Prosecution Details

On 30 July 2009, the Accused, being an employee failed to take reasonable care to avoid adversely affecting the safety or health of other persons at Lot 32 Beard Street, through any act or omission at work in contravention of the section 20(1) Occupational Safety and Health Act 1984.

On 30 July 2009 the Accused was employed by a rigging company.  The rigging company was engaged by another company to rig and dog three steel roof sections on to 3 concrete silos.  The concrete silos were located at Lot 32 Beard Street, Naval Base. 

As at 30 July 2009 the first steel roof section had been lifted on to one concrete silo and the Accused was lifting the steel roof section on to the second concrete silo.  The steel roof section being lifted by the Accused was approximately 18 metres long, 6 metres wide and weighed 10.6 - 10.8 tonnes.  It was constructed predominantly of steel I-beams, which created a flat bottom structure with square edges.  

On 30 July 2009 the Accused was working with two other employees of the rigging company.  The Accused held a certificate in advanced rigging and was in charge of arranging how the steel roof section would be lifted.  The rigging company did not have the necessary rigging equipment available to lift the steel roof section.  The site supervisor from the company engaging the rigging company offered to purchase rigging equipment for the rigging company, which offer was accepted by the accused.  The Accused did not tell the site supervisor what rigging equipment was required.   The site supervisor purchased four yellow 3 tonne synthetic lifting slings and two chains, which he provided to the accused.  He also provided the accused with hand written notes that indicated that the steel roof section weighed 10.1 tonne. 

The Accused determined that he would use the four yellow 3 tonne synthetic lifting slings and two chains to lift the steel roof section.  He also determined the manner in which he would use the slings.   The Accused decided to rig the slings by a method known as a basketing the slings.  This meant that each sling was placed around a single I-beam which created a shape similar to a triangle.  The angle of the slings was approximately 60 degrees.  Each of the four slings was arranged in this manner.  One of the employees from the rigging company "dogged the load" which was to instruct a tower crane operator, who was operating the on-site tower crane to lift the steel roof section into position.  Whilst this was occurring the Accused made his way up the stairs adjoining the silo.  When the steel roof section was approximately 15 metres above the ground, one or more of the slings snapped, causing the steel roof section to swing before the remaining slings snapped and the steel roof section fell to the ground.  

The other employee of the rigging company was holding the tag lines, which were about 8 or 10 metres long, until the load was lifted away from him and he then started walking away from the load.  The employee saw the slings break and started running away (he states "bolted") from the load because he was by his own description "pretty close".  The employee who had been dogging the load saw the slings snap and also ran away from the load. 

The sudden release of the steel roof section caused the crane to recoil from the "shock load" and swing violently as the load was released.  Some witnesses say the movement was a much as 6 metres.

It was reasonable for the Accused to avoid adversely affecting the safety and health of other persons by ensuring:

a) the steel roof section was lifted by lugs welded to the steel roof section and chains; or

b) the steel roof section was lifted by chains and shackles; or

c) the steel roof section was lifted by synthetic lifting slings rates to lift the steel roof section.

The Accused plead guilty and was convicted.