$450,000 Conviction for "Foreseeable" Death

An employer has been convicted and fined $450,000 for failing to provide a safe workplace, which resulted in an entirely foreseeable death. This decision reminds companies that safety laws require them to proactively prevent and address safety risks rather than waiting for near misses to alert them to potential hazards.

The incident in question occurred in May 2021 at The Elastomers Pty Ltd rubber factory in Victoria. An operator died while using an automated machine that produced rubber.

The machine had control panels on the ground floor and an upper level, with no direct line of sight from the upper control panel to the operating zone, where operators were occasionally required to correct issues with the equipment. . While a light curtain guarded the operating zone, there was a gap of 122cm between the light curtain and the part of the machine that workers accessed to untangle the rubber, which meant they could be in the operating zone without continually breaking the light curtain beam. Moreover, an operator could restart the machine while a worker remained in the operatoring zone, exposing them to danger..

Elastomers were charged with contravening the State Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004, and they pleaded guilty to breaching subsections 21(1) and (2)(a) of the Act by failing to provide and maintain a safe work environment and plant that was safe and without risks to health.

During the trial, the County Court noted that the employer had not instructed the colleague to check that the worker had left the operating zone before restarting the machine. The system of work at the workplace did not require that this crucial safety step be taken. An expert mechanical engineer recommended that workers should only have been able to restart the machine from the ground-level control panel. He suggested that the employer reduce the risk to workers by designing an interlocked gate to prevent access to the danger zone. The engineer found that the hazards associated with stopping and starting the machine presented a clear risk of major injury, and the risk of serious or fatal injuries would be extremely high if the machinery restarted while an employee was in the vicinity of the operating zone.

The court considered the employer's moral culpability "high." Despite this, they credited the employer's general approach to workplace safety, the systems it had implemented since the incident, and engaging a machinery safety expert to conduct a risk assessment on the machine.

This case reminds employers to take responsibility for the safety of their workers. Employers must proactively identify and control risks, involve their workforce in identifying safety risks, and eliminate or control them as far as is reasonably practicable. Waiting for near misses or accidents is unacceptable, and employers must take a proactive approach to safety.