A residential housing construction business has been fined as a result of a workplace incident where a young school-based apprentice was injured when a scaffold component dislodged and fell, striking them in the head.  The company carried out housing construction at various workplaces in Queensland and at the time of this incident it was constructing a two-storey residence at Parrearra, a locale in the Sunshine Coast region. It employed a number of workers including a site supervisor who was responsible for the Parrearra site along with several other construction sites.

The site supervisor was responsible for planning and coordinating various trades which had been contracted to carry out various aspects of the housing construction. His duties extended to carrying out inspection of the scaffold to ensure it was safe for use and, if it required rectification, requesting that occur with its preferred scaffold company.

On 21 October 2022 a scaffold component, a toe-board, weighing approximately 15 kgs, was dislodged as carpentry workers were working on the scaffold with the toe-board falling approximately 5 metres and striking a worker located on the ground level. The worker suffered serious injury though fully recovered.

An investigation by WHSQ ascertained that carpentry workers had attended the site on 21 October.  The site supervisor was aware of this attendance at the workplace though he was not present. The carpentry workers were moving cladding sheets (weighing 30-40kgs each) by handing them up on the outside of the scaffolding from the ground level to the roof level.

The work system was the two ground workers lifting and handing the sheet to the first level workers and they in turn lifting and handing the sheet to a worker on the uppermost level. In manoeuvring the sheet across a toe-board the board dislodged and fell, striking a worker on the ground level.  After the incident had occurred some of the carpentry workers observed that a number of scaffold components (including toe-boards) had been secured with plastic cable ties. This form of attachment is inadequate as the ties can break due to deteriorating as a result of being exposed to the environment or if force is applied to the component which may cause the cable tie to break, without warning.

The investigation further revealed the site supervisor had undertaken an inspection of the scaffold at the workplace on 17 October 2022. He identified a number of deficiencies in the erected scaffold and his report notes that he contacted the scaffolder to attend to address those deficiencies. He did not identify the scaffold components attached with plastic cable ties. As at the date of the incident occurrence the scaffold company had not re-attended, and the deficiencies remained up until the time of the attendance by WHSQ inspectors post the incident occurrence.

The injured person sustained a fracture from above his right eyebrow to his right cheek bone; a smaller fracture above his left eyebrow; a broken nose with resultant black eyes; a ‘cross-type’ laceration to his forehead requiring a small number of stitches.

The construction company had responsibility for ensuring the scaffold was adequate and safe for use by the various trades it brought to the workplace. It should have implemented the following controls to eliminate or minimise the risk, so far as reasonably practicable – ensured the scaffold was inspected by a competent person to ensure it was safe and free from defects and until it was safe, it was tagged out and not available for the use of workers.

In sentencing His Honour referred to the objects of the WHS Act and the ease with which the company could have ensured the scaffold was safe when available for use.

His Honour observed the site supervisor had detected several deficiencies in the scaffold in the days prior to this incident though had not identified the components attached with plastic ties.

His Honour noted the sentencing principles from the Mac Plant decision and took these into account along with the matters set out in the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992. His Honour took in to account the maximum penalty that may be imposed for this category of breach and had regard to the sentencing ranges submitted by the parties.

His Honour referred to a related duty holder that had been charged as a result of this offending (referring to Magistrate Smith’s written decision in that matter which he had sourced from his own inquiries) and considered that parity principles were present, imposing the sentence as noted in this report.

His Honour declined to record a conviction, observing the company had no previous, had co-operated with the investigation and had entered a timely plea of guilty.

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