Skip to Content

HJ&K Newletter - November 2009

Up to date Industrial and OH&S News


Client News November 2009

Employer fined $360K over unguarded baling machines
A Victorian wool manufacturer has been convicted and fined $360,000 over two unguarded bale press machines. In 2007 a worker was operating a machine when her hair got caught on an unguarded spindle.
She bent down to the side to investigate a noise coming from the spindle section and her loose hair became entangled around the spindle, causing permanent loss of 40 per cent of her hair, permanent loss of some of her scalp, scarring to the scalp, and trauma.
Poor machine guarding practices are a major hazard confronted by people in the workplace every day. Approximately eight (8) out of then (10) workplace fatalities and one (1) in four (4) workplace injuries involve mechanical equipment. Many workplace injuries, caused through machinery are preventable. Exposure to dangerous machine parts during operation, examination, lubrication, adjustment and/or maintenance, pose many risks. If the risk cannot be eliminated, it must be minimised. In order to reduce the risk, all machinery must be securely guarded to prevent access to dangerous parts. All guards should be correctly and securely fitted before operating machinery.
Machine guarding is vital to every workplace using machinery. It is an essential protection that employers must provide for their workers. Machine guards do not have to be complicated nor interfere with productivity.

If you are unsure if your plant is adequately guarded refer to the Occupational Health and Safety Regulations 2007 (Vic) and AS 4024.1601-2006 Safety of Machinery - Design of controls, interlocks and guarding - General requirements for the design and construction of fixed movable guards. Contact HJ&K Industrial Consultants Pty Ltd ("HJ&K") for an assessment of the hazards practical solutions for your business.


Employer convicted and fined $300K over workplace fatality
The defendant manufactures garage roller doors, industrial rolling shutter doors and sectional garage doors. Employees were required to move roller drums within the workplace using overhead gantry cranes. The risk created by this method when applied to this length of drum is that the eye of the sling could slip off the hook and drop the load. A safer method for slinging industrial shutter door drums of such a length is to use another method of attachment. The task the employee was performing at the time of the incident also required him to lift the drum over storage shelving in his congested work area and into the aisle area on the other side. This limited the vision of the operator and did not allow fluid movement of loads (e.g. boxes were stacked on top of the storage shelving that loads had to be lifted over). In addition, other people were not excluded from this area and the aisle and were thus also at risk when loads were being lifted. Whilst some training was provided, some employees did not receive adequate instruction, training and information relating to the safe operation of the overhead gantry cranes, safe methods of slinging loads into the cranes, and performance hazard identification, risk assessments and daily safety crane checklists. On 28 November 2006, a worker was using the slinging method to move a 7 metre load and was fatally injured when one side of the drum fell, hitting him on the head.
The assessment of job tasks is not only essential in the risk identification process, but safe operating procedures ("SOP's") implementation for persons operating at multiple sites are crucial. Organisations must ensure that personnel adhere to the SOP; however processes and lines of communication must be implemented for tasks which fall outside the scope of the SOP.

Employer convicted and fined $250K over workplace accident
A 21 year old worker employed through a labour hire company (“the injured person”) and another young worker of the same company was required to operate forklifts to unload freight received from a transporting company. This was part of their normal duties. To the knowledge of their employer neither the injured person nor the other employee had certificates of competency to operate forklifts. The injured person was a university student who did not work full time at the premises. Neither employee was supervised on 14 July 2006 as to the operation of the forklifts. New forklifts had been introduced at the workplace on the day but the injured person was not provided with any information, instruction or training as to the new forklifts that he was operating on that day. On 14 July 2006, the injured person unloaded a 700kg crate of glass with the assistance of the truck driver and another worker manhandling the crate. No special lifting gear was available such as a jib and chains. They found that the tines of the new forklift would not sit under the crate properly but eventually managed to lean the crate against the backrest of the forklift tines. The injured person then reversed the forklift into the warehouse because the size of the crate obscured his forward vision. There was no eye witnesses as to what happened but video footage from a security camera indicated that the injured person stopped the forklift, apparently to adjust the position of the crate on the tines. The 700kg crate fell onto the worker, crushed him and he was not found for some 8 minutes. The injured worker suffered cardio respiratory arrest and hypoxic brain injury that has left him in a permanent vegetative state.
The organisation who managed and controlled the workplaces failed to provide the following:
• Provide adequate plant (jib and chains) and systems of work for the handling and unloading of freight;
• Provide an adequate risk assessment or JSA as to the handling and unloading of freight and as to the handling of the new forklifts;
• Provide information, instruction or training in the operation of all forklifts and to ensure that all forklift operators held certificates of competency;
• Provide an adequate register of forklift operators holding certificates of competency to operate forklifts;
• Provide an adequate induction to the workplace; and
• Provide adequate supervision of trainee forklift.

NATIONAL OH&S LEGISLATION
On 28 September 2009 Safe Work Australia released a package of documents on the OH&S model laws, including the draft model OH&S Act and a discussion paper on key issues, for public comment. This is a significant development in the harmonisation of OH&S laws around Australia and a key milestone in the process of all jurisdictions giving effect to the model OH&S Act and Regulations by December 2011.
These reforms are intended to reduce red tape and boost business efficiency, especially for employers who operate across a number of States. The reforms will also provide greater certainty and protection for workers and employers throughout Australia.
The public comment period will run from 28 September 2009 to 9 November 2009, and will be open to all Australians wishing to make comment on the national model OH&S laws.
You can review all documents released for public comment at the Safe Work Australia website- www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au

These articles have been taken and adapted from OHS Alert and Workplace Express newsletters.
These notes are for general information purposes only and should not be relied upon as an alternative to obtaining legal advice. HJ&K Industrial Consultants Pty Ltd disclaim any liability to anyone who acts in reliance, either wholly or partly on the contents of these notes.
For further information or advice please contact our office on (03) 8615 4200.



 

 

<< Back | Home