Toproof NQ Pty Ltd

Incident description:

On 5 March 2010 a 30 year old male sustained injuries to his legs when he fell approximately four metres from the roof of a house.

Toproof NQ Pty Ltd employed the injured worker as a casual roof worker two days prior to the incident.

The court found the defendant held obligations under s.28 of the Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995 being an employer.

The incident occurred during the re-roof of a domestic house. Two workers commenced work the previous day and returned the next day to complete the job. While on the roof to set up a radio, the injured worker walked on newly installed roofing sheets to a point near the apex of the roof. The new sheets were wet with dew. The worker slipped on a section of the new sheeting, sliding down the roof and off the edge approximately four metres to the ground. The worker suffered fractures to his legs and foot.

The facts presented to the court revealed:

• safety equipment in the form of harnesses and a travel rope were on site, but the defendant did not direct and ensure the workers used it, even in the presence of a director of the defendant company the previous day
• between the incident occurring and an inspector arriving at the site, the defendant had caused interference with the scene by having fall protection installed on the roof
• witnesses were pressured to provide initial statements that contained incorrect facts.

Court result:

The defendant pleaded guilty in the Townsville Industrial Magistrates Court on 8 June 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 Kay Ryan ordered the defendant pay a penalty of $42 500 as well as costs totalling $2159.21.

In reaching a decision, the industrial magistrate acknowledged that, when present on site assisting the workers, the defendant failed to direct and ensure workers were using fall protection equipment provided.

In deciding the penalty imposed, Industrial Magistrate Ryan took into account the defendant had not been prosecuted previously for any other workplace health and safety breaches. She noted that after initial interference with the site and pressure placed on workers, the defendant fully 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 roofing 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 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 and monitoring the effectiveness of the control measures to ensure they continue to work correctly.

When deciding on and implementing control measures associated with the risk of death or serious injury from working at heights, obligation holders should consider the control measures available to either arrest a person who has fallen, or prevent the person from falling whilst working at heights. When working on roofs, whether wet or dry, fall and edge protection should be used as standard practice.

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

• Managing risk
• Employer training options
• Training staff 
• Work at heights 
• Working at heights 
• Fall from heights - construction checklist
• Workplace Health and Safety Regulation 2008
• Risk Management Code of Practice 2007
• Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995.