Resources: Blogs

Not a “one and done” thing

Blogs
|

The importance of WHS refresher training

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

Employer’s “tick and flick” training on workplace policies rendered dismissal unfair

Not just the what, but also the why

When relying on a workplace policy as grounds for dismissal, employers must be able to clearly demonstrate that the employee is aware of the policy and has undergone meaningful training on the policy.

Read more...

The difficulties in balancing privacy and WHS obligations when handling employee personal information

To tell or not to tell

A recent decision of the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner has illustrated how difficult it can be for employers to balance their obligations under various workplace laws when managing ill and injured employees.

Read more...

Victoria records first workplace manslaughter conviction

Various Australian jurisdictions have been slowly introducing an offence of industrial manslaughter, dealing with workplace fatalities that arise as a result of negligent conduct by a person conducting a business or undertaking or its officers.

Read more...

Account Manager ordered to pay $500,000 to former employer

Find My Phone

A decision of the Federal Court of Australia early last has provided support to employers who find themselves in the unfortunate position of suffering loss and damage as a result of an employee’s breach of their post-employment restraints.

Read more...

FWC finds safety critical employee’s drug use amounted to a valid reason for dismissal

Bad track record

In safety-critical workplaces, it is essential that employers not only have in place robust safety standards and policies but also that they regularly enforce them and penalise infractions appropriately.

Read more...

Commission finds no objective or rational connection between an employee’s age and his flexible working request to work from home

The age of flexibility

An employee will only be eligible to request a flexible working arrangement if they are able to demonstrate that there is a sufficient nexus between one of the prescribed circumstances under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) and the request itself.

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.