In a decision of the South Australian Employment Tribunal, Deputy President Eatom was required to review the health and safety duties of an employer in respect to a charge of failing to provide a safe system of work (Category 2).
In Farrell v RNI Constructions Pty Ltd [2023] SAET 111, the company had been contracted to move an industrial shed from one property to another. The roof of the shed had a height of 3.61 metres at its apex and 3 metres at the sidewalls. At an early stage of the deconstruction, one of the workers fell through the polycarbonate sheeting and fell 3 metres the ground. Although safety harnesses were available it appears that they were not being worn. In the case of the injured worker, he had been working on the ground but was requested to provide the co worker on the roof with a bucket that required him to climb a ladder. However, in getting off the roof he stepped backwards onto the polycarbonate roof that gave way.
The evidence was that no safe work method statement or any form or risk assessment was prepared prior to work commencing.
The Deputy President was satisfied that there had been a breach of Regulation 291 of the Work Health and Safety Regulations 2012 that required certain risk action to be taken when working on a shed that involves a risk of a person falling more than 3 metres. She also noted that Regulation in 299 required a state work method statement being prepared prior to the work commencing and that Regulation 300 required the employer to ensure that the high-risk work was carried out in accordance with that statement.
Three key actions of the employer post the accident were critical. The first was an early guilty pleas. The second was the undertaking to cease all high-risk constructions. The third was the concern shown by the employer towards the worker and his wife and the remorse expressed personally in the Court.
The Deputy President recorded a conviction but with a fine of $90,000, noting that the maximum fine could have been $1.5 million. The defendant was also required to pay prosecution costs of $2,310.00 and a contribution pf $405.00 towards the victim injury compensation levy.
While the accident should have been avoided, the employer’s subsequent action was also critical in minimising the financial impact.
