You are here: Areas of Law » OH&S » Topical issues and decisions » Selected case summaries » 2001

2001

Loizidis v SA Sawmilling Pty Ltd [2001] SAIRComm 31

Facts

The defendant, SA Sawmilling Pty Ltd, pleaded guilty to three charges laid under sections 19(1), 20(1) and 61 of the Occupational Health, Safety and Welfare Act 1986 (SA) (“the Act”).

The defendant was in the business of sawmilling and timber processing. The charges arose out of an accident where an employee of the defendant was killed when he fell into the waste conveyor of machinery used for debarking.

The defendant was charged with the following offences:

Section

Nature of offence

s19(1)
  • Failed to provide and maintain a safe system of work;
  • Failed to provide and maintain plant in a safe condition;
  • Failed to provide such information, instruction, training and supervision as were reasonably necessary to ensure that employees were safe from injury and risk to health.

s20(1)(a), (b)
  • Failed to prepare and maintain policies relating to occupational health, safety and welfare;
  • Failed to provide a written up to date statement setting out arrangements, practices and procedures at the workplace.

s61
  • Failed to appoint one or more responsible officers for the purpose of section 61 of the Act.

At the time of the accident, the employee was sweeping a build up of bark off the jack ladder of the debarking plant. There were no guards around the access points of the plant and there was no automatic lock-out system in place. Chains and sprockets were also exposed at various places on the machinery. There was nothing to prevent access to areas in which large logs were ejected from a height of several metres on to the ground.

Held

It was found that the duty to ensure that the plant was safe was breached in many ways and that there was an obvious and pronounced failure to observe statutory requirements. Further, there was no attempt to provide information, training or instruction to employees in relation to the dangers of the plant and there was no supervision.

It was held that there could be no argument that the risks were not obvious.

The charge under section 20(1) was easily made out. The employer had done nothing to prepare and maintain policies and procedures or communicate such policies and procedures to its employees.

The section 61 charge was also clearly made out. The defendant had not appointed anyone as a responsible officer under the Act.

Since the accident occurred, the employer had implemented a comprehensive safety program and acted quickly to ensure that all plant was safe. Policy documents and procedures had also been prepared. The employer now had proper supervision, an occupational health and safety consultant has been engaged and an occupational therapist had been recruited. The employer accordingly showed a willingness to comply with statutory requirements.

The fact that the defendant pleaded guilty was taken into account and the fine was discounted by 10% as a result.

The defendant was fined $33,500 in relation to breach of section 19; $1,500 in relation to the breach of section 20 and $1,000 in relation to breach of section 61.

Back to top