Widgee Engineering Pty Ltd

Incident description:

On 4 September 2009 a 45 year old worker sustained injuries to his jaw when his head struck a steel beam.

The court acknowledged Widgee Engineering Pty Ltd employed the worker as a rigger on a subcontract basis, for the erection of steel at the workplace.

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.

Investigation findings presented to the court alleged the incident occurred during the construction of a new supermarket. The worker was using an elevated work platform (EWP), traversing the span of bays to adjust tension bolts on the structural bracing within the awning of the building. As the boom was being lowered, the drive speed of the EWP increased to a faster rate resulting in the worker impacting against the structural steel awning beams. The worker sustained facial injuries.

The investigation findings presented to the court revealed the instruction manual for the EWP stated:

• the drive speed for the EWP was proportionate to the joy stick position
• the farther the joy stick is depressed in a direction, the faster the EWP will travel in that direction
• the maximum travel speed of the EWP when the boom is elevated above six degrees is 1.6 kilometres per hour
• the maximum travel speed of the EWP when the boom is not elevated above six degrees is 4.8 kilometres per hour
• the drive speeds are interlocked through a limit switch which senses the boom position
• when the boom is elevated above six degrees, only the slowest speed will work, regardless of the position of the drive range switch
• operators should lower the basket before moving to the next work area as if an operator drives the EWP with 'high' (rabbit) speed selected whilst lowering the boom from a position elevated above six degrees, the machine will rapidly accelerate from 'turtle' to 'rabbit' speed once the boom is lowered through to the six degree angle. This creates a potentially unexpected sudden movement for the operator in the basket.

The defendant company did not ensure safety of workers by implementing a safe system of work instructing them to lower the basket prior to moving to a new work area.

Court result:

The defendant pleaded guilty in the Maroochydore Industrial Magistrates Court on 11 November 2010 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 Hodgins ordered the defendant pay a penalty of $40 000 as well as investigation and court costs totalling $1810.13.

In reaching a decision the industrial magistrate acknowledged the defendant failed to adequately control and minimise the risk of working at heights, and the system of work for the operation of plant, namely an EWP.

There was the risk of death or injury to workers, including the risk of fracture injury to the lower left jaw of the injured worker.

In deciding the penalty imposed Industrial Magistrate Hodgins took into account the defendant had not been prosecuted previously for any workplace health and safety breach, cooperated with the investigation and entered an early plea of guilty.

Considerations for prevention:

(Commentary under this heading is not part of the Court's decision.)

When working in the construction industry where there is exposure to risks from working at heights, 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 on and implementing control measures to prevent or minimise the level of the risk from the hazard
• monitoring the effectiveness of the control measures to ensure they remain working correctly.

When deciding on and implementing control measures associated with the risk of working at heights, obligation holders should consider the operators manual and accompanying information provided with plant and implement recommended controls into your work method statements.

To control the risks, the relevant person should ensure a combination of operator protective devices are provided, maintained and used and that tasks are carried out within the capability of the plant. Refer to sections 5.23 and 5.8 of the Plant Code of Practice 2005 for more information about controls

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

• Requirements for safety devices on elevating work platforms
• Building and construction major hazards
• Health and Safety information for construction
• Work at heights
• Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995
• Risk Management Code of Practice 2007
• Plant Code of Practice 2005.