Paper mistakes and electrocution — a broken safety system

In the recent legal case of Inspector Simpson v Poonindie Pty Ltd in the New South Wales Industrial Relations Commission, the issue of disparities between administrative documentation and the actual workplace environment becomes highly evident.

In its judgement, the court stated: “Workers can, and do, sometimes place themselves in precarious positions. The legislation recognising these contingencies requires a defendant to be proactive in searching out and detecting risks in order to ensure the safety of personnel at a worksite”. [para 22]

The above case deals with the all too familiar circumstance of the documentary process surrounding work not reflecting the reality of work. The delegation of responsibility for safety, if true, did not sit well with the responsible employee’s skill and experience and with the opportunity to properly investigate and plan the work.

The risk of electrocution — from overhead wires when using a mobile crane — was clearly foreseeable. The employer was aware of the existence of power lines and the power lines presence became a risk when a new location was required to store building structures. No amendment was made to the safety documents and no new hazard identification was undertaken. The attempt to devolve responsibility upon the deceased did not assist the defendant's case. There are so many lessons to be learned from this case.

Some of the key lessons include:

• The safety management system must properly identify who is responsible for the safety plan, what skills the person must possess and what happens if the manner in which work is undertaken changes.
• Unless there is compelling evidence — don't blame the deceased.
• Where construction work is being undertaken, weather and other circumstances constantly change. Any plan must countenance the obligations to reassess potential hazards and amend the plan in light of any change.
• Power lines are always dangerous.
• Proforma safety documents lead to assumptions — dangerous assumptions. Paper does not stop injuries — only appropriate safety systems stop injuries.

*Andrew Douglas, Douglas Workplace & Litigation Lawyers.