On 1 December 2023, a company involved in the oilseed and grain industry and its director were sentenced in the Oakey Magistrates Court. Each defendant was sentenced in relation to a breach of section 332of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (‘the Act’). The company failed to comply with its primary health and safety duty pursuant to section 19(1) of the Act and was fined $50,000. The director failed to comply with his duty pursuant to section 27 of the Act and was fined $10,000.

Part of the business conducted by the defendant company involved transporting grain from storage to feedlots. On the afternoon of 5 July 2021, the injured worker collected three trailer loads of grain which needed to be transported to a feedlot. Prior to the trailers being collected, the grain within had been fumigated inside the trailers using QuickPhos fumigation tablets. These tablets react to moisture to produce phosphine gas.

The tablets were placed into a plastic tub and water was added to them, contrary to manufacturer’s instructions, which caused a faster, more intense chemical reaction, producing more gas. The plastic tubs had not been removed from the trailers prior to the injured worker transporting them to the feedlot.

The injured worker arrived at the feedlot after it had closed for the day. He parked nearby to wait until the next morning. In preparation for the delivery, he removed the plastic tubs which had been used to hold the tablets from the trailers and placed them in the ‘dogbox’ underneath the cabin of the vehicle. The plastic tubs contained a powder residue.

The injured worker slept in the cabin of the truck that night. He awoke the next morning and was feeling unwell. Later that morning he began feeling worse and an ambulance was called. He was transported to hospital where he remained overnight. He had become ill due to exposure to high concentrations of phosphine gas released from the plastic tubs containing residue powder, which he had placed in the dogbox.

The defendants failed to comply with their respective duties. Measures which should have been implemented include:

• Ensuring that workers used and stored QuickPhos tablets in a way which was consistent with the manufacturer’s instructions and restraints;
• Ensuring that personal protective equipment including safety shoes, overalls, gloves, chemical goggles and respirators is available for use, and workers used that equipment when handling QuickPhos;
• Using signage or other means to indicate and/or warn workers that QuickPhos tablets were in use;
• Ensuring trailers were checked for fumigation materials or chemicals before being transported; and
• Providing training and instruction to workers in the use and handling of QuickPhos tablets.

In sentencing, Magistrate Cornack took into account the early pleas of guilty by both defendants.

Her Honour was guided by the sentencing principles as contained within the prosecution’s written outline of submissions, noting that such principles were well established.

Her Honour indicated that cases such as these call for a deterrent penalty to ensure that those who employ workers meet their duties and obligations.

Her Honour noted that the defendant company had been in business for many years, did not have any prior convictions, was well respected, and supported charities and the community.

Her Honour imposed fines of $50,000 in relation to the defendant company, and $10,000 in relation to the director. Her Honour exercised her discretion to not record a conviction.

OWHSP contact: enquiries@owhsp.qld.gov.au