Blue Recruit Pty Ltd

Incident description:

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

Blue Recruit Pty Ltd (defendant) employed the injured worker to perform dressing and grinding work at a foundry.

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 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 after this 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 worker had stated that 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 provided a general safety induction video to the worker, but the specific operation of the grinder was, by agreement with the defendant, given by the workplace where the incident occurred (the 'workplace').
• The induction video was produced by the workplace and covered various safe operating procedures but did not address how the grinder was to be held when grinding vertical surfaces.
• The worker received instruction and training in the use of the grinder from a grinder operator employed by the defendant and an employee of the workplace.
• The instruction received included holding the grinder in the way that the worker was holding it at the time of the incident.
• The method instructed was contrary to the manufacturer's instructions.
• The worker was not shown the manufacturer's grinder operating manual or safety manual by the defendant or during his training and instruction.
• The defendant relied upon the standard induction, instruction, training and supervision provided by the workplace in relation to grinders and grinding.
• The defendant failed to ensure that a decision on appropriate control measures to prevent or minimise the level of risk involved was made in accordance with the risk management process prescribed by s.27A of the Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995, or otherwise manage the risks arising.

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 5 June 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 John Costello ordered the defendant pay a penalty of $20 000 as well as investigation and court costs totaling $2108.37.

The complainant lodged an appeal on 26 June 2009 to have the sentence set aside on the grounds that it was manifestly inadequate, the Industrial Magistrate did not give adequate reasons for the sentence imposed, and did not give effect to the need to impose a sentence that adequately reflected the requirement for deterrence in relation to offending of the relevant type by a labour hire firm.

In reaching a decision on appeal, President Hall of the Industrial Court of Queensland set aside the fine of $20 000 and imposed a fine of $40 000.

Visit the following for related information:

• Austcast Pty Ltd
• Blue Recruit Pty Ltd - appeal to the Industrial Magistrates Court

Considerations for prevention:

When working in the manufacturing industry where there is exposure to risks from power tools, 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
• 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