Resources: Blog

Director ordered to training following due diligence failure


Pay Attention

The model Work Health and Safety Act (Model Act) imposes a duty on officers to exercise due diligence to ensure that the person conducting a business or undertaking (PCBU) complies with safety duties.

The model Work Health and Safety Act (Model Act) imposes a duty on officers to exercise due diligence to ensure that the person conducting a business or undertaking (PCBU) complies with safety duties.

In SafeWork NSW v Macquarie Milling Co Pty Limited; SafeWork NSW v Samuels [2019] NSWDC 111, a company and its sole director pleaded guilty to, and were convicted of, failing to comply with their duties to a worker, including a failing on the part of the director to comply with his due diligence duty.

In October 2016, a mill labourer was operating a hay processing machine when the conveyor belt to the machine became blocked. Whilst the machine was still on, the worker accessed the conveyor belt and attempted to clear the blockage with a metal rod. As he was doing so, his clothing was caught and he was pulled into the rotating shaft. The worker suffered a deep laceration to his left hand while his left arm and shoulder were also jammed against the machine.

Macquarie Milling and the sole director were each charged with breaching their safety duties and failing to comply with a health and safety duty in breach of section 32 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (NSW).

The NSW District Court found that Macquarie Milling did not have any documented work health safety systems in place at the time of the incident, and that training of staff was through the “buddy” system with no competency assessments undertaken. Workers had also removed a guard on the machine and developed a practice of bypassing the “kill switch” doors by using a ladder to reach the machine.

The Court found that the risk of injury was “obvious, identifiable and foreseeable” and that had simple remedial steps been undertaken, the risk could have been avoided. The Court determined Macquarie Milling’s culpability was in the mid-range and ordered it pay a total fine of $150,000 as well as SafeWork NSW’s costs.

In relation to the sole director, the Court found that:

  • He failed to exercise due diligence to ensure that Macquarie Milling undertook a risk assessment which identified removing blockages as a high-risk activity, that there was an adequate system in place to ensure that he would become aware of near misses and there was a safe operating procedure or safe work method statement for safely removing blockages from the machine.
  • Even though he was on site daily, he had failed to gain an understanding of the hazards and risks arising from the missing guard covering the machine and the Workers accessing the machine with ladder and bypassing the “kill switch”.

The Court ordered the sole director to pay a fine of $22,500 as well as SafeWork NSW’s costs. In addition, the Court made orders requiring the director to undergo training and prepare a due diligence plan.

Specifically, the Court ordered that the director:

  • Undertake, within six months and on-site if available due diligence training for senior managers and company directors and a course in work health and safety risk management for supervisors and directors.
  • Prepare a work health and safety due diligence plan for himself and officers of Macquarie Milling which is to include how officers will take steps to exercise with due diligence.
  • Enter into a court-ordered WHS undertaking containing conditions including that he complete the training and project plan and provide evidence to the Court of this and not to commit further work health and safety offences.


Lessons for employers

Officers under the Model Act have a separate personal and higher duty to ensure that there is compliance with WHS duties. As part of exercising due diligence, the Model Act requires officers to take reasonable steps to:

(a) Have an up-to-date knowledge of work health and safety matters, and

(b) Gain an understanding of the nature of the operations of the business and of the hazards and risks of the operations, and

(c) Ensure appropriate resources and processes to eliminate or minimise risks to health and safety from work are available and are used, and

(d) Ensure that the business has appropriate processes for receiving and considering information regarding incidents, hazards and risks and responding in a timely way to that information, and

(e) Ensure that the business has, and implements, processes for complying with work health and safety duties and obligation; and

(f) Verify the provision and use of the resources and processes outlined above.

This case is an important reminder to officers that they are required to actively comply with these duties and that the Courts will use all powers available to ensure compliance, including by directing them to undertake training.

The Court in this case also placed emphasis on competency-assessed training. It will no longer be sufficient for employers to provide on-the-job training to workers over a short period of time. Regular training and assessment of competency for undertaking tasks will be required to demonstrate that workers are appropriately trained.


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

Company vicariously liable for injury resulting from skylarking supervisor

All in good fun

Enjoying the company of your colleagues is something most people hope to find in the workplace. It can make work much more enjoyable and lead to lasting friendships. However, fun in the workplace can cross a line when it takes the form of dangerous skylarking or roughhousing.


Brisbane company first to be convicted of industrial manslaughter

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.


Managing employees with disabilities

Managing employees with disabilities

Managing underperformance is a difficult process and employers should always bear in mind that personal or other extenuating circumstances may be impacting a particular employee’s performance.


The onus and presumption in adverse action matters

It’s on you

Under the general protections provisions in the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act), it is unlawful for a person to take adverse action against another person for a proscribed reason. One of the features of the general protections provisions under the FW Act is the presumption that adverse action was taken for a proscribed reason unless it is proven that the adverse action was not taken for that reason.


Notice of termination in the employment contract

Put it in writing

When it comes to engaging new employees or promoting existing employees, it is crucial that employers prepare and review contracts of employment to ensure that they accurately reflect the terms which will govern an employee’s employment.


Termination of employment letters

In your letter

A termination of employment letter serves a significant purpose in bringing the employment relationship to an end.


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.