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.

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.

Person falls from tank.

In November 2020, a man sustained serious head injuries after falling from a water tank that had just been put in place by a vehicle loading crane. It appears he was standing on the tank close to the crane.

Prevention:

Falls are a major cause of death and serious injury. The risk of falling is common in construction, but may also occur during many other work activities.

The risk of serious injury from a fall is largely dependent on the height, but also the surface below (e.g. working on a roof near an unprotected edge or performing installation work from a ladder). A risk management approach must be used to manage the risks of falls from heights.

Managing work health and safety risks is an ongoing process.

Risk management involves four steps:

1. Identify the hazard – find out what could cause harm

2. Assess the risk – understand the nature of the harm that could be caused by the hazard, how serious the harm could be and the likelihood of it happening

3. Control the risk – implement the most effective control measure reasonably practicable in the circumstances

4. Review risk controls – asses control measures to ensure they are working as planned.

Other controls that can be looked at and analysed:

• Substitution Controls: Replacing with something of lesser risk.

• Engineering Controls: Changing physical characteristics of the plant/system of work.

• Administrative Controls: Information, training, instruction or supervision necessary to control the risks associated with plant.

• Personal Protective Equipment (PPE): Use of PPE to reduce injuries.

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.

Company fined for putting public safety at risk.

A flooring business has been fined $35,000 and its director given a 12-month court ordered undertaking after it was found the company had failed to follow its own Safe Work Method Statement (SWMS) for a building project, putting public health at risk.

A flooring business has been fined $35,000 and its director given a 12-month court ordered undertaking after it was found the company had failed to follow its own Safe Work Method Statement (SWMS) for a building project, putting public health at risk.

The company and the director both pleaded guilty in the Brisbane Magistrates Court to failing in their health and safety duties under Queensland’s Work Health and Safety Act 2011 and exposing people to a risk of death or serious injury.

On 24 July 2018, company workers, including the sole director, applied a floor levelling compound to a commercial building foyer, which needed time to dry. Boards and mats were placed on the newly finished surface, creating a path along the wall from the emergency exit doorway to the centre lift in the foyer. However, the workers did not put down matting in front of lift three, the closest to the emergency exit.

Bollards and traffic cones were placed in the area but not near the emergency exit or lift three. Later that morning, two members of the public slipped and fell crossing the floor, with one sustaining a fractured left patella.

The Workplace Health and Safety Queensland investigation found the company’s SWMS identifying slip hazards and safety controls was not followed and an exclusion zone or adequate delineated pathway, including signage, not implemented.

In sentencing, Magistrate Suzette Coates accepted the workers had made arrangements for entry to the building by tenants and the defendants did their best, albeit incompetently, to alleviate the risk, but were not successful.

Magistrate Coates acknowledged workers attempted to mitigate the risk of injury and the company had relied to some extent on the principal contractor to mitigate the risk, commenting that relying on others is dangerous when liability arises for the person performing the work.

Relatively early guilty pleas were considered when imposing the $35,000 fine for the company and the 12-month court ordered undertaking pursuant to section 239 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011, with a recognisance of $5,000, for the director.

Court and professional costs of almost $1,700 were ordered against the defendants, with no convictions recorded.

Changes to asbestos regulation

From 1 May 2021, low density asbestos fibre board (LDB), also known as asbestos insulating board, will be classified as a friable material in all circumstances. This means LDB can only legally be removed by a class A asbestos removal licence holder.

If you’re a class B asbestos removal licence holder and want to be able to remove LDB after 1 May 2021, you will need to apply to Workplace Health and Safety Queensland for a class A asbestos removal licence.

These changes will also affect businesses and tradespeople who carry out maintenance and service work involving LDB installed in buildings and plant or equipment prior to 31 December 2003. Carrying out work involving LDB will be prohibited unless the task is one of the following and the work is done in the way specified by a regulator-approved method:

• repairing damaged LDB

• painting LDB

• drilling a hole in LDB

• moving LDB ceiling tiles

• installing or removing fixtures or fittings.

View these approved work method statements

All workers performing these tasks must be trained in how to identify and safely handle asbestos-containing materials and how to do the work safely. Information on how to complete the training is also at asbestos.qld.gov.au

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.

Worker falls from forklift

In December 2020, a worker suffered serious injuries when he fell from a forklift. Early investigations indicate he was attempting to repair a jammed roller door. The man was working from a stillage container being used as a makeshift work box and had been lifted on the tines of a forklift. It appears that as the worker moved to one side of the create it overbalanced causing him (and the crate) to fall almost 5 metres.

The following safety issues were factors in influencing this incident:

• Instability: tipping over is the biggest danger for an employee using a forklift. If an employee jumps from an unstable forklift, the chances of serious harm are high.

• Speed & Stopping distances: applying a forklift’s brakes inappropriately can cause the forklift to tip forward or lose its load. The workplace environment always needs to be considered.

• Attachments: when an attachment is fitted to a forklift, the dynamic and operating characteristics may change, making it necessary to adjust the forklift capacity and restrict some operating controls.

Possible control measures/strategies to prevent similar incidents:

Forklifts:

• Work boxes should only be attached to a compliant forklift, with a load capacity data plate stating the attachments that may be used.

• Ensure your traffic management plan deals with tasks involving work boxes.

• Before starting work, ensure the parking brake is set, the controls are in neutral, the mast is vertical, and all controls are immobilised except lift and lower.

• Employees should be trained in the safe use of work boxes including emergency procedures to ensure occupants can be rescued if an incident or breakdown occurs.

• Employees must stand on the floor of the work box not on a ladder or other object.

• Never use work boxes to transport people.

• The employee operating the forklift must remain at the controls at all times. The forklift operator should perform an initial trial lift without a person inside to make sure the cage has a clear path.

Work boxes:

• Work boxes must only be used to raise people if performing short-term tasks (see AS2359.2—2013 clause 3.10.1(b)).

• A work box fitted to a forklift must be securely attached to the forklift carriage and engineer-designed and constructed in accordance with AS 2359 Powered Industrial Trucks series (see Code of Practice (2018) for Managing the Risks of Falls at Workplaces).

• Work boxes must be securely attached to the forklift with a minimum of two independent securing devices. The devices must be visible to the person in the work box.

• People using a work box must be protected from the mast of the forklift and associated moving parts by a barrier at the back of the work box.

• Tines lifting a work box must be spaced widely apart to avoid the cage overbalancing.

• The tines must be in tunnels or clamps under the work cage. They may not be in an open arrangement like in a pallet as they may be accidently placed too far from the edge and tip over. Fork tunnels or clamps must be located within 150mm to 250mm of the outside edge of a work box, with further tolerances as specified in AS 2359 Powered Industrial Trucks series.

• Refer to AS 2359 Powered Industrial Trucks series for other requirements, such as handrails, gates, and anchorage points for safety harnesses.