|Offender||Tremandra Holdings Pty Ltd|
|Trading Name||Murchison Machinery (1987)|
|Charge||Charge Number||Offence Date||Date Convicted||Regulation||Section||Penalty Provision||Penalty Imposed||Date Sentenced|
|1||GN655/2007||25 May 2006||18th September 2007||3.100(1)||1.16(2)(b)(i)||$300.00||18th September 2007|
|2||GN656/2007||25 May 2006||18th September 2007||4.14(1)||1.16(2)(b)(i)||$100.00||18th September 2007|
|3||GN657/2007||25 May 2006||18th September 2007||19(1) 19A(3)||3A(2)(b)(i)||$500.00||18th September 2007|
|Description of Breach(es)||
Charge 1: Being an employer at a workplace at which spray painting was done, failed to ensure that the spray painting was done inside a booth that was designed, constructed, installed and maintained in accordance with AS/NZS 4114; contrary to regulations 3.100(1) and 1.16 of the Occupational Safety and Health Regulations 1996 made under the Occupational Safety and Health Act 1984.
Charge 2: Being an employer at a workplace, failed to ensure that an individual item of plant of a kind set out in schedule 4.2 of the Occupational Safety and Health Regulations 1996 made under the Occupational Safety and Health Act 1984, namely an air receiver, which had not been registered by the Commissioner, was not used at the workplace, contrary to regulation 4.14(1) and 1.16 of the Regulations.
Charge 3: Being an employer, failed, so far as practicable to provide and maintain a working environment in which its employees were not exposed to hazards, contrary to sections 19(1) and 19A(3) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act 1984.
The accused operates a business that involves the importing and reselling of second hand machinery as well as the repair and overhaul of farm equipment. The accused operates out of a workshop and premises located at 781 Chapman Road, Glenfield ("the Workplace") near Geraldton and is the employer of several employees.
On 25 May 2005, two WorkSafe Inspectors attended and inspected the Workplace for the purposes of the Occupational Safety and Health Act 1984.
Charge 1 - Spray Painting
While a large fan had been placed in proximity of the area in the workshop in which the spray painting was taking place, the area was not otherwise purposely designed or constructed as a spray painting area. None of the considerations of design, construction, installation and maintenance set out in detail in AS 4114 (titled "Spray Painting Rooms, designated spray painting areas and paint mising rooms") had been attended to.
In particular, the following deficiencies were observed by the inspectors in the area in which spray painting had been occurring:
Later one of the WorkSafe Inspectors inteviewed the Director of the accused who admitted first, that spray painting had been occurring in that area of the workshop; second, that the type of paint being sprayed was "paracryl", a two pac flammable polyurethane paint; and third, that most spray painting occurring at the Workplace took place outside unless it was too dusty or windy.
Charge 2 - Unregistered Air Receiver
The inspection on 25 May 2006 revealed that an air receiver (make: Campbell-Haus Field serial no 0429652-830752) (air compressor) was being used at the workplace. The air receiver was designed to operate at a pressure of 200PSI and had an overall volume in excess of 100 Mpa litres. Under the provisions of AS 4343-1999 the air receiver is assigned a "C Class" hazard level. When the Inspectors made inquiry about the air receiver, a supervisor at the workplace admitted that it had not been registered by Commissioner.
Charge 3 - Failure to provide Load Chart with forklift
The inspection on 25 May 2006 also revealed that a pale green Mitsubishi industrial lift truck (fork lift) was in use at the Workplace. The lift truck did not have a legible safe working load limit in English marked on the truck, ie a load chart. The forklift did have some markings on it that were faint and appeared to be in Japanese.
An accurate safe working load chart is the accepted method of advising operators of industrial lift trucks of the safe working load limit of the lift truck. Without knowledge of the working load limit of the lift truck, the operator may unknowingly use the lift truck outside its safe working limit. This could result in one or more of several catastrophic events including the overturning of the lift truck, the slipping of the load off the tines of the lift truck and structural damage or loss of stability, which could cause injury or harm to either the operator of the lift truck or a bystander.
It was practicable for the accused to have:
Search the records of all successful prosecutions taken by WorkSafe under the Occupational Safety and Health Act 1984 and Occupational Safety and Health Regulations 1996 since 1st January 2005. Searching and indexing of this database is limited to convictions for offences against the Occupational Safety and Health Act 1984 and Occupational Safety and Health Regulations 1996 committed on or after 1 January 2005, when the statutory offence and penalty regimes were significantly amended.
Offences committed prior to 1 January 2005, while of limited comparative relevance, can be accessed via the following link.