Work Safety Commitment Reduces Court Penalty

PERTH, Australia - Sept. 20, 2016 - PRLog -- Work Safety Commitment Reduces Court Penalty

In response to a guilty verdict of non-compliance to Occupational Health and Safety laws, judges usually apply financial penalties to companies and individuals.  These penalties are intended to deter the offenders from re-offending and also to set an example to others.

The following Case Study shows however, that the court will consider proof that the guilty party has a valid Safety Management System, as mitigation towards the penalty which it decides on and hence a clean safety record can result in a reduced penalty.

In Dec 2012, JSN Hanna was the principle contractor for the development of residential units. Mr Silva, who was 17 years old at the time, was employed as a labourer by a sub-contractor and had only been working for 3 months

Mr Silva was standing on scaffolding in a lift shaft. An underfoot piece of timber gave way and he fell down a height of 12m, sustaining serious injuries. The gap through which he fell, was between a crane tower in the lift shaft and the scaffold. Hand rails had been erected around the lift shaft, but on the day of the accident, had been removed to allow access to the scaffolding.

There was a Safe Work Method Statement (SWMS) in place and  Mr Silva had received induction training and attended tool box talks (attendance undocumented) and was placed with a more experienced worker to instruct him. JSN Hanna conducted daily safety walks and weekly documented site inspections. The offender had in place a WHS Project Safety Plan (PSP) and copies of the site rules were displayed on site.

Following the incident the offender took a number of steps:

·      Dismissing the subcontractor

·      Installing additional scaffolding

·      Commissioning a safety risk audit

·      Arranging additional training

·      Conducting spot checks

·      Tool box talks were documented and new workers were required to demonstrate their understanding of the topics covered

·      Making WHS compliance a fundamental condition of the contract with sub-contractors

·      Employing a full-time Site Safety Co-Ordinator and Compliance Officer

·      Reviewing WHS systems and practices

The judge noted that the penalty must provide for general deterrence. Employers must take the obligations imposed by the Act very seriously.

Mitigating factors taken into consideration:

The Offender

·      Had no prior convictions

·      Is a good corporate citizen.

·      Has a reputation as a safe and responsible entity

·      Is unlikely to re-offend.

·      Expressed remorse

·      Entered a plea of guilty

·      Co-operated with the investigation

JSN Hanna was convicted and fined $87,500 and ordered to pay the prosecutor's costs of $70,000. The maximum penalty for this offence is a fine of $1.5 million.

The above case study indicates that Employers should:

·      Ensure that new staff are adequately trained and supervised.

·      Conduct regular risk assessments and provide workers with adequate training, instruction and supervision.

·      Cooperation with workplace safety authorities, including an early plea, may reduce the penalty imposed.

·      Positive steps taken to improve OHS standards in the workplace, may mitigate penalties.

·      Maintaining up-to-date OHS policies is highlighted.

References:

https://jade.io/article/483123?at.hl=NSWDC+117

http://www.allens.com.au/pubs/wr/foohsnov09.htm

http://www.employmentlawworldview.com/how-a-legal-compliance-audit-reduced-osh-penalties/