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.