Bradken Resource Pty Ltd

Incident description:

On 13 July 2007, a 61 year old worker sustained serious injuries when he fell from height whilst undertaking maintenance duties.

Bradken Resources Pty Ltd (defendant) conducted a foundry operation and employed a large workforce.

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

The investigation findings presented to the court alleged the defendant employed a small contingent of workers to conduct various maintenance tasks (both programmed and incident based) during a night-shift when a part of the plant was not operating.

On the incident date, several workers were removing an extraction fan from a building where there was a risk of a fall from height.

A worker fell and sustained multiple fracture injuries.

The investigation findings presented to the court revealed:

• The defendant had a system of work to ensure workers carried out their work in a safe manner.
• The workers on the night-shift did not follow this system.
• The workers routinely did not complete job safety analysis assessments of their work tasks undertaken during the night-shift.
• The system of auditing the defendant had in place, did not extend to the night-shift workers and was only carried out on the morning and afternoon shift.

Court result:

The defendant pleaded not guilty in the Holland Park Industrial Magistrates Court on 21 November 2008 to breaching s.24(1) of the Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995, having failed to meet its workplace health and safety obligations.

The matter went to trial on 30 and 31 March 2009 resulting in the defendant being found guilty of breaching s.24(1) of the Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995 with no conviction recorded.

Industrial Magistrate Mr Trevor N Arnold, ordered the defendant pay a penalty of $48 000 as well as investigation, professional and court costs totaling $5453.40.

In reaching a decision the Industrial Magistrate acknowledged the defendant failed to monitor and review the systems it had implemented. His Honour stated the defendant had considered, developed and implemented systems designed to ensure safety of workers against risk arising from workplace activities, and that such systems met the first four steps of the risk management process. His Honour went on to say that here, the defendant failed with respect to the night-shift workers, at the last step - monitoring and reviewing.

In deciding the penalty imposed Industrial Magistrate Mr Trevor N Arnold took into account the defendant had an extensive safety system in place, had expended a large sum of money on developing and implementing this system and, but for a failure to implement that system across the night-shift personnel, would likely have met its obligations

Considerations for prevention:

When working in the manufacturing industry where there is exposure to risks from falls from height, 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 and implementing control measures associated with the risk of falls from height, obligation holders should consider control measures such as proper edge protection, harnesses and or tether systems.

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

• working from heights
• manufacturing
• risk management
• Risk Management Code of Practice 2007
• personal protective equipment (PPE)
  • developing a PPE plan
  • selecting PPE
  • using PPE.
• the Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995.