Labour hire company limited by lower safety knowledge

A labour hire company's OHS obligations are limited by the fact its awareness and knowledge of hazards at a work site can never equal that of the host employer, a South Australian industrial magistrate has found.

In the SA IR Court, Industrial Magistrate Richard Hardy was hearing a prosecution against labour hire firm Select Australasia Pty Ltd.

Select had placed an employee with environmental waste company SITA Australia, at a recycling facility owned by Mitsubishi Motors.

In March 2003, the worker was injured when his arm was drawn into the nip point of a large conveyor system. He suffered two fractures and had to have plates inserted in his arm. He also suffered depression as a result.

A Workplace Services investigation found the raised conveyor system was completely unguarded. SITA and Mitsubishi had a haphazard maintenance arrangement and neither took responsibility for guarding.

The nip point may have escaped the attention of the companies because it was raised, and only accessible by workers when they stood on an adjacent bin lifter.

On the day of the incident, the worker had been asked to clear blockages at the end of the conveyor. He had never been shown how to do this but had watched others perform the task. He turned the conveyor off the first time, but not on subsequent occasions because it was too time consuming (the stop button was not readily accessible).

Workplace Services charged all three companies over the incident. SITA and Mitsubishi were convicted (under s19 and s24A of the Act respectively) and each was fined $14,000.

The prosecutor alleged Select had failed to: adequately train the worker; implement a system to ensure effective training and supervision was provided by SITA; undertake a risk assessment of the conveyor; or ensure SITA had documented safe operating procedures.

Industrial Magistrate Hardy heard there were no safe operating procedures for the conveyor. Select had given its employee a general safety induction but it hadn't covered conveyor training.

A Select employee visited the site about once a fortnight, but never watched the workers or looked at the plant they operated. As well, no safety check list had been completed for the site.

Select accepted that it had equal responsibility but said that being removed from the site made the task more difficult.

Industrial Magistrate Hardy found that Select's penalty should be less than that imposed on Mitsubishi and SITA. This was because those parties should have been aware of the practice of workers using the bin lifter to access the conveyor, but hadn't informed Select.

He said that regardless of having proper processes in place, a labour hire company's awareness and knowledge "can never equal that of the operator".

Industrial Magistrate Hardy fined Select $12,250 plus court costs and fees.

www.ohsalert.com.au