A fresh produce business was recently convicted and fined following an incident in which a worker was dragged into a water pit with a moving agitator resulting in serious and ongoing impairment.
In October 2017, a male worker was seriously injured whilst attempting to clean a sump pump which had been raised from a potato wash pit.
As he leant over his clothing was caught in an unguarded rotating agitator shaft, dragging him into the pit and spinning him around the agitator shaft.
The clothing on his upper body was torn off, and he was then thrown onto a platform within the pit, thereby avoiding falling into the water below.
The SafeWork SA investigations identified that there was no safe operating procedure for the plant and equipment, in particular for the maintenance of the sump pump.
It was further identified that the defendant failed to have adequate training and appropriate supervision in place.
Zerella Holdings Pty Ltd pleaded guilty to a breach of section 32 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2012 (SA). It breached its s19 duty to ensure the safety of workers whilst at work thereby exposing them to the risk of serious injury or death.
The offence carried a maximum penalty of $1.5 million, and the South Australian Employment Tribunal convicted Zerella and issued a fine of $210,000 (after applying a 30 per cent discount for an earlier guilty plea) plus costs.
Zerella failed to:
“This is an example of a business taking shortcuts in an attempt to be more efficient which involved a clear risk of serious injury or death to workers completing the task,” said SafeWork SA executive director, Martyn Campbell.
“There should always be a priority to focus on critical controls and having safe systems in place including training, procedures and supervision.”
When sentencing, Deputy President Magistrate Cole said he accepted “the defendant has taken extensive remedial steps … and implemented a full review of its safety measures”.
In making the decision, his Honour stated he believed, “the defendant has learnt its lesson and is unlikely to re-offend, the penalty in this case needs to reinforce the importance of the defendant not breaching work health and safety requirements in the future”.