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.

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.

Operator killed by reversing telehandler.

In January 2021, a worker on a private property was fatally injured when a telehandler ran over him. Early investigations show the telehandler was loading a crop-dusting plane with fertiliser at a private airstrip on the property when the operator reversed it over a worker.

Telehandlers pose a number of risks to operators and pedestrians. These include:

• colliding or contacting people or objects such as other vehicles or plant and energised powerlines

• overturning

• objects falling on the operator

• operator being ejected.

Read more here to learn more about the WHS risks and how to prevent them in the future.

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.

Worker killed attempting to jump start a tractor.

In December 2020, a worker suffered fatal injuries attempting to jump start a tractor. Early investigations indicate two men were working together and one of them drove a car into the machinery shed where the tractor was parked. The automatic vehicle was left in drive with the handbrake on. After applying jumper leads to the tractor, one of the workers opened the car door, and whilst standing next to the vehicle on the driver’s side, pushed the accelerator. At this time, it appears the car lurched forward and trapped the man.

Prevention:

Control measures will vary depending on the type of vehicle. Controls may include, but are not limited to:

• Never use a vehicle to jump start another vehicle unless both vehicles are in park (automatic gearbox) or neutral (manual gearbox) with park brakes applied.

• Consider using a mobile battery pack (i.e. secured to a hand trolley) to jump start vehicles.

• Only operate a vehicle from the designated operator’s position (i.e. in the case of a car or truck, sitting in the driver’s seat).

• If possible, operate the vehicle on flat level ground.

• Do not drive or operate the vehicle on excessive slopes, or on ground that is too slippery or too soft to safely support it.

• Follow the manufacturer's recommendations to safely operate the vehicle, particularly in relation to;

  • maximum allowable ground slope

  • allowable ground conditions and restrictions for soft or slippery surfaces

  • specific setup requirements including vehicle restraints (i.e. wheel chocks) as specified for use with the vehicle.

• Before starting the work, conduct a risk assessment of the site conditions where the vehicle is to travel or operate.

• If the vehicle cannot safely access or operate in the proposed location, an alternate work method should be used.

• Ensure the hand/park brake is on before exiting the vehicle.

• Ensure the brakes, including the hand/park brake, are well maintained.

• Install a warning system to alert drivers when the hand/park brake hasn’t been applied (these can be easily retro fitted).

• Do not stand in the potential path of a vehicle when the engine is running.

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.

Worker killed in industrial shredding machine incident.

In January 2021, a worker was killed while operating an industrial shredding machine used to process bulk waste building materials.

Initial enquiries indicate he was attempting to remove a blockage from the shredding machine. Investigations are continuing and include scrutiny as to why the machine became operational.

Safety issues

Fixed plant, including industrial shredding machines, often have several different types of moving parts. Hazards associated with fixed plant include:

• rotating shafts, pulleys, gearing, cables, sprockets, or chains

• belt run-on points, chains, or cables

• crushing or shearing points such as roller feeds and conveyor feeds

• machine components that process and handle materials or product (i.e. move, flatten, level, cut, grind, pulp, crush, break or pulverise materials)

• unexpected movement of parts operated by hydraulic, electrical, electronic or remote control systems.

Workers performing tasks such as maintenance, repair, installation, service and cleaning on machines in all industry sectors are highly vulnerable and have a higher risk of being seriously injured or killed through inadvertent operation of machinery and equipment they are working in, on, or around.