they don’t control. They can’t approve budget for new safety equipment. They can’t redesign work processes or change organisational priorities. Their duties are important, but they’re constrained by what’s reasonably within their influence.

Where responsibilities overlap and where they don’t

This is where things get genuinely confusing, and honestly, I’m still working through some of these complexities with clients.

Take a typical scenario: a worker reports a hazard, the supervisor acknowledges it, but nothing gets done because budget approval sits with executives who haven’t prioritised WHS spending. When an incident occurs, who’s responsible?

Well, potentially everyone. The worker might face questions about whether they took reasonable care. The supervisor could be liable if they’re considered an officer with influence over resource allocation. The PCBU definitely has liability for failing to maintain a safe work environment. And senior officers face due diligence scrutiny for not ensuring adequate systems and resources.

What I’ve noticed is that clear documentation and regular review processes help enormously here. When everyone understands their role and there are proper escalation pathways, responsibility becomes much clearer.

But here’s what genuinely keeps me up at night sometimes: the law expects different levels of responsibility based on different levels of control. A worker who reports a hazard has met their obligation. A supervisor who receives that report needs to act within their authority. An officer who controls resource allocation needs to ensure systems exist for appropriate responses.

I worked with a mining company where this played out perfectly during a WorkSafe investigation. They could demonstrate clear reporting lines, documented decision-making processes, and appropriate resource allocation. Each level had fulfilled their duties within their sphere of control. Contrast that with another client where responsibilities were completely muddled – nobody knew who was supposed to do what, and everyone faced potential liability.

Reasonably practicable: Practical guidance for executives

“Reasonably practicable” might be the most important concept in WHS law, and it’s definitely one of the most misunderstood.

The WHS Act requires PCBUs to do what’s reasonably practicable to ensure health and safety. But what does that actually mean for decision-makers? The law gives us five factors to consider:

• Likelihood of the hazard or risk occurring

• Degree of harm that might result

• Knowledge about the hazard and control options

• Availability and suitability of control measures

• Cost of controls relative to the risk (including whether cost is grossly disproportionate)

I always explain it to clients like this: you’re not expected to eliminate every possible risk regardless of cost, but you can’t ignore serious risks just because controls are expensive.

I had a client in manufacturing who was resistant to installing better ventilation systems because of the $200,000 cost. But when we worked through the reasonably practicable assessment – high likelihood of respiratory illness, serious long-term health impacts, proven control technology available – the cost wasn’t grossly disproportionate to the risk. They installed the systems.

Contrast that with another client who wanted to spend $50,000 on a control measure that would reduce an already low-probability risk by a tiny amount. That probably wouldn’t meet the reasonably practicable test.

Here’s my practical checklist for executives making these decisions:

The key thing I’ve learned is that reasonably practicable isn’t a static assessment. As knowledge improves, technology advances, or circumstances change, what’s reasonably practicable can shift.

Getting accountability right

After fifteen years of helping organisations navigate WHS compliance, what strikes me most is how often clarity solves problems before they become crises.

I think back to that board meeting I mentioned at the start. Once we worked through who actually needed to do what – the PCBU’s legal obligations, the officers’ due diligence requirements, the workers’ cooperation duties – everything clicked into place. The directors stopped assuming someone else was handling compliance and started asking the right questions about systems, resources, and outcomes.

The reality is that WHS accountability is complex and dynamic. PCBUs hold the central legal responsibility, but they’re usually corporate entities that require human officers to make compliance happen. Officers can’t delegate their due diligence duties, even when they assign specific tasks to others. Workers have important responsibilities too, but within the constraints of what they can actually control or influence.

What I’ve learned from working with hundreds of organisations is that successful WHS compliance requires clear role definition, proper resource allocation, and ongoing engagement at every level. The law creates overlapping responsibilities precisely because workplace safety requires everyone to play their part.

The consequences of getting this wrong aren’t just regulatory penalties (though they can be substantial). Personal liability for officers is real. Reputational damage affects business outcomes. And of course, the human cost of workplace incidents extends far beyond any legal or financial implications.