Resources: Blog

Brisbane company first to be convicted of industrial manslaughter

Blog
|

Brisbane company first to be convicted of industrial manslaughter

Workplace fatalities are tragic and devastating events. In order to reflect the seriousness of these incidents, some jurisdictions across Australia have amended their work health and safety laws to establish the offence of industrial manslaughter, where the negligent conduct by a person conducting a business or undertaking or officers causes the death of a worker.

Workplace fatalities are tragic and devastating events. In order to reflect the seriousness of these incidents, some jurisdictions across Australia have amended their work health and safety laws to establish the offence of industrial manslaughter, where the negligent conduct by a person conducting a business or undertaking (PCBU) or officers causes the death of a worker.

Victoria is the most recent State to introduce new offences of workplace manslaughter with amendments to the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 (Vic) commencing from 1 July 2020. Victoria now joins other States and Territories with industrial manslaughter laws including the Australian Capital Territory, Queensland and the Northern Territory.

The effect of these provisions is already starting to be seen, with a Brisbane auto-wrecking company becoming the first PCBU to be convicted under the industrial manslaughter provisions of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (Qld) (Qld Act). The Qld Act was amended in 2017 to create new offences of industrial manslaughter by a PCBU or a senior officer whose negligent conduct causes the death of a worker.

In R v Brisbane Auto Recycling Pty Ltd & Ors [2020] QDC 113, the Queensland District Court had to determine the penalty to be imposed on the PCBU and its two directors who were each separately convicted of a Category One offence of reckless conduct for engaging in conduct that exposed an individual to a risk of death or serious injury or illness and were reckless as to that risk.

In May 2019, the worker had just returned to the work premises after collecting a vehicle with a tilt tray truck. Two forklifts were operating around the delivery area, moving car bodies around to make way for the new vehicle the worker had delivered. The worker suffered a fatal injury after a forklift operator reversed, pinning and crushing the worker between the back of the forklift and the tilt tray.

An ambulance was immediately called, and it was reported that the worker had fallen from the truck. One of the directors later discovered after reviewing CCTV footage that the worker was crushed by a forklift but did not report this to Queensland Police and the regulator, Workplace Health and Safety Queensland (WHSQ).

The directors were also initially reluctant to provide the worker’s daughter with the CCTV footage and even proposed to put forward a different version of events of how the worker suffered injury.

In the subsequent investigation conducted by WHSQ, it was revealed that:

  • The PCBU did not have any written safety policies or procedures in place;
  • There was no traffic management plan for the worksite;
  • The forklift operator did not hold a high-risk work licence to operate a forklift and no checks were done to ensure that forklift operators were appropriately licensed;
  • The forklift operator was inexperienced, and no assessment was conducted of his competency to operate a forklift; and
  • The PCBU did not have a WorkCover Policy in place.

The PCBU pleaded guilty and was convicted of industrial manslaughter while the directors also pleaded guilty and each had convictions recorded for the Category One offences.

The industrial manslaughter offence under the Qld Act attracts a maximum penalty of $10 million for a corporation, while the maximum penalty for a Category One offence is $300,000 or 5 years’ imprisonment.

In determining the appropriate penalty, the District Court had regard to the following:

  • The lack of safety systems in place;
  • The availability of simple steps to minimise or remove the risk of mobile plant;
  • The modest cost of implementing safety measures;
  • That the directors accepted that they knew of the risk but consciously dismissed it;
  • The directors sought to deflect responsibility for the incident;
  • The extended period in which workers were placed at risk;
  • The loss of life and impact on the worker’s family;
  • The PCBU’s and directors’ capacity to pay a fine;
  • The prevalence of fatalities caused by forklifts; and
  • The prospect of deportation faced by the directors, who were in Australia on residency visas and the resultant hardship on their families.

The District Court noted that while the PCBU did not have capacity to pay a significant fine, this did not mean that an appropriate fine should not be imposed. Accordingly, it ordered the PCBU to pay a fine of $3 million. The District Court also held that it was appropriate to sentence each director to 10 months’ imprisonment, to be wholly suspended for 20 months.

Lessons for employers

Work health and safety legislation seeks to ensure the health and safety of workers while they are at work and for workers to return home with their faculties, limbs and lives intact.

This decision is the first prosecution under Queensland’s industrial manslaughter laws, however, with the introduction of industrial manslaughter offences in a number of Australian jurisdictions, including most recently, Victoria, it is important that employers are aware of their safety obligations and ensure that work health safety systems are in place.

Information provided in this blog is not legal advice and should not be relied upon as such. Workplace Law does not accept liability for any loss or damage arising from reliance on the content of this blog, or from links on this website to any external website. Where applicable, liability is limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.

Similar articles

The importance of WHS refresher training

Not a “one and done” thing

It is an expected and necessary part of work health and safety (WHS) plans that all new workers receive relevant WHS training.

Read more...

WHS rights and adverse action

A slippery slope

Under the general protections provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act), employers are prohibited from taking adverse action against an employee (such as dismissing them from employment) because they have a workplace right or because they have exercised or chosen not to exercise that right.

Read more...

Sexual harassment and work health and safety

New guidance material released by Safe Work Australia

Australia has long had in place state and federal anti-discrimination legislation which recognises sexual harassment as a form of sex discrimination and makes sexual harassment in the workplace unlawful.

Read more...

Commission orders employer to pay compensation as a result of its procedurally unfair disciplinary process

Procedurally disastrous

When investigating allegations of misconduct against an employee in the workplace, employers must ensure that any ensuing disciplinary process is kept distinct from and separate to from the investigation.

Read more...

The importance of WHS refresher training

Not a “one and done” thing

It is an expected and necessary part of work health and safety (WHS) plans that all new workers receive relevant WHS training.

Read more...

Casual Terms Award Review 2021

NEWS UPDATE

In March 2021, the casual employment amendments to the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act) introduced a new statutory definition of “casual employee” and an entitlement to casual conversion as one of the National Employment Standards (NES).

Read more...

Let's talk

please contact our directors to discuss how ouR expertise can help your business.

We're here to help

Contact Us
Let Workplace Law become your partner in Workplace Relations.

Signup to receive the latest industry updates with commentary from the Workplace Law team direct to you inbox.