Resources: Blogs

Witness for the prosecution

Blogs
|

Prosecutions under the WHS Act

In our last instalment of our three part blog series we will focus on the most extreme form of enforcement under the Model Work Health and Safety Act, prosecutions.

In our last instalment of our three part blog series we will focus on the most extreme form of enforcement under the Model Work Health and Safety Act, prosecutions.

Prosecutions can only be brought by certain parties as set out under section 230 of the Model Work Health and Safety Act (Model WHS Act). If the Court finds that obligations under the work health and safety legislation have been breached, the resulting penalty will depend upon the category of the offence.

 

Category 1 Offences

Category 1 offences are related to reckless conduct. This applies when a person has a health and safety duty and without any reasonable excuse, engages in conduct that exposes an individual to the risk of death or serious injury or illness and the person is reckless as to that risk to the individual. The maximum penalties for Category 1 offences are:

  • $3 million for a corporation.
  • $600,000 for individual PCBU or officer and/or 5 years jail.
  • $300,000 for a worker and/or 5 years jail.

However, in some jurisdictions, penalties may be extended even further. It has been reported that the Queensland Government is looking to introduce the offence of “gross negligence causing death” and may increase the maximum penalties currently available.

Similarly, the Western Australian Government may amend its draft WHS laws to include 20 year jail terms (rather than 5 years) for recklessness. This proposal comes on the back of submissions to the State’s Parliament that the model WHS laws failed to address key issues around grossly negligent conduct.

In a matter still before the Courts, a NSW employer and two workers were the first parties to be charged under the Model WHS Act for a Category 1 offence after a non-worker was electrocuted and subsequently died in August 2016. The workers are alleged to be officers, meaning they made or participated in the making of decisions that affected the whole or a substantial part of the business or undertaking, including decisions about workplace health and safety.

 

Category 2 Offences

A Category 2 offence applies where a person fails to comply with a health and safety duty, and the failure exposes an individual to a risk of death or serious injury or illness. Under section 32 of the Model WHS Act the maximum penalties for Category 2 offences are:

  • $1.5m for a corporation.
  • $300,000 for an individual PCBU or officer.
  • $150,000 for a worker.

For example, in May 2016, Romanous Contractors and its director were convicted in the District Court of NSW and fined $425,000 and $85,500 respectively after a 55 year old bricklayer fell and died on site. The SafeWork NSW investigation revealed that a penetration with a 5 meter drop had been covered with plywood but, unfortunately, the plywoods was not secured to the concrete slab and the bricklayer fell through it.

 

Category 3 Offences

A Category 3 offence applies where a person has a health and safety duty and fails to comply with that health and safety duty. The maximum penalties specified by section 33 of the Model WHS Act are:

  • $500,000 for a corporation.
  • $100,000 for an individual PCBU or officer.
  • $50,000 for a worker.

For example, in March 2017 a Queensland employer was fined $25,000 by the Toowoomba Magistrate’s Court after a worker fell from a step ladder while trying to clear a blockage in a commercial oven. The employer pleaded guilty to breaching Queensland’s WHS Act and was ordered to pay $1,589 in addition to the fine imposed by Workplace Health and Safety Queensland.

 

Minimising risk

In order to minimise the chances of an individual, officer or body corporate being prosecuted under work health and safety legislation, it is important that an organisation and the individual officers themselves ensure that everyone is complying with their WHS obligations.

Some ways to do this include:

  • Regularly auditing to ensure checking that everyone (including upper management) is aware of their WHS obligations;
  • Regularly conducting training (including refresher training on a regular basis);
  • Ensuring processes and policies are in place to comply with any work health and safety laws and Codes of Practice; and,
  • Most importantly, that the organisation enforces its safety systems and culture by dealing firmly with those who fail to comply with work health and safety systems.

 

Similar articles

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...

Industrial manslaughter offence introduced in New South Wales

On 20 June 2024, the New South Wales Parliament passed legislation to include a new criminal offence of industrial manslaughter under work health and safety legislation.

Read more...

Safety regulator strategy focuses on psychosocial risks

Earlier this month, SafeWork NSW announced a three-year work health and safety strategy focusing on psychological health and safety.

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...

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...

Commission finds employer’s unsubstantiated allegations rendered dismissal unfair

Not mushroom for error

Where there is a factual dispute about allegations made against an employee, employers must ensure that the allegations are properly tested before proceeding to a disciplinary process. This will ensure that the employee has been provided with procedural fairness and any reasons relied on by the employer as grounds for dismissal are valid.

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.