On 14 March 2025, a tyre installation and maintenance company was sentenced in the Richlands Magistrates Court for breaching sections 19 and 32 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (Qld) (‘the Act’), having failed to comply with its primary health and safety duties.

The charge arose from an incident in which a worker of the defendant sustained serious head injuries when a tyre, which he was inflating, exploded and blew off the bead, flinging him into the air.

The injured worker worked for defendant for around three weeks prior to 7 June 2023, and previously worked as a tyre fitter, a diesel mechanic apprentice, and in roofing for a period prior to. He had a Certificate II in Automotive Vocational Preparation from TAFE Queensland. His Record of Results from TAFE Queensland and a Certificate II in Automotive Tyre Servicing Technology (Heavy Vehicle) from Bridgestone. However, most of his experience related to truck tyres not tractor tyres.

Prior to 7 June 2023, tyre fitters at the workplace were trained with verbal instructions, demonstrations and doing tasks themselves until the tyre manager or second-in-command was satisfied that they were competent to perform the relevant task. This on-the-job training was not documented.

On 9 March 2023, the defendant requested a complete audit and refresh for all staff of policies and procedures throughout the business from an external safety consultant. That consultant conducted an inspection of the workplace on 29 March 2023 and produced a report, which stated:

“Safe work procedures need to be developed. There was one on file for forklift operation but no others. Recommend starting with the common operational tasks such as Oxy, tyres, welding, grinding, compressed air, tyre/wheel balancers, vehicle hoists.”

As at 7 June 2023, the defendant had not documented step-by-step safety procedures for tasks involving the inflation of tyres nor had it trained workers with reference to a documented safety procedure. The tyre bay manager, who was not at the workplace, tasked another tyre fitter (the supervising worker’) to fit a tractor tyre. The supervising worker asked the worker to assist with the tractor tyre as an opportunity to see his level of experience. The supervising worker was aware that he had a certificate in tyre fitting from Bridgestone and was an experienced tyre technician.

Both workers started doing the job together. However, when the supervising worker took a phone call and the worker was temporarily out of his view, the worker began inflating the tractor tyre with a fast flow line. When he removed the line, the worker was leaning over the tyre. The tyre exploded and blew off the bead and the worker was flung up into the air. He lost consciousness briefly and suffered injuries, including a concussion, facial lacerations, a left orbital blowout fracture, a deep mandibular fracture, and tooth damage.

The task being completed by the injured worker was hazardous because it posed a risk to his health and safety, namely a risk of death or serious injury, should the tyre erupt while it was being inflated.

The defendant should have eliminated or minimised the risk, so far as was reasonably practicable, by:

1. Ensuring that documented step-by-step safety procedures were developed and implemented for tasks involving the inflation of tyres; and
2. Providing instruction and training to workers in relation to those documented step-by-step safety procedures, including ensuring that the competency of a worker was assessed by reference to their compliance with those procedures.

Following the incident, the defendant implemented documented step-by-step safety procedures, and the tyre fitters were trained and assessed as competent in accordance with those procedures.

In sentencing the defendant, the Magistrate stated that the penalty ought to be a deterrence and send a message to other businesses that the health and safety of workers must be protected, and businesses must take reasonably practicable steps to ensure this. His Honour took into account the serious nature of the injury and the associated distress suffered by the injured person.

In mitigation, his Honour took into account the defendant’s plea of guilty, the co-operation given during the investigation, and the measures and procedures implemented to ensure the safety of workers following the offence.

The defendant was fined $90,000 plus costs of $1,500 and $101.40 for filing. The fine was referred to SPER. No conviction was recorded.

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