Austcast Pty Ltd

Incident description:

On 29 January 2008, a 21 year old worker sustained serious injuries while using a nine-inch angle grinder to remove rough edges from steel castings.

Austcast Pty Ltd (defendant) engaged the injured worker through a labour hire company to perform dressing and grinding work.

The investigation findings presented to the court alleged the incident occurred while the worker was performing grinding work on a number of vertical and horizontal surfaces of the castings. An overhead crane was used to move and rotate the castings in order to facilitate grinding in the horizontal plane. The worker had ground the first face of the casting in the horizontal plane but did not reposition the casting and started grinding vertically, parallel to the face. While in this position, the grinding disc bit into the steel and the grinder kicked back. The worker lost control of the side handle of the grinder and as he tried to reach the switch at the base of the grinder, it moved backwards and struck his left forearm, cutting it below the wrist. The worker sustained a laceration to his left wrist that required surgery.

The investigation findings presented to the court revealed:

• the labour-hire company that employed the worker provided a general safety induction and grinder safety video to the worker before he started work at the defendant's workplace
• the general safety induction did not inform the worker about the way the grinder was to be held during operation
• the safety video was produced by the defendant and covered various safe operating procedures but did not address how the grinder was to be held when grinding vertical surfaces or how to avoid 'kick back' when grinding
• the defendant did not assess the worker's ability to operate grinders but relied on the assessment done by the labour-hire company
• the worker received on-the-job instruction and training in the use of the grinder from a grinder operator/dresser employed by the same labour-hire company as the injured worker, and also a leading hand employed by the defendant
• the defendant did not provide information to its supervisors about how grinders were to be used or held, but rather relied on the experience of the supervisor
• there was no evaluation by the defendant of the training provided by its buddy system or its team supervisors
• the instruction received from the supervisor employed by the labour-hire company included holding the grinder in the way that the worker did at the time of the incident
• the way in which the worker was instructed to hold the grinder was contrary to the manufacturer's safety instructions
• the worker was not provided with the manufacturer's operating or safety manuals for the grinder
• the worker stated the grinder 'kicked back' between eight and ten times per hour depending on the condition of the grinding disc and the type of job
• the defendant determined the scope of work for each worker, including that of the injured worker.

Court result:

The court found the defendant held obligations under s.28(1) of the Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995, being a person conducting a business or undertaking.

The defendant pleaded guilty in the Brisbane Industrial Magistrates Court on 2 September 2009 to breaching s.24(1) of the Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995, having failed to meet its workplace health and safety obligations and was sentenced with no conviction recorded.

Industrial Magistrate Mr Graham Lee ordered the defendant pay a penalty of $37 500 as well as investigation and court costs totaling $1898.37.

In reaching a decision the Industrial Magistrate acknowledged the defendant failed to manage the hazards associated with a rotating disc on plant, namely a Fein nine-inch high frequency grinder, and the system of work for the use of that plant. The defendant failed to adequately identify the hazards including the identification of 'kick back' or otherwise manage exposure to risks that may result from the hazards in accordance with the risk management process set out in section 27A of the Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995.

In deciding the penalty imposed Industrial Magistrate Mr Graham Lee took into account the defendant had been prosecuted previously in September 2008 for a workplace health and safety breach, had co-operated with the investigation and entered an early plea of guilty.

Visit the following for related information:

• Blue Recruit Pty Ltd

Considerations for prevention:

When working in the manufacturing industry where there is exposure to risks from power tool 'kick back', obligation holders should apply a risk management approach to ensure the selection of suitable control measures.

Risk management involves identifying the hazards, evaluating the consequences and likelihood of harm that may result from the hazard, deciding and implementing control measures to prevent or minimise the level of the risk from the hazard and monitoring the effectiveness of the control measures to ensure they remain working correctly.

When deciding upon and implementing appropriate control measures associated with the use of power tools, obligation holders should ensure that such tasks are undertaken by suitably qualified and experienced workers. Obligation holders should also consider implementing a comprehensive training plan to ensure all workers are aware of the full operation and risks involved with the use of power tools and/or machinery in the workplace.

Visit the Workplace Health and Safety Queensland website for more information on:

• health and safety information for metal product manufacturing
• employer training options
• training staff and using control measures to manage risks associated with workplace hazards
• personal protective equipment (PPE)
  • developing a PPE plan
  • selecting PPE
  • using PPE.
• risk management
• Risk Management Code of Practice 2007
• Workplace Health and Safety Regulation 2008
• Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995
• what penalties apply under the Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995