Resources: Blog

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.

It is an expected and necessary part of work health and safety (WHS) plans that all new workers receive relevant WHS training. A recent decision in the NSW District Court (the Court) has highlighted the need for employers to also re-induct or provide refresher training to workers when they are transferred to a different department or location.

In SafeWork NSW v Crawfords Freightlines Pty Ltd [2021] NSWDC 442, Crawfords Freightlines Pty Ltd (the Employer) pleaded guilty to failing to comply with its primary duty and in doing so, exposing a worker to the risk of death or serious injury in contravention of section 32 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (NSW) (WHS Act).

The Employer operated a business in road freight transport and transported aluminium products in shipping containers. The worker was employed as a forklift driver and was initially undertaking work in the “General Division” which required the worker to unload and load products into tankers.

Upon commencement, the worker was inducted into the Employer’s safe operating procedures (SOPs) for operating a forklift truck and for unloading and packaging aluminium.

In the General Division the worker was not required to work in shipping containers or to load or unload aluminium products. After six months, the worker was assigned to work in the “Alloy Department” where he was required to load aluminium products into a shipping container, a task that he had never performed before.

The aluminium billets were transported and loaded into the shipping container by the forklift operator and another worker was required to place a piece of cardboard between the aluminium bundles to prevent them from rubbing together.

In his first week in the Alloy Department, the worker was working in the shipping container, cutting and placing the cupboard between the billet loads. While working, a 2.3 tonne load of billets on the tines of a forklift shifted and fell on the worker, pinning him to the wall of the container ship. The worker suffered a fractured left leg and right wrist which required surgery and the worker was also impacted psychologically as a result of the incident.

The SOPs did prohibit workers from remaining in the shipping container while it was being loaded but there was no specific prohibition against remaining in the shipping container for this task. Following the incident, the Employer changed the systems of work and now required the forklift operator to load and pack the aluminium billets in the containers. All workers were required to undertake refresher training.

SafeWork NSW identified the following reasonably practicable measures the Employer could have taken to eliminate or minimise the risk to workers, including:

  • Developing and implementing a SOP or safe work method statement (SWMS) for the task which did not require more than one person inside the shipping container;
  • Inducting and/or re-inducting workers in the SOP or SWMS when they commenced work in the Alloy Department;
  • Providing adequate supervision to workers; and/or
  • Prohibiting workers to remain inside the shipping container whilst the forklift was in operation.

In setting a penalty, the Court took into account a number of factors including the obvious and foreseeable nature of the risk, the likelihood of the risk occurring, that safety measures could have been easily implemented, the forklift guidance material available, the potential risk of injury or death,and the actual injury suffered by the worker. The Court found that the Employer’s culpability fell within the lower half of the mid range.

The Court also considered the need for deterrence as well as the substantial emotional harm caused by the incident.  

The Employer was convicted and ordered to pay a fine of $90,000 (inclusive of a 25% deduction for an early guilty plea).

Lessons for employers

This case serves as a reminder to employers of the importance of regular training. At a minimum, employers must ensure that workers receive relevant WHS training by appropriate supervisors or trainers before work is commenced. It may also be appropriate to include commencing work with regular competency assessments undertaken.

Where employees may be required to work in different sections or departments, they must receive the relevant training and induction to that section or department. This is particularly important in circumstances where during the COVID-19 pandemic, workers may be required to assist in different departments or carry out tasks that they may not usually perform. Penalties for breaches of WHS legislation are substantial and workplace incidents can significantly effect the lives of workers and their families.

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

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.


Commission finds on-the-job feedback sufficient in warning employee about poor performance

Hit the brakes

In the unfair dismissal jurisdiction, the Fair Work Commission (FWC) is required to consider a number of factors under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act) when considering whether a dismissal was ‘harsh, unjust or unreasonable’.


Court fines PCBU $60,000 for failing to re-assess the risks associated with changing site conditions

Set and forget

Persons conducting a business or undertaking (PCBUs) have a positive obligation to ensure, so far as reasonably practicable, the health and safety of workers and others.


Offers of alternative employment in redundancy cases

An offer you can refuse

In most cases of redundancy, employers have an obligation to consult with affected employees about the proposed redundancy and consider whether or not anything can be done to mitigate or minimise the impact on the employee, such as redeployment or obtaining other acceptable employment for the employee.


FWC finds that employee’s employment ended at end of fixed term and was not dismissed

Time goes by so slowly

Access to the unfair dismissal jurisdiction under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) is on the basis that the employee is “dismissed” from the employment. A jurisdictional objectional can be raised if the employee has not been actually dismissed by the employer.


Commission finds employer’s suspicion of an employee’s misconduct was not a valid reason for dismissal

Under suspicion

If considering taking disciplinary action due to an employee’s misconduct, it is critical that an employer makes a decision based on wrongdoing as opposed to a mere suspicion of wrongdoing.


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.