On 19 February 2024, a waste resource recycling and transfer company was sentenced in the Brisbane Magistrates Court for breaching section 32 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (‘the Act’), having failed to comply with its primary health and safety duty.

The defendant operated and controlled a Hammel Shredder VB 950-DK (‘the shredder’) at the workplace. The shredder was used by workers to process or shred the waste material. A worker would load waste material into the hopper of the shredder by an excavator or loader and the material would be drawn into the shredder housing by the rotating shafts and torn into smaller pieces by the teeth passing between the combs. The processed waste material would then fall onto an internal horizontal conveyor that transported it through the discharge chute and out of the shredder onto the discharge conveyor. When exiting the shredder, the shredded waste material passed underneath a magnetic conveyor where the ferrous material (steel) was removed, and the remainder transported along the conveyor and dropped onto the ground.

Both the magnetic and discharge conveyors were fitted with hydraulic cylinders for height adjustments. The magnetic conveyor on the shredder weighed approximately 3 tonnes. The height of the conveyors could be adjusted by the control panel on the shredder and via wireless remote-control (‘remote’). The remote was fitted with a shoulder strap and included three toggle switches in a row along the top including one for adjusting the height of the magnetic conveyor. There was also a red stop button in the centre.

On 22 January 2021, a worker on the nightshift was crushed by the shredder. The worker was tasked with another worker to clear a large pile of waste on the floor of the shed, by processing it through the shredder. There was no supervisor on the nightshift. At the time this work was being completed, the shredder was in poor mechanical state. Most of its “teeth” were non-operational and due to be replaced. The lack of teeth impacted the ability to shred the material and as a result material became stuck within the shredder, causing blockages. Workers operating the shredder were required to clear the blockage if possible. To clear a blockage within the shredder, a worker would be required to go underneath the overhead magnetic conveyor and reach into the internal part of the shredder via the discharge chute to manually, or by hand, to remove waste material stuck. The defendant had no documented process or written instruction to workers as to how a blockage was to be cleared.

The shredder was subject to repeated blockages over the course of the nightshift, which the deceased unblocked to continue the assigned task. He would resolve these blockages by going underneath the magnetic conveyor of the shredder.

At approximately 1:30am, the shredder again became blocked. The deceased put the shredder into manual mode, and with the remote slung around his neck leaned into the internal area of the shredder, underneath the overhead magnetic conveyor. The remote toggle switch for the conveyor activated, this caused the magnetic conveyor to lower onto him crushing him against the body of the shredder. The deceased was found in this position sometime after 2:00am.

The deceased was found by a worker from a different area of the workplace, who contacted emergency services and the appropriate people within management of the defendant company. The other rostered worker in the shed that night had already left the workplace by this time, having become frustrated with the repeated blockages of the shredder.

The subsequent investigation revealed that:

• the defendant had not conducted a risk assessment of the shredder;
• there was no training or procedures specific to clearing blockages;
• the only safety measure was an undocumented procedure to “lockout and tagout” the shredder before working on it. The deceased did not adhere to this at the time. There were no secondary safety measures; and
• the Hammel Operator Manual contained an error that the magnetic conveyor was not operational if the shredder was in manual mode, this error was only discovered upon the fatality.

Post incident the following modifications were made to the shredder:

• magnetic conveyor was removed;
• steel braces were installed to the discharge conveyor;
• new ribbed belt was installed on the discharge conveyor;
• a hinged shroud was placed over the toggle switches on the remote; and
• some repairs were made to the shafts and side combs inside the shredder.

In sentencing, Magistrate Power considered in mitigation, that the defendant had no prior convictions, had entered a plea of guilty, that it formalised procedures at the workplace and made modifications to the shredder post-incident recognising that what was in place at the time was ‘rudimentary’. However, her Honour also commented that the latter matters of mitigation were a ‘double-edged sword’. Her Honour also noted that the defendant expressed remorse for the outcome of their failings, as exhibited by the defendant giving $10,000 to the deceased’s family, and initially paying the funeral costs (though the defendant was subsequently reimbursed by WorkCover). Her Honour read into the record the four Victim Impact Statements provided by the deceased’s partner, their two daughters, and his brother, concluding that their lives are forever altered by an incident that could have been prevented.

In all the circumstances, her Honour convicted the defendant and ordered a fine of $140,000 and exercised her discretion to not record a conviction.

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