Worker crushed by machine —

safe system failed 

A concrete product manufacturer has been penalised over safety failures that led to an inadequately trained and unsupervised worker being caught in a machine with broken interlock switches.  

In June 2010, a Boral Hollostone Masonry (SA) Pty Ltd (BHM) employee was cleaning the flop gate chute of a large industrial concrete mixer at the company’s Pooraka premises. While leaning his upper body inside the chute, the flop gate activated, causing him significant crush injuries to his head and shoulders. 

Afterwards, SafeWork SA prosecuted BHM under the Occupational Health, Safety and Welfare Act 1986 (SA) for its failure to take reasonably practicable measures to ensure the safety of the employee. It alleged, in particular, that the company: 

• failed to ensure the employee was adequately trained in all aspects of isolating power to the flop gate when he was required to perform cleaning work  
• failed to ensure the interlock switches that were fitted to the door of the flop gate chute were properly functioning (ie they had been broken), so that when the door to the flop gate chute was open that the flop gate could not operate  
• failed to ensure a spotter monitored the employee for the duration of the confined space work being undertaken.  

As to the degree of culpability, SafeWork SA submitted that while BHM had comprehensive safety systems in place, such systems were not being followed up and re-enforced on a day-to-day, practical basis. 

In the SAIRC, Industrial Magistrate Michael Ardlie found the incident occurred — ‘notwithstanding the significant attention paid by [BHM] to WHS issues and the structures [it] had in place’ — due to the unfortunate ‘concatenation’ of failures identified by SafeWork. 

‘It is often the case that notwithstanding the best endeavours on the part of an employer as regards work health safety, unless the employer is vigilant on a continual basis, systems fail and workplace incidents occur,’ he said. 

IM Ardlie was prepared to accept that the incident was an ‘aberration’ because this was BHM’s first offence and it had promoted a culture of workplace safety such that the particular hazard involved in the incident had been identified prior to the incident. 

In determining penalty, he gave weight to the fact that BHM had been proactive in taking steps to eliminate the risk of a similar incident, and that it had cooperated with SafeWork SA in its investigation. He also noted that BHM had assisted the employee to undergo a successful rehabilitation and return to work process, but that he continues to suffer from his injuries. 

IM Ardlie imposed a conviction and a fine of $70,000, after a discount of 30 per cent, for an early guilty plea and other relevant matters. 

Following the case, SafeWork SA released a media statement in which it reminded employers that even when safety systems are in place, ‘it is crucial that thorough training be conducted and that these systems actually are followed up in daily work’.