On 2 August 2024, the Defendant company was sentenced in the Ipswich Magistrates Court after pleading guilty to a single breach of section 32 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (Qld) (‘the Act’) for having failed to comply with their health and safety duty pursuant to section 19(1) of the Act.

The Defendant operated a business which included the design and manufacture of custom timber doors and windows. The Defendant employed 69 workers at five locations, including at a workplace on Brisbane Road, Bundamba.

One of the pieces of plant used in the manufacturing process was known as a ‘GB moulder’ which was used to profile the timber for timber windows and door beading. It trims the timber using multiple cutting heads, with each cutting head responsible for trimming a different profile on the strip of timber that is fed into it.

The GB moulder’s interlock switches were not functioning correctly, and it could not be operated with the guard lowered because of an additional in‐feed guide fitted by the Defendant.

In December 2021 the Defendant employed a worker to work as a docking saw operator. Between December 2021 and March 2022, the worker carried out work using docking and ripping saws, which he had been trained to use by other workers, but he had not used the GB moulder.

On Friday 4 March 2022, the Mill Supervisor directed the worker to use the GB moulder as there was not enough saw work to be done. The Mill Supervisor set up the GB moulder for the worker and showed him how to operate the plant. The worker was not shown the Safe Work Method Statement for the GB moulder, nor was he provided with any further induction or training in its use.

The worker operated the GB moulder for the remainder of the Friday without incident and upon his return to work the following Tuesday, he continued working with the GB moulder which was still set up from the week before.

After about an hour, the worker experienced a problem with a piece of timber, and he called the Mill Supervisor over to assist. The Mill Supervisor remedied the issue and, before leaving, told the worker to call him for assistance if any further issues arose.

Shortly afterwards, the worker heard a crunching noise coming from the first cutter and observed a small piece of timber near the cutting head. With the machine still operating, the worker reached over towards the piece of timber with his right hand which has caused his index finger to come into contact with the rotating cutting head. The worker sustained a grossly comminuted compound fracture at the head of his proximal phalanx index finger and base of the middle phalanx, resulting in the amputation of his right index finger and skin grafts to his hand.

The Defendant entered a plea of guilty and was sentenced by Magistrate Sturgess.

In arriving at her sentence, her Honour had regard to the sentencing principles, the circumstances of the offending and the seriousness of the injury suffered by the worker. General deterrence was held as being of particular importance to ensure that other businesses are encouraged or incentivised to comply with their health and safety duties. Her Honour also considered the maximum penalty for the offence and noted that the substantial fine signalled the intention of parliament that these matters should receive very significant financial penalties.

Her Honour took into account that the Defendant had entered an early plea of guilty, cooperated with the investigation and had no previous convictions. It was accepted that the Defendant had supported the worker until they resigned, were otherwise a good corporate citizen and had taken steps post incident to rectify the risk.

Whilst her Honour noted that it was positive that the Defendant acted immediately to rectify the issue, it was observed that this also indicated the ease with which the incident might have been avoided and the low cost associated with taking those steps.

Her Honour had regard to a number of comparative sentences for similar matters where the fines imposed ranged from $50,000 to $160,000. Her Honour observed that, but for being provided with those cases, she would have considered that a penalty in the range of 10% of the maximum penalty, being $150,000, would have been appropriate to reflect an early plea of guilty and the maximum factors in mitigation.

However, her Honour also had regard to the principle that like offenders should be treated in a like manner and notwithstanding her view that the starting point should have been much higher, she was unwilling to impose a fine which departed from the range provided by the comparative decisions.

Her Honour fined the defendant $80,000. No conviction was recorded.

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