On 16 May 2022, an operations manager of a steel plate profiling business was sentenced in the Southport Magistrates Court for breaching section 32 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (‘the Act’), having failed to comply with his health and safety duty under section 28 of the Act. The defendant was fined $10,000.

The premises of the steel plate profiling business (‘the business’) included a shed which contained three overhead bridge cranes. The cranes were supported by two runway beams that ran the length of the shed along the north and south walls. The cranes were used to lift and manoeuvre steel plate around the workplace.

On 28 June 2019, a worker was using the west crane to move a large steel plate. While he was doing so, the 3 bolts that attached the north runway’s support bracket to the western wall failed. As a result, a 6.52m section of the runway fell approximately 6.2m to the floor, along with the west crane that it was supporting. The worker was hit by falling debris and sustained fractures, a deep laceration and significant bruising.

The business routinely engaged a contractor to undertake servicing and repair of the cranes. The contractor had recommended in service reports dated 27 February 2017 and 25 September 2017 that all bolts in the runway system be checked. The contractor did not, however, bring these recommendations to the attention of the defendant as being of particular priority or urgency.

On 22 March 2019, the business requested that the contractor install a support column beneath the south runway at the western end (opposite to the runway that ultimately failed), in response to workers observing movement in that part of the runway. The contractor subsequently attended the premises and completed this installation.

In sentencing, Magistrate Pink accepted that general deterrence loomed large, however regarded specific deterrence to be of less relevance. Her Honour also considered community denunciation a relevant sentencing factor.

Her Honour remarked that the defendant had been made aware of the risks present with the runway and noted that these risks could have been readily addressed by the defendant obtaining the inspection history of the runways and arranging that they be inspected.

In mitigation, her Honour accepted the timely guilty plea of the defendant and took into account his lack of prior offending. Having taken into account character references of the defendant, her Honour was satisfied that he had demonstrated remorse and cooperated with the administration of justice.

Her Honour found that the defendant had contributed to the breach as opposed to being primarily responsible for it and took this into account in determining an appropriate penalty.

Her Honour fined the defendant $10,000 and exercised her discretion in not recording a conviction due to the defendant’s early guilty plea and lack of prior convictions.

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