Resources: Blogs

Missed the train

Blogs
|

Employer fined 250k for failing to provide training to work experience student

You have spent time, money and resources to hire the best candidate for the job and you cannot wait for them to get into their role. Before they start, your new worker needs to be trained, especially in workplace health and safety (WHS).

You have spent time, money and resources to hire the best candidate for the job and you cannot wait for them to get into their role. Before they start, your new worker needs to be trained, especially in workplace health and safety (WHS).

Employers need to ensure that all workers are trained and understand the WHS policies and procedures. For example, when it comes to working with machinery, workers must be trained to assess the possible risks before, during and after operating machinery and be well versed in the preparing and complying with the Safe Work Method Statements (SWMS) applicable to their task. During this training, employers should assess the worker’s competency in the safe use and operation of the machinery and compliance with the SWMS. If it is found that the worker’s competency does not meet the required standard, they should not operate the machinery.

In our previous blog Ah yes, the safety dance: WHS is an issue for everyone, we highlighted that WHS planning, training and induction are sometimes wrongly viewed as an unnecessary business cost. However, the District Court of NSW’s decision in SafeWork NSW v Thermal Electric Elements Pty Ltd [2017] NSWDC 62 (24 March 2017) (Thermal Case) demonstrates the true cost when things go wrong and appropriate WHS planning, training and induction is not provided to a particularly vulnerable worker.

In the Thermal Case, the Court found that the Company had not trained, assessed or tested a 17 year old work experience student’s competency before allowing him to operate a brake press machine and left him without supervision. As a result, the work experience student crushed his left hand which led to the amputation of the tips of two fingers and the loss of fine motor skills. Needless to say the Court found a number of WHS failures by the Company:

  • The student was only given a “general” induction by a trade qualified toolmaker. The machinery training was conducted by an unqualified sheet metal fabricator who had only been employed 7.5 weeks.
  • The student was not provided with a step by step procedure for the safe operation or use of the machine including appropriate settings and positioning.
  • The student‘s competency was not tested before he was allowed to operate the machine.
  • The risk of injury and the risk of the type of injury suffered by the student ranked extremely high on the scale of foreseeability.

This failure by the Company in its safety processes is an essential reminder to employers that proper and detailed training and adequate ongoing supervision is necessary for all workers including vulnerable workers as their risk of injury is heightened by lack of experience.

The Company was penalised $250,000.

WHS training must be taken seriously by employers for all workers especially the vulnerable. A worker’s competency must be assessed and a qualified person must train and supervise them. By adopting strong WHS policies and procedures, training will (1) ensure that workers will be working a in safe environment, (2) save money on lost productivity arising from absences due to injuries or illness, (3) enjoy the benefits of lower workers compensation premiums and (4) minimise the chances of a WHS prosecution, conviction and hefty fine.

 

Similar articles

Court finds sole director failed to exercise due diligence in fatality prosecution

The Model Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (Cth) imposes a positive duty on officers to exercise due diligence to ensure the person conducting a business or undertaking complies with its work health and safety duties and obligations.

Read more...

Managing ill and injured workers

In her usual entertaining and informative style, our Managing Director and Principal, Athena Koelmeyer, will guide employers through the tangled web of legislative obligations they face when dealing with an ill or injured employee.

Read more...

Sole trader convicted and fined for WHS breach resulting in death of worker

In a recent decision of the NSW District Court, a sole trader has been convicted and fined $100,000 for breaching his health and safety duty under the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (Cth), which resulted in workers being exposed to a risk of death or serious injury.

Read more...

High Court rules on scope of inquiry of redeployment within an employers enterprise

That’s not how this works

In “Where does it end?” we looked at the decision of the Full Federal Court of Australia in Helensburgh Coal Pty Ltd v Bartley [2024] FCAFC 45. In that decision, the Full Federal Court refused an application from an employer seeking orders to quash previous decisions and compel the Fair Work Commission from further dealing with unfair dismissal applications lodged by employees who had been made redundant.

Read more...

Mad Mex franchisee to pay $305,000 in damages for sexual harassment claim

The Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) protects employees from sexual harassment, and as part of the Respect@Work amendments now prohibits sex-based harassment.

Read more...

FWC rejects constructive dismissal claim, finding the employment ended by “mutual agreement”

Mutually beneficial

For an employee to have access to the unfair dismissal jurisdiction, the Fair Work Commission must be satisfied that the employee was “dismissed” from their employment within the meaning of section 386(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).

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 law and sports law.

Sign up to receive the latest industry updates with commentary from the Workplace Law team direct to your inbox.

Subscribe

* indicates required