Australian Sugar Cane Feeds Pty Ltd

Incident description:

On 30 October 2009, a worker sustained injuries when performing an internal inspection on a cane dryer which was activated while he was not safely positioned.

Australian Sugar Cane Feeds Pty Ltd (ASCF) employed the worker who was performing duties associated with commissioning a cane dryer.

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.

ASCF commissioned the construction of a cane dryer in early 2009. The dryer had eight rotating carousels contained in a large silo. The carousels rotate while heat is applied to dry the sugar cane and create stock feed known as 'cow candy'. The injured worker entered the dryer with two others to inspect its operation from a safe position. While the injured worker moved toward a position of safety, the dryer was activated causing the worker to fall and dislocate his shoulder.

The facts presented to the court revealed:

• workers were permitted to enter and remain inside the dryer during a trial run to check its operation
• while a number of workers were given radios to communicate with the operator of the plant who was located in a separate control room, radios were not allocated to all workers inside the dryer
• the injured worker was last to proceed toward the position of safety (at the top of the dryer) as he was checking items within the dryer as he climbed through it
• the system of work adopted for the inspection activity did not require actual verification that each worker in the dryer was in a position of safety before it was activated
• after making a general radio broadcast, the controller operating the dryer activated the machine causing the injured worker to fall
• the injured worker narrowly escaped being crushed by the machine as it rotated and was able to alert other workers who stopped it.

Court result:

The defendant pleaded guilty in the Maroochydore Industrial Magistrates Court on 7 March 2011 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 Ms Bernadette A Callaghan ordered the defendant pay a penalty of $25 000 as well as investigation costs and court costs totalling $1823.50.

In reaching a decision the industrial magistrate acknowledged the defendant failed to ensure its safety obligations and observed that:

• the incident could have been easily avoided
• there should have been a positive obligation to ensure all workers were in a safe position
• a deterrent component to the penalty was necessary
• start-up companies need to know that they have overriding obligations to ensure workplace health and safety.

In deciding the penalty imposed, the industrial magistrate took into account the defendant was a start-up company involved in a new venture and that the fine imposed may impact upon its future. She also took into account the defendant had no previous conviction, 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 agricultural industry where there is exposure to risks from plant with rotating parts, 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
• monitoring the effectiveness of the control measures to ensure they remain working correctly.

When commissioning or inspecting plant, particularly when its operation requires workers to be in proximity to moving parts or equipment, the risk assessment and controls should be specific to the task. Workers may be required to undertake work beyond or different from the plant's ordinary operating procedures.

Control measures for obligation holders to consider include seeking expert assistance and undertaking thorough and independent risk assessments to ensure all possible hazards, including those associated with defective systems of work, are identified and properly managed.

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

• Rural industry
• Health and safety tips for Rural
• Plant, machinery and equipment
• Rural plant, machinery and equipment
• Plant Code of Practice 2005
• Risk Management Code of Practice 2007
• Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995.