Grab bag of prosecutions and court cases

3 views
Skip to first unread message

Dave Whitefield

unread,
Jun 5, 2013, 9:35:38 AM6/5/13
to safetyd...@googlegroups.com
A mix of some unfair dismissal cases, a straight prosecution, a hardly believable workers comp case, and a complex common law case.
My source for these stories is a copywriter protected newsletter, so what I am doing is putting a brief summary in here and then linking to the full case law report. If you want more info about a particular story let me know and I can send more info.


Worker unfairly dismissed after interfering with an incident scene to make it safer
A contract rigger was sacked after a large valve fell during a lift.
After the valve fell it hit a platform the employer claims the rigger interfered with the scene to cover up incorrect rigging practices, prior to the regulator beginning the investigation.
He was dismissed for this reason.
He claimed he was just making the scene safe.
In the end the court agreed and awarded the sacked worker $40,000 in lost pay.

Worker Fairly dismissed for not using LOTO process
A factory worker was seen accessing a hopper and while the machine was off, it was not locked out.
During the investigation he said he was very busy.
He was sacked and went for unfair dismissal.
In court he argued first that he wasn't actually in the hopper, then that he was just about to lock it our, and then that he had a heavy workload and was busy.
None of that was accepted, so it was found he was fairly dismissed.

$170,000 fine after a Company Director was fatally injured during an attempt to remove a stuck directional drill pipe
During direction drilling and pipe installation process the pipe being installed became stuck.
There were a number of contractor companies represented on site, and the following day there was a meeting.
Six unsuccessful attempts were then made to retrieve the pipe.
The next day they decided to use an excavator to try and release the pipe using a chain.
One of the Company Directors on site made the first attempt and the chain broke.
During the second attempt with the excavator a different operator (another Company Director) took over.
He instructed every one to stand behind a line of trees in case something went wrong (including the operator who had just had a try).
On the second attempt the the chain broke again and the pipe recoiled.
When the pipe recoiled it struck the other operator who had not gone to the protection of the tree line.
The company of the Director operating the loader was prosecuted.
Specific issues around risks assessments (they had full documentation but none of it covered removing stuck pipe), and exclusion zones (they just failed to properly implement and then maintain a safe zone) were raised.
Also raised was the fact that the incident was entirely foreseeable because the chain had already broken once.

NT Worker bitten by croc and then shot by co-worker
TO be honest I've included this on mainly because it's hard to believe the story…
An NT worker whose job involved harvesting crocodile eggs was attacked by a large croc, and was then shot (in the arm) by a co-worker who was trying to help save him from the croc…
His workers comp claim was initially accepted, and then rejected, and so there was a bit of backwards and forwards about whether he could claim and then how much he could claim for. The workers claimed a lot of injury including post traumatic stress syndrome, where the employer claimed he continued to work with croc's for a few years after the incident.
In the end he was allowed to claim for workers comp, but only for some of the injuries and not the PTSD.

Common law claim against three separate companies after crane incident
Brambles Australia bought a second hand mobile crane and had it modified by Baden Cranes so it could be transported without having to separate the base from the superstructure.
It involves the installation of the locking pins that had to be removed for transport otherwise they would shear.
The crane was then bought by Gillespies Cranes.
The crane was being operated by a Gillespies employee and as it turns out the pins had not been removed during transport and when it arrived on site the upper deck and cabin fell off the base. 
The operator attempted to jump out and was injured.
He sued all three companies (the current owner, the previous owner who had it modified, and the company that modified it for the previous owner) saying they should have taken greater measures to prevent this ape of incident such as warning signs or additional locking pins.
The judge agreed and originally awarded the worker $830,000 damages, broken up between the 3 companies as 45% to Baden (the modifier), 35% to Brambles (the original owner), and 20% to Gillespies.
However Baden and Brambles appealed. The judge still felt they could and should have foreseen the problem and done something about it, but the court did relent and drop Brambles liability to 20%. It's not totally clear how the rest worked out but you get the picture.
This case shows the clear difference between statute las where it is a straight out prosecution, and common law where it is about claiming damages from any potentially liable parties.




Cheers
Safety Dave
0412 782 191



Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages