Gold miner fined $150,000 after workers injured driving underground.

Australia’s second-largest gold producer, Northern Star Resources, was recently fined $150,000 in the Kalgoorlie Magistrates Court after two workers were injured in a vehicle collision underground.

The incident occurred at Northern Star’s Millennium mine in Kalgoorlie in December 2017.

One of the workers lost control of a light truck while travelling downhill and steered into the mine wall to slow the vehicle.

The worker and passenger suffered injuries from the collision.

At the time of the incident, the truck displayed incorrect load capacity signage and was carrying a load that exceeded the safe operating maximum by more than 1.9 tonnes.

The worker driving the truck had not completed the required training and assessment to operate the vehicle.

Andrew Chaplyn, director mines safety at the Department of Mines, Industry Regulation and Safety said the incident demonstrates why it is vital for employers to provide their employees with the instruction, training and supervision they need to work in a safe manner.

“It’s up to mining operators to ensure workers have completed the required training and assessment for specific vehicles and sites,” he said.

“The incident also highlights the need for mining operators to conduct comprehensive risk assessments and ensure they have implemented the appropriate controls.”

Chaplyn said all equipment and vehicles must display signage that shows the correct safe carrying weight.

“Site procedures should include up-skilling operators in calculating the safe working load limit if necessary.”

SA: Woolworths Group fined $120,000 over bakery trolley injury.

Woolworths Group was recently fined $120,000 over an incident in which a bakery trolley fell onto a worker causing serious injuries.

In August 2018, a worker was moving a two-metre high bakery trolley, which had been loaded with bread products from the supermarket bakery department.

As the worker was walking backwards and manoeuvring the trolley, the trolley wheel jammed, causing the worker to fall backwards and the trolley to fall on to her.

The worker sustained fractures to her sternum, lumbar vertebrae, and tibia, as well as soft tissue injuries.

SafeWork SA identified that the wheels of the trolley showed signs of deterioration which compromised movement and was top-heavy.

This resulted in little force enabling it to topple.

Woolworths did not have a system for inspection and maintenance of bakery trolleys, despite having maintenance processes for other equipment.

Woolworths Group pleaded guilty in the South Australian Employment Tribunal (SAET) for breaches of duties under section 32 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2012 (SA).

The SAET convicted Woolworths Group Ltd and imposed a fine of $120,000 before applying a 40 per cent discount for an early guilty plea.

Employers have a primary duty to provide a safe working environment to workers, including equipment required in the course of their work, said SafeWork SA executive director, Martyn Campbell.

“No matter what equipment you are using, big or small, all equipment should be regularly inspected and maintained to ensure the health and safety of workers,” said Campbell.

In sentencing, Deputy President Magistrate Cole accepted the defendant’s contrition, the support offered to the injured worker, and that the defendant “took immediate action to remove all of the comparable bakery trolleys, and then in a timely manner implemented a system of inspection and maintenance for its bakery trolleys”.

$60,000 in fines after worker trapped under hoist.

A Campbellfield manufacturer in Victoria and its director have been convicted and fined a combined $60,000 after a worker was injured by a robotic hoist in 2019.

Timberwood Panels Pty Ltd and director Iain Agyeman pleaded guilty in the Broadmeadows Magistrates’ Court to two charges each of failing to provide or maintain safe systems of work and failing to provide information and instruction.

They were fined $35,000 and $25,000 respectively and ordered to pay costs of $3640.

The court heard that in June 2019 a worker was crushed by a robotic hoist used to lift and stack timber panels while attempting to clear a malfunction.

The worker suffered serious back and leg injuries and remains on restricted duties.

WorkSafe Victoria inspectors found interlocks on gates in the area around the hoist had been bypassed, allowing access points to be opened without shutting machines off.

Guarding had also been removed, allowing access to other danger areas.

The system of work was unsafe, the training about risk identification was inadequate and safety procedures were ignored, the court heard.

Such a careless approach to safety would not be tolerated, said WorkSafe Victoria executive director of health and safety Julie Nielsen.

“To remove guarding and deactivate interlock systems shows a blatant disregard for safety and sadly this worker is continuing to live with the consequences,” she said.

“WorkSafe will not hesitate to prosecute employers who fail to ensure the safety of their workers is always their first priority.”

Manufacturer fined $135,000 after bystander death.

The importance of following manufacturers’ instructions and carrying out inspections and maintenance on schedule was brought home after a business was recently fined $135,000 for its part in a fatal incident.

The Maroochydore Magistrates Court was told the roof product manufacturing company was well overdue to carry out its 10-year major inspection of a crane, as required by the Australian Standard and the manufacturer’s recommendations.

The inspection was 18 months overdue and the defendant did not have a maintenance plan or schedule in place to ensure periodic inspections and maintenance were done when required.

Part of the company’s business included manufacturing metal products such as flashing and roof sheeting and delivering them on two leased trucks with vehicle loading cranes.

The defendant was responsible for maintaining one truck – the ‘rack truck’ and two locking mechanisms were fitted to each outrigger of the crane to prevent it extending in transit.

A company worker was driving the truck when an outrigger on the crane extended, causing it to strike a parked van, pushing it backwards, dragging another man who’d been standing at the back underneath it. He suffered fatal injuries.

The court heard the company was aware of the need for a 10-year inspection and a mandatory major inspection and service would have included a check of the locking mechanisms.

Workplace Health and Safety Queensland investigators found the truck driver failed to engage the primary locking mechanism on the passenger side outrigger.

The secondary locking mechanism was damaged and would not have given adequate and reliable restraint.

In sentencing, Magistrate Haydn Stjernqvist noted the defendant company was responsible for the maintenance of the crane. He accepted the company had no system in place to ensure the trucks it used were properly maintained, and that the truck was being driven on public roads, exposing the public to risk.

Post-incident improvements made by the defendant, including the purchase of new cranes and the commencement of an ongoing service contract with a specialist company to inspect and maintain the cranes, were considered by the magistrate, and also the company’s lack of previous convictions, cooperation with the WHSQ investigation, and guilty plea.

The company was convicted under section 32 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 for failing to comply with health and safety duties.

It was fined $135,000 and ordered to pay professional and court costs of almost $1,600. No conviction was recorded.

Worksafe WA charges shed company over worker death.

WorkSafe WA has commenced prosecution action against a shed building company and its director over the fall death of a worker and the serious injury of another worker in March 2020.

MT Sheds (WA) Pty Ltd and company director Mark Thomas Withers face a total of seven separate charges including charges in relation to the death of Jake Williams and serious injuries to Fraser Pinchin last year.

The charges include one alleging circumstances of gross negligence against MT Sheds (for which a maximum penalty of a $2.7 million fine applies) and a charge against Mark Withers that alleges the company’s gross negligence offence occurred with his consent or was attributable to his neglect (for which a maximum penalty of a $550,000 fine and five years’ imprisonment applies).

Other charges include allegations that neither Mark Withers nor either of the two employees involved in the incident held high-risk work licences for work they were performing, and that MT Sheds allowed Jake Williams to do construction work when he did not hold a construction induction training certificate.

It is alleged that on the day of the incident, the two workers were installing roof sheets on a shed they were constructing on a farm for agricultural purposes without appropriate safety control measures in place.

A strong wind or willy-willy lifted a sheet from the pack of roof sheets they were working near, causing them both to fall from a significant height.

It is alleged that Jake Williams fell approximately nine metres from the apex of the roof, suffering fatal injuries, while Fraser Pinchin fell around seven metres from the roof’s edge near the gutter line, suffering multiple fractures of the pelvis, hip, wrist and ribs.

Young workers hand caught in Hippo mixer.

A Brisbane and Gold Coast flooring company has been fined $50,000 over a workplace safety incident in which a young labourer suffered serious injuries when his hand became caught in a portable mixer.

The company pleaded guilty in the Brisbane Magistrates Court recently to breaching Queensland’s Work Health and Safety Act 2011 by failing to comply with its health and safety duties and exposing a worker to a risk of death or serious injury.

The court heard that the defendant supplied seamless resin flooring and had been subcontracted to lay an epoxy floor in a commercial business. The company engaged a labour hire company who provided an 18-year-old labourer, who had three years of construction industry experience.

A Workplace Health and Safety Queensland investigation found that on 16 November 2017, the labourer attended the workplace and signed a Safe Work Method Statement (SWMS) before being supervised by another employee, who provided safety information on mixing resin and chemicals. The worker was trained in the use of the “Hippo Mixer”, an 85-litre portable mixer, and was instructed to scrape down the sides of the mixer using a steel rod, although it is unclear whether he was told to do so while the mixer was on or off.

The labourer mixed 20-30 batches of resin throughout the course of the day, where he scraped the machine’s sides while it was operational. While performing the work, the steel rod became caught in the machine’s mixing blade and pulled the labourer’s hand in, with the 18-year-old sustaining a fractured left wrist and finger, and some soft tissue injuries.

The court heard that family-owned flooring company should have provided adequate instruction, training and supervision on using the Hippo mixer; provided information to workers on its hazards (the manufacturer’s instructions); and ensured workers followed the instructions specifically to keep hands and objects clear while the machine was operating.

In sentencing, Magistrate Judith Daley took into account the defendant’s lack of prior convictions, its cooperation with the investigation and the guilty plea. Her Honour accepted that some training was given to the injured worker but commented that it was not adequate, noting that the SWMS related to safe handling of chemicals required for resin mixing rather than use of the Hippo mixer.

Her Honour observed that the injured worker was not checked on throughout the day, having carried out 20-30 mixes without turning off the Hippo mixer. Her Honour also commented that general deterrence looms large in sentencing matters of this type.

The court noted that the company was a family company that had traded for 40 years and had not been convicted of any other WHS breaches, and that it had implemented significant changes post-incident, including no longer using the Hippo mixer.

The company was fined $50,000 and ordered to pay costs of $2846

Disregard for safety in asbestos fined.

A house painter’s failure to protect his workers and the public from asbestos has been labelled disgraceful by a Brisbane magistrate.

The defendant recently was fined $3000 after pleading guilty to three charges in the Brisbane Magistrates Court. The charges related to breaches of Queensland’s workplace safety laws by failing to ensure the health and safety of others and directing or allowing a worker to use a high-pressure water spray on asbestos or asbestos containing material.

He also was penalised for not complying with an improvement notice, with the $48,291.09 cost to clean and make safe the property and its neighbours left to the Queensland Government.

The court heard that the defendant breached the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 and regulation while painting a Norman Park house, which he was aware contained asbestos. He also did not hold a current QBCC trade contractor’s licence after failing to renew.

Work commenced on 21 February 2019 when witnesses saw a worker cleaning the roof using water and a subsequent ‘muddy splotchy’ substance adhering to a neighbour’s external wall. In response to complaints, Workplace Health and Safety Queensland inspectors found that the roof was corrugated asbestos cement sheeting.

Testing revealed asbestos contamination caused by high-pressure water spray blasting of the roof. The defendant received an improvement notice to make the property safe and ensure all asbestos was contained, labelled and disposed of, which did not happen.

In sentencing, Magistrate Michael Quinn observed the seriousness of the offending, particularly as the safety of the community was put at risk. Magistrate Quinn was of the view that the defendant’s conduct was very close to a wilful disregard of his duties and responsibilities.

Jumping castle business fined $50,000.

Overview

At a recent hearing in the Southport Magistrates Court, a Gold Coast jumping castle business was fined $50,000 for failing to comply with its primary health and safety duty, exposing workers to a risk of serious injury or death.

The small business rented jumping castles on the Gold Coast and employed casual workers to drop off, set up and collect the amusement devices.

At the start of each shift, the workers collected a truck as well as a ‘run sheet’ containing details of the day’s deliveries or pick-ups. The trucks were pre-packed by a supervisor and not checked by the workers prior to their shift.

On the job training consisted of a buddy system, where a less experienced worker would be paired with a more experienced worker for a day or so and shown what to do. The defendant company had no formal safety training in place for its workers and no specific training in regard to the use of, or transporting of, generators which were used when mains power wasn’t available.

On 10 February 2018, three casual workers were delivering the last jumping castle for the day to a customer at Tallebudgera. At the time, all three men had been employed by the defendant for six months or less. In fact, for one worker, it was his first day.

Arriving on site, the men opened the truck’s back doors and noticed petrol fumes. The generator, which hadn’t been secured at all, was on its side with a puddle of petrol on the floor.

Two of the workers climbed into the back of the truck to retrieve the generator and clean up the petrol. The workers noticed the petrol cap was lose and there was a battery hanging off the side of the generator by a wire. When one man was putting the battery back in place, the wires sparked, and an explosion occurred. There was no fire safety equipment on the truck and the two men suffered significant burn injuries.

A QPS fire scene examination found the generator to be the most probable ignition source leading to the explosion and fire, noting the situation present in the rear of the truck caused all three components of the fire triangle to be present (oxygen, fuel source and ignition source). Expert evidence stated the generator should’ve been secured whilst being transported.

In sentencing, Magistrate Mark Howden found the incident arose from a combination of events, including the generator not being secured, a lack of training and the fact there was no safety equipment on the truck. Magistrate Howden noted that securing the generator would’ve prevented the incident and that simple procedure wouldn’t have been overly burdensome for the defendant.

His Honour took into account it was a small business and the effect the penalty would have on it, the impact of COVID-19 (which included a halved turnover and far less employees) and limited financial assistance given to the two injured workers by the defendant.

Magistrate Howden considered, as an important aspect for specific deterrence, a significant change in management processes and procedures post incident. This included the purchase

of new generators fitted with fire safety equipment, formal training for workers on fire safety and generator use, and the revamping of the buddy system to include a supervisor signing off on training.

His Honour also noted the need for general deterrence, particularly in circumstances where the incident could have been easily avoided.

In sentencing, Magistrate Howden had regard to the defendant’s otherwise good criminal history and that there had been no issues since the incident.

The company was convicted of one charge under sections 32 and 19 (1) of the Work Health and safety Act 2011, fined $50,000 and ordered to pay professional and court costs of almost $4,100.

No conviction was recorded.

Dismounting from moving tractor causes death.

Overview

A North Queensland produce company was fined $150,000 in the Bowen Magistrates Court for a 2019 incident that resulted in the death of a 37 year old worker who was crushed when he dismounted from a moving tractor.

In March 2019, the deceased was driving six workers slowly around the paddock as they planted capsicum seedlings while seated in plastic seats in the planter attached to the tractor.

The deceased was previously seen dismounting the moving tractor to restock the seedling trays and a short time later the planting crew heard a cry for help. He was found under the wheel of the planter and was later declared deceased at the scene by Queensland Ambulance from heart and chest injuries.

He had worked for the organisation for nine years and dismounting from the moving tractor was common practice until around mid-2018 when the defendant introduced a policy prohibiting it. The policy included the statement ‘never get off a moving tractor’.

Records indicated that the deceased had signed a document confirming he took part in the safety induction only a month earlier but continued to dismount and was remanded for it three times before his death.

Upon sentencing, Magistrate James Morton took into account the defendant’s plea of guilty, noting that the defendant had put in place policies and procedures for the safety of workers, however, in this instance, they were clearly aware that this particular policy was not being followed nor enforced.

His Honour also stated that the incident was a very tragic one as it was a family owned company who had worked closely with the man for nine years. The incident could have been avoided had the defendant been more forceful in its approach to enforcing the policy.

His Honour commented that the consequences of the risk were clearly severe, the probability of the risk was very real and the additional steps that could have been taken to avoid the incident were not burdensome or inconvenient.

The company was fined $150,000 plus court costs. No conviction was recorded.

NQ company fined $150,000 after worker crushed.

At a recent hearing in the Cairns Magistrates Court, a North Queensland diesel mechanical repair and sugar cane harvesting business was fined $150,000 following an incident in 2017 when a worker was crushed to death trying to fix a cane haul-out vehicle.

On 7 October 2017, three workers, including a company director, were harvesting cane at a Mowbray farm. One of the cane haul-out vehicles developed an hydraulic line leak and the director, believing it was simply a hose that needed tightening, instructed the driver to fix the fitting in the assembly area around 500m away. The man did the repair alone, but around 20 minutes later, a colleague discovered he’d been crushed between the ‘haul-out’ vehicle and a stationary bulk fuel trailer.

The defendant company had in place a system for field repairs such as this one. Normally, one of its mechanics would be called in to do the job. However, on this occasion this process wasn’t followed as the director believed the easy fix could’ve been done by the driver.

To protect staff, the defendant company should have had in place a prohibition on workers doing field repairs single-handedly (in compliance with the operator manual for the vehicle and also the Rural Plant COP), as well as developing and instructing workers on the appropriate system for field maintenance.

In this instance, the duty holder failed to comply with primary safety duty and exposed a worker to a risk of serious injury or death. It appears the driver had attempted to fix the problem without turning off the machine and was crushed to death.

In sentencing, Magistrate Joseph Pinder accepted the company directors, one of whom had diesel mechanic qualifications, had previously told the driver not to work on a machine when it was operating, though noted this instruction hadn’t been given on the day of the incident.

Magistrate Pinder took into consideration the company’s significant co-operation in the investigation by Workplace Health and Safety Queensland, an early guilty plea and remorse expressed by the directors. His Honour noted the company had no prior WHS convictions, but deemed this breach was toward the mid-level range of objective seriousness and that general deterrence loomed large in his penalty consideration.

The defendant company was fined $150,000 plus court costs of just under $1,100. No conviction was recorded.

Court imposes $30,000 fine for dodgy electrical work.

At a recent hearing in the Brisbane Magistrates Court, Daniel William Dawes was convicted and fined for multiple offences under the Electrical Safety Act 2002 and the Electrical Safety Regulation 2013.

Mr Dawes conducted a business, trading as DD Electrical, which contracted for and performed electrical work such as the installation of air-conditioning units around Brisbane. Originally, the defendant held an electrical work licence, authorising him to conduct electrical work in Queensland. That licence, however, was cancelled in November 2019 as a result of disciplinary action. Mr Dawes also previously held an electrical contractor licence, allowing him to contract for electrical work as a sole trader.

That licence expired in May 2016 and, from that day, he wasn’t authorised to perform electrical work as a sole trader or operator.

Between 1 November 2017 and 29 December 2017, while not holding a valid electrical contracting licence, Mr Dawes advertised his services as an electrician on HiPages. During that period, he contracted to do electrical work, mainly installing air-conditioning units at Wooloowin, Gordon Park and Ascot after homeowners posted requests for quotes. The defendant obliged, subsequently attending the properties to do the work for which he was paid.

The electrical work done by Mr Dawes to install an air-conditioning unit at a Wooloowin property in November 2017 was found to be particularly deficient. A number of wires attached to the air-conditioning unit had been cut by the defendant and re-connected by twisting the wires together and covering them in tape. That wiring was inside ducting adjacent to the air-conditioning unit. That sub-standard connection had the potential to overheat, causing a fire or exposing the live wiring. Any person who came into contact with such live wiring was also at risk of electrical shock.

Between 9 December 2016 and 28 December 2017, the defendant installed air-conditioning units at eight properties in Ashgrove, Wilston, Newstead, Gordon Park, Ascot, Cashmere, North Lakes and Murarrie. Electrical Safety Office inspectors subsequently examined the work done by Mr Dawes and found it did not comply with the Wiring Rules in force at the time. While the manner in which the installations did not comply with the Wiring Rules differed across the properties, there were some similar failures such as not fitting an isolation switch at four of the jobs.

In sentencing, Magistrate Noel Nunan acknowledged there was a need for specific and general deterrence, having regard to the potential risks associated with improper electrical work. His Honour observed the defendant had incompetently installed a number of air-conditioning units. It was noted the defendant was a qualified electrician who held an electrical work licence at the relevant times and had previously held an electrical contractor’s licence.

Magistrate Nunan took into consideration the defendant’s lack of previous convictions and maximum penalties for the offences. It was acknowledged that, due to the defendant’s absence from court, there were no submissions as to his capacity to pay a fine.

His Honour determined to record a conviction in relation to each of the 10 charges. Mr Dawes was convicted on one charge of conducting a business involving the performance of electrical work without holding an electrical contractor licence, a charge of failing to comply with electrical safety duty and that failure exposed an individual to a risk of death or serious injury and eight charges of failing to ensure that electrical work performed on an electrical installation complied with the wiring rules.

He was convicted and fined $30,000, plus professional and court costs of almost $1,100.

Roofing manufacturer fined after fatality.

At a recent hearing in the Maroochydore Magistrates Court, a roof product manufacturing company was fined for its part in an incident which saw a man killed almost two years ago.

Part of the company’s business included manufacturing metal products such as flashing and roof sheeting and delivering these to customers. It leased two trucks with vehicle loading cranes from an associated company. One of those trucks was referred to as the ‘rack truck’ and the defendant was responsible for its maintenance. The crane attached to that particular truck was fitted with two stabilising legs, also referred to as outriggers, one on each side. Each outrigger was designed to readily slide outwards and retract. Two locking mechanisms were fitted to each outrigger to secure it in the retracted ‘transport position’ and prevent it extending. The primary mechanism was a spring-loaded handle which, when manually engaged would hold the retracted outrigger in place. The secondary mechanism was a hooked latch designed to automatically clip over a U-shaped bar once the outrigger was in the transport position. It was designed to prevent the outrigger from sliding outwards if the primary mechanism failed or was not engaged.

On 5 February 2018, a man employed by the defendant company, was driving the truck through a housing estate, when the passenger side outrigger on the crane extended, causing it to strike a parked van. The force pushed the van backwards, dragging another man who’d been standing at the back underneath it. He suffered fatal injuries.

Workplace Health and Safety Queensland investigators found the truck driver had failed to engage the primary locking mechanism on the passenger side outrigger before leaving the estate. The secondary locking mechanism was bent and worn. Testing showed this back-up device would not, on its own, have provided adequate and reliable restraint without an engaged primary locking mechanism. The investigation could not determine whether the passenger side outrigger extended as a result of a failure of the secondary locking mechanism or because the driver didn’t to properly retract the outrigger in the transport position.

At the time of the incident, the crane was well overdue for its 10-year major inspection as required by the Australian Standard and the manufacturer’s recommendations. The inspection was approximately 18 months overdue. The defendant did not have a maintenance plan or schedule in place to ensure periodic inspections and maintenance were done when required. The company was also aware of the need for a 10-year inspection, having received a quote for its other truck-mounted crane. A mandatory major inspection and service would have, amongst other things, included a check of the primary and secondary locking mechanisms to ensure they operated effectively and identified the need to fit a warning device in the vehicle cab to indicate when an outrigger was not in the transport position.

In sentencing, Magistrate Haydn Stjernqvist noted the defendant company was responsible for maintenance of the crane, with the truck and crane being used regularly in its business. Magistrate Stjernqvist referred to the aggravating circumstances of the case which included that the company had no system in place to ensure the trucks it used as part of its daily operations were properly maintained, the truck was being driven on public roads thus exposing unsuspecting members of the public to risk, and the defendant was aware of the need to conduct a 10 year major inspection for its other crane truck, yet had not made inquiries to obtain a quote for a similar service of the subject truck.

His Honour considered post-incident improvements made by the defendant, including the purchase of new cranes and the commencement of an ongoing service contract with a specialist company to inspect and maintain the cranes. He also took into account the defendant company’s lack of previous convictions, cooperation with the WHSQ investigation and guilty plea.

The company was convicted of an offence against section 32 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 of failing to comply with health and safety duty as a person with management or control of plant at a workplace to ensure, so far as reasonably practicable, that the plant was without risks to the health and safety of any person and that failure exposed an individual to a risk of death or serious injury.

The defendant was fined $135,000 and ordered to pay professional and court costs of almost $1,600. No conviction was recorded.