My Blog Site whsblog.com   OHS and Safety
 

My Blog Site    whsblog.com

Anything of interest to the OHS Committee in NSW,

People at work, Safety, Travel and anything quirky or funny.

Lessons From History

Summary of interesting OHS cases

Penalty for no consultation
Mishap at farm uncoverers a lack of consultation
NSW OHS Act 2000- s8(1) and S13

Section 13 of the NSW OHS Act 2000 tells you to consult and if you do not, expect to be penalised if ever anything goes wrong.

In the case of Workcover Authority Of New South Wales (Inspector Karen Simpson) Defendant: Paul Mclaughlin Group Limited (ACN 069 148 107) the defendant was a watermelon farmer in Country NSW. The business was a family business with only four full time employees but during harvest time, the number of employees increases to between 35 and 40. These employees were distributed across a number of areas on the property i.e. picking, storage, packing, planting etc.  

 

Under section 8(1) of the OHS Act 2000, the defendant was charged that he had 1) failed to provide and maintain a system of work that was safe; 2) failed to assess the risks associated with transporting and moving watermelon seedlings and 3) failed to provide any or any adequate instruction or information concerning the risks associated with transporting and moving watermelon seedlings.  

 

The defendant was also charged under Sec 13(a) in that the defendant failed to have a process of consultation, such as a safety committee or safety representative; b) failed to consult with its employees in relation to the risks; and c) failed to provide its employees with the opportunity of expressing their views and contributing in a timely fashion to the resolution of occupational health, safety and welfare issues. 

 

An employee, BS, was injured by a forklift/tractor while in the course of his duties. While investigating the accident the Inspector observed that employees may be exposed to risks of injury from unsafe systems of work.  

 

Five days later the inspector issued an Improvement Notice requiring the defendant to identify any hazards associated with the use of the forklift/tractor, to assess the risk and eliminate the risks or if not reasonably practicable to do so to control the risks. The Defendant's was directed to the Regulations, the Act and the Fork Lift Truck Drivers Guide 1998. 

 

A second Improvement Notice required improvements for providing and establishing occupational health and safety consultative processes as prescribed by the Regulation including safety committees, safety representatives and other agreed arrangements with employees. The Defendant's attention was drawn to the Code of Practice concerning consultation, the Regulation and the Act. 

 

The court heard that Improvement Notices had been acted on, that hazard identification had been conducted and that all new employees were receiving inductions. The lack of documented safe work method procedures was also highlighted by the court. 

 

The defendant was found guilty and the fine imposed was discounted for a number of reasons. "….A fine of $16,500 be imposed for the s8 (1) breach and a fine of $8,250 be imposed for the s13 breach. The offences containing common elements and to avoid double jeopardy I will apply the principle of totality and further reduce the penalties to $10,725 and $5,362 respectively." The defendant was also ordered to pay costs of a further $3,635.58 

 

Full details at:- http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWCIMC/2006/80.html 

 

   Contact Us

   Privacy Policy

   Site Map