Prosecutions 2005 (PDF 3269kb) - WorkSafe Victoria

PROSECUTIONS 2005 

A SUMMARY OF PROSECUTIONS BROUGHT BY 

THE VICTORIAN WORKCOVER AUTHORITY

CONTENTS 

Foreword ....................................................................1 

Section 1: Health and safety prosecutions ...............3 

Section 2: Accident compensation prosecutions ...89 

Section 3: Committal proceedings........................107 

Section 4: Health and safety appeals ...................131 

Appendix: Summary of legislation ........................139 

EXPLANATION OF TERMS 

Nolle prosequi: .....................Discontinuance of prosecution. 

Sine die: ................................................... Without a day fixed.

FOREWORD 

Together, the State Government and the Victorian WorkCover Authority (VWA) are working 

towards continually improving safety in Victoria’s workplaces. 

We are also committed to maintaining a viable system for compensating those injured while 

doing their job. 

Mostly this involves working with employers and workers to eliminate unsafe practices and 

prevent the needless injuries and deaths that occur in workplaces each year. 

Unfortunately some duty holders neglect their legal and moral obligations, putting lives at risk. 

Others undermine our workers’ compensation scheme through dishonest practices. We see 

enforcement and prosecution as the appropriate consequence, also assisting to deter any future 

breaches of the law. 

The VWA is committed to being a constructive, transparent, accountable and effective regulator, 

publishing its prosecutions to educate those who need to comply with the law as well as deter 

those who breach it. 

This booklet details all 2005 VWA prosecutions under the Occupational Health and Safety Act 1985 

and regulations. 

On 1 July 2005, the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 commenced operation and provides a 

new foundation for safer Victorian workplaces in the coming years. 

The cases reported involve employers, employees and other duty holders such as suppliers of 

plant that have breached Victoria’s OHS laws. It also outlines cases where workers, employers 

and service providers have been prosecuted for defrauding the WorkCover system. 

Many of the cases summarised in this publication are unreported. 

Prosecutions 2005 is an important reference for employers, employer associations, health and 

safety representatives, trade unions, the judiciary, occupational health and safety professionals 

and the wider community. 

We hope it will increase awareness of the importance of protecting people in their workplace and 

serve as a powerful deterrent for those who ignore their legislative obligations. 

John Merritt 

Executive Director 

WorkSafe Victoria 

Len Boehm 

Executive Director 

Rehabilitation and Compensation

2 

PROSECUTIONS 2005

SECTION 1: HEALTH 

AND SAFETY PROSECUTIONS

SECTION 1 

1ST FLEET PTY LTD 

Date of offence: 28 February 2004 

Date of prosecution: 

Magistrate: 

Plea: 

12 August 2005 at Broadmeadows Magistrates’ Court 

His Honour Magistrate Barrow 

Guilty 

On 28 February 2004, 1st Fleet Pty Ltd was conducting a stock take at its Reservoir warehouse. 

Employees were working ‘two up’ on a stock pickers suitable for only one person. An employee who 

was not wearing a fall arrest harness fell approximately 1.5m. 

The employee sustained injuries to her back, neck, knee and shoulders. After the incident the 

injured employee required medication for headaches and pain. 

Breach: Sections 21(1) & (2)(a) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 1985. 

Result: Without conviction fined $20,000. 

ACACIA GROUP (VIC) PTY LTD 

Date of offence: 6 October 2003 


Magistrate: 

Plea: 

18 April 2005 at Melbourne Magistrates’ Court 

His Honour Magistrate Rozencwajg 

Guilty 

On Friday 3 October 2003, three employees of Acacia Group (Vic) Pty Ltd commenced demolition 

and construction work at LaTrobe Street, Melbourne. The employees were directed to remove 

sheeting from the interior walls of the building and dispose of it in a skip outside the front 

of the building. 

After raising concerns about the sheeting, the employees were told that if they wanted the sheeting 

tested, they would have to arrange it themselves. 

On 6 October 2003, the employees arranged for the material to be tested and it was confirmed that 

the sheeting contained white asbestos. 

Breach: Sections 21(1) & (2)(a) and section 22 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 1985. 

Result: Convicted and fined an aggregate sum of $40,000. 

4 PROSECUTIONS 2005

HEALTH AND SAFETY PROSECUTIONS 

ALKAY NOMINEES PTY LTD 

Date of offence: 25 March 2003 


Magistrate: 

Plea: 

14 July 2005 at Melbourne Magistrates’ Court 

Her Honour Magistrate Hannan 

Guilty 

Alkay Nominees Pty Ltd was the principal contractor engaged on a project that involved demolition 

work on a single storey house in North Caulfield. 

On 25 March 2003, a 66 year old employee labourer finished his lunch and went back onto the roof 

and continued removing roofing sheets on his own before his two co-workers returned. By this 

time, a skylight and its surrounding flashing had been removed, leaving an open penetration of 

1.3m by 1.3m. 

The employee fell three metres onto a concrete floor below through a section of insulation paper 

next to the skylight. The employee suffered serious head injuries which resulted in his death later 

on the day of the incident. 

A WorkSafe inspector attended the scene and observed that: 

• no scaffolding had been erected around the perimeter of the roof; 

• there was no provision to prevent falling through the insulation paper in areas where the roofing 

sheets had been removed; 

• there was no provision to prevent persons from falling through the unguarded penetration of the 

skylight opening; 

• insulation paper had been left in place obscuring the location of the rafters below; and 

• the system of work used for removing the old roof was unsafe, and did not comply with the Code 

of Practice for Demolition, 1991. The system of work involved working backwards, leading to a 

danger of falling off an edge or through any penetration or opening. 

The inspector returned to the site on 7 April 2003 and was shown a work procedure from a 

different contractor which had been engaged to remove the remainder of the existing roof. The 

work procedure stated that all further work would be done from mobile scaffolds placed beneath 

the roof, and that no persons would be required to work on the roof. The inspector rescinded the 

prohibition notice. 

Breach: Sections 21(1) & (2)(a) and sections 21(1) & (2)(e) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 1985. 

Result: Convicted and fined $2,000 and ordered to pay $135,062 compensation. 


5

SECTION 1 

ALLIED EXPRESS PTY LTD 

Date of offence: 7 January 2004 


Magistrate: 

Plea: 

23 September 2005 at Melbourne Magistrates’ Court 

His Honour Magistrate Hardy 

Guilty 

On 7 January 2004, a truck driver was hit by crates falling off a forklift at a freight loading depot. 

The forklift driver was unlicensed, unsupervised and there was no pedestrian separation from the 

area in which the forklift was operating. 

As a result of the incident the truck driver suffered an injury to his ankle requiring hospitalisation to 

pin a plate in position. The injured truck driver required ongoing physiotherapy. 


Regulation 17(1)(c) and Regulation 7(c) of the Occupational Health and Safety (Certificate of Plant Users 

and Operators) Regulations 1994. 


ALLITT ENTERPRISES PTY LTD 

Date of offence: 23 March 2005 


Magistrate: 

Plea: 

6 December 2005 at Geelong Magistrates’ Court 

His Honour Magistrate Klestadt 

Guilty 

On 23 March 2005 at Allitt Enterprises Pty Ltd’s cabinet making workplace in Moolap, an employee 

was cleaning the edge banding machine using an internal vacuum hose to clean debris that he had 

not been able to remove with an air gun. The vacuum hose became caught and the employee tried to 

free it. The employee’s hand contacted the saw blade. 

The employee’s left thumb was cut off in the incident and he was taken to hospital to have it reattached. 

The employee required five weeks off work and physiotherapy to regain use of his thumb. 

A WorkSafe inspector attended the defendant’s workplace and issued a prohibition notice prohibiting 

the edge banding machine from being operated for any purpose other than for repairing or testing. 

On 25 March 2005, the machine was inspected by an external technician who identified that the 

electric interlock devices on the cutting, gluing and shaping components had been overridden. 

This had been made possible by rewiring the interlock devices and by disconnecting the safety arm 

attached to the compartment hood. The effect of these modifications was that when the component 

hoods were raised, as they had to be when the machine was being cleaned, the machine was not 

automatically stopped, and the cutting blades within the compartment continued to operate. 

On 29 March 2005, the inspector removed the prohibition notice upon being satisfied that the 

interlock devices had been reinstated and additional guarding of nip point hazards had been installed. 


Result: Convicted and fined $10,000. 



ARCHIROM INVESTMENTS PTY LTD 

Date of offences: 26 and 27 February 2004 


Magistrate: 

Plea: 

26 to 28 July 2005 (hearing) and 28 July 2005 (sentence) at Frankston 

Magistrates’ Court 

His Honour Magistrate Strong 

Not guilty 

WorkSafe inspectors visited a construction site of a two-storey underground carpark and 

residential apartment development in Bonbeach on a number of occasions from 4 September 2003 

and issued a number of improvement and prohibition notices and field reports. Some of the notices 

were initially complied with. 

Over a number of months, various risks were observed that resulted in the issue of further notices, 

several of which were not complied with. 

The notices related to: 

• work at height without fall protection; 

• failing to maintain portable power outlet devices, untagged extension cords, extension cords 

running along the ground for excessive distances, no confirmation of the existence of earth 

leakage and residual current devices; and 

• a need for the builder to employ or engage suitably qualified health and safety advisors. 

There were no appeals against any of the notices issued. 

On 26 and 27 February 2004, the notices in relation to safe use and maintenance of electrical 

equipment and work at height had not been complied with. 

Breach: Section 43(3) (two charges) and section 44(3) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 1985. 

Result: Convicted and fined $5,000 on charge one and two (section 43). Convicted and fined 

$15,000 on charge three (section 44). Total fine $20,000. 


7

SECTION 1 

AUSTRAK PTY LTD 

Date of offence: 1 August 2004 


Magistrate: 

Plea: 

1 July 2005 at Geelong Magistrates’ Court 

His Honour Deputy Chief Magistrate Grant 

Guilty 

On 18 July 2003, a WorkSafe inspector attended the workplace of Austrak Pty Ltd in Point Wilson. 

Austrak Pty Ltd which manufactures concrete railway sleepers – a process which requires a 

hydraulic press (or ‘squeezer’) to fit metal clips to the sleepers. 

The inspector observed that partially fixed guarding was used as a measure to control the risks 

inherent in the operation of the squeezer. The guarding installed did not, however, adequately 

prevent access to the press area or the gravity feed roller conveyors on either side of the squeezer 

while the plant was in operation. 

The inspector issued an improvement notice which contained a direction that if guarding continued 

to be used as a control measure, then it needed to prevent access to the danger points and areas. 

The inspector required compliance by 1 August 2003. 

On 4 August 2003, the inspector again attended Austrak’s premises to find additional guarding 

had been installed around the squeezer. This guarding was inadequate because it did not prevent 

persons from gaining access to either the press area of the squeezer or the gravity feed roller 

conveyors on either side of it. Further, the guarding was being held in place only with nylon ties. 

The inspector advised Austrak Pty Ltd that he considered it had failed to comply with the 

improvement notice. It was indicated that an Austrak Pty Ltd representative thought that the 

additional guarding installed, and the verbal administrative controls given to employees not to 

enter the area, were sufficient to achieve compliance. 

On 18 August 2003, the inspector visited Austrak Pty Ltd’s premises and found that temporary 

fencing had been fitted around the perimeter of the squeezer and the gravity feed roller conveyors. 

The entry gates in the temporary fencing were not fitted with any locking devices. 

An Austrak Pty Ltd representative provided the inspector with a document dated 8 August 2003 that 

listed its administrative systems to control the risks associated with gates in the temporary fencing 

being unlocked and when entry was required beyond the guarding. 

In addition, the inspector was advised that the control measures in place were intended as 

temporary until permanent guarding was installed around both the squeezer and the adjacent 

sleeper stacker. 

The inspector deemed the status of the improvement notice to have been ‘complied with after the 

due date’. 

Breach: Section 43(3) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 1985. 




BAILEY HEIGHTS PTY LTD 

Date of alleged offence: 23 September 2003 


Magistrate: 

Plea: 

28 February 2005 at Melbourne Magistrates’ Court 

Her Honour Magistrate Grubissa 

No plea 

On 23 September 2003 in South Melbourne, a WorkSafe inspector attended a building site in 

response to a complaint about unsafe work practices. Bailey Heights Pty Ltd was the principal 

contractor on site. 

The inspector observed the roof did not have handrails or any other form of perimeter protection 

erected. The inspector estimated the potential fall height to be approximately 10 metres. It was 

a day of high wind and the inspector formed the opinion that the work environment posed an 

immediate risk to the health and safety of employees. The inspector ordered that the work on the 

roof cease immediately. 

After the charges were issued, new material became available that warranted reconsideration of 

the charges and a decision was made to withdraw the charges. 

Breach: Sections 21(1) & (2)(a) and section 44(3) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 1985. 

Result: Charges withdrawn. 


9

SECTION 1 

BENDIGO SCAFFOLDING PTY LTD 



Magistrate: 

Plea: 

8 December 2005 at Bendigo Magistrates’ Court 

His Honour Magistrate Gibb 

Guilty 

On 14 October 2004, a WorkSafe inspector observed two employees of Bendigo Scaffolding Pty 

Ltd undertaking unsafe work at a height while demolishing a building at Bendigo. The apex of the 

building was approximately eight metres high. 

The employees were observed working within two metres from the edge of the building without the 

provision of any safety mesh beneath the roof or any other form of fall protection being used. 

At the time, the employees were removing and carrying the steel roof sheets (eight metres 

long) from the west side of the roof. The employees were not wearing any safety harnesses. The 

employees gained access via a broken extension ladder that was not secured at the top or bottom. 

The ladder was approximately 3.5m from the ground. The employees used the ladder while 

carrying tools, hence they were not able to maintain, at all times, two hands on the ladder. Nor had 

employees been granted permission to use the ladder by another company that owned the ladder. 

Prior to 14 October 2005, a health and safety representative (HSR) had inducted the employees 

together with their manager onto the site by providing them with an OHS booklet and showing them 

the job that was required to be undertaken. The HSR was assured by the manager of the defendant 

company that a safety harness and other fall protection would be used in undertaking the work. 

The defendant company had harnesses, scaffolding and a ladder, however, they were located off 

site at headquarters. It did not own an elevated work platform and there was no written job safety 

analysis for the work. 

The inspector issued two prohibition notices preventing the work from continuing without an 

appropriate fall arrest system and other fall protection equipment and preventing use of the unsafe 

and damaged extension ladder. 



10PROSECUTIONS 2005


GRAHAM BICKERSTAFF 

Date of alleged offence: 22 October 2003 


Magistrate: 

Plea: 

24 October 2005 at Melbourne Magistrates’ Court 


Not guilty 

Kane Constructions Pty Ltd was contracted by Mincof Pty Ltd to demolish and reconstruct 

a number of buildings at a car dealership in Dandenong. Kane Constructions Pty Ltd obtained 

the services of another company to demolish the existing buildings. This company subsequently 

sub-contracted out the removal of the asbestos that existed at the premises to Dynamic 

Industries Pty Ltd. 

Prior to the demolition process commencing, a planning meeting was arranged to ensure that the 

asbestos removal was performed in a safe manner. Two WorkSafe inspectors attended the meeting. 

During the meeting, in addition to asbestos removal concerns, the inspectors gave directions 

that prior to any work being carried out, the integrity of the safety mesh that had previously been 

installed under the asbestos sheeting in the roof needed to be assessed. 

A roofing company assessed the mesh and found it was unable to guarantee the safety of the 

mesh. Kane Constructions Pty Ltd issued a ‘site notice’ stating that all work for the removal of the 

sheeting was to take place from below the roof. 

Dynamic Industries Pty Ltd nominated two supervisors, Andrew Irvine and Paul Cini, for the 

asbestos removal at the worksite. 

Kane Constructions Pty Ltd nominated Graham Bickerstaff to be the site supervisor. This 

position gave him responsibility on site to ensure that safe work practices were being followed by 

the sub-contractors. 

Prior to Dynamic Industries Pty Ltd employees gaining access to the roof area, much of the safety 

mesh had been removed to enable the asbestos roof sheets to be removed from below. 

On 22 October 2003, a Dynamic Industries Pty Ltd employee gained access to the roof, moved 

across the roof and fell approximately seven metres through the fragile asbestos sheeting. 

The employee sustained serious injuries and died on the way to hospital. 

Breach: Sections 25 (1)(a) & (2)(b) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 1985. 

Result: Charges dismissed. 


11

SECTION 1 

BI-LO PTY LTD 

Date of offence: 6 September 2002 


Magistrate: 

Plea: 

8 February 2005 at Broadmeadows Magistrates’ Court 

Her Honour Magistrate English 

Guilty 

On 6 September 2002 at a Bi-Lo Pty Ltd supermarket in Sunbury, a petrol-driven concrete 

cutter was in operation during refurbishments at the supermarket. The concrete cutter exposed 

employees to carbon monoxide fumes. The police and Country Fire Authority (CFA) were notified 

and attended the workplace at 7:30am. They offered to ventilate the area which would have required 

evacuation of the supermarket. The offer was declined by the defendant. 

Later, further employees manifested carbon monoxide poisoning symptoms, the police and CFA 

returned to the scene and the supermarket was evacuated and ventilated. 

Employees at the workplace suffered carbon monoxide poisoning as a result of the operation of the 

concrete cutter. 





BLUE CIRCLE SOUTHERN CEMENT LTD 

Date of offence: 12 July 2003 


Magistrate: 

Plea: 

3 October 2005 at Geelong Magistrates’ Court 

His Honour Magistrate von Einem 

Guilty 

On 12 July 2003 two men employed by Blue Circle Southern Cement Ltd (employee ‘A’ and employee 

‘B’) in Waurn Ponds, suffered second degree burns when they came in contact with very hot (around 

850 degrees celsius) process material (meal) used in the manufacturing of cement. ‘Meal’ is finely 

ground limestone mixed with a small amount of sand. 

In the days prior to the incident, the plant had experienced ongoing operational problems, mainly 

due to the under performance of the bypass electrostatic precipitator, the function of which was 

to remove dust from the airstream and reduce chloride levels generated in the manufacturing 

process. The defendant was unable to rectify these problems prior to the incident. There had also 

been difficulties with the by-pass system, resulting in high chloride levels. High chloride levels can 

increase the risk of blockages because it creates ‘sticky meal’. The kiln was operating at reduced 

capacity of 70% to reduce the risk of chloride build up. An excess of chloride produces a sticky 

compound which builds up in parts of the plant can lead to blockages in the plant in which the 

cement is manufactured. 

The employees started their shift at 7pm on the night of 11 July 2003. At about 8pm there was a 

cyclone 4 blockage radiation alarm. The central control room operator was of the view that this was 

a false alarm as all temperatures and pressures appeared normal throughout the system and that 

there were no blockages at that time. However, according to the production shift team leader, at 

around the same time a stage 4 chloride test was undertaken which showed the chloride levels at 

1.8%. His belief was that the desired level was less than 1.5%. 

In the early hours of 12 June 2003 (around midnight), employee ‘A’ cleaned the stage 4 suction 

points situated near the bottom of the cyclone. Within minutes of putting his equipment away he 

received a call from the central control room operator, informing him that the cyclone 4-radiation 

alarm was on again. Employee ‘A’ went to the control room and with the central control room 

operator watched temperature and pressure trends within the system for a few minutes. As 

they were monitoring the situation, a cyclone 4 suction alarm was initiated indicating there was 

inadequate airflow through the cyclone. The control room operator asked employee ‘A’ to go to 

the bottom of cyclone 4 and check out the situation. Employee ‘A’’ put on his safety equipment and 

went to the second floor of the plant and checked suction port ‘A’ which indicated a zero reading. 

Employee ‘A’ believed that this was a sign that there was a blockage somewhere in cyclone 4 

and then looked into the sample port, which was the location where chloride levels were usually 

checked, and observed that there was no suction. Employee ‘A’ radioed the control room operator 

to advise that there was a real blockage. Employee ‘A’ used the two-way radio to ask employee ‘B’ 

to come and help him. The shift supervisor also came to assist both employees. 

Eventually, the shift supervisor instructed the control room operator to shut the feed off and stop 

the kiln. About 15 to 20 minutes had elapsed between the time the suction alarm went off and the 

shutting down of the kiln. The meal remained at a very high temperature despite the shutting down 

of the kiln. 

Both employee ‘A’ and employee ‘B’ together with the shift supervisor were attempting to clear the 

blockage by checking various portholes. Employees ‘A’ and ‘B’ proceeded to hatch cover ’7’, located 

30-60cms below the mezzanine level (above the first floor). The shift supervisor remained on the 

first floor. According to employee ‘B’ he had opened this hatch once before to clear a build up of 

meal and he had never been told that this hatch was not to be used nor were there any warnings 

signs to that effect. This hatch was not locked but had two large wing nuts and bolts holding it 


13

SECTION 1 

in place on either side of the hatch. These wing nuts had to be released using a shifting spanner. 

They lifted the grate on the mezzanine floor and reached down to the hatch. Employee ‘B’ began 

to release one wing nut and employee ‘A’ was working on the other. Both employees were on their 

knees in front of the hatch door. They had removed the wing nuts and employee ‘B’ was planning to 

get a crow bar to prise the hatch open when suddenly the lid of the hatch blew open and hot meal 

erupted from the opening. 

According to employee ‘B’ he felt a hot sudden rush of heat and heard a loud bang. The pressure 

from the hatch area knocked him back onto the mezzanine floor. Employee ‘B’s’ face was burnt - he 

made his way to the shower and saw that employee ‘A’ was already there with the shift supervisor. 

Employee ‘A’ was also injured. 

Both employee ‘A’ and employee ‘B’ were taken to the first aid room by the control room operator 

and the shift supervisor (both level two first aid trained) whom began to treat the burns on both 

men. There was only one sink with only one tap for running water in the first aid room. This meant 

that whilst injured employee ‘B’ had his hand under running water, the control room operator had 

to go to the toilets to get to a tap to wet the bandages to treat injured employee ‘A’. There was no 

emergency shower in the first aid room which meant the closest shower was 15 to 20 metres away. 

The control room operator could not get into the supply cupboard to obtain more bandages to place 

on injured employee ‘B’s’ legs because it was locked. 

Breach: Sections 21(1) & (2)(a); sections 21(1) & (2)(d); and sections 21(1) & (2)(e) of the Occupational 

Health and Safety Act 1985. 


BONNEY PRODUCE PTY LTD 

Date of offences: 3 January and 14 September 2002 


Judge: 

Plea: 

7 June 2005 at Melbourne County Court 

His Honour Judge Barnett 

Guilty 

On 3 January 2002, employees of Bonney Produce Pty Ltd were observed using a forklift in an 

unsafe manner. A forklift was being used to raise steel fascia formwork panels and tools to the roof 

of the workplace. The panels were balanced on top of 16 pallets stacked and tied onto the tynes of 

the forklift. The forklift was parked at right angles to the building, across the footpath on Whitehall 

Street, Footscray. One employee raised the tynes of the forklift to a level where the panels could be 

pulled from the top of the stack of pallets and onto the roof using ropes. The employee working on 

the roof then secured the panels to the front to the building. This process was repeated for each of 

four panels until a WorkSafe inspector directed the work to cease. 

On 14 September 2002, employees of Bonney Produce Pty Ltd were again observed using a forklift 

in an unsafe manner. A WorkSafe inspector observed a forklift parked on the footpath of Whitehall 

Street with the mast raised to full height. A personnel cage was resting on a number of wooden 

pallets, tied to the tynes and mast of the forklift with ropes. The inspector observed a person 

working from the cage, scraping paint from the façade of the building. The inspector also observed 

there was no-one in the operator’s seat of the forklift. 





BRAMBLES AUSTRALIA LTD 

Date of offence: 17 November 2003 


Magistrate: 

Plea: 

20 April 2005 at Dandenong Magistrates’ Court 

His Honour Magistrate Alsop 

Guilty 

On 17 November 2003, a storeman employed by Brambles Australia Ltd attempted to clear a paper 

jam blockage in a shredder. The in feed roller opening was unguarded. 

The defendant failed to ensure that guarding was installed on conveyors in the material destruction 

area to prevent bodily contact with danger points of the machinery. The defendant also failed to 

warn employees of the dangers of being drawn and entangled at the nip points while the machine 

was in operation. 

The employee sustained a serious injury to his right arm as a result of being caught in the 

unguarded machine. 

Breach: Sections 21(1) & (2)(c) and sections 21(1) & (2)(e) of the Occupational Health and Safety 

Act 1985. 


BREAKWATER METALAND PTY LTD 



Magistrate: 

Plea: 

22 April 2005 at Geelong Magistrates’ Court 

His Honour Magistrate Wright 

Guilty 

On 22 September 2003, a WorkSafe inspector attended the workplace of Breakwater Metaland 

Pty Ltd and issued four improvement notices, including one directing the installation of guarding 

on a large guillotine (as required by Australian Standards). The notices required compliance by 28 

October 2003. 

On 28 November 2003, the inspector returned to the workplace and deemed that none of the 

improvement notices had been complied with. 

On 26 February 2004, the guillotine still had no guarding on the rear of the machine. 

On 18 March 2004, the rear of the guillotine remained unguarded. The notice in relation to the 

unguarded guillotine was not appealed. 

The Court was told that the guillotine had been decommissioned and that the defendant had 

purchased a new one. 




15

SECTION 1 

BUNNINGS PTY LTD 



Magistrate: 

Plea: 

5 September 2005 at Geelong Magistrates’ Court 

Her Honour Magistrate Hawkins 

Guilty 

On 15 July 2004 at the Bunnings Pty Ltd store in Waurn Ponds, a truck driver parked his truck in an 

unloading area at the rear of the premises, opened up the vehicle by pulling the curtains back and 

placed the freight safety gates on an angle at the front of the truck. The truck driver then stood well 

away to the front of the truck so he had a clear view of a forklift belonging to Bunning Pty Ltd. 

After the truck was unloaded, the truck driver returned to the forklift driver to settle the 

paperwork. The truck driver approached the forklift driver on the driver’s side of the truck to 

provide the paperwork. The forklift was stationary, in gear, with the engine running and no hand 

brake applied. There was an issue with the paperwork and the forklift driver explained that only his 

manager could sign the paperwork. The forklift driver put his foot on the accelerator and due to the 

position of the wheels, the rear wheel drove over the truck driver’s left foot. 

The truck driver sustained crushing injuries to his left foot as a result of the incident. 

At the time of the incident, the defendant company had a documented traffic management plan, 

however, it had not been implemented at the Waurn Ponds store. 

On 21 July 2004, a WorkSafe inspector issued an improvement notice to Bunnings Pty Ltd to control 

the risk associated with the operation of forklifts, including providing appropriate barricades, 

markings or other physical means of separating the plant from pedestrians and other powered 

mobile plant by 23 August 2004. The inspector also issued an improvement notice requiring all 

employees at the Waurn Ponds store be trained on traffic management control by 30 July 2004. 

Both notices were complied with. 

Breach: Section 23 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 1985. 




BYDE CONSTRUCTIONS PTY LTD 



Magistrate: 

Plea: 

15 November 2005 at Melbourne Magistrates’ Court 

His Honour Deputy Chief Magistrate Muling 

Guilty 

On 9 August 2004, a WorkSafe inspector attended a residential construction site in Yarraville where 

he observed employees of the defendant exposed to the following hazards: 

• insufficient scaffolding for working at heights of 4.5m above ground; 

• insufficient hand railing and kickboards; 

• an unprotected work platform that had bricks, a cement mixer and a wheelbarrow below it; 

• no fall protection; and 

• two flexible electrical extension leads lying in muddy conditions and being used near water. 

On 31 August 2004 the inspector again attended the workplace and observed: 

• workers installing roof sheets using a harness – not a fall arrest system; and 

• persons accessing the roof by climbing onto the top plate of the frame and then climbing through 

the roof batons – putting them at risk of a fall distance of approximately 2.5m. 

As a result of the above observations, the inspector issued five prohibition notices and four 

improvement notices. All were complied with within the specified timeframes. 

Breach: Sections 21(1) & (2)(c) and section 23 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 1985. 


CADBURY SCHWEPPES PROPRIETARY LTD 



Magistrate: 

Plea: 

20 May 2005 at Ringwood Magistrates’ Court 

His Honour Magistrate Brear 

Guilty 

On 29 July 2003 a truck driver employed by an independent contractor together with an employee 

of the defendant, were loading pallets on a truck at the defendant’s premises when the truck driver 

moved a vertical bar on the truck to make more space. 

Unable to see the truck driver, the employee drove the forklift towards the side of the truck, 

pinning the driver’s hand against the bar. The truck driver’s hand was crushed by the forklift and 

he suffered a deep laceration to his right hand, a crushed tendon and nerve damage. The injuries 

required surgery and the truck driver was unable to work for three weeks. 

In two previous incidents in 1998 and 2001, employees had been struck and injured by forklifts. 




17

SECTION 1 

CAMPBELL AUSTRALASIA PTY LTD 

Date of offence: 5 January 2005 


Magistrate: 

Plea: 

20 December 2005 at Shepparton Magistrates’ Court 

Her Honour Magistrate Bolger 

Guilty 

On 5 January 2005 at the Lemnos premises of Campbell Australasia Pty Ltd, four employees 

accessed the roof in order to remove rubbish, including an old air-conditioning unit, and replace the 

aged steel roofing of the shed. 

The defendant had employed a contractor who was a qualified mechanic to oversee the roof 

rejuvenation. The contractor had no roofing qualifications. As part of an assessment made on 

the roofing work, hand rails were installed along the side of the roof as workers would be 

working within two metres of the edge. The handrails were installed to avoid the necessity of 

harnesses and lanyards. 

As the old roofing material and other parts were removed, they were thrown into a skip located at the 

side of the roof. Parts of the air-conditioning unit had to be removed with an angle grinder. During 

the removal of the air-conditioning unit, one of the employees used a crow bar to lever the unit away 

from the roof structure. As the employee did this, he placed his full weight onto a small roofing 

panel. The panel had not been tested for its structural soundness and integrity. The panel was only 

attached to the roof via roofing clouts which provided minimal support. In addition, there was no 

safety mesh beneath the panel. The panel gave way and the employee fell through the roof, striking 

some racks and falling onto bags of flour on the floor. The employee fell from a height of 7.75m. 

The defendant failed to: carry out a risk assessment on the removal of the air conditioning unit; 

and provide protection to employees to prevent them from the risk of falling. There was inadequate 

training provided to employees. 

The employee sustained serious injuries to his left knee and foot, including nerve damage. The 

employee was air lifted to the Alfred Hospital where he received emergency medical treatment. 





CLIVE PEETERS PTY LTD 

Date of alleged offence: 7 July 2002 


Judge: 

Plea: 

20 June 2005 at Melbourne County Court 

Her Honour Judge Lawson 

Not guilty 

On 7 July 2002 at Clive Peeters’ Ringwood store, an employee (a warehouse supervisor) fell from an 

‘A’ frame ladder while reaching for a television. 

The television was stored at a height of approximately 3.2m on the top shelf. 

The injured employee broke both wrists, sustained a black eye and received stitches in his 

forehead. The injured employee also suffered headaches and received medical attention several 

weeks after the incident. 

Breach: Sections 21(1) & (2)(e) (two charges) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 1985. 

Result: Her Honour directed the jury to acquit. 

COLAC CEMETERY TRUST 



Magistrate: 

Plea: 

11 March 2005 at Geelong Magistrates’ Court 


Guilty 

On 4 February 2004, an employee at the Colac Cemetery became ill shortly after placing fumigation 

tablets into rabbit burrows. 

The defendant had no policies or procedures in place for the storage and handling of hazardous 

chemicals at the workplace and did not immediately notify the VWA of the incident. The incident 

came to the notice of the VWA after a member of the public reported the matter. 

The employee required immediate treatment as an in-patient in hospital, where he remained 

overnight for observation. 

Breach: Sections 21(1) & (2)(a) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 1985 and Regulation 7 of the 

Occupational Health and Safety (Incident Notification) Regulations 1997. 



19

SECTION 1 

COLAC OTWAY SHIRE 



Magistrate: 

Plea: 

27 May 2005 at Geelong Magistrates’ Court 

His Honour Magistrate Beck 

Guilty 

On 4 February 2004, an employee building engineer of Colac Otway Shire carried out maintenance 

work on the air conditioning plant on the roof of the Colac Otway Performing Arts and Cultural 

Centre. The employee stepped onto a skylight which broke and resulted in him falling 2.5m to the 

floor of a room below. 

The Shire had no procedures or policies in relation to work at height. It did not provide mesh 

guarding either under or above the skylights. The Code of Practice for Safe Work on Roofs, 1989 had 

not been complied with, including the requirement to provide temporary walkways and hand rails 

when carrying out maintenance on such fragile material 

An improvement notice was issued to the defendant on the day of the incident. It was complied with 

in the required timeframe. After the incident, the defendant developed a policy and procedure for 

work at height. 

The injured employee was hospitalised for 11 days and had rods inserted into his back and bone 

taken from his hip and grafted onto his spine. The injured employee also had broken ribs, neck 

ligament damage, left shoulder damage and severe bruising. 





LUIGI COLOMBERA 



Magistrate: 

Plea: 

27 June 2005 at Shepparton Magistrates’ Court 

His Honour Magistrate Murphy 

Guilty 

Goulburn Valley Region Water Authority contracted Colombera Constructions Pty Ltd to build a 

concrete water tank at Cobram. 

On 5 February 2004, a WorkSafe inspector attended the construction site and inspected the 

scaffolding. The inspector formed the opinion that the scaffolding was unsafe and posed an 

immediate risk to the health and safety of the employees. The inspector spoke to Luigi Colombera, 

the site supervisor (who was a co-director of Colombera Constructions Pty Ltd) and advised him 

that he considered the scaffolding to be unsafe. Several threats were made to the inspector and the 

inspector left the workplace. 

The inspector returned an hour later with the project supervisor and senior engineer from 

Goulburn Valley Region Water Authority and a representative from the contract managers. The 

inspector tried to explain his concerns with the scaffolding to Luigi Colombera and he again, was 

abusive. The employees refused to come down from the scaffolding which was up to 2.4m high 

between working platforms. 

The inspector served a prohibition notice to prevent further work on the scaffolding. 

On 6 February 2004, representatives of Goulburn Valley Region Water Authority returned to the site 

and observed employees, including Luigi Colombera, working on the scaffolding in breach of the 


Breach: Sections 44(3) and section 52(1); and sections 21(1) & (2)(a) and section 52(1) of the 

Occupational Health and Safety Act 1985. 

Result: Without conviction and the matter was adjourned to Shepparton Magistrates’ Court 

on 20 December 2005. The defendant was ordered to pay the Registrar $5,000 by 27 September 

2005 for payment to the Senior Constable Tony Clarke Memorial Appeal care of the Blue 

Ribbon Foundation. 


21

SECTION 1 

COLOMBERA CONSTRUCTIONS PTY LTD 



Magistrate: 

Plea: 

27 June 2005 at Shepparton Magistrates’ Court 


Guilty 

Goulburn Valley Region Water Authority contracted Colombera Constructions Pty Ltd to build a 

concrete water tank at Cobram. 

On 5 February 2004, a WorkSafe inspector attended the construction site and inspected the 

scaffolding. The inspector formed the opinion that the scaffolding was unsafe and posed an 

immediate risk to the health and safety of the employees. The inspector spoke to Luigi Colombera, 

the site supervisor (who was a co-director of Colombera Constructions Pty Ltd) and advised him 

that he considered the scaffolding to be unsafe. Several threats were made to the inspector and the 

inspector left the workplace. 

The inspector returned an hour later with the project supervisor and senior engineer from 

Goulburn Valley Region Water Authority and a representative from the contract managers. The 

inspector tried to explain his concerns with the scaffolding to Luigi Colombera and he again, was 

abusive. The employees refused to come down from the scaffolding which was up to 2.4m high 

between working platforms. 

The inspector served a prohibition notice to prevent further work on the scaffolding. 

On 6 February 2004, representatives of Goulburn Valley Region Water Authority returned to the site 

and observed employees, including Luigi Colombera, working on the scaffolding in breach of the 






COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL CONSTRUCTION GROUP 

Date of offence: 7 May 2002 


Judge: 

Plea: 

27 May 2005 (plea) and 3 June 2005 (sentence) at Melbourne 

County Court 

His Honour Judge Coish 

Guilty 

In May 2002, Commercial Industrial Construction Group had been contracted to refurbish a four 

storey building at Kew Secondary College. 

On 7 May 2002, an employee builder’s labourer was instructed by the site manager to remove a 

section of roof on the first floor of a building. Another employee was assigned to assist the builder’s 

labourer with the task. 

While performing the task, the two employees became aware that a section of down pipe would 

need to be removed for the works to continue. One employee descended from the roof to get an 

angle grinder to cut the down pipe. 

When he returned to the roof, the other employee had already removed the roof sheeting, exposing 

the insulation. The penetration space created was approximately 50cm wide and one metre long. 

In order to access the downpipe, the employee had to step over the roof penetration space and as 

he did so, his foot slipped and he fell, with the angle grinder, approximately three metres to the 

concrete floor below. Although some scaffolding had been erected underneath the first floor roof, it 

did not extend to the area where the two employees were working. 

Immediately after the incident, the second employee was instructed by the site manager to get 

back on the roof and finish the job. The employee was not provided with any safety instructions. 

There were no safety procedures in place in order to finish the job. Work continued until union 

representatives arrived at the site and stopped work at the site. 

The first employee suffered bruising and lacerations as a result of his fall. 




23

SECTION 1 

COMPLETE TRUCK BODIES PTY LTD 



Magistrate: 

Plea: 



Guilty 

On 23 October 2001, an employee of Complete Truck Bodies Pty Ltd was working on a truck that had 

been lifted and lowered onto two high trestles. The system of work involved the necessary work 

being completed on the body of the truck from underneath, and when completed, the body was 

again lifted and lowered onto the chassis of the vehicle. There were no designated lifting points on 

the truck body and no proper slinging techniques used. The hooks of the chains were inserted into 

the ends of two rolled steel hollow sections that formed part of the truck body. The strain of the 

load caused them to split and the truck body slipped. 

The employee was hit on the right shoulder and knocked to the floor by the suspended truck body 

that slipped. 

The employee sustained a broken bone in his foot and a shattered thigh bone as a result of 

the incident. 



CONSOLIDATED FIRE SERVICES PTY LTD (TRADING AS STATEWIDE FIRE PROTECTION) 



Magistrate: 

Plea: 

20 May 2005 at Dandenong Magistrates’ Court 


Guilty 

On 18 February 2004, three employees of a subcontractor engaged by Consolidated Fire Services 

Pty Ltd were decommissioning old gas cylinders using an electrical rattle gun to remove valves and 

a log-splitter with an electric motor to puncture the cylinders. Liquid gas ignited and caught on fire. 

The three employees suffered burns to their bodies. One employee was discharged from hospital 

on the same day; one was hospitalised for five days; and the third spent 17 days in hospital. 

Fire investigators examined the scene and their opinion was that the fire appeared to have started 

when vapours from the venting process came into contact with the electric rattle gun, logsplitter 

and plugs on electrical extension leads on the ground nearby. The defendant did not have 

procedures in place for the destruction of cylinders and it did not provide adequate information, 

training or supervision to the employees. 





CRUISE CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENTS PTY LTD 

Date of offence: 18 June 2001 


Judge: 

Plea: 

3 May 2005 at Melbourne County Court 

His Honour Judge Punshon 

Not guilty 

On 18 June 2001 in North Dandenong, a WorkSafe inspector observed employees of the defendant 

working from an incomplete scaffold that had an unrestricted fall distance in excess of four metres. 

On 11 July 2001 in Croydon, a WorkSafe inspector observed employees of the defendant working 

from an insecure scaffold that had only single planks, no handrails, no kickboards and no safe 

means of access or egress. The inspector also formed the opinion that the instruction, training and 

supervision of employees were inadequate. 


Result: Nolle prosequi entered by the Office of Public Prosecutions after the company went 

into liquidation. 

DALVEDO PTY LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS CANTERBURY TYRE AND MAG SUPAMART PTY LTD) 



Magistrate: 

Plea: 

30 November 2005 at Dandenong Magistrates’ Court 

His Honour Magistrate Batt 

Guilty 

On 13 January 2004 at the Bayswater workplace of Dalvedo Pty Ltd, an employee was repairing a 

vehicle on a hoist when it fell from the hoist. 

There were no safety lock nuts (which cost about $10) to lock the arms of the hoist in place. The 

hoist had not been serviced since October 2002. 

The injuries sustained by the employee were significant. 




25

SECTION 1 

MICHAEL DOHERTY 

Date of alleged offence: 9 March 2004 


Magistrate: 

Plea: 



No plea 

Blaxland Pacific Pty Ltd was engaged by Yarra Valley Water to construct water mains pipeline 

in Bundoora. 

On 9 March 2004, an employee of Blaxland Pty Ltd was air pressure testing a mains water pipe 

when a 70 kilogram metal end plate blew off. 

Yarra Valley Water and Blaxland Pacific Pty Ltd failed to provide and maintain systems of work 

that were, so far as was practicable, safe and without risks to health by not conducting hydrostatic 

testing of the water mains in accordance with relevant Australian Standards. 

An employee died from severe head injuries and a second employee, who was nearby at the time of 

the incident, also sustained injuries. 

Michael Doherty, a director of Blaxland Pty Ltd, had employed a contract plumber for the works 

and instructed him on how to set up the end cap on the pipe and how to set up the bracing ready 

for testing. Michael Doherty checked the packing and confirmed it was ok for testing on the day of 

the incident. 

Breach: Sections 21(1) & (2)(a) and section 52(1); sections 21(1) & (2)(e) and section 52(1) (two 

charges); and section 22 and section 52(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 1985. 

Result: Charges withdrawn due to a medical condition suffered by the defendant. 

ANTONIO FARANDA (TRADING AS S.T.G. & A. FARANDA) 



Magistrate: 

Plea: 

27 January 2005 at Werribee Magistrates’ Court 

His Honour Magistrate Docking 

Guilty 

On 5 September 2003 in Werribee South, an employee of S.T.G. & A. Faranda was operating an onion 

sorting machine when her hand became caught between the cutting rollers of the machine. 

Emergency services attended and released the employee’s hand from the machine by removing one 

of the rollers. 

As a result of the incident, the employee sustained fractures to her hand and fingers. 





GIUSEPPE FARANDA (TRADING AS S.T.G. & A. FARANDA) 



Magistrate: 

Plea: 

27 January 2005 at Werribee Magistrates’ Court 

His Honour Magistrate Docking 

Guilty 

On 5 September 2003 in Werribee South, an employee of S.T.G. & A. Faranda was operating an onion 

sorting machine when her hand became caught between the cutting rollers of the machine. 

Emergency services attended and released the employee’s hand from the machine by removing one 

of the rollers. 

As a result of the incident, the employee sustained fractures to her hand and fingers. 




27

SECTION 1 

FEATURE HOMES PTY LTD 



Magistrate: 

Plea: 

15 December 2005 at Melbourne Magistrates’ Court 

His Honour Magistrate Rosencwaig 

Not guilty 

On 11 June 2003, an apprentice carpenter and another employee employed by Feature Homes Pty 

Ltd and a labourer of JNME Constructions Pty Ltd were engaged to dismantle the roof a private 

residence situated at Princess Hill. The work was being conducted under the direction of Feature 

Homes Pty Ltd. 

The director of Feature Homes Pty Ltd directed the three workers to start working on the roof by 

removing roof sheeting. The director then left the site for about half an hour. 

The works being performed were about 3.5m above floor level. There was a discussion between 

two of the workers on the roof about a rotten ceiling joist and concern over the stability of the 

chimney. They were working about two metres away from the chimney. 

The director returned to the site with morning tea. Prior to going downstairs for morning tea the 

apprentice walked towards the chimney to make a phone call. 

After finishing the phone call, the apprentice stood up and took two or three steps next to the 

chimney. The apprentice lost his balance and fell through the ceiling backwards. Soon after he fell, 

the other roof worker saw the brick chimney start to lean and eventually fall through the roof. The 

apprentice was taken to hospital and died a short time later. 

The defendant failed to provide a safe system of work by not providing perimeter protection along 

a parapet wall. The defendant also failed to provide adequate information and instruction by not 

completing a demolition plan, which would have contained advice for employees in relation to what 

they should do in the event of a hazard being discovered during the course of the roof demolition. 

Breach: Section 21(1) & 21(2)(a) and 21(1) & 21(2)(e) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 1985. 




GREGORY FIRMIN 



Magistrate: 

Plea: 



Guilty 









that slipped. 


the incident. 

The defendant was a director of Complete Truck Bodies Pty Ltd and also worked in the factory. 


Result: The defendant was released upon entering into an undertaking to be of good behaviour 

for 12 months and ordered to donate $1,000 to the Royal Children’s Hospital. 

FOAMEX MANUFACTURING PTY LTD 

Date of offence: 27 April 2004 


Judge: 

Plea: 

22 November 2005 (plea) and 29 November 2005 (sentence) at 

Melbourne County Court 

Her Honour Judge Lawson 

Guilty 

On 27 April 2004, an employee of Foamex Manufacturing Pty Ltd was using a forklift to stack 

packages of polystyrene packing. The employee did not have a certificate of competency to drive a 

forklift and was not being supervised. 

The employee reversed and turned the forklift in a tight arc with an attachment in the raised 

position - approximately three metres high. 

The forklift became unstable, overturned and crushed the employee beneath the forklift. The 

employee died as a result of the injuries. 




29

SECTION 1 

FOUR BY FOUR HOTELS PTY LTD (TRADING AS THE COVE HOTEL) 



Magistrate: 

Plea: 

24 March 2005 at Frankston Magistrates’ Court 

Her Honour Magistrate Stewart-Thornton 

Guilty 

On 27 November 2003 in Patterson Lakes, a 17 year old employee kitchen hand at The Cove Hotel 

was cleaning a grill with a product called ‘Firedog’. The employee removed a tray of ‘Firedog’ and 

water mixture and walked towards the drain to dispose of the waste liquid, slipped and lost her 

balance. The employee fell to the floor splashing the liquid contents from the tray into her eyes and 

onto her face. 

The defendant did not provide anti-slip mats for the floor. The employee had not been provided with 

any formal training in the safe use of cleaning products for the grill and kitchen area. 

The defendant failed to notify the VWA of the incident in accordance with the Occupational Health and 

Safety Incident Notification Regulations 1997. 

The employee received serious burns to her eye. As a result of conjunctival scarring, the employee 

now suffers sensitivity to light and glare, and is required to wear prescription glasses. Prior to this 

incident the employee did not need to wear glasses. 

Breach: Sections 21(1) & (2)(a) and sections 21(1) & (2)(e) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 

1985. Regulation 7(d) and Regulation 9 of the Occupational Health and Safety (Incident Notification) 

Regulations 1997. 


GARNAUT CONSTRUCTIONS PTY LTD 



Magistrate: 

Plea: 


His Honour Magistrate Hodgens 

Guilty 

On 23 November 2002 in Melbourne, a member of the public observed building works at a hotel 

where pedestrian access at the front of the premises was rendered inaccessible. 

Pedestrians were diverted onto the road in front of the building without provision for the segregation of 

pedestrian and vehicle traffic, either by the erection of barriers or designated walk zones. 

It was also observed that a number of workers were working on a canopy approximately 4.5m high. 

None of the workers were wearing safety harnesses and no safety railing was erected around the 

perimeter of the canopy. 


Result: Without conviction fined $2,250 on sections 21(1) & (2)(a) and without conviction fined 

$1,500 on section 22. 



GARY OWEN ROOF & PLUMBING SERVICES PTY LTD 



Justice: 

Plea: 

22 April 2005 at Melbourne County Court 

The Honourable Justice King 

Guilty 

On 29 May 2003, an employee of Gary Owen Roof and Plumbing Services Pty Ltd fell nearly four 

metres from a roof onto a bluestone laneway in North Carlton. 

The employee had been instructed to remove the roofing from the domestic dwelling. A salesman 

employed by the defendant had noted the roof pitch varied between 25 and 32 degrees. The 

bluestone laneway made it difficult for scaffolding to be erected and it had been recommended that 

harnesses be used to complete the job. 

The defendant did not provide the employee with any fall protection equipment in the form of 

perimeter scaffolding, guard rails, static lines or safety harnesses. 

The employee was taken to hospital and was treated for a pinched nerve in his back and bruising to 

his left foot, arm and leg. 


Result: Without conviction fined $7,668.75. 

GODFREY HIRST AUSTRALIA PTY LTD 



Magistrate: 

Plea: 

11 February 2005 at Geelong Magistrates’ Court 


Guilty 

On 24 October 2003, an employee of Godfrey Hirst Australia Pty Ltd was operating an unguarded 

tufting machine that allowed access to the in-running nip points on the yarn feed rollers. 

The employee’s left hand became caught between yarn rollers and was dragged into the tufting 

machine, resulting in serious injury to the employee’s hand. 




31

SECTION 1 

GREATER BENDIGO CITY COUNCIL 



Magistrate: 

Plea: 

17 May 2005 at Bendigo Magistrates’ Court 

His Honour Magistrate Winton-Smith 

Guilty 

On 13 October 2003, a resident of Huntly was struck by a large bough that fell from a tree being 

sawn by an employee of Greater Bendigo City Council. 

The employee had been instructed to remove the overhanging portion of the bough, after the 

resident reported that it obstructed the footpath and represented a danger to pedestrians. 

When the employee had cut two thirds of the over hanging branches, he noticed the resident in the 

vicinity of the bough of the tree. The employee continued to work and did not warn the resident to 

stay clear. As the employee noticed the bough move he called out to the resident, but the resident 

did not register what the employee said until it was too late. 

The employee had no supervision or assistance provided by the defendant. There were no warning 

signs, barriers or materials to cordon off an exclusion zone. No attempt was made to brace or 

secure the bough. 

The resident lost consciousness and was taken to hospital where she received treatment for head 

and neck injuries. 



GREENMAW PTY LTD 

Date of alleged offence: 12 December 2002 


Magistrate: 

Plea: 

7 and 8 September 2005 at Melbourne Magistrates’ Court 

His Honour Magistrate Goldberg 

Not guilty 

On 12 December 2002, an employee of Greenmaw Pty Ltd was working at a golf course in Rye when 

he became caught in the blades of a turf scarifying machine. The employee lost the lower half of his 

right leg. 

The employee had not been provided with any means of communication for working in a 

remote location. 





JASON LEE GWYNN (TRADING AS CREATIVE STONE) 



Magistrate: 

Plea: 

23 March 2005 at Werribee Magistrates’ Court 

His Honour Magistrate Capell 

Guilty 

On 26 November 2003, a foreman employed by Creative Stone became trapped under approximately 

seven to 12 stone slabs. These slabs each measured approximately 3m by 1.2m and had a combined 

weight of up to 2.4 tonne. 

Risk assessments and hazard identification processes had not been undertaken to identify, 

eliminate or reduce risks associated with the use of a forklift and associated attachments relevant 

to the storage, unloading and transportation of stone slabs in the workplace. There were no 

policies, procedures or systems in place in relation to the storage, unloading and transportation of 

slabs in the workplace. 

The employee sustained a fractured back, broken pelvis and a torn ligament in his hand. 



LISA MICHELLE GWYNN (TRADING AS CREATIVE STONE) 



Magistrate: 

Plea: 

23 March 2005 at Werribee Magistrates’ Court 


Guilty 

On 26 November 2003, a foreman employed by Creative Stone became trapped under approximately 

seven to 12 stone slabs. These slabs each measured approximately 3m by 1.2mand had a combined 

weight of up to 2.4 tonne. 

Risk assessments and hazard identification processes had not been undertaken to identify, 

eliminate or reduce risks associated with the use of a forklift and associated attachments relevant 

to the storage, unloading and transportation of stone slabs in the workplace. There were no 

policies, procedures or systems in place in relation to the storage, unloading and transportation of 

slabs in the workplace. 

The employee sustained a fractured back, broken pelvis and a torn ligament in his hand. 




33

SECTION 1 

HAZELDENE’S CHICKEN FARM PTY LTD 



Magistrate: 

Plea: 

20 September 2005 at Bendigo Magistrates’ Court 

His Honour Magistrate Cottrill 

Guilty 

On 2 March 2004, a contract employee of Hazeldene’s Chicken Farm Pty Ltd had finished cleaning 

a conveyor line when he reached between the chain conveyor and frame to pick up a piece of meat 

off the floor. The employee’s arm was pulled between the bars by the moving chain and became 

trapped between the moving conveyor chain and the conveyor’s metal support. 

The contract employee suffered a broken arm in two places and required the insertion of two metal 

plates and nine days treatment in hospital. 

The contract employee had not been inducted and had not seen written work procedures for this 

job. Supervision was minimal and an afternoon shift supervisor commenced after this incident. 





HOERBIGER AUSTRALIA PTY LTD 



Magistrate: 

Plea: 

21 December 2005 at Dandenong Magistrates’ Court 


Guilty 

Hoerbiger Australia Pty Ltd manufactures internal parts for gas compressors at its Dandenong 

premises. The manufacturing process includes the use of ‘lapping machines’ to polish metal 

surfaces to give a high quality finish to the product. 

On 10 August 2004, an explosion occurred in the lapping room which had two operational machines. 

The small machine was lapping while the large machine was being cleaned by flushing it with a 

solvent. There was additional solvent in an open wash rinse tank, a bucket and one or two other 

open containers. Further, there were two 200 litre drums of solvent stored in the lapping room – 

one full and the other nearly so. Normally these bulk quantities of solvent were stored at the back 

of the factory, but Hoerbiger had additional plant on the premises because of a relocation of its 

Sydney operations. 

The explosion was attributed to the ignition of solvent vapour by the motor or switch of the small 

lapping machine, the pump motor of which was not flameproof. 

At the time of the incident, two employees were working 15 to 20 metres away from the lapping 

room and a contractor was working on the mezzanine floor above the lapping room. The building 

was substantially damaged. The lapping room and the mezzanine floor above it were largely 

destroyed, two roller doors were damaged and two concrete tilt panels of the wall close to the 

lapping room were forced out of alignment. The employees were each struck on the back of the 

head and neck. One employee received 10 stitches and soft tissue injuries to his right shoulder 

and neck. The other employee received three stitches to an injury on his head. Both men were 

discharged from hospital the same day. The contractor inhaled chemical vapour and was treated 

with oxygen therapy. 

There were no written procedures for the use of solvents and employees had not been trained in 

the use of solvents. Employees were unaware that the solvent was flammable. They believed that 

they were using a safety solvent. 

The Material Safety Data Sheets for chemicals at the factory were kept in the production manager’s 

office, but he had not looked at them. Hazard identification or risk assessment for the use of the 

solvents had not been conducted. A written procedure for the operation of the lapping machine 

detailed the method for cleaning, but did not specify the type of solvents to be used. There was 

improper storage of solvents; inadequate ventilation of the lapping room; ignition sources within 

the lapping room were not properly controlled; there was no system of work for use of a safety 

solvent with a high flashpoint; and there was a failure to provide adequate management procedures 

for the purchase of materials in the workplace. 




35

SECTION 1 

HOIST HYDRAULICS (VIC) PTY LTD 



Magistrate: 

Plea: 

9 December 2005 at Ringwood Magistrates’ Court 

His Honour Magistrate La Rosa 

Guilty 

On 11 November 2004, a metal trade’s assistant employed by Hoist Hydraulics (Vic) Pty Ltd was 

operating a machine known as a ‘rumbler’ that removes rough edges from cut metal components 

by rotating them. The employee had been instructed that because the on/off button did not work, 

he was to start and stop the machine by connecting and disconnecting the three-phase plug and 

extension lead that led to the machine. The extension lead was connected to a wall switch which 

was 30 to 40 paces away from the machine and in a position from which an operator could not see 

the machine. 

Whilst operating the machine the employee suffered an electric shock. 

The rumbler had been manufactured in-house several years earlier and was unsafe in the 

following respects: 

• it did not comply with Australian Standards regarding safeguarding of machinery; 

• numerous dangerous parts protruded from the machine, including the hinges and latches 

supporting the door, which created an entanglement hazard; 

• the hinges securing the door of the rumbler were cracked, creating a crushing hazard; 

• the rumbler’s on/off switch was broken; 

• there was no emergency stop button fitted; 

• the machine did not comply with Australian Standards regarding electrical installations; 

• the three-phase supply lead that fed power to the starter was frayed and damaged; 

• bare copper conductors were visible in the brown and blue active conductors; 

• the three phase plug connected to the supply lead for the machine showed signs of electrical arcing; 

• no risk assessment had been undertaken on it; and 

• employees were not provided with adequate instruction, information, training or supervision in 

regard to the risks associated with its operation. 

The defendant company did not notify the VWA of the incident. The incident came to the notice of the 

VWA on 22 November 2004 after it was reported by another employee. 


1985. Regulation 7 of the Occupational Health and Safety (Incident Notification) Regulations 1997. 




JACO TRENCHING & BORING PTY LTD 



Magistrate: 

Plea: 

9 November 2005 at Dandenong Magistrates’ Court 


Guilty 

On 18 August 2004, an employee of Jaco Trenching & Boring Pty Ltd was assigned to perform 

drilling works to install a gas pipeline under the Princes Highway at Officer. 

In performing this task, the employee was required to go onto the highway, locate the position of the 

drill head and spray paint on that point on the roadway. The employee was hit by an eastbound car 

as he stepped out from the median strip into the right lane of the two eastbound lanes. The traffic 

management plan was inadequate, induction of workers was lacking, the speed limit at road works 

was not reduced adequately, the warning signs were inadequate, there was no spotter and there 

was lack of instruction given to workers. 

The employee was hospitalised for two weeks and suffered fractures to his right ankle, ligament 

damage to his right knee, fracture and dislocation of his right shoulder and five fractures to his jaw. 



JASON DEAN ASHCROFT (TRADING AS JDA HOMES) 



Magistrate: 

Plea: 



Guilty 

JDA Homes had been engaged to complete works on a private dwelling in North Balwyn. 

On 23 June 2004, an apprentice employee of the defendant was moving packs of timber from the 

driveway at the side of the house under construction, to inside the frame work of the dwelling. 

The apprentice employee had been shown by the defendant how to cut ‘check outs’ in the timber 

beams that were to be installed between two steel ‘I’ beams. The beams were approximately 

240mm wide by 45mm thick by 3.5m long. 

Once the beams were cut, they were placed on an angle from the ground to rest against the steel 

supporting ‘I’ beams. A second apprentice employee was having trouble placing the beams, so the 

defendant placed one to show him how. Shortly after, the first apprentice employee was struck on 

the top of the head by one of the timber beams that the defendant had just placed. 

The defendant drove the injured employee to the Austin Hospital where he was treated for a broken 

neck (broken in two places). 

Breach: Sections 21(1) & (2)(a); sections 21(1) & (2)(e); and section 43(3) of the Occupational Health 

and Safety Act 1985. 



37

SECTION 1 

K & K FASTENERS PTY LTD 



Magistrate: 

Plea: 

6 June 2005 at Ballarat Magistrates’ Court 

His Honour Magistrate Coghlan 

Guilty 

On 26 May 2004 at Wendouree, an employee of K & K Fasteners Pty Ltd crushed the ring and middle 

fingers of his right hand while operating an inadequately guarded power press. 

Subsequent to the incident, WorkSafe inspectors attended the worksite and prohibited use of the 

inadequately guarded power press. The press was dismantled and it was found that the clutch rod 

was too short to prevent engagement of the clutch and flywheel when the gate was raised. There 

were also no guides to ensure that the clutch rod slid into the space between the clutch mechanism 

and the flywheel and to reduce flexing of the rod. 

The injured employee’s ring finger was amputated surgically and wires and screws were inserted 

into his middle finger. The injured employee was also unable to work for approximately 17 weeks 

and has undergone at least two operations. 





KALINDA DOWNS PTY LTD 



Magistrate: 

Plea: 


His Honour Magistrate Barberio 

Guilty 

On 5 May 2004, a WorkSafe inspector met with the director of Kalinda Downs Pty Ltd to investigate 

allegations of violence and harassment at the defendant’s workplace. 

As a result of this meeting, the inspector formed the view that Kalinda Downs Pty Ltd did not 

have an adequate system in place for addressing bullying, intimidation, harassment and violence at 

the workplace. 

The inspector issued an improvement notice requiring the defendant to develop and implement a 

system of work for addressing bullying, intimidation, harassment and violence at the workplace by 

9 June 2004. 

On 26 May 2004, the inspector attended the defendant’s workplace, as part of a manufacturing 

industry project. Whilst on site, the inspector issued further improvement notices, all with 

compliance dates of 16 June 2004. 

The improvement notices related to the following: 

• an improperly guarded and set guillotine machine; 

• a forklift truck which had several deficiencies, including a missing panel which allowed access 

to the fan and the rear muffler, no reverse alarm or visual warning device, various lights missing 

and no evidence of service records; 

• ad hoc placement of fire extinguishers which were obstructed by materials; and 

• one fire extinguisher was undercharged and had its pin removed and the others were out of test. 

There was an added risk of fire at the workplace due to welding activities, as well as the use of 

solvents and the practice of smoking inside the factory. 

The notices required that all fire fighting equipment be appropriately located and serviced in 

accordance with Australian Standards and that the forklift be serviced. 

On 29 June 2004, the inspector visited the workplace and observed that that none of the above 

notices had been completely complied with, however some effort had been made to comply with 

some of the directions on the notices. 

During this visit, the inspector observed that a hazardous substance (bostik blue) was being 

sprayed in an area without appropriate protection from exposure to significant levels of solvent 

vapours. The inspector issued an improvement notice requiring the risk to be eliminated or reduced 

so far as practicable. 

The defendant did not comply with any of the notices by the due date. 

Breach: Section 43(3) (five charges) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 1985. 


for 12 months and ordered to pay $2,000 to the Salvation Army. 


39

SECTION 1 

KANTFIELD PTY LTD (TRADING AS MARTOGG & CO) 



Magistrate: 

Plea: 

14 December 2005 Dandenong Magistrates’ Court 

Her Honour Magistrate Macpherson 

Guilty 

On 19 October 2004, a 27 year old process operator employed by Kantfield Pty Ltd at its Dandenong 

workplace was cleaning a ribbon blender machine when it started operating without warning. The 

employee was drawn into the blades and trapped in the blender for one-and-a-half hours. 

The blender’s electrical isolating lock key was broken inside the lock and the switch could not be 

locked off. The safety micro switch monitoring the position of the blender’s hinged cover lid was 

also defective and closed in the active position, thus the complete circuit was active. 

The employee’s right arm was amputated below the elbow (which was surgically re-attached) and 

he sustained severe injuries to his ribs, pelvis, torso, back, thigh, buttock and mouth. 





KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN PTY LTD 



Magistrate: 

Plea: 

2 August 2005 at Melbourne Magistrates’ Court 


Guilty 

St Mina’s Global Restaurants Pty Ltd operated a KFC Franchise at Vermont pursuant to a franchise 

agreement between it and Kentucky Fried Chicken Pty Ltd. 

On 2 February 2002, a part-time casual employee (a 17 year old full time school student) of St Minas 

Global Restaurants Pty Ltd was requested by the shift manager to collect the plastic rubbish bags 

from the bins located outside the store and place them in a dumpster at the rear of the store. 

The bins were approximately the size of a 44 gallon drum with a removable swing flap lid. To collect 

the rubbish, the lids had to be removed and the plastic bags lifted out of the bin using either one or 

two hands, depending on how full they were. If full, the bags would be heavy and difficult to remove, 

and then both hands would be required to remove the bags. 

On this day the bags were approximately three-quarters full. The employee lifted the one of the 

bags by the neck using his left hand and placing his right under the bag for support. The employee 

lifted the bag approximately 1.5m and threw it into the dumpster. During this action, a syringe 

needle in the bag penetrated his skin. 

The employee under went tests to determine whether any disease had been contracted. There was 

a three month wait for the ‘all clear’. All results were negative. 




41

SECTION 1 

KEVMILLE PTY LTD (TRADING AS DALY’S IGA SUPERMARKET) 



Magistrate: 

Plea: 

21 September 2005 at Portland Magistrates’ Court 

His Honour Magistrate Stone 

Guilty 

On 11 September 2003, a WorkSafe inspector visited the Portland workplace of Kevmille Pty Ltd 

trading as Daly’s IGA supermarket and issued two improvement notices. 

The first improvement notice related to the use of a forklift in circumstances where there was risk 

of collision with pedestrians. The inspector also directed that the employer provide appropriate 

barricades/physical means of separating the mobile plant from pedestrians. 

The second improvement notice related to the failure to inspect and maintain the forklift. 

On 4 November 2004, the inspector visited the supermarket and observed a forklift operating in the 

car park without a pedestrian zone marked out. 



BRIAN ANDREW KIESEY 

Date of offence: 21 December 2004 


Magistrate: 

Plea: 

8 December 2005 at Seymour Magistrates’ Court 

His Honour Magistrate O’Day 

Guilty 

On 21 December 2004, a WorkSafe inspector was driving past the Old Hume Highway Motors 

in Kilmore when he observed two sign-writers working from heights without appropriate 

fall protection. 

After being spoken to by the inspector, both sign-writers agreed to stop work until such time as a 

safe system of work was in place. 

When the inspector sought to speak to the occupier of the premises, Brian Andrew Kiesey, who had 

engaged the sign-writers, he was subjected to verbal abuse and ordered off the site. 

The inspector decided to leave the site as he felt intimidated, abused and in fear for his safety. The 

defendant followed the inspector to his car while continually shouting at him to leave the property. 

Breach: Section 42(1)(a) and section 42(1)(f) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 1985. 




ROBERT MOURINUS KNIGHT 



Magistrate: 

Plea: 

20 January 2005 at Swan Hill Magistrates’ Court 

His Honour Magistrate Gurvich 

Guilty 

On 21 August 2002, as a result of a complaint received by WorkSafe, a WorkSafe inspector attended 

a house in Swan Hill that was being demolished without an approved asbestos removalist on site, as 

required by the Occupational Health and Safety (Asbestos) Regulations 1992. 

The defendant obtained the house from its previous owner (who had been informed that it contained 

asbestos material) for no charge after claiming that he was an experienced asbestos removalist. 

The defendant employed a contractor to complete the demolition. 

The inspector issued a prohibition notice prohibiting any further demolition until an approved 

asbestos removalist was engaged for the work to be done in a safe manner. 




43

SECTION 1 

KYMAR NOMINEES PTY LTD 

Date of alleged offence: 11 June 2003 


Magistrate: 

Plea: 


His Honour Magistrate Walter 

Not guilty 

A maintenance employee of Kymar Nominees Pty Ltd (which is the holding company for a fast food 

restaurant franchise in Warragul) was developing a cleaning process for the exhaust flues and fans 

within the restaurants. 

In the early hours of 11 June 2003, three people, including the maintenance employee, were present 

at the restaurant for the purpose of cleaning the exhaust fans on the roof. The activity involved high 

pressure cleaning of the exhaust fans and flues that were housed in a safety enclosure on the roof. 

The area of the safety enclosure was approximately three metres by two-and-a-half metres and the 

barrier fence was around 1.23 metres in height. 

Whilst on the roof, the maintenance employee fell from the roof to the ground. 

In cleaning the exhaust fans, it was not necessary to step outside the safety enclosure on to the 

roof as a hose could have been fed through to the roof from the interior of the restaurant via the 

manhole in the kitchen. Alternatively, a rope could have been attached to the hose at the ground 

level and pulled up to the safety enclosure. 

As a result of the incident, the maintenance employee sustained serious head injuries. 





KYNETON BUSHLAND RESORT LTD 



Magistrate: 

Plea: 

12 December 2005 at Kyneton Magistrates’ Court 

His Honour Magistrate Spillane 

Guilty 

On 9 September 2004, an employee of Kyneton Bushland Resort Ltd climbed on top of the shade 

sails that covered a swimming pool complex and an adjacent bushland setting to remove a build 

up of debris. The shade sails regularly caused blockages in down pipes, particularly during 

heavy rains. 

The employee fell approximately four metres through the canvas shade sails onto astro turf 

covering a concrete floor. 

There was no safe system of work for removing leaves and branches which accumulated in the 

shade sails. The employee had received no information, instruction or training as to safe methods 

of performing the work. 

The employee sustained multiple fractures, including head injuries, and spent nine weeks 

in hospital. 


Result: Convicted and released upon entering into an undertaking to be of good behaviour for 

two years. Ordered to pay $5,000 to the Breast Cancer Research Foundation. 


45

SECTION 1 

LEIGHTON CONTRACTORS PTY LTD 



Judge: 

Plea: 

23 March 2005 at Geelong County Court 

His Honour Judge Ross 

Guilty 

On 17 June 2002, an employee of Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd was operating excavating equipment 

on the Melbourne side of the Little River Bridge during construction of road works and bridgeworks 

on the Princes Freeway. 

The excavator connected with overhead power lines causing a power line to break and fall across 

the freeway. The operator, who was uninjured in the incident, did not have a designated safety 

observer and did not see the power lines. 

A WorkSafe inspector attended the site shortly after and issued a prohibition notice preventing the use 

of excavating equipment within the prescribed ‘no go zone’ of 6.4m around overhead power lines. The 

inspector also issued an improvement notice in relation to inadequate supervision on the site. 

Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd introduced physical barriers 10 metres to either side of power lines 

and a permit system for the remainder of the works. 

Breach: Sections 21(1) & (2)(a); sections 21(1) & (2)(e); and section 22 of the Occupational Health and 

Safety Act 1985. 


MA & J TRIPODI PTY LTD 



Magistrate: 

Plea: 

25 January 2005 at Bendigo Magistrates’ Court 

His Honour Magistrate Mornane 

Guilty 

On 19 September 2003 at Lake Boga, a 29 year old employee of MA & J Tripodi Pty Ltd was spraying 

fruit trees using a spray unit pump attached to a 105 horsepower tractor. 

The power take-off of the tractor was guarded in accordance with Australian Standards. The power 

input shaft into the sprayer was not adequately guarded and this left part of the universal joint 

exposed. The employee’s clothes became entangled in the inadequately guarded input shaft and he 

was drawn into the rotating parts. 

The employee died as a result of injuries sustained in the incident. 





PAUL DAMIAN MCKENZIE (TRADING AS MACCA’S DEMOLITIONS AND SECOND HAND MATERIALS) 



Magistrate: 

Plea: 

1 December 2005 at Echuca Magistrates’ Court 

His Honour Magistrate Cottrill 

Guilty 

On 1 April 2004, a WorkSafe inspector visited a demolition site of a house in Swan Hill after 

receiving an anonymous telephone complaint about alleged illegal removal of asbestos. 

One of the defendant’s employees visited the site prior to the commencement of the demolition 

work and determined that the front, sides and eaves of the house contained asbestos, but not the 

rear (extension) of the house. 

The inspector observed a large amount of cement sheet cladding amongst the debris at the rear of 

the demolished house premises. The inspector also observed that there were two stickers attached 

to the wall cladding identifying the product as containing asbestos. 

The inspector took samples and these were subsequently confirmed as containing asbestos. 

Macca’s Demolition and Second Hand Materials holds a ‘B class’ asbestos removal licence. 

Breach: Regulation 710 of the Occupational Health and Safety (Asbestos) Regulations 2003. 



47

SECTION 1 

METRIC AUSTRALIA PTY LTD 



Magistrate: 

Plea: 


Her Honour Magistrate Fleming 

Guilty 

On 15 August 2003 in Brandon Park, two employees of Metric Australia Pty Ltd were 

decommissioning an in-ground fuel tank at a service station. The work consisted of concrete saw 

cutting a fill area and the removal of sand from the top of the abandoned tank via the use of a 

backhoe that was operated by an independent contractor. 

A gas monitor was used on site at the beginning of the excavation and whilst concrete cutting 

occurred around the adjacent fill area. A hot work permit was issued for this process. 

After the top of the tank was exposed, concrete slurry was then placed into the tank through an 

exposed opening on the top. 

After the initial load of concrete entered the top of the tank, the employees observed that the 

concrete slurry had placed pressure on existing pipes, and that two fibreglass fuel vent pipes to an 

adjoining existing tank had been damaged. 

One of the employees undertook repairs of the damaged pipes with fibreglass and glue prior to 

the next load of concrete arriving. A concrete truck arrived whilst the curing (i.e. drying/setting) of 

the glue was taking place. The employee used an electric heat gun to speed up the curing of glue. 

The use of the heat gun caused a flash fire to occur. The gas monitor used at the beginning of the 

excavation was not present on the worksite. 

The employee received burns to his face and hands and was taken to hospital. 

WorkSafe inspectors attended the workplace and issued an improvement notice requiring a safe 

system of work for the decommissioning works. 

Breach: Sections 21(1) & (2)(e) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 1985. 




MULCAHY PASTORAL HOLDINGS PTY LTD 



Magistrate: 

Plea: 

8 August 2005 at Shepparton Magistrates’ Court 

Her Honour Magistrate Bolger 

Guilty 

On 15 November 2003, an employee of Mulcahy Pastoral Holdings Pty Ltd noticed that an irrigation 

pump was leaking from the outlet so he dismantled it and took it to a repairer. The employee 

returned to the pump and re-assembled the repaired part. The employee turned the tractor on 

(which started the pump), moved towards the pump and noticed it was leaking because the bolts 

had not been sufficiently tightened. The employee tightened the nuts which stopped the pump from 

leaking. The employee did not turn the pump off despite being instructed to do so when carrying 

out any repairs. As the employee stepped back, the shorts he was wearing became entangled in the 

rotating shaft of the pump at the point where the power take-off was attached. The shaft had four 

protruding locking nuts close to where the power take-off was attached. 

The employee experienced severe pain in his left thigh and his shorts were completely ripped off 

which freed him from the rotating shaft. 

The employee suffered a serious injury to his leg and required treatment at a nearby hospital. 

There was no guard fitted to the pump or the rotating shafts. The employee had not received formal 

induction training, but was told to keep approximately three metres away from the rotating plant 

and always turn the plant off when carrying out any maintenance. 




49

SECTION 1 

NONFERRAL PTY LTD 



Magistrate: 

Plea: 

19 December 2005 at Broadmeadows Magistrates’ Court 

His Honour Magistrate Betts 

Guilty 

On 24 June 2004, an explosion occurred at the Keon Park premises of Nonferral Pty Ltd in the 

‘number 11’ furnace and approximately half of the 300kg of molten metal inside it sprayed over the 

surrounding area to a distance of some three metres. An employee sustained burns to 30% of his 

body, particularly to the face and upper chest area. The employee was working alone producing 

aluminium silicon. 

A typical ‘melt’ or ‘charge’ in this furnace consisted of 150kg each of aluminium and silicon raw 

materials – heated to a temperature of approximately 1,050 degrees celsius. This meant that 

furnace workers were unable to use steel furnace tools which were liable to melt in the molten 

metal. Instead the smelting industry used graphite tools. It is well known in the industry that both 

raw materials and furnace materials must be devoid of moisture. Industry Standards require that 

both raw materials and furnace tools should be preheated at least 20 minutes prior to immersion in 

the molten metal. 

WorkSafe inspectors and other emergency services attended the work site. An independent 

metallurgical engineer provided a report as part of the VWA investigation. The report found that 

the cause of the explosion was moisture on the graphite furnace tool being used by the injured 

employee The furnace toolbox was located in an area underneath one of numerous roof leaks and 

it had been raining earlier on the day of the explosion. Management had been told of the roof leaks 

by employees and supervisors for a period of some five years prior to the day of the explosion. 

Employees had developed the practice of leaving furnace tools on the lip of the furnace for a couple 

of minutes only prior to immersion 

Written work procedure for the furnace did not include any requirements for preheating of 

furnace tools and the employees had never been trained in the proper use of these tools. The 

furnace tools were generally in an unsuitable and unclean condition. There was also inadequate 

instruction and supervision as to the wearing of personal protective equipment. The expert analysis 

also established that the furnace tool used by the injured employee had been removed from the 

furnace after the explosion and then cleaned before being left in the position from which the police 

had seized the implement. 

A number of improvement and prohibition notices were issued as a result of the incident. 








Magistrate: 

Plea: 



Guilty 

On 4 November 2004, an explosion occurred in the aluminium casting plant of Nonferral Pty Ltd’s 

Keon Park premises. It was not dissimilar to a previous incident on 24 June 2004 - the cause of the 

explosion was the introduction of water to superheated metal. 

Nonferral Pty Ltd conducted a smelter production facility at Keon Park and in the aluminium 

casting area, scrap metal is melted and poured into 231 ingot moulds or ‘chills’ rotating in a 

conveyor belt. Each run takes approximately two to two-and-a-half hours and produces a total of 

1,800 ingots. Part of the process involves an employee sitting within a cabin known as a ‘skimmer 

box’ so as to wield a long handled fork or ‘skimmer’ to skim the excess oxide or ‘slag’ from the 

rotating molten ingots. There was an open area of about 170mm high by one metre long at the front 

of the cabin to allow manipulation of the skimmer. 

On 3 November 2004, an employee furnace operator had been burnt by an explosion of metal onto 

his arm. The employee obtained an ice-pack from the first aid room and the foreman later provided 

him with a second ice-pack. One of the ice-packs had apparently fallen from employee’s clothing 

into one of the conveyor belt chills. 

The next day (4 November 2004) another explosion was caused when the water contents of the 

used ice-pack expanded violently on being exposed to the molten metal. Another employee furnace 

operator sustained minor burns to his face and neck as a result of the explosion and being spattered 

with molten metal. The injured employee ran to the toilet to splash himself with water. He did not 

run to the emergency shower because he knew there to be mixers and skimmer forks in front of 

it. The injured employee was taken to hospital by ambulance, treated and released from hospital 

later that day, but did not return to work until six days later. The injured person was not wearing 

adequate personal protection equipment (PPE). His evidence was that he was only aware of the need 

to wear safety glasses. He had not been given instructions as to the other required PPE. Nonferral’s 

supervisor stated that full PPE was provided but its use never enforced. It appeared that workers 

were prone to avoid waring full protection in working conditions that could exceed 50 degrees celsius 

in summer. An air conditioner in the skimmer box was not working at the time of the explosion. 

Employees on the factory floor in close proximity to molten metal were provided with water and 

cans of soft drink. On hot days, employees working in the skimmer box would also drink cups of 

water. In the course of investigation into the matter, inspectors observed a container of water near 

the aluminium conveyor and the open end of the aluminium conveyor was open to the weather. 

Nonferral Pty Ltd had not prohibited the use of water in the aluminium casting area. Company 

procedures for the operation of the aluminium casting conveyor line were stored on computer, but 

not posted for the employees. Some written work procedures were posted on a noticeboard, but 

these were illegible. Employees stated that they were unaware of any company policy or procedure 

as to the isolation of water contaminated scrap. Employees were not provided with adequate PPE 

and instruction on this matter. The front of the skimmer box was inadequately guarded because of 

the open area through which the skimmer operated. On occasions the molten metal would explode 

and enter the cabin. 




51

SECTION 1 


Date of offences: 2 and 8 February 2005 


Magistrate: 

Plea: 



Guilty 

WorkSafe inspectors had attended the Keon Park premises of Nonferral Pty Ltd on numerous 

occasions to deal with the ongoing problem of moisture contamination, largely due to two defects: 

failure to provide safe plant and systems of work to control moisture in furnace tools and metal 

scrap placed in furnaces; and failure to adequately repair and maintain the roof of both the copper 

and aluminium departments. There were two previous explosions at the work site on 24 June 2004 

and 4 November 2004. 

On 2 February 2005, two WorkSafe inspectors attended the copper department of the Nonferral Pty 

Ltd smelter production facility and observed water entering a storage box that contained tools used 

in the furnaces. The box and the tools it contained were wet to touch and the tools were standing in 

pools of water. A prohibition notice was issued to prevent use of the tool storage box. 

One of the inspectors observed in the aluminium area, storage bins of aluminium scrap and swarf 

- apparently ready for loading into operational furnaces - that had water on them. It was raining at 

the time and water was observed coming through the roof of the aluminium department in an area 

apparently assigned for the storage of scrap awaiting immediate placement in the furnace. 

Previous inspections had revealed holes in the roof, namely on 6 August 2004, 4 October 2004 and 

29 October 2004. 

On 8 February 2005, the inspectors returned to the premises and observed in the casting area of the 

aluminium department water contamination of metal sheets above channels through which molten 

metal was to flow and above the metal ingot conveyor line. Nonferral’s management then directed 

that all work cease on the aluminium casting machine and casting area. One of the inspectors went 

to the copper and aluminium departments and noted that the problems of water contamination of 

furnace tools and scrap metal observed on 2 February 2005 had not been controlled. 

On 2 June 2005, there was another incident when moisture contaminated swarf was added to a 

furnace. Again material was ejected from the furnace. Later testing of the swarf revealed a 13% 

volatile component (oil and water). 

Breach: Sections 21(1) & (2)(a) (two charges) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 1985. 




NORMET INDUSTRIES NOMINEES PTY LTD (TRADING AS NORSTAR STEEL RECYCLERS) 



Magistrate: 

Plea: 

8 June 2005 at Werribee Magistrates’ Court 


Guilty 

On 26 April 2004, an 18 year old ‘picker’ of scrap material became entangled in an unguarded 

conveyor of a shredder used to recycle scrap metal. The injured employee was supplied to the 

defendant by a labour company. At the time of the incident, a guard had been removed from 

the conveyor by maintenance staff and had not been replaced. The company was aware of the 

requirement to guard dangerous machinery from previous reports from a consultant. 

The injured employee sustained a broken arm and he remained in hospital for about two weeks. 

Steel plates were inserted into the injured employee’s arm and he underwent a skin graft 

operation. The injured employee was off work for a period of 10 weeks. 



NYK LOGISTICS (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD 



Magistrate: 

Plea: 


His Honour Magistrate Harber 

Guilty 

On 28 April 2004 in Lyndhurst, an employee of NYK Logistics (Australia) Pty Ltd was struck by 

falling freight being unloaded from a trailer by a forklift. 

The employee sustained torn ligaments to his right ankle, lacerations to his right knee, a bulging 

disc in the area of his lower spine, compression fractures to his middle vertebrae and post 

traumatic stress syndrome. 

On 14 May 2004, a WorkSafe inspector attended the defendant’s premises and observed several 

trucks being unloaded while pedestrians were walking or standing near the trucks and in the 

immediate proximity of a forklift. The inspector issued a prohibition notice preventing pedestrians 

from being allowed in the immediate vicinity of trucks while they were being loaded or unloaded. 

The inspector also issued two improvement notices: one required a method of supervision 

associated with forklift operation in the loading and unloading area to enable employees 

undertaking the task to perform their work in a safe manner; and the second required a safe 

system of work for loading and unloading of trailers. 




53

SECTION 1 

P & K ROOF TRUSSES PTY LTD 



Magistrate: 

Plea: 

29 September 2005 at Ballarat Magistrates’ Court 


Guilty 

On 21 October 2004, a P & K Roof Trusses Pty Ltd employee labourer (on his third day of work for 

the defendant) and another employee, who was in charge, were the only two people working on the 

afternoon shift. 

The employee in charge was required to trim a timber web from a truss that they were working on. 

To do this, the employee in charge used the radial ripping saw. The employee labourer stood by and 

watched the employee in charge perform this task. The employee in charge decided to show the 

employee labourer how to use the saw in the event that he was ever required to operate it. 

The employee in charge pushed timber through the saw and when it was cut about half way, he 

proceeded to the opposite side to retrieve the timber. As the employee in charge went to the outfeed 

end, the employee labourer proceeded to feed the rest of the timber through the saw. The 

employee in charge then heard the employee labourer yell and grab his hand. 

The injured employee sustained a partial amputation of the top of his left thumb and damage to the 

bones and tendons of his left index finger. The cartilage of his left index finger was also damaged. 

The injured employee was off work for a period of four weeks due to his injury. 

The employees had not seen the safety manual for the radial rip saw, nor were they aware of any 

risk assessment worksheets. 

A WorkSafe inspector issued an improvement notice that required the defendant to manufacture 

a new top guard for the saw. The machine table was extended by 500mm to become an in-feed 

table; a push stick was provided to guide the timber; a hazard identification was conducted and 

documented; employees were trained in the safe use of the saw; and the saw was relocated to a 

more appropriate position away from public traffic. 


Result: Convicted and fined $15,000 on sections 21(1) & (2)(a); and convicted and fined $5,000 on 

sections 21(1) & (2)(e). Total fine $20,000. 



PAGE DATA PTY LTD 



Judge: 

Plea: 



Guilty 

On 13 July 2001, an employee of Page Data Pty Ltd was attempting to unload a pallet from a truck 

being driven by a Toll Ipec employee (placed by a labour hire agency). 

The delivery consisted of three pallets of cable and the method of work involved the truck driver 

moving each pallet to the rear tailgate of the truck using a pallet jack, then a pedestrian forklift 

lifted the load from the tailgate. 

Due to the problems associated with the heavier third load, a different method of delivery was 

attempted to remove the pallet directly from the truck. As the forklift did not have an adjustable 

mast to manoeuvre the angle of the forks to sit under the pallet, it was decided to place the forklift 

directly on to the tailgate. The type of pallets also prevented the proper location of the pallet jack 

and led to instability of the load. 

The Page Data Pty Ltd employee was standing on the tailgate near to the forklift and as the tailgate 

was lowered, the forklift toppled and moved backwards. The forklift crushed the employee and 

trapped him under the frame. The employee died shortly after. 



PATRICK DISTRIBUTION PTY LTD 



Magistrate: 

Plea: 

12 August 2005 at Sunshine Magistrates’ Court 

Her Honour Magistrate Wallington 

Guilty 

On or about 16 November 2003, MAD Recruitment (Vic) Pty Ltd placed one of its employees at the 

workplace of Patrick Distribution Pty. Ltd. at Laverton North, a Major Hazard Facility. 

On 19 November 2003, the employee was in a forklift when it ran out of water. The employee 

requested a tow from another employee. Whilst under tow, the forklift tipped over and injured the 

MAD Recruitment (Vic) Pty Ltd employee. 

The employee did not hold a certificate to operate the forklift and had been using the forklift for 

various duties since the commencement of his employment. 




55

SECTION 1 


Date of alleged offence: 14 January 2004 


Magistrate: 

Plea: 



No plea 

On 14 January 2004, WorkSafe inspectors attended the Patrick Distribution Pty Ltd premises in 

Laverton and found that dangerous goods, disallowed in its Major Hazard Facility licence, were 

being stored on site. 

During the inspection, the WorkSafe inspectors discovered class 3 dangerous goods stored in 

warehouse 1D. Condition two of the licence required that Patrick Distribution Pty Ltd not store 

class 3 flammable dangerous goods and subsidiary risk class 3 (sub-risk) materials in warehouse 

1D. The licence condition was imposed in response to WorkSafe’s concerns that related to the risk 

of fatality from heat radiation in the event of loss of containment, as warehouse 1D was adjacent to 

the facility’s southern boundary where the offices were located. 

Present at the time of the inspection, were the national health safety and environment manager, 

manager development and the distribution centre manager - all of whom were employed by Patrick 

Services Ltd (PSL). Also present was the warehouse coordinator who was employed by Patrick 

Distribution Pty Ltd. 

Breach: Sections 21(1) & (2)(a); sections 21(1) & (2)(c); sections 21(1) & (2)(e); and section 22 of the 








Magistrate: 

Plea: 



Guilty 

In February 2004, Patrick Distribution Pty Ltd held a WorkSafe licence to operate a Major Hazard 

Facility (MHF) located in Laverton. Patrick Distribution Pty Ltd warehoused dangerous goods at the 

MHF. Patrick Services Ltd (PSL) had financial and operational control of the MHF. 

The licence was issued on 30 June 2003 pursuant to the Occupational Health and Safety (Major Hazard 

Facilities) Regulations 2000. The licence contained a condition that by 1 September 2003, Patrick 

Distribution Pty Ltd would implement, to the satisfaction of the VWA, a ‘longer term solution for the 

storage of class 5.2 materials’. In a letter to the VWA, dated 11 June 2003, this condition was agreed 

to by a PSL 

In order to obtain or renew a MHF licence, the operator must prepare or revise a ‘safety case’ and 

provide a copy to the VWA. The safety case must demonstrate that a safety management system is 

in place and detail the control measures to be adopted in relation to hazards and major incidents. 

One of the control measures specified in Patrick Distribution Pty Ltd’s safety case and its national 

procedures was that in the event of a temperature variance of five degrees from the target 

temperature of a refrigerated container, the container was to be regarded as ‘not in order’ and 

immediate action would be taken. 

On Saturday 14 February 2004, ambient temperatures reached approximately 40 degrees. A 

security guard saw the doors of the container blast open and pale blue smoke billow out of the 

open doors. Patrick Distribution Pty Ltd staff were contacted and attended along with emergency 

services. The container ignited and took three hours to put out. 

PSL employees oversaw the safety health and environment policies and procedures of Patrick 

Distribution Pty Ltd through its national health safety and environment manager. 

PSL failed to develop, provide and maintain a comprehensive and integrated maintenance and test 

regime for the temperature gauges on the exterior of all refrigerated containers housing class 5.2 

dangerous goods. It failed to ensure that employees, including the safety health and environment 

coordinator for Victoria, were aware of Patrick Distribution’s national procedures in the event of a 

container’s temperature not being maintained adequately and the resulting risk to health and safety 

in the event of a loss of containment and fire. 

Employees had not been provided with adequate information, instruction and training in relation to 

the implementation of the control measures. 

Breach: Regulation 502(1)(c) of the Occupational Health and Safety (Major Hazard Facilities) 




57

SECTION 1 

PATRICK STEVEDORES HOLDINGS PTY LTD 

Date of alleged offence: 3 and 5 February 2002 


Magistrate: 

Plea: 

15 to 26 August 2005 at Melbourne Magistrates’ Court 


Not guilty 

Between 3 and 5 February 2002, the hazardous contents of a refrigerated container at the 

defendant’s terminal at East Swanson Dock (ESD) were found to have been leaking either toxic 

fumes or liquid. 

Workers had reported to management either a distinct odour coming from the container and/or 

that they had various symptoms after working near the container, such as breathing difficulties, 

dry/raspy throats and itchy skin. 

The hazardous substance was cyanogen bromide in dichloromethane (CMD), classified as 

dangerous goods, class 6.1 (toxic corrosive) which was stored in steel drums within the container. 

Workers had noticed that the container was running at a higher than set temperature and had 

called in a contractor to fix it. The container could not be fixed on site because it was emitting toxic 

fumes and/or leaking. 

On 5 February 2002, the container was removed to United Transport Services at Laverton, where a 

risk assessment was conducted. It was confirmed that the steel drums within the container were 

leaking CMD. Persons other than employees were thereby exposed to further risks as a result of 

the transport of the container from ESD to United Transport Services. Subsequent expert reports 

indicated that the steel drums containing CMD were inadequate as storage for that substance, 

having suffered extensive pitting corrosion. 

The defendant had documented OHS and emergency procedures for incidents involving dangerous 

goods, which required workers to notify a shift manager of incidents and ‘if leakages involving 

a strong odour’ occurred, to establish the contents of the container and, if toxic, to notify the 

Metropolitan Fire Brigade. The defendant failed to implement these procedures in respect of the 

incident described above. 

Breach: Sections 21(1) & (2)(a) (nine charges); sections 21(1) & (2)(b) (seven charges); sections 21(1) 

& (2)(e) (eight charges); and section 22 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 1985. 




PATTERSON CHENEY PTY LTD 



Magistrate: 

Plea: 

14 September 2005 at Dandenong Magistrates’ Court 


Guilty 

On 19 May 2003, an automotive technician employed by Patterson Cheney Pty Ltd was in a cage 

raised on a forklift removing a large promotional banner, when the cage fell to the ground. 

The employee was injured and taken to hospital where he received seven stitches to a laceration on 

his scalp and was treated for spinal injuries. 

The driver of the forklift did not have a certificate to operate a forklift and had never lifted anything 

with a forklift before. 



PILKINGTON (AUSTRALIA) OPERATIONS LTD 



Judge: 

Plea: 

20 June 2005 (plea) and 25 July 2005 (sentence) at Melbourne 

County Court 

His Honour Judge Bourke 

Guilty 

On 10 November 2001, an employee glass worker of Pilkington (Australia) Operations Ltd was 

working with two other employees, assisting a forklift driver by guiding him into position with the 

use of hand signals. 

As the 16 tonne forklift was reversing, the load became unstable and toppled forward while the 

employee was at the front of the forklift. The employee was crushed by a 10 tonne load of packaged 

glass end caps that toppled from the forklift, and died as a result of the injuries. 


Result: Convicted and fined $80,000 on count one and $180,000 on count two. Additional penalty 

of $50,000 under section 53. Total fine $310,000. 


59

SECTION 1 

PRESS SHOP AUTOMATION PTY. LIMITED 



Magistrate: 

Plea: 

10 March 2005 at Melbourne Magistrates’ Court 


Guilty 

On 4 June 2002 at Bayswater, an employee of Fenbrite Industries Pty. Limited was operating a 

power press used to produce aluminium blanks. The press, pneumatic feed and un-coiler had been 

supplied by Press Shop Automation Pty. Limited. 

Occasionally the aluminium strip would jam and distort, and the employee had to disconnect the 

feeder, straighten the metal out, and guide it back into position. This meant that the employee’s 

hand was inside the die space of the press at times. At one point, as the employee was trying to 

feed the metal strip into the die, he stepped back onto the foot pedal and inadvertently activated the 

press ram while his hand was still in the trapping space. 

The employee severed four fingers on his left hand. 



PSL SERVICES PTY LTD 

Date of alleged offence: 14 January 2004 


Magistrate: 

Plea: 



No plea 

On 14 January 2004, WorkSafe inspectors attended the Patrick Distribution Pty Ltd premises in 

Laverton and found that dangerous goods, disallowed in its Major Hazard Facility licence, were 

being stored on site. 

During the inspection, the WorkSafe inspectors discovered class 3 dangerous goods stored in 

warehouse 1D. Condition two of the licence required that Patrick Distribution Pty Ltd not store 

class 3 flammable dangerous goods and subsidiary risk class 3 (sub-risk) materials in warehouse 

1D. The licence condition was imposed in response to WorkSafe’s concerns that related to the risk 

of fatality from heat radiation in the event of loss of containment, as warehouse 1D was adjacent to 

the facility’s southern boundary where the offices were located. 

Present at the time of the inspection, were the national health safety and environment manager, 

manager development and the distribution centre manager - all of whom were employed by Patrick 

Services Ltd (PSL). Also present was the warehouse coordinator who was employed by Patrick 

Distribution Pty Ltd. 

Breach: Sections 21(1) & (2)(a); sections 21(1) & (2)(c); sections 21(1) & (2)(e); and section 22 of the 





PSL SERVICES PTY LTD 

Date of alleged offence: 14 February 2004 


Magistrate: 

Plea: 



No plea 

In February 2004, Patrick Distribution Pty Ltd held a WorkSafe licence to operate a Major Hazard 

Facility (MHF) located in Laverton. Patrick Distribution Pty Ltd warehoused dangerous goods at the 

MHF. Patrick Services Ltd (PSL) had financial and operational control of the MHF. 

The licence was issued on 30 June 2003 pursuant to the Occupational Health and Safety (Major Hazard 

Facilities) Regulations 2000. The licence contained a condition that by 1 September 2003, Patrick 

Distribution Pty Ltd would implement, to the satisfaction of the VWA, a ‘longer term solution for the 

storage of class 5.2 materials’. In a letter to the VWA dated 11 June 2003, this condition was agreed 

to by a PSL. 

In order to obtain or renew a MHF licence, the operator must prepare or revise a ‘safety case’ and 

provide a copy to the VWA. The safety case must demonstrate that a safety management system is 

in place and detail the control measures to be adopted in relation to hazards and major incidents. 

One of the control measures specified in Patrick Distribution Pty Ltd’s safety case and its national 

procedures was that in the event of a temperature variance of five degrees from the target 

temperature of a refrigerated container, the container was to be regarded as ‘not in order’ and 

immediate action would be taken. 

On Saturday 14 February 2004, ambient temperatures reached approximately 40 degrees. A 

security guard saw the doors of the container blast open and pale blue smoke billow out of the 

open doors. Patrick Distribution Pty Ltd staff were contacted and attended along with emergency 

services. The container ignited and took three hours to put out. 

PSL employees oversaw the safety health and environment policies and procedures of Patrick 

Distribution Pty Ltd through its national health safety and environment manager. 

PSL failed to develop, provide and maintain a comprehensive and integrated maintenance and test 

regime for the temperature gauges on the exterior of all refrigerated containers housing class 5.2 

dangerous goods. It failed to ensure that employees, including the safety health and environment 

coordinator for Victoria, were aware of Patrick Distribution’s national procedures in the event of a 

container’s temperature not being maintained adequately and the resulting risk to health and safety 

in the event of a loss of containment and fire. 

Employees had not been provided with adequate information, instruction and training in relation to 

the implementation of the control measures. 

Breach: Sections 21(1) & (2)(a); sections 21(1) & (2)(b); sections 21(1) & (2)(c); and section 22 of the 




61

SECTION 1 

QANTAS AIRWAYS LTD 



Magistrate: 

Plea: 

18 May 2005 at Melbourne Magistrates’ Court 

His Honour Magistrate McIndoe 

Guilty 

On 25 October 2003, three Qantas Airways Ltd employees were unloading containers that would 

not completely roll onto the low profile trailer. A structural pallet was used to push them into place 

then withdrawn. One employee leant in between the containers to activate a locking device on the 

trailer. At this point, one of the containers rolled back and trapped the employee’s upper body. 

The employee sustained injuries to his head. 

The defendant had no safe work procedure in place for the transfer of containers onto low profile 

trailers. Employees were permitted to transfer containers between trailers without a clear line 

of vision. The defendant failed to implement risk control measures identified in its draft risk 

assessment undertaken on 14 April 2003 on rolling stock, which identified crushing between 

containers as a hazard. 

Immediately after the incident, the defendant introduced a safe work procedure to govern the 

transfer of containers between different types of trailers. The defendant also modified the controls 

on pallet loaders, so that the movement of containers was done from a control panel on the rear 

side of the extension trailer. 

A WorkSafe inspector issued two improvement notices that were both complied with in the 

required timeframe. 





QENOS PTY LTD 



Magistrate: 

Plea: 


Her Honour Magistrate Lambden 

Guilty 

Qenos Pty Ltd, a licensed Major Hazard Facility located at Altona manufactured plastic products 

including Polypropylene (PP) and Polyethylene (PE). 

On 8 August 2004, an employee of Qenos Pty Ltd identified a problem with the rotary filter on the PP 

line on the mezzanine floor. The rotary filter was approximately 15 feet in diameter and was involved 

in the process of extracting water and solvent (Exxsol D30), a class 3 dangerous good. 

The rotary filter was sealed with a water seal and the lid sat on a nitrogen blanket. The process 

involved slurry of PP being fed into the filter. The solvent was extracted and the PP powder removed 

by a screw conveyor into the next process. 

At about 1:00am on 8 August 2004, the employee lifted the lid on the filter and used a water hose 

on the product to break the slurry because it was crusting, and prevented the solvent from being 

extracted. This procedure had been used by other employees for the same purpose. After cleaning 

the lid several times the employee noticed that the product flow improved. 

On the last occasion the employee raised the filter lid and he saw an orange flame inside the rotary 

filter in the area of the screw auger. A secondary fire occurred in the separator overflow tank on the 

ground floor and another employee initiated the deluge system. 

When the rotary filter lid was opened, oxygen levels rose and an audible alarm sounded in the 

control room. The strip chart for the oxygen analyser showed four peaks when the lid of the filter 

was lifted allowing high levels of oxygen into the system. 

Employees were aware of the danger of breathing in fumes when they lifted the filter lid as they 

did so from behind to minimise their risk. In this case, the employee was protected from the fire 

because he was standing behind a column and away from the filter, which was engulfed by the fire. 

An investigation of the incident revealed a leak on the solvent flush line leading to the rotary filter. 

Employees had not been provided with any training in relation to risks to their health and safety 

arising from a fire in the rotary filter. The supervisor was aware of operators lifting the lid and 

aware of the risk of inhalation of fumes but was not aware of the risk of fire. 




63

SECTION 1 

RAIL TECHNICAL SUPPORT GROUP 



Judge: 

Plea: 

2 December 2005 at Melbourne County Court 

His Honour Judge Gebhardt 

Guilty 

On 15 January 2003, an employee of Rail Technical Support Group commenced cleaning up a yard 

area which included crushing a number of 44 gallon drums and putting them into a scrap metal 

bin. While various methods were considered, the ultimate method adopted by the employee was to 

suspend a 2.7 tonne traction motor by a chain slung from the left hand side tyne of a forklift. The 

motor was then lowered on to the drum in order to crush it. 

The employee drove the forklift over a railway line while the traction motor was suspended from 

the forklift. The ground around the rail line was uneven and there was also a slight incline. The 

traction motor commenced to swing and unbalanced the forklift. As the forklift overturned, the 

employee jumped from the vehicle, but was crushed beneath the overhead guard of the forklift. 

A fellow employee witnessed the incident and attempted to hold the mast of the forklift as it 

overturned, but was unable to do so. The forklift also fell onto the second employee, trapping his 

right leg under the left tyne. 

The first employee died instantly and the second suffered permanent damage to the medial and 

crucial ligaments in his right leg and has required ongoing rehabilitation and physiotherapy. 


Result: Without conviction and released upon entering into an undertaking to be of good 

behaviour for 36 months. Ordered to pay $15,000 to the Royal Children’s Hospital Fund and 

$15,000 to the Cambodian Community Welfare Centre. 



RALPH’S MEAT COMPANY PTY LTD 



Magistrate: 

Plea: 

15 September 2005 at Seymour Magistrates’ Court 

His Honour Magistrate Hassard 

Guilty 

On or about 10 May 2004, Ralph’s Meat Company Pty Ltd entered into a cleaning contract with 

Sanikleen Pty Ltd, food industry cleaning specialists, for the provision of a total hygiene service 

and the cleaning of the kill floor, the boning room, the offal room and entrances. Sanikleen Pty Ltd 

provided Ralph’s Meats Company Pty Ltd with a copy of their cleaning procedure 

Sanikleen Pty Ltd employed a project manager and supervisor of the cleaning staff and was 

responsible for providing induction to new employees. 

On 12 May 2004, a 19 year old casual employee of Sanikleen Pty Ltd, on his first day at work, 

was cleaning the underside frames of a conveyor belt whilst it was in motion. The employee 

became entangled in the unguarded conveyor belt. The employee sustained a de-gloving injury to 

his right arm. 

An investigation by WorkSafe investigators following the incident found: there were no operating 

controls or emergency stop controls in the vicinity of the conveyor belt; there was no guarding 

to prevent bodily contact with the dangerous parts of the conveyor belt; there were inadequate 

cleaning procedures – in particular, the procedure required the conveyor belt to be running while 

the employees cleaned the area immediately around it; there was no isolation lock out procedure 

in place when undertaking cleaning of plant; there was inadequate information, instruction, 

supervision and training provided to the cleaners; and there was no hazard identification risk 

assessment undertaken prior to the incident. 




65

SECTION 1 

RAMINTI TRADING CO PTY LTD 



Magistrate: 

Plea: 

20 May 2005 at Dandenong Magistrates’ Court 


Guilty 

On 20 April 2004 at the Dandenong South premises of Raminti Trading Co Pty Ltd, an employee 

machine operator was operating an inadequately guarded docking saw to cut lengths of timber to 

make into a lattice. 

The employee leant over to pick up some cut pieces of wood and the machine inadvertently started 

to operate, trapping the employee’s right hand in the area of the saw. The employee’s right hand 

was severed by the saw. The hand was reattached by surgeons using two veins from the injured 

employee’s right foot. 

The employee had received no training on the machine but had operated a similar machine when 

she worked in Malaysia. The company was unable to provide any evidence of induction or training in 

respect to operations of the workplace. 

A WorkSafe inspector attended the workplace on the day of the incident and issued a prohibition 

notice preventing the use of the saw due to inadequate guarding, no emergency stop button and a 

single pneumatic operation switch. 

On 28 April 2004, the inspector re-visited the workplace and observed that the saw had been 

decommissioned and replaced with a new pop-up saw with a two button operation, side guards, 

rear guard and an emergency stop. The two button operation prevents a hand coming into contact 

with the cutting blades of the saw when in operation. 





RICHARDSON PACIFIC LTD 



Magistrate: 

Plea: 



Not guilty 

On 26 February 2003, a fire broke out in a sound proof room at the defendant’s premises when 

an employee machine operator used a highly flammable cleaning solvent (known as ‘X55’) to 

remove excess oil prior to a tool change-over. The employee received serious burns to his legs, 

arms and face. 

Around two years earlier, the company’s health and safety committee carried out a risk rating 

of chemicals in the workplace and identified the risk of fire through a close ignition source. The 

committee recommended the enforcement of a no-smoking policy. The recommendation was not 

acted upon at that time. Since the incident, a no-smoking policy throughout the workplace has been 

adopted, and flammable solvents have been replaced with non-flammable cleaning agents. 



S & O PLUMBING SERVICES PTY LTD 

Date of alleged offence: 23 September 2003 


Magistrate: 

Plea: 



No plea 

On 23 September 2003 in South Melbourne, a WorkSafe inspector attended a building site in 

response to a complaint about unsafe work practices. S & O Plumbing Pty Ltd was the plumbing 

contractor on site. 

The inspector observed the roof did not have handrails or any other form of perimeter protection 

erected. The inspector estimated the potential fall height to be approximately 10 metres. It was a 

day of high wind and the inspector formed the opinion that the work environment posed an 

immediate risk to the health and safety of employees. The inspector ordered that the work on 

the roof cease immediately. 

After the charges were issued, new material became available that warranted reconsideration of 

the charges and a decision was made to withdraw the charges. 




67

SECTION 1 

HUNG KHIN SAM 



Magistrate: 

Plea: 



Guilty 

On 22 December 2004, a WorkSafe inspector attended a Springvale premises where he observed 

a forklift operating outside the front of the premises, lowering Hung Khin Sam and a refrigeration 

coil from the roof while he sat on top of 17 pallets. 

The roof was approximately 10 metres in height. The driver of the forklift did not hold a 

forklift licence. 

The defendant had been engaged to perform maintenance work to a refrigeration unit on 

the premises. 

Breach: Section 25 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 1985. Regulation 7(1) of the Occupational 

Health and Safety Plant Regulations 1995. 


for 12 months. 



SANIKLEEN PTY LTD 



Magistrate: 

Plea: 

15 September 2005 at Seymour Magistrates’ Court 


Guilty 

On or about 10 May 2004, Ralph’s Meat Company Pty Ltd entered into a cleaning contract with 

Sanikleen Pty Ltd, food industry cleaning specialists, for the provision of a total hygiene service 

and the cleaning of the kill floor, the boning room, the offal room and entrances. Sanikleen Pty Ltd 

provided Ralph’s Meats Company Pty Ltd with a copy of their cleaning procedure. 

Sanikleen Pty Ltd employed a project manager and supervisor of the cleaning staff and was 

responsible for providing induction to new employees. 

On 12 May 2004, a 19 year old casual employee of Sanikleen Pty Ltd, on his first day at work, was 

cleaning the underside frames of a conveyor belt whilst it was in motion. The employee became 

entangled in the unguarded conveyor belt and sustained a de-gloving injury to his right arm. 

An investigation by WorkSafe investigators following the incident found: there were no operating 

controls or emergency stop controls in the vicinity of the conveyor belt; there was no guarding 

to prevent bodily contact with the dangerous parts of the conveyor belt; there were inadequate 

cleaning procedures – in particular, the procedure required the conveyor belt to be running while 

the employees cleaned the area immediately around it; there was no isolation lock out procedure 

in place when undertaking cleaning of plant; there was inadequate information, instruction, 

supervision and training provided to the cleaners; and there was no hazard identification risk 

assessment undertaken prior to the incident. 




69

SECTION 1 

SNAPE CONSTRUCTIONS PTY LTD 



Magistrate: 

Plea: 

3 March 2005 at Moe Magistrates’ Court 


Guilty 

On 10 November 2003 in Warragul, a WorkSafe inspector observed an employee working within two 

metres of the edge of an open lift shaft that was approximately six metres high. The inspector also 

observed that there was no appropriate perimeter guard railing around the first floor edges. The 

inspector issued a prohibition notice preventing all construction works on the first level at the site 

until adequate perimeter guard railing (including top and mid rails and toe boards) was installed on 

the south, east and west sides of the open lift shaft. The inspector also issued a prohibition notice 

concerning the unsafe scaffolding. 

The inspector returned to the site a day later and noted that full perimeter hand rails, including mid 

rails and toe boards had been installed. The scaffolding tower had been provided with appropriate 

mid rails on the working deck, which were secured with 90 degree scaffold couplers. The tower had 

also been secured to the building to prevent any movement whilst on the top deck. Both prohibition 

notices issued on 10 November 2004 were rescinded. 

The inspector still considered that a risk existed around the lift shaft area on the first floor and 

issued an additional prohibition notice regarding the continuing immediate risk of the uncovered 

portions of the lift shaft area exposing employees to potential falls of six metres. 





SOUTHERN REGION SERVICES PTY LTD 



Magistrate: 

Plea: 



Guilty 

On 2 December 2004, an employee of Southern Regional Services Pty Ltd was carrying out 

maintenance to signage outside a fast food restaurant in Geelong. The employee was working alone 

and using a boom type elevated work platform (EWP). The EWP came into contact with overhead 

electrical wires that were in close proximity to the signage. The employee suffered significant 

electrical burns. 

A WorkSafe inspector established that the signage was positioned within three metres of the 

nearest electrical conductor and the EWP infringed the ‘no go zone’ for electrical overhead 

power lines contrary to Australian Standards: Cranes, hoists and winches - Safe use - General 

requirements (2550.1-2002). The defendant failed to train its employee in the safe use of EWPs near 

overhead power lines. 

Breach: Sections 21(1) & (2)(a); sections 21(1) & (2)(e); and section 22 of the Occupational Health and 

Safety Act 1985. 



71

SECTION 1 

ST MINA’S GLOBAL RESTAURANTS PTY LTD 



Magistrate: 

Plea: 



Guilty 

St Mina’s Global Restaurants Pty Ltd operated a KFC Franchise at Vermont pursuant to a franchise 

agreement between it and Kentucky Fried Chicken Pty Ltd. 

On 2 February 2002, a part-time casual employee (a 17 year old full time school student) of St Minas 

Global Restaurants Pty Ltd was requested by the shift manager to collect the plastic rubbish bags 

from the bins located outside the store and place them in a dumpster at the rear of the store. 

The bins were approximately the size of a 44 gallon drum with a removable swing flap lid. To collect 

the rubbish, the lids had to be removed and the plastic bags lifted out of the bin using either one or 

two hands, depending on how full they were. If full, the bags would be heavy and difficult to remove, 

and then both hands would be required to remove the bags. 

On this day the bags were approximately three-quarters full. The employee lifted the one of the 

bags by the neck using his left hand and placing his right under the bag for support. The employee 

lifted the bag approximately 1.5m and threw it into the dumpster. During this action, a syringe 

needle in the bag penetrated his skin. 

The employee under went tests to determine whether any disease had been contracted. There was 

a three month wait for the ‘all clear’. All results were negative. 





STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS (SOUTHERN) PTY. LTD. 



Magistrate: 

Plea: 

4 March 2005 at Seymour Magistrates’ Court 


Guilty 

Structural Systems (Southern) Pty. Ltd. was contracted by Goulburn-Murray Water to undertake 

concrete rehabilitation works in the Shepparton region. 

On 11 July 2003, employees of Goulburn-Murray Water raised concerns with Structural Systems 

(Southern) Pty. Ltd employees, when a crane truck they were unloading was too close to the 

power line. On this occasion, employees of the defendant were advised that if a crane truck was to 

be used, it was to be done away from the power line, or the line was to be isolated by the relevant 

power company. 

On 1 August 2003, an employee of the defendant was strapping down a load on the back of a crane 

truck when the crane came into contact with an overhead power line. The employee died from 

injuries resulting from the crane coming into contact with the power line. 




73

SECTION 1 

GHALEB TALEB 



Magistrate: 

Plea: 

24 May 2005 at Melbourne Magistrates’ Court 

Her Honour Deputy Chief Magistrate Popovic 

Guilty 

Ghaleb Taleb was employed by Victoria Wool Processors Pty Ltd as a supervisor at their wool 

processing plant at Laverton. 

On 27 July 2002, an employee (who was under the supervision of the defendant) was feeding wool 

into a duster/crusher when he was instructed by the defendant to climb onto the crusher and 

remove a wool blockage. The employee requested that the crusher rollers be switched off, but the 

defendant would not turn off the duster rollers when asked. The employee lost balance and stepped 

into the space between the crusher rollers and the step duster rollers. As a result, the employee’s 

leg became entangled in the duster/crusher machine. The injured employee’s leg was amputated as 

a consequence of the incident. 

A WorkSafe inspector attended the scene shortly after the incident and issued a prohibition 

notice stopping further operation of the duster/crusher line until appropriate measures were 

implemented to control the risks associated with its operation. 

On 31 July 2002, a WorkSafe inspector re-visited the workplace and rescinded the prohibition 

notice after he observed guarding over the crushers and dusters in the form of fixed covers which 

could only be removed by tools. A documented safe work procedure in relation to the process of 

unblocking the duster/crusher had also been put in place. 

Breach: Section 25(1)(a) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 1985. 




TANK SECURITIES CORPORATION PTY LTD 



Magistrate: 

Plea: 


His Honour Magistrate McIndoe 

Guilty 

On 26 April 2004 in Brunswick, a WorkSafe inspector observed a forklift parked in a laneway servicing 

Tank Securities Corporation Pty Ltd. The forklift was parked in close proximity to the western wall 

of the building, and a driver was present. The forklift was supporting a stillage containing a person 

who was raised to a height of approximately four to six metres. The person was working on a security 

camera mounted on the corner of the western and southern walls of the building. 

The inspector issued two prohibition notices in relation to the use of the forklift on the basis that: 

the stillage was not an approved work platform in accordance with the Australian Standards 

regarding powered industrial trucks; and if used in this circumstance, it exposed workers to the 

risk of entanglement, entrapment and falling. 

On 6 September 2004, the inspector returned to the business premises and observed a work 

platform manufactured, which complied with Australian Standards and lifted both notices. 




75

SECTION 1 

THE CROWN IN THE RIGHT OF THE STATE OF VICTORIA (DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE) 



Magistrate: 

Plea: 



Guilty 

The Department of Justice is a Department of State that exercises powers of employment on behalf 

of the Crown under the Public Sector Management and Employment Act 1998. The defendant, through 

an instrumentality known as the Office of Corrections (CORE), operates the Barwon Prison. 

On 22 February 2004, a prisoner was shown how to put a flat metal bracket into a power press, pull 

down the safety guard and then press the foot pedal to operate the press. 

On 24 February 2004, the prisoner was operating a power press when his right hand became 

caught in the press. At the time of the incident, the safety guard on the press was raised and the 

prisoner had placed a flat bracket into the stamping pad of the press. As the prisoner was doing 

this his foot contacted the foot pedal and the press cycled, bringing the upper jaw of the press down 

onto his right hand. 

The injured prisoner was conveyed to Melbourne’s St Vincent’s Hospital where his middle finger 

was sewn onto his index finger, his middle finger was amputated from the middle knuckle and his 

ring finger was rejoined. 





THE PLYSTORE PTY LTD 



Magistrate: 

Plea: 

15 June 2005 at Dandenong Magistrates’ Court 


Guilty 

On 23 February 2004, the director of The Plystore Pty Ltd fell from the rear of a two tonne forklift 

while unloading stock from a semi-trailer at the company’s Bayswater warehouse. 

The employee who normally handled deliveries was out, so another employee – who had a forklift 

licence – offered to assist. Before starting to unload, he checked for any indication of the weight of 

the stock (a pack of plywood), but could not find anything. The employee was aware that the forklift 

had a two tonne load capacity. The weight (later estimated at 2,010kgs) of the plywood stock was in 

excess of the load carrying capacity. 

During the process of unloading, the rear wheels of the forklift lifted from the ground. The company 

director jumped onto the rear of the forklift to act as a counterbalance. The forklift driver continued 

to attempt to unload the pack a couple of times. On the last attempt, as the forklift cleared the tray 

of the truck, the load slipped from the tynes of the forklift causing the back of the forklift to crash 

back down to the ground. A person not employed by the company was in the vicinity of the dislodged 

load and had to run to avoid injury. 

The director sustained serious head and wrist injuries. 




77

SECTION 1 

THE WAREHOUSE GROUP (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD TRADING AS CLINT’S CRAZY BARGAINS 



Magistrate: 

Plea: 

5 December 2005 at Sale County Court 

His Honour Magistrate Dugdale 

Guilty 

On 4 May 2004, as a result of a complaint relating to manual handling issues, WorkSafe inspectors 

attended the Sale premises of the defendant. The inspectors were advised that the store was a 

‘category 10’ store and received a maximum of six pallets of stock a day. It had previously been a 

‘category 20’ store, but had been unable to handle the larger amount of stock being delivered. 

The inspectors requested employees demonstrate the process of the receipt of goods. The process 

involved staff working for extended periods on the task of unloading pallets, including moving 

heavy cartons, from above head height and ‘processing’ goods by scanning a sample of the carton. 

There was no system or plant available at the store for raising pallets to a safe work height during 

the process, which required employees to bend and reach below knee height while processing the 

lower cartons on the pallet. There was no adequate means of lowering a pallet to access cartons 

stacked above head and shoulder height. The employees complained of suffering lower back pain 

as a result of carrying out the task. 

The manager of the store produced a risk assessment document that identified that the task 

presented a risk, along with a number of other risk assessment documents for other tasks. The risk 

assessments had been conducted about nine months earlier and submitted to the area manager 

and the occupational health and safety manager for the company. 

An improvement notice and prohibition notice were issued to prevent movement of stock at below 

knee height by unassisted lifting. The purpose of the notices was to achieve overall compliance with 

Occupational Health and Safety (Manual Handling) Regulations 1999 for the task of stock receipt and 

processing at the Sale store. 

On 31 May 2004, inspectors returned to the Sale store and deemed the notices had been 

complied with. 





TIMBERTRUSS PTY LTD 



Magistrate: 

Plea: 

13 July 2005 at Geelong Magistrates’ Court 


Guilty 

On 21 January 2004, an employee of Timbertruss Pty Ltd was assembling roof trusses in the 

‘hydra-press’ area of the factory. The truss required modification and he marked the truss and took 

it to a drop saw. 

When the employee attempted to cut the truss, the drop saw’s plastic guard hit the wood and the 

saw blade would not go down further. The employee lifted and lowered the saw blade using the 

handle, but the guard remained jammed. The employee then released the saw trigger and the blade 

appeared to stop moving. In an attempt to release the jammed guard, the employee hit it with his 

left hand. When he did so, the guard was released and his hand slipped onto the saw blade. 

The saw was used by staff most days and had been at the site for approximately three months prior 

to the incident. The employee had, on a couple of previous occasions, told his team leader that the 

plastic guard on the drop saw was catching, but it was not repaired. Other staff who used the drop 

saw were also aware that its guard was catching and had reported the fault. 

The employee suffered cuts to his left index, middle and ring fingers. 




79

SECTION 1 

TOLL IPEC PTY LTD 



Judge: 

Plea: 



Guilty 

On 13 July 2001, an employee of Page Data Pty Ltd was attempting to unload a pallet from a truck 

being driven by a Toll Ipec employee (placed by a labour hire agency). 

The delivery consisted of three pallets of cable and the method of work involved the truck driver 

moving each pallet to the rear tailgate of the truck using a pallet jack, then a pedestrian forklift 

lifted the load from the tailgate. 

Due to the problems associated with the heavier third load, a different method of delivery was 

attempted to remove the pallet directly from the truck. As the forklift did not have an adjustable 

mast to manoeuvre the angle of the forks to sit under the pallet, it was decided to place the forklift 

directly on to the tailgate. The type of pallets also prevented the proper location of the pallet jack 

and led to instability of the load. 

The Page Data Pty Ltd employee was standing on the tailgate near to the forklift and as the tailgate 

was lowered, the forklift toppled and moved backwards. The forklift crushed the employee and 

trapped him under the frame. The employee died shortly after. 



TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION AUSTRALIA LTD 



Judge: 

Plea: 

14,15 and 18 April (trial) and 20 April 2005 (jury verdict) at 

Melbourne County Court 

Her Honour Judge Hampel 

Not guilty 

On 22 October 2002 two employees (employee ‘A’ and employee ‘B’) contracted to Toyota Motor 

Corporation Australia Ltd, were making minor modifications to a component attached to a 

continuous conveyor system in a factory. 

Employee ‘A’ left and while he was away employee ‘B’ completed employee ‘A’s’ work on the other 

side of the conveyor. While climbing over the conveyor, employee ‘B’s’ foot became trapped, causing 

partial amputation and a broken left big toe. 


Result: Not guilty. 



TURBOIC PTY LTD 

Date of offence: Various dates between 16 February and 18 May 2004 


Magistrate: 

Plea: 

14 September 2005 at Frankston Magistrates’ Court 


Guilty 

On 9 December 2003, a WorkSafe inspector visited Turboic Pty Ltd, also known as Emmans Wire 

Works, in Cheltenham. The workplace was a shop front with a manufacturing factory area at the 

back. The company manufactured wire products, office and shop fittings. 

The inspector issued a number of improvement notices for the following: 

• an inadequately guarded drop saw; 

• an inadequately guarded guillotine; and 

• a number of employees exposed to excessive noise levels by not wearing hearing protection. 

On 16 February 2004, the inspector re-visited the workplace and deemed that no action had been 

taken in relation to the issued improvement notices. The inspector also observed that a bending 

machine had insufficient guarding and issued an improvement notice. 

On 29 March 2004 and 18 May 2004, an inspector attended the workplace and deemed that the 

defendant had failed to comply with all of the improvement notices. 

Breach: Section 43(3) (four charges) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 1985. 

Result: Convicted and fined $6,000 as part of an aggregate order. 

UNITING CHURCH IN AUSTRALIA KILMANY UNITING CARE (FORMERLY KNOWN AS KILMANY 

FAMILY CARE) 

Date of offences: 18 and 19 October 2003 


Magistrate: 

Plea: 

15 February 2005 at Sale Magistrates’ Court 

His Honour Magistrate Hill 

Guilty 

On the weekend of 18 and 19 October 2003 in Sale, approximately 19 employees of Kilmany Family 

Care, and nine non-employees including staff members’ partners and children, participated in a 

working bee which included the removal of hallway tiles in an unoccupied building. 

An audit in 2003 had revealed the presence of asbestos-containing material in similar tiles in the 

rear lobby of the building. The workers were not informed about the possibility that the hallway tiles 

could contain asbestos. No personal protective clothing or equipment was provided to the workers. 

Testing later revealed that the tiles removed by employees and non-employees contained 

chrysotile asbestos. 




81

SECTION 1 

VAN SCHAIK’S BIO GRO PTY LTD 



Magistrate: 

Plea: 

23 June 2005 at Ringwood Magistrates’ Court 

His Honour Magistrate Bolster 

Guilty 

On 9 January 2004, an employee of Van Schaik’s Bio Gro Pty Ltd was cleaning out residual product 

in a potting mixture batching machine when his hand became caught in the outlet chute. 

There was no guarding on the machine to prevent persons from placing their hands inside the 

machine through the outlet chute. 

The defendant acquired the potting mixture batching machine when it took over the business from 

a competitor in October 2003. Prior to the incident occurring, a plant hazard identification and 

risk assessment had not been undertaken on the machine and the injured employee had not been 

appropriately trained in its use. 

The injured employee sustained serious injury to the palm and thumb of his left hand. 


1985 and Regulation 702(1)(a) Occupational Health and Safety (Plant) Regulations 1995. 


VISY PULP AND PAPER PTY LTD 



Magistrate: 

Plea: 

1 September 2005 at Broadmeadows Magistrates’ Court 

His Honour Magistrate Kumar 

Guilty 

On 6 April 2004, a WorkSafe inspector attended a workplace operated by Visy Pulp and Paper Pty 

Ltd in Campbellfield that primarily manufactured paper. 

The inspector, accompanied by the OHS manager and relevant HSR, inspected the pope reel and 

rewinder section at the workplace. The pope reel can be described as a reel that takes the made 

paper and winds it into a reel of paper. The rewinder takes this from the constructed pope reel and 

rewinds it on another reel. Within this process, the rewinder trims, edges and slits the paper into 

predetermined smaller reels. 

The inspector issued an improvement notice to control crush hazards, entrapment and cut risks 

associated with the rewinder. The notice was required to by remedied by 6 June 2004. 

On 7 June 2004, the inspector returned to the workplace and observed that the notice had not been 

complied with. 



for 12 months. Ordered to pay $5,000 into the court fund. 



DAVID WALLACE (DIRECTOR OF ALLBULK LANDSCAPE SUPPLIES PTY LTD) 



Magistrate: 

Plea: 



No plea 

On 14 October 2001 at approximately 2pm, an Allbulk Landscape Supplies Pty Ltd employee long 

haul truck driver commenced what was known at the company as the ‘Gunbower run’ . 

At 3pm the following day, on the Murray Valley Highway about 19 kilometres east of Cobram, the 

driver entered road works area in which applicable warning signs were erected reducing the 

permitted speed to 60 km/h. There were 13 stationary vehicles at this point on the highway. The 

heavy vehicle collided with the rearmost stationary vehicle. 

At that stage, the employee driver had been at work for approximately 27 hours and away from 

the depot for 25 hours. The employee driver had: not had any sleep during that period; travelled 

approximately 1,349 kilometres; and been driving almost 17 hours. 

David Wallace, a director of Allbulk Landscape Supplies Pty Ltd, was responsible for the day-to-day 

transport operations of the company, including load and driver allocation, directions to drivers and 

vehicle maintenance. Allbulk Landscape Supplies Pty Ltd did not have systems in place to address 

fatigue nor did it have an adequate system in place for maintenance of the vehicle. 

After the collision, a mechanical inspection of the prime mover and trailer revealed that the vehicle 

had very poor braking capabilities. In particular, the trailer had negligible braking capacity and 

under harsh breaking there was a strong likelihood that the breaking deficiencies could cause the 

combination to jack knife. 

Four people died as a result of the collision. 

Breach: Sections 21(1) & (2)(a) and section 52(1) (two charges); sections 21(1) & (2)(e) and section 

52(1) (two charges); and section 22 and section 52(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 1985. 



83

SECTION 1 

WESFARMERS KLEENHEAT GAS PTY LTD 

Date of alleged offence: 26 March 2004 


Magistrate: 

Plea: 

28 April 2005 at Sunshine Magistrates’ Court 

N/A 

No plea 

On 26 March 2004, WorkSafe inspectors attended the defendant’s Deer Park premises to check 

and obtain a copy of the site’s dangerous goods manifest. The manifest which was supplied by the 

defendant as the current version was dated 8 August 2003. Numerous tanks and cylinders observed 

by the inspectors were not marked on the manifest. 

Under the Occupational Health and Safety (Major Hazard Facilities) Regulations 2000, manifests 

are required to be current and accurately reflect the total storage quantity and location of the 

dangerous goods at the site, in order to assist the emergency services by providing full and 

complete information. 

Breach: Section 30(1) and section 31(2) of the Dangerous Goods Act 1985. Regulations 801(1) & (2) of 

the Occupational Health and Safety (Major Hazards Facilities) Regulations 2000. 


WILKINSON DEVELOPMENTS PTY. LTD 



Magistrate: 

Plea: 


Her Honour Magistrate Bowles 

Guilty 

On 14 October 2003 at a construction site at Hampton North, a bricklayer had been working on 

scaffolding that had castors and was positioned on a porch which was above ground level. The 

scaffolding collapsed beneath the bricklayer and he fell to the ground. 

After the incident, WorkSafe inspectors attended the site and observed that there was not a one 

metre clearance on all sides of the scaffolding from the edge of the porch, in contravention of 

Australian Standard: Guidelines for Scaffolding (AS/NZS 4576:1995). 

The inspectors also observed that the upper level of the building, under construction, did not 

have adequate fall protection measures in place despite the potential fall distance of approximately 

3 to 3.5m. 

The bricklayer sustained broken ribs and bruising to the body as a result of the fall. 

Breach: Sections 21(1) & (2)(a) and sections 21(1) & (2)(c) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 1985. 




WILLIAM WILLIAMS 



Magistrate: 

Plea: 



Guilty 









that slipped. 


the incident. 

The defendant was a director of Complete Truck Bodies Pty Ltd and also worked in the factory. 

Breach: Sections 21(1) & (2)(a) and section 52(1); and sections 21(1) & (2)(e) and section 52(1) of the 



for 12 months and ordered to donate $1,000 to the Royal Children’s Hospital. 

WILSOLVE PTY LTD 



Magistrate: 

Plea: 



Guilty 

On 6 February 2004, an employee of Wilsolve Pty Ltd was operating a forklift to deposit full 

containers of air freshener into an industrial shredder. The butane gas from the containers escaped 

when they were pierced by the shredding machine and came into contact with an ignition point - the 

compressor at the rear of a fridge in the tea room - and exploded. 

The employee received serious burns to the face and arms. 




85

SECTION 1 

LISA MAREE YOUNG 

Date of offences: 5 August 2004 


Magistrate: 

Plea: 

18 October 2005 at Sale Magistrates’ Court 

Her Honour Magistrate Spooner 

Guilty 

Lisa Maree Young conducted a business with her husband known as Fitzpatrick Fireworks. The 

defendant had been issued with a pyrotechnician licence to discharge fireworks. 

On 5 August 2005, Victoria Police found a person with prohibited fireworks at the rear of a shopping 

centre in Sale. After questioning, the person provided police with information that led police to a 

property at Glengarry West. WorkSafe were advised by the police of the property and its contents 

and entered a disused dairy on the property and seized 1,175kg of fireworks. 

Investigations revealed that the fireworks were being stored by the defendant in contravention of 

her licence. 

Breach: Section 23(2) and section 54(5) of the Dangerous Goods Act 1985 and Regulation 803(1) of the 

Dangerous Goods (Explosives) Regulations 2000. 

Result: Convicted and fined $2,000. Ordered to pay $770 pursuant to section 50 of Dangerous 

Goods Act 1985. 




87

88 


SECTION 2: ACCIDENT 

COMPENSATION PROSECUTIONS

SECTION 2 

DOHA ABBAS 

Date of offence: 23 March 2005 


Magistrate: 

Plea: 

5 October 2005 at Broadmeadows Magistrates’ Court 


Guilty 

In March 2005, a notice was served on the defendant to give information and provide company 

books pursuant to section 240 of the Accident Compensation Act 1985 and various company records 

were inspected by the VWA. 

When the defendant was initially asked about wage records she stated that she did not keep any. 

A subsequent search discovered wage records which showed that the company was making cash 

payments to workers over-and-above the amounts that had been declared to the VWA. 

Breach: Section 69(1) of the Accident Compensation (WorkCover Insurance) Act 1993. 

Result: Without conviction adjourned undertaking (12 months). 

ABBAS FURNITURE PTY LTD 



Magistrate: 

Plea: 

5 October 2005 at Broadmeadows Magistrates’ Court 


Guilty 

The defendant company’s documents were audited by the VWA. In August 2004, the company’s 

certified remuneration for 2003/04 was $156,832, but the actual figure was calculated at $263,589. 

The director of the company admitted that she was aware in September 2003 that the company’s 

remuneration for that year would exceed the estimate it had previously provided. The company’s 

premium liability based on its original false estimate for 2003/04 was approximately $16,000. The 

correct premium for that year was $31,000. 

Breach: Section 23(3) of the Accident Compensation (WorkCover Insurance) Act 1993. 

Result: Without conviction fined $750 plus $300 costs. 


ACCIDENT COMPENSATION PROSECUTIONS 

JOHN EDWIN ARNOTT 

Date of offence: 7 February to 9 December 2003 


Magistrate: 

Plea: 

21 April 2005 at Frankston Magistrates’ Court 

His Honour Magistrate Crisp 

Guilty 

The defendant was employed as a plumber and in August 1995 he lodged a WorkCover claim which 

was subsequently accepted. He received weekly compensation payments until he returned to work 

in October that year. 

In June 2002, the defendant suffered a recurrence of his injury. His claim for weekly payments was 

again accepted and payments resumed. A subsequent investigation revealed that the defendant was 

working as a self-employed plumber during this period. 

Breach: Section 248 of the Accident Compensation Act 1985. 

Result: Without conviction fined $750. 

CALYPSO HAULAGE PTY LTD 

Date of offence: 21 January to 14 July 2003 


Magistrate: 

Plea: 



Guilty 

A WorkCover claim by an employee of the defendant was identified as having been forwarded 

outside the prescribed period. The claim was forwarded almost 43 days late. In addition, the 

defendant failed to make nine weekly payments in accordance with section 114D(6) of the Accident 

Compensation Act 1985. 

The worker was eventually made a direct payee. On this occasion the worker was significantly 

inconvenienced by the delay. 

Breach: Section 242(4)(b) and section 242(4)(c) (nine charges) of the Accident Compensation Act 1985. 



91

SECTION 2 

SCOTT CHARLES CASEY 



Magistrate: 

Plea: 

26 April 2005 at Geelong Magistrates’ Court 


Guilty 

The defendant was employed as a cable technician for a transport company. In April 2000 he 

lodged a WorkCover claim which was subsequently accepted. The defendant submitted WorkCover 

Certificates of Capacity certifying him totally unfit for work and he commenced receiving weekly 

compensation payments. 

An investigation in January 2003 revealed that the defendant was working at, and was one of 

the proprietors of, a restaurant business. Between 28 December 2002 and 28 January 2003, the 

defendant received $3,272 in compensation payments. 

Breach: Section 248 (four charges) of the Accident Compensation Act 1985. 

Result: Without conviction fined $2,000 and ordered to pay $3,272 compensation plus $1,000 costs. 

DAREBIN CITY COUNCIL 

Date of offence: 20 April to 28 November 2004 


Magistrate: 

Plea: 

15 December 2005 at Heidelberg Magistrates’ Court 

His Honour Magistrate Cashmore 

Guilty 

Four WorkCover claims by employees of the defendant were identified as having been forwarded 

outside the prescribed period. The claims varied between eight and 105 days late. There was no 

evidence that any of the claimants suffered any actual prejudice or disadvantage. 

Breach: Section 242(4)(b) of the Accident Compensation Act 1985. 

Result: Without conviction fined $500 plus $500 costs. 



GARRY STEPHEN DELANEY 



Magistrate: 

Plea: 

18 October 2005 at Moe Magistrates’ Court 


Guilty 

The defendant was employed as a deck hand. He injured his back in November 1995 and 

subsequently lodged a WorkCover claim. The claim was accepted and the defendant commenced 

receiving weekly compensation payments. 

Between January and March 2004, the defendant assisted in his wife’s take-away food business. 

He attended two medical examinations in March 2004 and failed to disclose his work activities to 

the doctors. 

The defendant also lodged a WorkCover Certificate of Capacity on which he declared that he had not 

engaged in any form of work. On the basis of that certificate he received a payment of compensation 

of $1,004. 

Breach: Section 248 and section 249(1) (three charges) of the Accident Compensation Act 1985. 

Result: Without conviction adjourned undertaking (for 12 months) and ordered to pay $1,004 

compensation plus $450 costs. 

JOHN VICTOR DILLON 

Date of offence: 3 December 1997 to 28 July 2004 


Magistrate: 

Plea: 

16 November 2005 at Frankston Magistrates’ Court 


Guilty 

The defendant was employed as a manager. In November 1990, he suffered an injury and lodged a 

WorkCover claim which was subsequently accepted. He continued to submit WorkCover Certificates 

of Capacity and receive weekly compensation payments. 

On all certificates the defendant signed the patient declaration that he had not worked. 

Investigations disclosed that between late 1997 and mid 2004 the defendant was employed as a 

casual direct care worker. 

Breach: Section 82 of the Crimes Act 1958. 

Result: Without conviction adjourned undertaking (18 months), to pay $570 costs. 


93

SECTION 2 

FANMAN PTY LTD 

Date of offence: 16 August 2003 to 10 November 2004 


Magistrate: 

Plea: 

27 September 2005 at Sunshine Magistrates’ Court 

His Honour Magistrate Goldberg 

Guilty 

Five WorkCover claims by employees of the defendant company were identified as having been 

forwarded outside the prescribed period. Three of the claims varied between approximately one to 

over four months late and two of the claims were not forwarded to the insurer at all. The defendant 

also altered the dates on two claim forms prior to forwarding the claims to the insurer. 

Breach: Section 242(4)(b) (five charges) and section 249(1) (two charges) of the Accident 


Result: Convicted and fined $5,000 plus $600 costs. 

FERMORE PTY LTD 

Date of offence: 23 November 2003 to 2 August 2004 


Magistrate: 

Plea: 



Guilty 

The worker was employed as a truck driver with the defendant company. In October 2003, the 

worker lodged a WorkCover claim which was subsequently accepted. In March 2004, the worker 

attended a conciliation hearing in relation to non-payments and late payments of compensation 

by the employer. Directions were given to the employer to make payments in accordance with the 

Accident Compensation Act 1985. 

In June 2004, the worker’s solicitor lodged a complaint with the VWA that their client had not 

received payments pursuant to the conciliation directions. In July 2004, he was made a direct 

payee. Investigations disclosed that between November 2003 and August 2004, 11 payments were 

late, underpaid or not paid. 

Breach: Section 242(4)(c) (11 charges) of the Accident Compensation Act 1985. 

Result: Convicted and fined $5,000 plus $1,200 costs. 



DENNIS JOHN FISHER 



Magistrate: 

Plea: 

30 November 2005 at Geelong Magistrates’ Court 


Guilty 

The defendant was employed as a door-to-door sales representative. In June 1999, he suffered an 

injury and lodged a WorkCover claim which was subsequently accepted. The defendant received 

payments for total incapacity until termination in February 2004. He appealed his termination and 

in April 2004 a genuine dispute certificate was issued. 

Investigations disclosed that the defendant registered a business name from December 1999 to 

February 2004. Further enquiries revealed that he received payments from customers for services 

he provided to them. 

He submitted a WorkCover Certificate of Capacity and signed the patient declaration that he had 

not engaged in any form of employment. At a medical examination in October 2003, he stated to the 

doctor that he had not returned to work since November 1999. 

Breach: Section 249(1) of the Accident Compensation Act 1985. 

Result: Without conviction adjourned undertaking (12 months) to pay $750 costs. 

BRADLEY GORMLEY 

Date of offence: 23 September to 2 October 2003 


Magistrate: 

Plea: 

8 November 2005 at Heidelberg Magistrates’ Court 


Guilty 

The defendant was employed as a vehicle painter. In April 2003, he suffered an injury and lodged a 

WorkCover claim which was subsequently accepted. He continued to submit WorkCover Certificates 

of Capacity that certified that the injured worker was totally unfit for all duties and receive 

payments of compensation. 

In September 2003, surveillance disclosed that the defendant was working at a cafe for a period 

of three days. From 23 September until the termination of payments on 21 October 2003, the 

defendant received $1,842 in weekly compensation payments. During this period, the defendant 

submitted a WorkCover Certificate of Capacity on which he signed the patient declaration that he 

had not been engaged in any form of employment. 

Breach: Section 248 (two charges) of the Accident Compensation Act 1985. 

Result: Without conviction fined $2,000 plus $650.60 costs. 


95

SECTION 2 

STEWART HENDERSON 



Magistrate: 

Plea: 

15 June 2005 at Broadmeadows Magistrates’ Court 

His Honour Chief Magistrate Gray 

Guilty 

The defendant was employed as a timber salesman. In June 1999, he lodged a claim for 

compensation which was subsequently accepted. The defendant commenced receiving weekly 

compensation payments and regularly submitted WorkCover Certificates of Capacity certifying him 

unfit for any work. 

Investigations revealed that the defendant commenced working for another employer in January 

2004, performing garden maintenance at a number of locations including a shopping centre. This 

was despite the defendant regularly submitting WorkCover Certificates of Capacity declaring he 

was unfit for any work and had not worked during this period. The defendant obtained $3,280 in 

compensation during the period it was alleged he had returned to work. 

Breach: Section 248 (eight charges) of the Accident Compensation Act 1985. 

Result: Without conviction adjourned undertaking (12 months) and ordered to pay $3,280 

compensation plus $400 to the Court Fund. 

J-DEM FREIGHTERS PTY LTD 



Magistrate: 

Plea: 

24 March 2005 at Ringwood Magistrates’ Court 

His Honour Magistrate McNamara 

Guilty 

The defendant received a WorkCover claim from a full-time casual driver on 16 December 2002, but 

did not sign it until 3 January 2003. The insurer received the claim form on 9 January 2003. On 6 

February, the insurer advised the defendant of the amount of weekly payments of compensation to 

which the worker was entitled. 

An investigation revealed there were 15 weekly payments that were not made by the due date in 

accordance with section 114D(6) of the Accident Compensation Act 1985. In addition, the worker’s 

claim form was identified as having been forwarded outside the prescribed period. The claim was 

received eight days outside the time limit prescribed by the Accident Compensation Act 1985. 

Breach: Section 242(4)(b) and section 242(4)(c) of the Accident Compensation Act 1985. 

Result: Without conviction fined $500. 



KATIE’S CLEANING SERVICES PTY LTD 

Date of offence: 5 September 2002 to 18 March 2004 


Magistrate: 

Plea: 

15 September 2005 at Sunshine Magistrates’ Court 

His Honour Magistrate Doherty 

Guilty 

The worker was employed as a cleaner with the defendant company. In May 2002, she lodged a 

WorkCover claim which was subsequently accepted. Payments commenced in April 2002 and were 

terminated in May 2004, after 104 weeks. In late 2003 the worker lodged a complaint with the VWA 

that her employer was regularly delaying her payments and underpaying her. 

Investigations revealed that between September 2002 and March 2004, 13 payments were either 

late or underpaid. 

Breach: Section 242(4)(c) of the Accident Compensation Act 1985. 

Result: Convicted and fined $750. 

JOHN STEWART KERR 

Date of offence: 14 January 2000 to 31 December 2001 


Magistrate: 

Plea: 



Guilty 

A WorkCover claimant suffered multiple injuries in 1988 and required ongoing treatment from 

various service providers. She took taxis to these treatment appointments and paid for the trips 

using cab charge vouchers. From 1997 to 2001, she utilised the services of one taxi company. In 

December 1999 the defendant became the claimant’s sole driver and insisted that the claimant presign 

cab vouchers. 

In January 2001 the claimant received a cheque by mistake from the insurer for over $3,000 as 

payment for taxi services provided to her by the company that the defendant worked for. The 

claimant discovered that the insurer had been billed for dates where she had not left her home and 

immediately alerted the insurer. Investigations disclosed that the defendant had claimed $8,000 

over a two-year period for trips that had not been made. 


Result: Convicted. Suspended sentence of imprisonment (six months, wholly suspended for 12 

months) and ordered to pay $8,000 compensation plus $572.60 costs. 


97

SECTION 2 

NATASHA LOUISE MAUNDER 



Magistrate: 

Plea: 

31 January 2005 at Dandenong Magistrates’ Court 

His Honour Magistrate Batt 

Guilty 

The defendant was employed as a part-time driver/sales person. She lodged a WorkCover claim 

in July 2002 which was subsequently accepted. The defendant continued to submit WorkCover 

Certificates of Capacity certifying her unfit for work and received weekly compensation payments. 

During October 2002, and between January and February 2003, investigations disclosed that she 

attended a stall at a market and was observed assisting her father at the stall. The defendant did 

not disclose the work at the market to her treating doctor and on a number of occasions she told 

her doctor that she was unable to return to work. She received two compensation payments in 

respect of periods during which she was observed working at the Flower Centre. 

Breach: Section 248 (two charges) of the Accident Compensation Act 1985. 

Result: Convicted and fined $750. Ordered to pay $788.12 compensation plus $58.30 costs. 

KEVIN MCGILL 

Date of offence: 26 February to 22 October 2001 


Magistrate: 

Plea: 

4 October 2005 at Sunshine Magistrates’ Court 


Guilty 

The defendant was employed as a fitter and turner and in May 1998 suffered an injury. His claim 

was accepted and he commenced receiving compensation payments. He continued to submit 

WorkCover Certificates of Capacity certifying him totally unfit for duties and from March 2000, 

signed declarations that he had not engaged in any form of employment. 

On his original claim form the defendant indicated that he was engaged in secondary selfemployment 

installing roller doors. During the relevant period he continued to operate his 

business. He did not disclose his activity to his doctor or claims agent. 


Result: Without conviction adjourned undertaking (12 months) and ordered to pay $762 

compensation plus $500 costs and $500 to the Court Fund. 



TANYA SANDRA NARDI-SUTTON 



Magistrate: 

Plea: 

10 June 2005 at Dandenong Magistrates’ Court 


Guilty 

The defendant was employed as the Victorian state manager of a fashion accessories store. In May 

2002, she lodged a WorkCover claim which was subsequently accepted. The defendant thereafter 

continued to submit WorkCover Certificates of Capacity and receive weekly compensation payments 

as a consequence. 

In each WorkCover Certificate of Capacity, the defendant signed a declaration that she had not been 

engaged in any form of employment. 

Investigations in late 2003 disclosed that the defendant and a friend set up a business to sell 

hats during the 2003 Spring Racing Carnival. Between 6 October and 14 November 2003, the 

defendant conducted retail sales at two outlets and was involved in: paying for signage and flyers; 

buying stock from suppliers; and organising work rosters for staff. During the relevant period, 

the defendant submitted six WorkCover Certificates of Capacity and received 22 payments 

totalling $27,537. 

Breach: Section 248 (22 charges) and section 249(1) (six charges) of the Accident Compensation Act 1985. 


compensation plus $6000 costs. 

PAPER FREIGHT PTY LTD 

Date of offence: 27 June to 11 July 2004 


Magistrate: 

Plea: 

26 October 2005 at Ballarat Magistrates’ Court 


Guilty 

The worker was employed as a driver with the defendant company. In May 2004, the worker’s 

employment was terminated. On the same day, the worker handed his employer a WorkCover 

Certificate of Capacity certifying him totally unfit for duties. The worker forwarded his claim and a 

copy of his medical certificate direct to the VWA. In June 2004, the claim was accepted. 

The defendant company was made aware of its obligations, but had still not made any payments 

to the worker. The worker was then made a direct payee. In July 2004, the employer expressed 

serious reservations about the legitimacy of the claim. Prior to the worker becoming a direct payee, 

there were nine weekly payments which the employer failed to make to the worker. On this occasion 

the worker was significantly inconvenienced by the failure of the employer to make payments. 

Breach: Section 242(4)(c) (nine charges) of the Accident Compensation Act 1985. 

Result: Without conviction adjourned undertaking (six months). Ordered to pay $200 to the Court 

Fund plus $200 costs. 


99

SECTION 2 

RAYMOND GEORGE ROSS 



Magistrate: 

Plea: 

4 October 2005 at Sunshine Magistrates’ Court 

His Honour Magistrate Jones 

Guilty 

The defendant was employed as a machine operator and in July 2001 suffered an injury. His 

WorkCover claim was accepted and he commenced receiving weekly payments. 

Investigations disclosed that between 29 July and 20 August 2004, the defendant was employed 

and was carrying out pre-delivery cleaning of new coaches. On 27 August, he obtained from his 

doctor a WorkCover Certificate of Capacity that certified he was totally unfit for all duties and 

signed the declaration that he had not been engaged in any form of employment since his last 

certificate was issued. 


Result: Without conviction adjourned undertaking (12 months) and ordered to pay $200 to the 

Court Fund. 

KIM NARELLE SCHROEDER 



Magistrate: 

Plea: 

17 June 2005 at Heidelberg Magistrates’ Court 

Her Honour Magistrate Crowe 

Not guilty 

The defendant was employed as a sales person. On 3 February 1997, in the course of her 

employment the defendant was injured in a motor vehicle accident. The defendant’s WorkCover 

claim was accepted on 8 July 1997. Although initially incapacitated for all work, the defendant 

eventually returned to work with her pre-injury employer on modified duties. She eventually left 

her pre-injury employer, but continued to receive weekly compensation payments. The defendant’s 

entitlement to weekly compensation payments was subsequently terminated around the beginning 

of April 1999. 

In August 1999, the defendant’s entitlement to weekly payments was reinstated and backdated to 

the date of termination following an application to the Accident Compensation Conciliation Service. 

The defendant continued to receive weekly payments until an investigation in late 2000 by the 

Compliance Branch of the VWA discovered the defendant had returned to work in partnership as a 

florist. The florist was registered as a business in March 1999. 

Breach: Section 248 (31 charges) and section 249(1) (36 charges) of the Accident Compensation 

Act 1985. 

Result: Convicted and fined $5,000. Suspended sentence of imprisonment (six months, 

suspended for two years) and ordered to pay compensation of $32,376.26 plus $35,340 costs. 



ST BENEDICT’S PRIVATE NURSING HOME PTY LTD 



Magistrate: 

Plea: 


Her Honour Magistrate Patrick 

Guilty 

The worker, a registered nurse, was employed by the defendant company. In June 2003, she 

lodged a WorkCover claim which was subsequently accepted. After some time, she recovered to a 

level whereby she had a current work capacity and was able to perform most but not all of her 

pre-injury duties. The defendant initially provided the worker with suitable employment for about 

two months but then forced the worker to take annual leave and then refused to provide further 

suitable employment. 


Result: Without conviction fined $4,000 plus $1,000 costs. 

STAR TRACK EXPRESS PTY LTD 

Date of offence: 18 July to 1 December 2003 


Magistrate: 

Plea: 


His Honour Magistrate Jones 

Guilty 

Four WorkCover claims by employees of the defendant company were identified as having been 

forwarded outside the prescribed period. The claims varied between 40 to 134 days late. There was 

no evidence that any of the claimants suffered any actual prejudice or disadvantage. 

Breach: Section 242(4)(b) (four charges) of the Accident Compensation Act 1985. 

Result: Without conviction fined $500 plus $1,000 costs. 


101

SECTION 2 

ANTONIOS STOIKOS 

Date of offence: 9 October 2003 to 26 February 2004 


Magistrate: 

Plea: 

14 October 2005 at Heidelberg Magistrates’ Court 


Guilty 

The defendant was employed as a truck driver. During October 2002, he suffered an injury and 

subsequently submitted a WorkCover claim that was accepted. Between October 2002 and 

November 2004, the defendant was certified unfit for work. In addition, the defendant declared on 

the WorkCover Certificate of Capacity that he not been engaged in any form of employment. 

On the basis of these certificates of capacity the defendant received compensation payments of 

$6,315.19 during this period. An investigation revealed the defendant had returned to work as a taxi 

driver and failed to disclose this to the VWA. 

Breach: Section 248 of the Accident Compensation Act 1985. 

Result: Convicted and fined $700 plus $356 costs. 

GAVIN TREACY 

Date of offence: 1 February 1998 to 30 September 2000 


Magistrate: 

Plea: 

1 March 2005 at Melbourne Magistrates’ Court 


Guilty 

The defendant was employed as a functions manager. In October 1996, he lodged a WorkCover 

claim that was accepted. The defendant was paid weekly compensation payments. 

An investigation into the defendant’s claimed travel expenses revealed that between February 1998 

and September 2000 he submitted 84 false invoices for travel by taxi. The total amount paid on 

these false invoices was $2,208. 


Result: Convicted and fined $500. Ordered to pay $2,208 compensation plus $400 costs. 



VERGE CORP PTY LTD 

Date of offence: 14 October 2003 – 4 April 2004 


Magistrate: 

Plea: 



Guilty 

The worker was employed as an assistant manager for the defendant company. In August 2003, the 

worker submitted a WorkCover claim which was subsequently accepted. The worker was entitled 

under the Accident Compensation Act 1985 to receive weekly compensation payments. 

In this case, nine payments were identified as having been paid late. The payments ranged from 

between two to 14 days late. One payment was identified as having been paid a month late. The VWA 

also identified three payments that were not made to the worker. 

Breach: Section 242(4)(c) (12 charges) of the Accident Compensation Act 1985. 


WEDDING WORKS AUSTRALIA PTY LTD 



Magistrate: 

Plea: 



No plea 

The worker was employed as a casual decorator with the defendant company. In July 2003, he 

forwarded a WorkCover claim to the sole director of the defendant company who refused to accept 

it and threw it in the rubbish bin. 

The worker then lodged the claim directly with the VWA and in September 2003, the claim was 

accepted. After lodging the claim, the worker did not receive any payments from his employer or 

any communication from his employer in relation to the preparation of a return to work plan. 

Breach: Section 242(1); section 242(3)(a); section 242(4)(b); section 242(4)(c); and section 242(6) of 

the Accident Compensation Act 1985. 



103

SECTION 2 

WILLIAM WHYTE 



Magistrate: 

Plea: 

8 March 2005 at Moe Magistrates’ Court 

Her Honour Magistrate Spooner 

Guilty 

In February 2002, William Whyte was employed as an electrician. He reported suffering an injury, 

but was able to continue working. Between July and August 2002, he was issued with WorkCover 

Certificates of Capacity certifying him fit for modified duties; and from August 2002, he was 

issued with a WorkCover Certificate of Capacity certifying him unfit for work. In August 2002, the 

defendant lodged a WorkCover claim which was accepted and he commenced receiving weekly 

compensation payments. 

An investigation revealed that the defendant was the director of a business and that he worked as a 

crowd controller for two days in October 2002 and two days in December 2002. Since August 2002, 

the defendant had declared that he had not been engaged in any form of employment. 

Breach: Section 248 (six charges) and section 249(1) (six charges) of the Accident Compensation 

Act 1985. 


compensation plus $400 costs and $1,200 to the Court Fund. 

WINDSOR HOTELS (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD 

Date of alleged offence: 22 July 2003 


Magistrate: 

Plea: 



Not Guilty 

An employee of the defendant submitted a WorkCover claim on 10 June 2003. The claim was 

rejected. On 20 July 2003 the claimant lodged a Request for Conciliation. On 22 July the defendant 

summarily dismissed the claimant. 

Breach: Section 242(3)(b)(i); section 242(3)(b)(ii); and section 242(3)(b)(iii) of the Accident 




PROSECUTIONS 2005 105

106 


SECTION 3: 

COMMITTAL PROCEEDINGS

SECTION 3 

ALLBULK LANDSCAPE SUPPLIES PTY LTD 



Magistrate: 

Plea: 



Guilty 

On 14 October 2001 at approximately 2pm, an Allbulk Landscape Supplies Pty Ltd employee long 

haul truck driver commenced what was known at the company as the ‘Gunbower run’. 

At 3pm the following day, on the Murray Valley Highway about 19 kilometres east of Cobram, the 

driver entered road works area in which applicable warning signs were erected to reduce the 

permitted speed to 60 km/h. There were 13 stationary vehicles at this point on the highway. The 

vehicle collided with the rearmost stationary vehicle. 

At that stage, the employee driver had been at work for approximately 27 hours and away from the 

depot for 25 hours. The employee driver had not had any sleep during that period; he had travelled 

approximately 1,349 kilometres; and he had been driving almost 17 hours. 

David Wallace, a director of Allbulk Landscape Supplies Pty Ltd, was responsible for the day-to-day 

transport operations of the company, including load and driver allocation, directions to drivers and 

vehicle maintenance. Allbulk Landscape Supplies Pty Ltd did not have systems in place to address 

fatigue nor did it have an adequate system in place for maintenance of the vehicle. 

After the collision, a mechanical inspection of the prime mover and trailer revealed that the vehicle 

had very poor braking capabilities. In particular, the trailer had negligible braking capacity and 

under harsh breaking there was a strong likelihood that the breaking deficiencies could cause the 

combination to jack knife. 

Four people died as a result of the collision. 


Result: Committed to stand trial in County Court. 


COMMITTAL PROCEEDINGS 

AUSTRALIAN COUNTRY SPINNERS PTY LTD 



Magistrate : 

Plea: 

16 September 2005 at Wangaratta Magistrates’ Court 

His Honour Magistrate Reardon 

Not guilty 

On 28 January 2004 at the Australian Country Spinners Pty Ltd workplace in Wangaratta, an 

employee was operating a drawing machine designed to stretch and comb 12 slithers of wool yarn 

down to a thinner and lighter section per metre. 

The defendant had conducted a risk assessment and considered there to be no risks or hazards 

associated with accessing the auto levelling area of the machine. 

The employee was clearing fluff from the auto levelling area of the machine when his fingers were 

caught between two mesh gears of the machine. The machine was in the ‘run down’ stage when the 

incident occurred. 

A WorkSafe inspector attended the workplace and issued an improvement notice requiring 

enhanced guarding on the machine. 

The employee sustained partial amputation to the tips of his first two fingers on his right hand. 

Breach: Sections 21(1) & (2)(a) (two charges) and sections 21(1) & (2)(e) of the Occupational Health and 

Safety Act 1985. Regulation 704(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety (Plant) Regulations 1995. 

Result: Committed to stand trial in County Court. Summary offence against the Occupational 

Health and Safety (Plant) Regulations 1995 adjourned sine die. 


109

SECTION 3 

BLAXLAND PACIFIC PTY LTD 



Magistrate: 

Plea: 



Guilty 


in Bundoora. 




that were so far as was practicable safe and without risks to health, by not conducting hydrostatic 





and instructed him on how to set up the end cap on the pipe and how to set up the bracing ready for 

testing. Michael Doherty checked the packing and confirmed it was alright for testing on the day of 

the incident. 



BEKAERT (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD 



Magistrate: 

Plea: 


Her Honour Magistrate Patrick 

Not guilty 

On 10 April 2003, an employee of Bekaert (Australia) Pty Ltd was operating a stenter machine. 

The employee was inspecting the creases on the fabric inside the machine when his hand became 

caught in an in-running nib point. The machine, at that point, was not guarded. 

The injured employee sustained a broken arm which required a plate to be inserted. 





CHUBB SECURITY AUSTRALIA PTY LTD 



Magistrate: 

Plea: 

18 to 20 July 2005 at Melbourne Magistrates’ Court 


Not guilty 

On 24 October 2003, footpath works were being conducted in the vicinity of 279-281 Blackburn 

Road, Glen Waverley. Consequently, portions of the footpath were closed. 

Rabot Paving (Australia) Pty Ltd was performing these works under a supply contract with the 

Monash City Council on behalf of the City of Monash. Most of the 10 workers on site were directly 

employed by McDonough Contracting Pty Ltd, who supplied labour to Rabot Paving (Australia) Pty 

Ltd. Others workers were engaged by Rabot Paving (Australia) Pty Ltd as independent contractors. 

Rabot Paving (Australia) Pty Ltd engaged Chubb Security Australia Pty Ltd to undertake traffic 

management at the worksite. This involved the preparation of a traffic management plan (TMP) and 

the supply of traffic controllers on site. 

The TMP was perused and endorsed by an engineer employed by the Monash City Council prior to it 

being submitted to VicRoads by Chubb for approval to implement the TMP. It is alleged that the TMP 

and letter supplied to VicRoads contained inaccurate information. The TMP stated the works would 

take place on one day, whereas they were to be undertaken over four days. Furthermore, the TMP 

did not make any provision for pedestrian traffic around the worksite. 

Chubb Security Australia Pty Ltd engaged two traffic controllers to perform the traffic 

management at the site. They had limited experience as traffic controllers. The closed lane/work 

zone at the worksite extended a distance of approximately 800 metres, and there were numerous 

sites nominated for footpath repair and re-instatement over this area. 

Monash City Council had a contracted supervisor visit the site at least once per day. 

At approximately 10.25am on 24 October 2003, a 56 year old pedestrian had been walking from her 

home (located at the north east end of the works) to the south side of Montgomery Avenue. There 

were a number of obstructions, such as piles of excavated soil, trees and an electricity pole, along 

the nature strip. The pedestrian moved onto the road somewhere in the vicinity of Doynton Parade 

and proceeded south along the closed lane of Blackburn Road. The pedestrian was struck by a 

utility truck reversing a distance of about 200 metres. The truck did not have reversing beepers 

or a spotter. Neither of the two Chubb Security Australia Pty Ltd traffic controllers were in the 

immediate area when the incident occurred. 

The pedestrian died as a result. 




111

SECTION 3 

PAUL CINI 


Date of orosecution: 

Magistrate: 

Plea: 



Not guilty 

Kane Constructions Pty Ltd was contracted by Mincof Pty Ltd to demolish and reconstruct a number 

of buildings at a car dealership in Dandenong. Kane Constructions Pty Ltd obtained the services of 

another company to demolish the existing buildings. This company subsequently sub-contracted out 

the removal of the asbestos that existed at the premises to Dynamic Industries Pty Ltd. 







mesh. Kane Constructions Pty Ltd issued a ‘Site Notice’ stating that all work for the removal of the 





position gave him responsibility on site to ensure that safe work practices were being followed 

by the sub-contractors. 






Breach: Sections 25(1)(a) & (2)(b) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 1985. 




COLAC OTWAY SHIRE (TRADING AS COSWORKS) 

Date of alleged offence: 21 May 2002 


Magistrate: 

Plea: 

14 June 2005 at Geelong Magistrates’ Court 


Not guilty 

On 21 May 2001, a vehicle conveying a male and female was travelling in an easterly direction along 

Pound Road, Colac. As the vehicle entered an intersection, their vehicle collided with a truck that 

was travelling south along the Colac-Lavers Hill Road. The collision resulted in the deaths of both 

occupants of the vehicle. 

At the time of the collision, the intersection of Pound Road and the Colac Lavers Hill Road was 

undergoing roadwork alterations. This work was being conducted by CosWorks (Colac Otway Shire) 

together with Vic Roads. This intersection along with another intersection was being altered as 

part of a ’black spot program’ - a federal funding initiative set up to provide funding for rectification 

works on dangerous roadways. VicRoads successfully applied for funding to alter the Pound 

Road and Colac–Lavers Hill Road intersection. VicRoads, having assessed the intersection, had 

recommended the insertion of splitter islands in Pound Road. 

While works were being conducted at this intersection the existing ‘give way’ sign that was 

applicable to traffic travelling east in Pound Road and approaching the intersection with Colac- 

Lavers Hill Road was removed. 

The exposure to risks to health or safety arising from the conduct of each defendant’s undertaking 

was the failure to ensure that traffic control signals were appropriately in place. 

While main roads are normally the responsibility of the relevant municipal authority, VicRoads 

assumed responsibility for the main roads in the Colac Otway Shire in 1995, at the Shire’s request. 


Result: Discharged at committal. 


113

SECTION 3 

DYNAMIC INDUSTRIES PTY LTD 



Magistrate: 

Plea: 



Not guilty 











mesh. Kane Constructions Pty Ltd issued a ‘site notice’ stating that all work for the removal of the 
















EASTERN SUBURBS NEWSPAPERS MANAGEMENT (NO.2) PTY LTD 



Magistrate: 

Plea: 

25 and 26 July 2005 at Melbourne Magistrates’ Court 


Not guilty 

Hannanprint Victoria Pty Ltd (’Hannanprint’) and Eastern Suburbs Newspapers Management (No.2) 

Pty Limited (‘ESN No.2’) conducted a printing works in Noble Park. Hannanprint owned all the plant 

and inventories at the site. ESN No 2 employed the printers and printer assistants at the site. 

One of the work site’s printing presses included a ‘folder’ section which folded and bound printed 

material. The press was normally operated by two qualified printers – a ‘number one’ printer who 

was in charge and an assisting ‘number two’ printer, with three printers’ assistants. When the 

machine was installed, the nominated ‘number one’ printers from each shift were trained in its 

operation, but not the ‘number two’ printers. 

The folder section had an automatic paper feed, a process known as ‘webbing up’ the press. 

However, certain paper types and publications were prone to cause the automatic feed to 

malfunction. If this occurred, a printer or their assistant manually fed paper through the machine’s 

rollers. This would happen on average three times in each eight hour shift. 

The employees developed a procedure where one would feed the paper into the rollers while 

another slowly rotated the paper through the folder by using the ‘inching’ button at the operator’s 

control panel. However, the button operator could not see the position of the other worker’s hands 

inside the machine and communication between the two was difficult because of the noise of the 

machine’s operation. 

On 16 April 2003, one of the ‘number one’ printers was not at work. The press was operated by 

two ‘number two’ printers. An employee was manually feeding paper into the folder while another 

employee printer was ‘inching’ the rollers. The employee’s right hand middle finger was caught 

between the head perforated roller and the head perforated knife. The employee’s finger was 

severed to the base of the finger nail. 

WorkSafe inspectors attended the workplace and issued improvement notices that required the 

following remedial measures: 

• a new risk assessment be conducted on the press; 

• the folder access doors interlocked so that the inching button could not be operated whilst the 

doors were open; 

• the operators’ manual made more accessible to the operators; 

• a new procedure developed whereby manual feeding occurred with the folder access doors closed; 

• employees to be properly trained in the new procedure; and 

• after the incident, the companies also developed a new risk control measure for auto feed 

webbing up and staff were trained in the new procedure. 




115

SECTION 3 

PAUL ALAN FRANCIS 



Magistrate: 

Plea: 


His Honour Magistrate Beder 

Not guilty 

In early 2002, development of a residential subdivision commenced at 600 McClelland Drive, 

Langwarrin. Paul Alan Francis Pty Ltd trading as Able Tree Services was contracted to undertake 

the manual tree felling on the site. 

On 25 May 2002, Paul Francis - an operational director of Paul Alan Francis Pty Ltd - and a number 

of employees commenced works at the site. The system of work developed for felling the trees 

involved an initial chainsaw cut followed by use of an excavator to push the trees over. The trees 

were all to be felled in a north-south direction to facilitate easy removal from the site. 

When work commenced that morning, Paul Francis was operating the excavator and another 

employee was placing cuts in the trees. A second employee had been instructed to trim the foliage 

of already felled trees and a third employee was mulching felled trees at another part of the site. 

The first employee and Paul Francis started to cut a tree that was approximately 21 metres high. 

After the cut had been made on the tree, Paul Francis pushed the tree over expecting it to fall in 

a northerly direction. The tree, however, fell in a north westerly direction and struck the second 

employee who was working on a chainsaw within the fall zone of the tree. The second employee 

sustained fatal injuries when he was struck by the chainsaw he was working on. 

Arborist Gary Harding found a number of safety deficiencies and departures from industry practice 

that contributed to the death: 

• most of the trees at the site had been felled using only a back cut which meant there was less 

control over the direction of the fall; 

• the tree that had fallen on the second employee had obvious rot that had not been removed prior 

to felling; 

• the tree that had fallen on the second employee had been felled against the lean and crown 

weight of the tree; 

• the personnel exclusion zone (zone of two to two-and-a-half times the height of the tree) had not 

been enforced; 

• tree stumps and unfelled trees were present in the fall zone thereby creating a risk of the tree 

deviating from its fall path; and 

• no job safety analysis or risk assessment had been conducted in relation to the task. 

Breach: Sections 21(1) & (2)(a) and 52(1); and sections 21(1) & (2)(e) and 52(1) of the Occupational 





PAUL ALAN FRANCIS PTY LTD (TRADING AS ABLE TREE SERVICES) 



Magistrate : 

Plea: 


His Honour Magistrate Beder 

Not guilty 

In early 2002, development of a residential subdivision commenced at 600 McClelland Drive, 

Langwarrin. Paul Alan Francis Pty Ltd trading as Able Tree Services was contracted to undertake 

the manual tree felling on the site. 

On 25 May 2002, Paul Francis - an operational director of Paul Alan Francis Pty Ltd - and a number 

of employees commenced works at the site. The system of work developed for felling the trees 

involved an initial chainsaw cut followed by use of an excavator to push the trees over. The trees 

were all to be felled in a north-south direction to facilitate easy removal from the site. 

When work commenced that morning, Paul Francis was operating the excavator and another 

employee was placing cuts in the trees. A second employee had been instructed to trim the foliage 

of already felled trees and a third employee was mulching felled trees at another part of the site. 

The first employee and Paul Francis started to cut a tree that was approximately 21 metres high. 

After the cut had been made on the tree Paul Francis pushed the tree over expecting it to fall in 

a northerly direction. The tree, however, fell in a north westerly direction and struck the second 

employee who was working on a chainsaw within the fall zone of the tree. The second employee 

sustained fatal injuries when he was struck by the chainsaw he was working on. 

Arborist Gary Harding found a number of safety deficiencies and departures from industry practice 

that contributed to the death: 

• most of the trees at the site had been felled using only a back cut which meant there was less 

control over the direction of the fall, 

• the tree that had fallen on the second employee had obvious rot that had not been removed prior 

to felling, 

• the tree that had fallen on the second employee had been felled against the lean and crown 

weight of the tree, 

• the personnel exclusion zone (zone of two to two-and-a-half times the height of the tree) had not 

been enforced, 

• tree stumps and unfelled trees were present in the fall zone thereby creating a risk of the tree 

deviating from its fall path; and 

• no job safety analysis or risk assessment had been conducted in relation to the task. 




117

SECTION 3 

HANNANPRINT VICTORIA PTY LTD 



Magistrate: 

Plea: 

25 and 26 July 2005 at Melbourne Magistrates’ Court 


Not guilty 

Hannanprint Victoria Pty Ltd (’Hannanprint’) and Eastern Suburbs Newspapers Management (No.2) 

Pty Limited (‘ESN No.2’) conducted a printing works in Noble Park. Hannanprint owned all the plant 

and inventories at the site. ESN No 2 employed the printers and printer assistants at the site. 

One of the work site’s printing presses included a ‘folder’ section which folded and bound printed 

material. The press was normally operated by two qualified printers – a ‘number one’ printer who 

was in charge and an assisting ‘number two’ printer, with three printers’ assistants. When the 

machine was installed, the nominated ‘number one’ printers from each shift were trained in its 

operation, but not the ‘number two’ printers. 

The folder section had an automatic paper feed, a process known as ‘webbing up’ the press. 

However, certain paper types and publications were prone to cause the automatic feed to 

malfunction. If this occurred, a printer or their assistant manually fed paper through the machine’s 

rollers. This would happen on average three times in each eight hour shift. 

The employees developed a procedure where one would feed the paper into the rollers while 

another slowly rotated the paper through the folder by using the ‘inching’ button at the operator’s 

control panel. However, the button operator could not see the position of the other worker’s hands 

inside the machine and communication between the two was difficult because of the noise of the 

machine’s operation. 

On 16 April 2003, one of the ‘number one’ printers was not at work. The press was operated by 

two ‘number two’ printers. An employee was manually feeding paper into the folder while another 

employee printer was ‘inching’ the rollers. The employee‘s right hand middle finger was caught 

between the head perforated roller and the head perforated knife. The employee’s finger was 

severed to the base of the finger nail. 

WorkSafe inspectors attended the workplace and issued improvement notices that required the 

following remedial measures: 

• a new risk assessment be conducted on the press; 

• the folder access doors interlocked so that the inching button could not be operated whilst the 

doors were open; 

• the operators’ manual made more accessible to the operators; 

• a new procedure developed whereby manual feeding occurred with the folder access doors 

closed; and 

• employees to be properly trained in the new procedure. 

After the incident, the companies also developed a new risk control measure for auto feed webbing 

up and staff were trained in the new procedure. 

Breach: Section 22; sections 21(1) & (2)(a); and sections 21(1) & (2)(e) of the Occupational Health and 

Safety Act 1985. Regulations 702(1) and Regulation 705(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety (Plant) 


Result: Committed to stand trial on indictable charges. Summary charges, adjourned sine die. 



ANDREW IRVINE 



Magistrate: 

Plea: 



Not guilty 











mesh. Kane Constructions Pty Ltd issued a ‘Site Notice’ stating that all work for the removal of the 












Breach: Sections 25(1)(a) & (2)(b) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 1985. 



119

SECTION 3 

MAD RECRUITMENT (VIC) PTY LTD 



Magistrate: 

Plea: 

15 and 16 December 2005 at Melbourne Magistrates’ Court 

His Honour Rozencwajg 

Not guilty 

On or about 16 November 2003, MAD Recruitment (Vic) Pty Ltd placed one of its employees at the 

workplace of Patrick Distribution Pty. Ltd. at Laverton North, a Major Hazard Facility. 

On 19 November 2003, the employee was in a forklift when it ran out of water. The employee 

requested a tow from another employee. Whilst under tow, the forklift tipped over and injured the 

MAD Recruitment (Vic) Pty Ltd employee. 

The employee was not the holder of a certificate to operate the forklift and had been using the 

forklift for various duties since the commencement of his employment. 

The defendant failed to: 

• directly approach and interview its employee in order to properly assess his suitability for the 

work placement; 

• attend the workplace in order to assess the hazards, risks and adequately control any risk 

associated with the employee’s work placement, including the risk of him being offered work 

which he was not qualified to perform; 

• send out registration forms, health and safety manual and acknowledgement documents to the 

employee before he commenced his work placement; and 

• ensure that the employee understood that he was only to perform work which he was qualified 

to do. 


Result: Committed to stand trial in the County Court. 



MCDONOUGH CONTRACTING PTY LTD 



Magistrate: 

Plea: 



Not guilty 
































121

SECTION 3 

MONASH CITY COUNCIL (TRADING AS CITY OF MONASH) 



Magistrate: 

Plea: 



Not guilty 





























Breach: Section 22 and section 23 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 1985. 




OUTBACK STAFF PTY LTD 



Magistrate: 

Plea: 

9 March 2005 at Mildura Magistrates’ Court 


Not guilty 

Outback Staff Pty Ltd is a Queensland-based labour hire company. 

On 17 March 2003, an employee was placed by the defendant on a property in northwest Victoria 

working on a potato harvester. 

The system of work involved a tractor driver pulling the potato harvester and the employee on the 

sorting table of the harvester as it harvested the potatoes. Blockages often occurred and on this 

occasion the tractor driver noticed there was a blockage, stopped the tractor and turned off its 

engine which simultaneously turned off the harvester. The employee working at the sorting table at 

the end of the harvester, also noticed the blockage. The employee left the table and walked along 

the harvester to the rollers and lifted the cover over the web and rollers to clear the blockage by 

hand. The tractor driver then started up the harvester again. The employee at the sorting table 

noticed there was still some dirt and grass between the rollers and began kicking it away with his 

foot. The employee’s foot slipped, his boot was caught by the rollers and his leg pulled in to the 

rollers to the top of his thigh. 

The State Emergency Service had to be called to pry the rollers apart to release his leg. The injured 

person spent two weeks in the Royal Adelaide Hospital. 

The defendant did not provide any instructions or manuals to the employee in relation to his 

work placement. 

Breach: Sections 21(1) & (2)(a); sections 21(1) & (2)(b); and sections 21(1) & (2)(e) of the Occupational 


Result: Committed for trial on one charge contrary to section 21(1) & (2)(b) of the Occupational 

Health and Safety Act 1985. Charges one and three discharged. 


123

SECTION 3 

P & O PORTS PTY LTD 



Magistrate: 

Plea: 

20 June 2005 at Melbourne Magistrates’ Court 


Guilty to charge one and plea reserved on other five charges 

P & O Ports Pty Ltd is a stevedoring company which controls a number of docks in Melbourne and 

nation wide. 

On 23 June 2003 at Appleton Dock Road, Footscray, employees of the defendant were unloading 

the M.V. Kiribati Chief. Employees were working next to the unguarded hold of the ship without fall 

arrest harnesses, resulting in a falling hazard. Also, at least one employee was working on a ledge 

approximately 30 to 40 cm wide with containers stacked behind him, creating a crushing risk. 

An employee died as a result of severe head injuries he sustained when a container struck him and 

he fell approximately 8.2m into the ships hold. 

The defendant’s OHS policies were not adequately supervised or enforced. A tool box meeting 

was not held prior to starting the job and it was common for this not to occur. The defendant’s 

supervisor did not require the ship’s crew to erect guard rails around the hold. Tag lines were not 

used to assist the unloading process. Fall arrest harnesses were not used. 

The defendant’s OHS policies identified both the falling and crushing risk. Prior to the incident 

employees raised these risks with the defendant but the defendant did not take steps to eliminate 

the risks. 

Breach: Sections 21(1) & (2)(a) (four charges) and sections 21(1) & (2)(e) (two charges) of the 





PAPER AUSTRALIA PTY LTD 



Magistrate: 

Plea: 

18 to 22 July 2005 at Moe Magistrates’ Court 


Not guilty 

On 19 December 2003 at the Paper Australia Pty Ltd Maryvale Mill at Morwell, an employee winder 

assistant was working at the mill on a machine known as ‘paper machine number five’. 

The employee was standing on a raised kick plate which was to the side of an operator platform. 

The platform was beside the winder section of the machine. The platform had a pressure plate 

under it, which when a person was standing on the platform, prevented the table on the machine 

moving. From time-to-time, the tail end sheet of the paper would ‘kick out’ and fall down 

underneath the paper reel of the machine. 

In order to avoid this happening, employees devised strategies to hold the paper up in place. One 

method was to use a broom handle with sticky tape on it and another was to hold the paper up with 

a long piece of PVC piping. 

On this day the employee leant across to the reel of paper to hold onto the sheet with his hand. 

The employee stood on the kick plate to reach out to hold the paper and as a consequence, the 

pressure plate was not activated and the table carrying the paper reel continued its downward 

motion, catching and severing the corner of the employee’s right boot between the table and the 

platform. The employee’s boot became trapped between the operator’s platform and a lowering 

table at the wind section of the machine. The employee’s big toe on his right foot was amputated. 

‘Paper machine number five’ was commissioned in July 1998, by its German manufacturer. At 

the time of commissioning, two of the manufacturer’s engineers conducted training sessions for 

employees. A number of employees found this training unsatisfactory because they had difficulty 

understanding the engineers’ broken English. 

A risk assessment and hazard identification was not performed in relation to the particular 

machine. Over time, certain written safety procedures were developed by the employees. These 

procedures did not, however, address the risks associated with an employee avoiding the operation 

of the pressure plate by standing on the adjacent kick plate. 

Breach: Sections 21(1) & (2)(a); sections 21(1) & (2)(b); and sections 21(1) & (2)(e) of the Occupational 

Health and Safety Act 1985. Regulation 704(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety (Plant) 


Result: Committed to stand trial in County Court 


125

SECTION 3 

RABOT PAVING (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD 



Magistrate: 

Plea: 



Not guilty 





























Breach: Section 22; section 23; sections 21(1) & (2)(a); and sections 21(1) & (2)(e) of the Occupational 





ROADS CORPORATION (TRADING AS VICROADS) 

Date of alleged offence: 21 May 2002 


Magistrate: 

Plea: 

14 June 2005 at Geelong Magistrates’ Court 


Not guilty 

On 21 May 2001, a vehicle conveying a male and female was travelling in an easterly direction along 

Pound Road, Colac. As the vehicle entered an intersection, their vehicle collided with a truck that 

was travelling south along the Colac-Lavers Hill Road. The collision resulted in the deaths of both 

occupants of the vehicle. 

At the time of the collision the intersection of Pound Road and the Colac Lavers Hill Road was 

undergoing roadwork alterations. This work was being conducted by CosWorks (Colac Otway Shire) 

together with Vic Roads. This intersection along with another intersection was being altered as 

part of a ‘black spot program’ - a federal funding initiative set up to provide funding for rectification 

works on dangerous roadways. VicRoads successfully applied for funding to alter the Pound 

Road and Colac–Lavers Hill Road intersection. VicRoads, having assessed the intersection, had 

recommended the insertion of splitter islands in Pound Road. 

While works were being conducted at this intersection the existing ‘give way’ sign that was 

applicable to traffic travelling east in Pound Road and approaching the intersection with Colac- 

Lavers Hill Road was removed. 

The exposure to risks to health or safety arising from the conduct of each defendant’s undertaking 

was the failure to ensure that traffic control signals were appropriately in place. 

While main roads are normally the responsibility of the relevant municipal authority, VicRoads 

assumed responsibility for the main roads in the Colac Otway Shire in 1995, at the Shire’s request. 


Result: Discharged at committal. 


127

SECTION 3 

VICTORIA EXPRESS PTY LTD 



Magistrate: 

Plea: 


His Honour Magistrate Braun 

Not guilty 

Victoria Express Pty Ltd was provided with the services of a student on a part-time basis by 

another company. 

On 26 February 2003, the employee was attempting to clear a conveyor belt. The employee’s foot 

was on a side plate when it was pushed into the gap between the end of the rubber belt conveyor 

and the start of the steel roller conveyor by a group of parcels which he had just freed. 

The point where the rubber conveyor belt joined the steel roller conveyor was not fitted with a 

pop out roller as required by Australian Standard: Conveyors-Safety Requirements 2000 

(AS 1755-2000). 

The employee was not provided with any training or instructions regarding the safe use of 

conveyors and the clearing of blockages on conveyors. Nor was the employee given a safety 

induction or any safety manuals by Victoria Express Pty Ltd. 

The employee sustained friction burns to his foot and had to undergo two operations for skin grafts. 

Breach: Sections 21(1) & (2)(a); sections 21(1) & (2)(e) (two charges); and section 22 of the 





YARRA VALLEY WATER LTD 



Magistrate: 

Plea: 



Guilty 


in Bundoora. 




that were so far as was practicable safe and without risks to health, by not conducting hydrostatic 





and instructed him on how to set up the end cap on the pipe and how to set up the bracing ready 

for testing. Michael Doherty checked the packing and confirmed it was ok for testing on the day 

of the incident. 




129

130 


SECTION 4: 

HEALTH AND SAFETY APPEALS

SECTION 4 

A.B. OXFORD COLD STORAGE PTY LTD 


Date of appeal: 

Justices: 

Plea: 

20 April 2005 (appeal hearing) and 11 May 2005 (judgement delivered) at 

Supreme Court of Victoria, Court of Appeal, Civil Division 

The Honourable Mr Justice Callaway, The Honourable Justice Nettle, JJ.A 

and The Honourable Justice Byrne, A.J.A. 

No plea 

On 9 December 2002, A.B. Oxford Cold Storage Pty Ltd was convicted and fined $50,000 for 

offences involving employees who were overcome by the carbon monoxide fumes emitted by a 

forklift in the freezer in which the employees were working. The employees were not provided with 

first aid facilities, treatment or the offer of transport home. 

On 2 December 2003 in the Supreme Court of Victoria, His Honour Justice Kellam dismissed 

an appeal lodged by A.B. Oxford Cold Storage Pty Ltd. His Honour ruled that the VWA’s power 

to prosecute was valid and that the term ‘facilities’ as it applied to sections 21(1) & (2)(d) of the 

Occupational Health and Safety Act 1985 ought to be interpreted broadly to include the provision of 

medical services to injured employees and/or the provision of medical or first aid assistance to 

assess their condition. 

On 11 May 2005, the Supreme Court, Court of Appeal delivered its judgement and dismissed the 

appeal by A.B. Oxford Cold Storage Pty Ltd against conviction from the orders made by His Honour 

Justice Kellam. 

Breach: Sections 21(1) & (2)(a); sections 21(1) & (2)(c); sections 21(1) & (2)(d); and sections 21(1) & 

(2)(e) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 1985. 

Result: Appeal dismissed. 


HEALTH AND SAFETY APPEALS 

ACR ROOFING PTY LTD 



Justices: 

Plea: 

11 March 2005 at High Court of Australia 

The Honourable Justice McHugh and The Honourable Justice Haynes 

Not guilty 

On 11 March 2005, the High Court of Australia dismissed an application made by ACR Roofing 

Pty Ltd, seeking special leave to review the decision of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court 

of Victoria delivered on 1 December 2004. The High Court of Australia was not persuaded that it 

was reasonably arguable that the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria was wrong to 

conclude that there had been no substantial miscarriage of justice in this case. 

On 1 December 2004, the Supreme Court, Court of Criminal Appeal dismissed an appeal made by 

ACR Roofing Pty Ltd (ACR) against its conviction and fine of $60,000 after a trial at the County Court 

in relation to a breach of sections 21(1) & (2)(a) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 1985. The 

case involved an employee who died at a Port Melbourne building site on 29 October 1999. 

The Court of Appeal heard that in October 1999, ACR was to erect and install a roof, including 

the installation of roof safety mesh. After the roof beams and purlins were installed and some, 

but not all, of the safety mesh was secured in place, ACR contracted another company, Associated 

Rigging Pty Ltd, to lift and install packs of steel roof sheets onto the purlins. ACR was then to install 

the sheets. 

Shortly before 29 October 1999, Associated Rigging Pty Ltd contracted James Cranes Pty Ltd to 

provide a crane, crane driver and dogman to carry out the work. When the lift was under way, the 

dogman who handled a pack of roof sheets suspended from the crane was fatally electrocuted and 

fell to the concrete floor from a height of about seven metres. 

James Cranes Pty Ltd and the crane driver were acquitted of alleged breaches of the Occupational 

Health and Safety Act 1985 after a County Court trial in February 2004. 

The Court of Appeal ruled that there was no substantial miscarriage of justice. It determined that 

although James Cranes Pty Ltd did not have a contractual relationship with ACR, ACR nevertheless 

had a duty to provide and maintain a safe working environment over matters which it had control, 

not only to its direct employees but also to the employees of James Cranes Pty Ltd. 

The Court of Appeal stated that ACR had control over the erection of safety mesh and failed to do 

what was practicable to ensure that the safety mesh was installed before the work commenced or 

else did what practicable to ensure the use of fall restraints. 

The principal contractor/employer was aware both of fact that the independent contractor was 

engaged in substitution for Associate Rigging and of the identity of the contractor. 


Result: Application for special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia dismissed. 


133

SECTION 4 

MENG DEVELOPMENTS PTY LTD 

Date of offence: Between 28 November 2000 and 26 June 2001 


Justice: 

Plea: 

1 December 2005 at the Court of Criminal Appeal 

The Honourable Justice Williams 

No plea 

Meng Developments Pty Ltd lodged an application for judicial review of the decision from His 

Honour Judge Dyett. On 11 November 2004, His Honour dismissed Meng Developments Pty Ltd’s 

appeal against the sentencing order of His Honour Magistrate Walter made on 27 April 2004 at 

Ringwood Magistrates’ Court when His Honour convicted and fined Meng Developments Pty Ltd an 

aggregate sum of $12,000. 

On 28 November 2000, a WorkSafe inspector attended a multi-residential unit construction site in 

Lilydale. The inspector established the site was under the control of Peter Schierholter (a director 

of Meng Developments Pty Ltd). The inspector observed an electrical extension lead being run from 

a neighbouring dwelling across the ground onto the construction site. The inspector also observed 

that there were no site sheds, toilets and no provision for drinking water at the site. 

On 23 January 2001, a WorkSafe inspector observed that the electrical extension cords and power 

tools were not tagged to demonstrate they had been tested pursuant to the relevant Code of 

Practice, and a temporary electrical switchboard used to power the site did not comply with the 

Code of Practice. 

On 23 February 2001, two WorkSafe inspectors attended the site in response to a complaint of 

unsafe work at height and other safety issues. Further breaches regularly occurred in relation to 

various prohibition notices not being remedied. 

On 26 June 2001, Schierholter told a WorkSafe inspector that he was banned from the site, at which 

point Schierholter was informed it was an offence to obstruct a WorkSafe inspector. 

Breach: Sections 21(1) & (2)(a) (four charges) and sections 21(1) & (2)(d) (two charges) of the 


Result: The application was refused. 



QANTAS AIRWAYS LIMITED 



Judge: 

Plea: 

18 August 2005 at Melbourne County Court 

His Honour Judge Shelton 

No plea 

The Director of Public Prosecutions lodged an appeal against the sentence handed down by 

His Honour Magistrate McIndoe on 18 May 2005 when His Honour convicted and fined the 

company $5,000. 

On 25 October 2003, three Qantas Airways Ltd employees were unloading containers that would 

not completely roll onto the low profile trailer. A structural pallet was used to push them into place 

then withdrawn. One employee leant in between the containers to activate a locking device on the 

trailer. At this point, one of the containers rolled back and trapped the employee’s upper body. 

The employee sustained head injuries. 

The defendant had no safe work procedure in place for the transfer of containers onto low profile 

trailers. Employees were permitted to transfer containers between trailers without a clear line 

of vision. The defendant failed to implement risk control measures identified in its draft risk 

assessment undertaken on 14 April 2003 on rolling stock, which identified crushing between 

containers as a hazard. 

Immediately after the incident, the defendant introduced a safe work procedure to govern the 

transfer of containers between different types of trailers. The defendant also modified the controls 

on pallet loaders, so that the movement of containers was done from a control panel on the rear 

side of the extension trailer. 

A WorkSafe inspector issued two improvement notices which were both complied with in the 

required timeframe. 




135

SECTION 4 

PETER SCHIERHOLTER 

Date of offence: Between 28 November 2000 and 26 June 2001 


Justice: 

Plea: 

1 December 2005 at the Court of Criminal Appeal 

The Honourable Justice Williams 

Application for judicial review of the decision of County Court 

Judge Dyett on 11 November 2004 

Peter Schierholter lodged an application for judicial review of the decision from His Honour 

Judge Dyett. On 11 November 2004, His Honour dismissed Peter Schierholter’s appeal against 

the sentencing order of His Honour Magistrate Walter made on 27 April 2004 when His Honour 

convicted and fined Peter Schierholter an aggregate of $6,000. 

On 28 November 2000, a WorkSafe inspector attended a multi-residential unit construction site in 

Lilydale. The inspector established the site was under the control of Peter Schierholter (a director 

of Meng Developments Pty Ltd). The inspector observed an electrical extension lead being run from 

a neighbouring dwelling across the ground onto the construction site. The inspector also observed 

that there were no site sheds, toilets and no provision for drinking water at the site. 

On 23 January 2001, a WorkSafe inspector observed that the electrical extension cords and power 

tools were not tagged to demonstrate they had been tested pursuant to the relevant Code of 

Practice, and a temporary electrical switchboard used to power the site did not comply with the 

Code of Practice. 

On 23 February 2001, two WorkSafe inspectors attended the site in response to a complaint of 

unsafe work at height and other safety issues. Further breaches regularly occurred in relation to 

various prohibition notices not being remedied. 

On 26 June 2001, Mr Schierholter told a WorkSafe inspector that he was banned from the site, at 

which point Mr Schierholter was informed it was an offence to obstruct a WorkSafe inspector. 

Breach: Section 42(1); section 43(3) (four charges); and section 44(3) (three charges) of the 


Result: The application was refused. 




137

138 


APPENDIX: 

SUMMARY OF LEGISLATION

SUMMARY OF LEGISLATION 

The information in this appendix is a summary and not a full and precise statement of the law or legal 

advice. Copies of Acts and Regulations are available from Information Victoria, 356 Collins Street, 

Melbourne 3000, or by calling (toll-free) on 1300 366 356. 

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY ACT 1985 

Section 21(1) states an employer’s general duty to employees – to ‘provide and maintain, so far as is 

practicable, for employees a working environment that is safe and without risks to health’. 

Section 21(2) contains five paragraphs that elaborate on that general duty. So (subject to practicability), 

employers are in breach of section 21(1) if they fail: 

(a) to provide and maintain safe plant (e.g. equipment or machinery) and systems of work; 

(b) to make arrangements to ensure the safe use, handling, storage and transport of plant and 

substances (e.g. chemicals or components); 

(c) to maintain in a safe condition any workplace under their control and management; 

(d) to provide adequate facilities for the welfare of employees at any such workplace; and/or 

(e) to provide the information, instruction, training and supervision necessary to enable employees to 

perform their work in a safe manner. 

Section 22 requires employers and self-employed persons to ensure, so far as is practicable, that 

people other than their employees (e.g. members of the public) are not exposed to health or safety risks 

arising from the conduct of their undertaking (i.e. the activities of their business). 

Section 23 requires an occupier of a workplace to take such measures as are practicable to ensure that 

the workplace and access to and egress from the workplace are safe and without risks to health. 

Section 25(1)(a) requires an employee to take care for the health and safety of himself or herself and 

anyone else affected by his or her acts or omissions in the workplace. 

Section 25(2)(b) provides that employees must cooperate with their employers. 

Section 42(1)(a) makes it an offence to refuse access to a workplace to an inspector or a person 

assisting an inspector. 

Section 42(1)(f) makes it an offence to hinder, impede or oppose an inspector who is exercising his or 

her powers under the Act. 

Section 43(3) creates an offence of not complying with an improvement notice. Such notices require the 

persons to whom they are issued to remedy specified breaches by specified dates. 

Section 44(3) creates an offence of not complying with a prohibition notice. Such notices are issued in 

circumstances of immediate risk to the health and safety of any person. 

Section 52(1) states that where an offence is committed by a body corporate with the consent or 

connivance of, or wilful neglect by, an officer of the body corporate, that officer is also guilty of the same 

offence. 

DANGEROUS GOODS ACT 1985 

Section 23(2) a person contravened/failed to comply with a condition, limitation or restriction inserted in 

a licence issued by the VWA. 

Section 30(1) an occupier of premises licensed to store dangerous goods failed to keep a manifest (list) 

in a prominent location. 

Section 31(2) a person failed to take precautions around licensed premises. 

Section 54(5) a person who without the VWA’s approval, imported into Victoria, manufactured, sold, 

transported, stored, used or otherwise dealt with an unauthorised explosive. 


APPENDIX 

ACCIDENT COMPENSATION ACT 1985 

Section 242(1) creates the offence of failing to comply with section 122 of the Act. Under section 122 an 

employer is obliged to provide suitable employment to an injured worker, once that worker has a current 

work capacity, or to provide an injured worker with the worker’s pre-injury employment once the worker 

no longer has any incapacity. 

(NB Section 122 of the Act was repealed in 2005 and replaced by section 155A and 155B) 

Section 242(3)(a) makes it an offence for an employer to refuse to receive a claim for compensation. 

Section 242(3)(b)(i) makes it an offence for an employer to dismiss a worker because the worker has 

given notice of injury. 

Section 242(3)(b)(ii) makes it an offence for an employer to dismiss a worker because the worker has 

taken steps to pursue a claim for compensation. 

Section 242(3)(b)(iii) makes it an offence for an employer to dismiss a worker because the worker has 

given or attempted to give the employer, self-insurer or the Authority a claim for compensation. 

Section 242(4)(b) creates the offence of failing to comply with section 108 of the Act. Under section 108, 

an employer must forward to the VWA any claim for medical and like expenses or any claim for weekly 

payments that is likely to exceed the employer’s excess within 10 days of receiving it. 

Section 242(4)(c) makes it an offence for an employer to fail to pay a weekly payment to a worker before 

the expiry of seven days after the end of the week in which the worker was entitled to be paid or intervals 

at which the worker would ordinarily be paid (see section 114D(6)). 

Section 242(6) creates the offence of an employer failing to comply with a provision of Part VI of the 

Act. Part VI contains obligations relating to risk management programs, occupational rehabilitation 

programs and return to work plans. 

Section 248(1) makes it an offence to fraudulently obtain or attempt to obtain any payment under this 

Act or the Accident Compensation (WorkCover Insurance) Act 1993. 

Section 248(2) makes it an offence to fraudulently obtain or attempt to obtain any payment under this 

Act or the Accident Compensation (WorkCover Insurance) Act 1993 or to knowingly assist a person to 

fraudulently obtain any such payment. 

Section 249(1) makes it an offence to provide false or misleading information under this Act or the 

Accident Compensation (WorkCover Insurance) Act 1993. 

ACCIDENT COMPENSATION (WORKCOVER INSURANCE) ACT 1993 

Section 23(3) makes it an offence for an employer not to comply with a notice received under section 

23(1) or (2) orto provide an incorrect statement. 

Section 69(1) makes it an offence for an employer who is required to have a WorkCover insurance policy 

to fail to keep proper books and preserve those books for a period of 5 years. 

CRIMES ACT 1958 

Section 81(1) makes it an offence for a person by deception to dishonestly obtain property belonging to 

another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it. 

Section 82(1) makes it an offence for a person by deception to dishonestly obtain any financial advantage 

for himself or herself, or for another. 

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY (ASBESTOS) REGULATIONS 1992 (REPEALED) 

Regulation 710 makes it an offence not to prepare a control plan prior to commencing removal work. 

DANGEROUS GOODS (EXPLOSIVE) REGULATIONS 2000 

Regulation 803 (1) makes it an offence for a manufacturer to sell prohibited fireworks. 


141

142 


WORKSAFE VICTORIA 

ADVISORY SERVICE 

222 Exhibition Street 

Melbourne Victoria 3000 

Phone ...............................03 9641 1444 

Toll-free............................1800 136 089 

Email ............ info@workcover.vic.gov.au 

HEAD OFFICE 

222 Exhibition Street 

Melbourne Victoria 3000 

GPO Box 4306 

Melbourne VIC 3001 

Phone .............................. 03 9641 1555 

Toll-free........................... 1800 136 089 

Website ......... www.workcover.vic.gov.au 

LOCAL OFFICES 

Ballarat ............................03 5338 4444 

Bendigo ............................03 5443 8866 

Dandenong ...................... 03 8792 9000 

Geelong ........................... 03 5226 1200 

Melbourne 

(628 Bourke Street) ......... 03 9941 0558 

Mildura .............................03 5021 4001 

Mulgrave ..........................03 9565 9444 

Preston .............................03 9485 4555 

Shepparton.......................03 5831 8260 

Traralgon ......................... 03 5174 8900 

Wangaratta .......................03 5721 8588 

Warrnambool ...................03 5564 3200 

WorkSafe Victoria is a division of the Victorian WorkCover Authority. 

VWA977/01/10.05

Prosecutions 2005 (PDF 3269kb) - WorkSafe Victoria

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?