Recently Paving Group PTY Ltd t/a Quantum stone was convicted in South Australian Employment Tribunal (SAET) for an injury to a worker and fined $75 000 after a 25% reduction for an early guilty plea.
Incident
On 28 February 2022 a worker was adjusting a broken chute on top of a conveyer when he became entangled in a piece of plant, the worker sustained traumatic injuries. An inspector from SafeWork SA (SWSA) attended the site and issued 3 statutory notices — 1 Prohibition Notice — precluding the use of the batching conveyor until the roller drum risk has been eliminated, 2 x Improvement notices – 1 to the emergency stop button was clearly label; and am improvement notice that all operational controls on the batch conveyor were clearly marked and identified.
In 2013 a risk assessment was undertaken on the batch conveyer, and it was noted that there was a risk of entanglement and identified that safety guard installation along the conveyor belts to minimise this risk. When Quantum Stone was purchased in 2017 by the new owner no further risk assessment was conducted on the batch conveyor or any other plant in the company. There were 2 additional hazards around the batch conveyer – a broken weld on the chute and gravel around the batch conveyer, all these hazards were foreseeable hazards in the operation of the batch conveyer. The broken weld had caused the chute to move during the running of the batch conveyer, this issue had been reported by various operators over the previous 2 months and no repairs had been carried out or scheduled to be repaired.
The previous owner had informed the new owner that an inspector from SWSA had inspected the batch conveyer and had approved it as is, however, not documents of these were produced. The new owner was based in Queensland, and he visited the site in Adelaide infrequently and although he did walk arounds these where not a hazard or risk identification inspection, and he was not aware of any specific guarding requirements for the plant that was in operation at the time. There was not safety management system in place however, there was a “safe operating procedure for batching plant”, this document made no reference to the hazards associated with the batch conveyer or to the unguarded lower roller drum or how to troubleshoot any issues, it also lacked any specific safety instructions or warnings. The operators had only received informal training 5 years prior by the previous operator and this was done via verbal instructions and supervision with not written manual to refer to – they mostly relied on the commonsense approach.
While the risk of injury to the operator was very low, the cumulative risk increased over time and additional risks were introduced by the need to deal with the broken chute support. These risks could have easily been eliminated by installing guarding and repairing the broken weld to the chute support. The company relied exclusively on very weak administrative safety controls, with no physical barriers in pace to prevent access to the lower roller drum when the conveyer was in operation. The administrative controls were weak because they were vague, no written safety precautions, warnings or warning signs where in place and the understanding of workplace safety obligations on the part of the companies Officers was very poor and that the risk of injury from the unguarded drum roller was reasonably foreseeable and the risk was obvious. The company’s Officers simply relied on the view that workplace safety matters of common sense, or on vague verbal instructions. Common sense is no substitute for a structured safety assessment of power mechanical plant carried out by an expert and then implement reasonably practicable controls to eliminate or minimise the hazard.
Officers need to be able to demonstrate Due Diligence as set out in the Work Health and Safety Act (2012), failure to undertake robust hazard and risk assessments to ensure that they have not only identified foreseeable hazards and the risks that their workers are facing daily is paramount to providing a safe work environment for all employees. As an Officer of the company, they must be proactive in managing safety and do all they can to eliminate hazards so far as is reasonably practicable.
