Risk Management News

Supplying to the mining and resource sector!

2011-12-06T17:21:00.007+10:30

6th December 2011

I was happy to be asked to write an article for the recent November edition of 'SA mines & energy', the official publication of the South Australian Chamber of Mines & Energy.

Titled 'Ducks in a Row', it was about contractors looking to break into the mining sector needing to have all of their requirements in place including adequate systems of quality, safety and environmental management!

Click on this link and scroll to 'Page 29' to read the article online: http://sacomejournal.realviewtechnologies.com/?iid=56380

Have the new competition and consumer laws been considered in your QA Systems?

2010-11-29T14:31:00.011+10:30

Have the new competition and consumer laws been considered in your QA Systems?
November 2010
New consumer laws, which the Australian Government calls the "biggest reforms to consumer laws in a generation" are already partly in operation and more will come into effect on 1 January 2011. Business owners need to know what their new obligations are and the changes that have to be made to their business documents and processes, including their formal Quality Management Systems (QMS). These new consumer laws will impact all businesses engaged in trade or commerce. In particular the laws will affect:

· Misleading or deceptive conduct
· Unconscionable conduct
· Unfair contract terms.
· False or misleading representations and unfair practices.
· Consumer guarantees (in place of warranties) for goods and services.
· Unsolicited goods and services.
· Safety of goods and services.

Business customers and consumers will have a wide range of remedies for breaches of the new laws, including damages, compensation and avoidance of terms. It is expected that these new laws will be robustly enforced, with a powerful and comprehensive toolbox of enforcement powers, eg:

· the issue of infringement notices
· Civil penalties up to $220,000 for individuals
· $1.1 million for companies.

It is recommended that businesses review their standard contracts for consumer and commercial transactions to ensure compliance with the new consumer laws. In particular they need to be satisfied that these contracts do not contain unfair contract terms or terms relating to consumer guarantees or warranties that do not comply.With respect to a QMS, this legislation covers two very relevant issues concerning

· “acceptable quality”
· “safety of goods and services”

Acceptable QualityThis is defined in the legislation as meaning goods that are:“ (a) fit for all the purposes for which goods of that kind are commonly supplied; and(b) acceptable in appearance and finish; and(c) free from defects; and(d) safe; and(e) durable,as a reasonable consumer fully acquainted with the state and condition of the goods (including any hidden defects of goods), would regard as acceptable".

Such matters include the nature, price, statements and representations and other relevant circumstances relating to the goods.

Safety of Goods and Services
Safety standards for consumer goods and product related services may be declared, and bans may be imposed on consumer goods and product related services which may cause injuries (interim or permanent) and notices may be issued for compulsory recall of goods.
Safety warning notices may be required, and reports of injuries are required.
Information standards may be required for goods and services.
Actions are provided against manufacturers for goods with safety defects.
Businesses should therefore consider establishing and implementing appropriate compliance programs (eg. QMS) to ensure the requirements of the new “Australian Consumer Law” are met. Such a QMS will not necessarily prevent a breach, but, if effectively implemented, it should reduce the risk. Importantly, if a breach of this legislation does occur, and proceedings are instituted, the verifiable presence of a compliance program and culture may assist in mitigating the breach and reducing any penalty.
Ensure your product complies! Contact EQAS now

2010-10-13T11:38:00.000+10:30

Code released on prevention of falls in housing

2010-07-20T15:21:00.006+09:30

July 2010

Safe Work Australia has released the National Code of Practice for the Prevention of Falls in Housing Construction (Housing Falls Code).

The Housing Falls Code supports the National Standard for Construction Work (2005) and provides guidance on ways to effectively manage the risks associated with working at height in the residential construction sector.

The Housing Falls Code contains specific guidance for all those who work in this industry, including information for adopting a risk management approach for all work at height in the residential construction sector, as well as detailed guidance when working at two metres and above.

While this code remains an advisory document until the new national OHS legislation is introduced on 1st January 2012, builders and subcontractors will find this useful in ensuring safe systems of work are in place as required by the current South Australian OHS regulations.

If you would like a copy of the code or any assistance with your safety controls, just contact EQAS.

SA company fined over lack of safety systems

2010-05-07T15:42:00.004+09:30

April 2010

A leading supplier of construction materials has been recently fined over $26,000 by an Industrial Magistrate over a workplace incident that resulted in serious leg injuries to an employee.

Boral Resources (SA) Limited pleaded guilty in failing to provide a safe system of work and to maintain plant in a safe condition, after an incident at the company's Lenwood Quarry at Stonyfell in August 2007.

A male employee was assigned the task of removing the picks (or teeth) from an excavator bucket. When they proved difficult to move, he used a hardened steel sledgehammer, which caused shards of metal to splinter from the pick and enter the employee's upper leg.

The court heard that:

the employer failed to provide an appropriate tool to eliminate the risk of splintering metal
there was no adquate hazard identification or risk analysis for the task
there was no safe work procedure devised for the task
the employee should have been told of the risks of such a task
This incident highlights the need to factor safety into all tasks no matter how familiar or minor they may seem

Has your business checked all workplace tasks for adequate safety?

Call now on 8338 2771 if I can assist with your OHS Management System in any way, or Click Here for more information.

Employer prosecuted over injury from using borrowed equipment

2010-04-29T14:46:00.004+09:30

December 2009

The Industrial Court has recently fined the operators of a farm near Snowtown $28,000 over a workplace incident that left a farmhand paralysed.

The incident occurred as the farmhand, aged in his early 20’s, was working on a large stock crate prior to mustering sheep for shearing. The crate had been borrowed from a neighbour. The farmhand had to stand on a small platform three metres off the ground and operate a manual winch to lower a ramp within the crate.

During this task, the winch handle forcefully struck the man in the face, after which he fell from the platform to the ground. This resulted in skull fractures and the loss of sight in his right eye, and spinal damage, which left him paralysed.

Following an investigation, SafeWork SA prosecuted the farm owners, and submitted to the court that:
• The hazard identification and risk assessment process for the task was inadequate.
• There was no safe operating procedure for the task concerned.
• There was no safe access to the platform on top of the stock crate.
• There was no fall protection for the work at height.
Industrial Magistrate Stephen Lieschke noted the defendants’ extensive safety precautions elsewhere across the farm’s operations, and the fact that they had even sent the worker on an OHS course prior to the incident.

He noted that, “While they believed they were being comprehensive in their safety improvements, they appear not to have given the same attention to the stock crate as to their own plant and equipment, probably because it was occasionally borrowed to them".

“…I must take into account that there was a risk of fatality, and that the risks of being struck and of falling were foreseeable had an adequate risk assessment been undertaken. The risk of the operator being hit by the handle was raised by (a warning sticker on the arm of the winch handle) but was not addressed by the employer.”

Employers should therefore note that the process of finding and fixing potential workplace safety hazards must extend to every item of plant no matter how infrequently it’s used, or where it’s sourced from.

As this case demonstrates, even a seemingly minor oversight can have catastrophic consequences.

Make sure your workplace safety checks and risk assessments always include:
• Borrowed,
• Old, or
• Seldom used equipment

Contact EQAS if you need some help!

Business Owners PERSONALLY prosecuted!

2010-04-22T10:06:00.003+09:30

Business Owners PERSONALLY prosecuted!
Last Friday (12/06/09), Morgan Sawmill Jamestown and its three principals were fined $12,600 over an incident at its Jamestown premises in January 2007, which left a worker injured.

The court heard how a male worker sustained finger injuries adjusting a timber-moulding machine whilst it was still running. He has since recovered and returned to work.

SafeWork SA prosecuted after finding that a safety interlock device, which would have prevented the access to the machine whilst in operation, had been removed and bypassed.

This occurred during a 6-month wait for a replacement interlock to come from overseas.

Business owners may wish to use this unfortunate prosecution as a reminder to develop, implement and maintain adequate workplace safety systems, becuase not only can people be injured, but key people who had the authority to make a diffrence can be personally fined and prosecuted.

EQAS can assist in further development of OHS Management Systems to ensure the risk of workplace incidents is minimised.

Truck Deaths Up

2010-04-14T15:51:00.010+09:30

20th October 2009

The latest figures on fatal truck crashes suggest companies operating heavy rigid vehicles must urgently upgrade their safety procedures. The number of fatal accidents is on the rise, especially in the 60-80km/h speed zones around urban areas where waste trucks are most active.

The Federal Infrastructure Department figures show 90 fatal crashes and 95 fatalities involving heavy rigid trucks in 2008, compared to 78 fatal crashes and 83 fatalities in 2007 – that is a 15% increase in the number of deaths. Queensland and WA recorded the worst increased in fatalities.

The growing fatality list in this class comes despite a fall in the number deaths suffered by drivers in the articulated truck category.

Every company that uses heavy rigid trucks needs to implement safety systems. All organisations need procedures to make sure:
1. Drivers are fit for duty when they start work;
2. There are systems to train their staff and drivers properly, with regular safety reminders;
3. Their trucks are maintained safely; and realistic run schedules for drivers.

EQAS can assist in further development of OHS Management Systems to ensure the risk of workplace incidents is minimised.

Prime Contractors are not immune from the safety liability for their subcontractor's employees!

2010-04-14T14:42:00.009+09:30

8th October 2009

An Adelaide Building Company has, within the last week, been convicted and fined in the SA Industrial Relations Court over an incident, which left an employee seriously injured after a fall.

Candetti Constructions Pty Ltd was convicted and fined $47,500 after being found guilty of breaching section 19(1) of the Occupational Health Safety and Welfare Act 1986 in failing to ensure as far as reasonably practicable, the safety of an employee.

The incident occurred in April 2005 during work to install cool room panels at a Gepps Cross premises. A man employed by a subcontractor to the defendant fell a distance of 7.2 metres through an opening in a suspended ceiling to the concrete floor below.

He sustained fractures to his pelvis and wrist, nerve damage, severe bruising, broken teeth and a lacerated forehead. The court heard his medical issues remain ongoing.

In its investigation, SafeWork SA found that the opening in the ceiling was completely unprotected at the time, and the defendant did not carry far enough, the safety measures it had already identified regarding fall protection.

Candetti Constructions Pty Ltd was the second defendant in this matter. In August 2007, the injured worker’s direct employer, Ace Panel Systems Pty Ltd was fined $33,000 after pleading guilty to the same breach of the Act.

EQAS can assist in further development of OHS Management Systems to ensure the risk of workplace incidents is minimised.

Building contractor fined due to fall from scaffolding

2010-04-13T15:04:00.010+09:30

21st August 2009

A conviction and fine imposed on an Adelaide building contractor this week is a timely reminder of the ever-present dangers of falls in the construction industry.

Trew Stone Building Contractors Pty Ltd had pleaded guilty to one breach of s19(1) of the Occupational Health, Safety and Welfare Act 1986 in failing to ensure the safety of an employee.

SafeWork SA prosecuted after investigating an incident, which occurred during the renovation of a house at Largs North in May 2006.

Just an hour into the day’s work, a man employed as a supervisor was working at height with a colleague texture coating a wall, when he stepped onto some plastic sheeting unaware it was covering a gap between the balcony and the scaffolding.

He fell more than 3-and-a-half metres onto a concreted area below, fracturing his right wrist and lacerating his forehead upon impact.

The court was told the defendant had failed to maintain safe systems of work in that it:
• did not develop and implement a procedure for safe work at heights
• did not provide reasonable fall protection measures, namely edge protection and safety harnesses.

The site was nominally under the control of the owner of the house, who’d sub-contracted various work out to other tradespeople.

The company was fined $14,875.

Falls present one of the greatest risks of harm in the construction industry.

EQAS can assist in further development of OHS Management Systems to ensure the risk of workplace incidents is minimised.

Contractor Fined over Trench Collapse – young plumber left brain injured

2010-04-13T14:50:00.010+09:30

8th September 2009

Two Adelaide contractors have been fined a total of more than $60,000 in the Industrial Court last week over an incident in which a young man suffered severe and permanent injuries.
Mark Anthony Goodman trading as Goodman Plumbing and Property Maintenance, and Peter Gregory Watson trading as Aberfoyle Excavations had both pleaded guilty to breaches of the Occupational Health, Safety and Welfare Act 1986 in failing to ensure that an employee was safe from injury at work.
SafeWork SA prosecuted both parties after investigating an incident at a Largs North property in December 2006. Mr Goodman was a master plumber who employed the young man. Mr Watson operated an excavator used in earthworks at the time.

Work was underway to dig a trench in the driveway of a home to connect a pipe to an existing sewer line. The trench was dug into clean sand to a depth of 1.6 metres, and the 21 year old plumber employed by Mr Goodman was sent into the trench in a belated bid to shore it (or reinforce the sides) with some plasterboard left over from some previous work.
Whilst inside the trench, the sand walls collapsed on the young man, partially burying him. However he was also struck on the head by a brick fence pillar, which fell into the trench. The impact of this contact then resulted in the worker suffering further injury when his head was forced against the top of a crowbar. He was not wearing a hardhat, nor had he been supplied with one.
Shortcomings in safety measures therefore included:
• No risk assessment of the dangers of working in a deep trench by either party
• No safe work methods for such a task
• No arrangements to ensure the trench was stable
• No information, training, instruction or supervision specific to working in trenches
Mr Goodman, as the employer was fined $32,000 for failing to keep his employee safe, while Mr Watson as the excavator operator was fined $34,000 for his failure to ensure that a person other than an employee was safe at a workplace under his control.
SafeWork SA Executive Director, Michele Patterson, says the case highlights two common issues in trying to keep workplaces safe.
1. Young and inexperienced workers need the utmost information, training, instruction and supervision.
2. There are dangers posed during work involving trenches and alongside heavy machinery. The hazards and risks in this type of work are many, and they must always be identified and controlled before work begins.

EQAS can assist in further development of OHS Management Systems to ensure the risk of workplace incidents is minimised.

Systems and Procedures prevent employer prosecution, but employee fined for not following safety requirements.

2010-04-13T14:21:00.006+09:30

5th May 2009

An employee has been fined and ordered to undertake a formal assessment of his competence to operate a forklift following an incident in which a visiting stock controller was fatally injured in a fall at Paskeville in 2006.

Sixty six year old Geoffrey Ronald Poole was fined $5,600 in the SA Industrial Relations Court after pleading guilty to breaches of the Occupational Health Safety and Welfare Act 1986, requiring an employee to take reasonable care to avoid adversely affecting the health or safety of any other person at a workplace.

SafeWork SA prosecuted the loader operator after investigating an incident at Paskeville in November 2006, in which a visiting stock controller, 33 year old Dong (Gavin) Wang was fatally injured in a fall from the raised tines of a forklift operated by Mr. Poole.

During a stocktake of haybales in a shed, Mr. Poole was assisting Mr. Wang, who asked to be raised to the top of a large stack. In contravention of both the written and verbal instructions of his employer, SP Hay Pty Ltd not to carry anyone aloft in anything but a personnel box, Mr. Poole lifted Mr. Wang to a height of 5.8 metres at the end of his Manitou telescopic loader, from where he fell.

Mr. Wang suffered extensive injuries in the fall, and went into cardiac arrest shortly afterwards, with paramedics unable to revive him. He was married with a 9-week old son at the time.

The employer owned two personnel boxes to be used in such tasks, with at least one available on the day.

Mr. Poole disregarded his forklift training, his employer’s instructions and no doubt his own better judgement. Mr. Poole’s reckless actions were inconsistent with those of a mature and highly experienced worker.

Mr. Poole was ordered to undertake a formal assessment of his competency to operate powered loaders.

A workplace safety system can only be effective when employees are committed and diligent in following it.

EQAS can assist in further development of OHS Management Systems to ensure the risk of workplace incidents is minimised.

Baker Fined over Teenage Worker Injury

2010-04-07T10:00:00.020+09:30

8th July 2009

A company, which runs a western suburbs bakery in Adelaide was convicted and fined by an industrial magistrate over an incident in which a teenage worker was injured by machinery.

S & E Krotiris and Sons Pty Ltd trading as Champion Bakery pleaded guilty to two breaches of workplace safety laws, in failing to ensure the safety of an employee and failing to report a notifiable injury.

SafeWork SA prosecuted the firm after an incident at its Ferryden Park premises in November 2007. A 17 year old male, employed as a casual assistant, had his right arm trapped by the rotating trays of a dough proving machine, as he reached in through an unguarded rear opening.

The court was told that emergency services took about half an hour to dismantle the machine to free the youth, who suffered nerve damage and soft tissue injuries.

SafeWork SA was alerted to the incident by a media report and an inspector went to the premises the following day to investigate.

It was found that in addition to the rear of the machine being unguarded, no risk assessment had been carried out on the machine, nor had any safe operating procedures been developed as a result.
Furthermore, the young worker had neither been instructed nor trained not to access the machine through the open rear panel.

In delivering his penalty decision, Industrial Magistrate Stephen Lieschke said the employer failed to appreciate the position the young worker was put in:

“…he should not have been put in that position and would have been protected from the consequences of his decision to do so had the plant been properly guarded or had there been a clear safe operating procedure, or had he been appropriately instructed and trained.”

In total, the company was fined $6,160, comprising $5,600 for the unsafe workplace offence and $560 for failing to report a notifiable injury. Magistrate Lieschke discounted the penalty by 20% for the defendant’s early guilty plea and cooperation.

This incident again highlights the need for employers to be especially mindful of the vulnerability of young workers, as well as the legal obligations to protect their safety and guard machinery.

EQAS can assist in further development on OHS Management Systems to ensure the risk of workplace incidents is minimised.