Prosecution Details

Charge 1 – Being an employer, did not, so far as was practicable provide and maintain a working environment in which the employees of the employer were not exposed to hazards and by that contravention caused serious harm to an employee, contrary to sections 19(1) and 19A(2) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act 1984 (WA).

Charge 2 - Being an employer, failed to forthwith notify the Commissioner in the prescribed form, of an injury to an employee, where that injury is of a kind that is prescribed, contrary to sections 23J(1), 23I(2)(a) and 23I(3) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 1984 (WA).

Summary of Incident

On 13 July 2021, an apprentice welder and fabricator (the victim) received serious burns while welding at National Steel’s workshop at Hope Valley, Western Australia.The victim was not wearing a welding apron or welding jacket while he was welding. He suffered serious burns to his chest and stomach after welding sparks were ejected onto his synthetic clothing causing it to catch fire.

This incident was not reported to WorkSafe, which became aware of it through a proactive visit on 29 November 2021.

MIG Welding

At the workshop, National Steel manufactures and supplies structural steel for the residential construction industry. Welders and fabricators manufacture steel columns and T bars using MIG welding equipment. In MIG welding, an electrical welding arc is used to fuse metal together using molten welding wire that has been heated to a very high temperature by the electrical arc.

The welding at National Steel was usually conducted on a bench at a fixed height. During the welding process small fragments of molten metal (sparks) are ejected. These sparks may ignite clothing and cause burns. In addition, a MIG welding arc emits ultraviolet radiation, infrared radiations and visible radiation which can cause eye and skin burn injuries. For these reasons, a welder is required to wear a variety of personal protective equipment over their head and the rest of their body.

The Victim’s employment and apprenticeship at National Steel

The victim, who was sixteen at the time, commenced employment as a trades assistant on 18 January 2021. It was intended that he would undertake an initial trial period of employment, to be continued onto an apprenticeship. The victim initially performed non-welding duties at National Steel such as using the overhead crane and bandsaw, and cleaning and sweeping the floor.

When the victim commenced employment he was provided by National Steel with earplugs, dust masks, safety glasses and gloves to be worn when handling hot materials. National Steel did not provide the victim with protective clothing. His trousers, shirt, and boots were provided by himself. He had missed the annual allocation by National Steel of long-sleeved work shirts.

There were no written records kept by National Steel of the victim receiving an induction that included instruction on workplace safety, or of him receiving any safety instruction documents.

After successful completion of the trial period, in March 2021 it was agreed that the victim would commence an apprenticeship in Heavy Fabrication and Welding at National Steel. His duties in this apprenticeship were to prepare, fabricate and weld various metal constructions, components and structures while under supervision. The apprenticeship would also include classes of instruction at TAFE to commence in July 2021.

In April 2021 the supervisor of the workshop assigned the victim to initially work with an experienced welder in the welder’s bay who would show him how to do welding tasks.

This welder was a qualified boilermaker with nine years of experience. He was second in charge on the workshop floor and filled the supervisor’s role when he was absent.

The welder and the victim worked together on basic welding tasks for at least one week. This welder told the victim to wear a welding helmet when welding. After this initial period, the victim was assigned to be trained by another welder, a qualified boilermaker, for approximately one week.

While the victim was working with the first welder, on one occasion the victim’s clothing caught fire, which was quickly extinguished. The victim then obtained a leather welding apron to wear while welding. However, the first welder did not enforce any policy that workers were required to wear leather aprons or welding jackets at all times while they were welding.

After approximately one week of training from the second welder, the supervisor directed the victim to begin working in his own welding bay. This bay was an end bay at the perimeter of the workshop. It was opposite the first welder’s bay, separated by the main aisle, and it was diagonally opposite the second welder’s bay on the other side of the aisle. While he was welding, the victim was wearing clothing of his own choosing which included long sleeved shirts and a blue jacket. On occasions he wore an apron over his clothing.

Job Safety Analysis

On an unknown date the management of National Steel prepared a Job Safety Analysis (JSA) for the activity of MIG welding. The JSA provided that the control of risks during welding was to include wearing correct PPE, i.e. glasses, gloves, leather apron/welding jacket, welding helmet, and long protective clothing.

Incident

As at 13 July 2021, the instructional component at TAFE of the victim’s apprenticeship had not yet commenced. Nor had he completed any pre-apprenticeship courses in welding or fabrication outside his secondary education.

On that date the victim commenced work at 6:00am. He was wearing a cotton undershirt, a long sleeved work shirt and an orange hi-vis hoodie. The hoodie was mostly composed of synthetic material. The protective equipment he was wearing consisted of a welding helmet, respirator and welding gloves.

The acting supervisor, who was working for some of the time in the office that day, walked past the victim’s welding bay a number of times during the morning and saw him welding there. He did not direct the victim to wear a welding apron. The victim was not being constantly supervised on that morning, and there was no senior worker present in close proximity to watch over him.

After a morning break the victim was still wearing the orange hi-vis hoodie. He was not wearing an apron. After completing some welds he began to feel hot so he removed the hoodie and replaced it with a high vis tradie style jacket. During his next weld, the victim felt heat on his arm. After completing the weld he removed his helmet and saw that his high-vis jacket, shirt and undershirt were on fire. No other workers were nearby and able to assist. The victim tried extinguishing the fire with his welding glove without success. He removed the jacket which had melted.

As it had been raining, there was a puddle on the ground near the victim’s welding bay, so he lay down flat in the puddle, which extinguished the fire. He then walked to a sink in the workshop and started splashing water on himself.

Another employee saw that the victim had been burned. He led the victim to the office where acting supervisor was. The acting supervisor gave the victim some cream to apply to the burns and told him to wet his undershirt with water and put it on the burns.

The acting supervisor then drove the victim to a health clinic where staff attended to the burns and then redirected him to a Hospital Burns Unit.

Serious harm

The victim was hospitalised for 5 days and returned for 8 days for further treatment (debridement of burn wounds). The victim was initially incapacitated for any work following the incident for 33 days.

He received a burn vest to wear. He was referred to a clinical psychologist for treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder, with symptoms of depression, anxiety and stress detected also. The welding burn caused a 5% partial thickness burn to victim’s left anterior chest and flank and right hand. He had two surgeries with two skin grafts. He experienced pain for close to a year in the area of burn. He developed staphylococcus aureus in the burn sites requiring extra antibiotics. The victim recovered from the burn after a year but has permanent burn scars and has to protect his skin from overheating and sunburn.

Practicable means

National Steel did not comply with its duties under s 19(1) by failing to implement any or all of the following means of removing or mitigating the potential injury or harm to health:

a)       Ensuring that all employees wore leather aprons or welding jackets while welding;

b)      Ensuring that all employees wore work clothing made of wool or flame-resistant canvas and not synthetic materials while welding;

c)       Ensuring that all young and/or inexperienced employees were adequately supervised and monitored by a competent person while the employees were welding.

Reporting of incident to WorkSafe

The victim suffered an injury which in the opinion of a medical practitioner was likely to prevent him from being able to work within 10 days of the day on which the injury occurred. As such, the injury was one which was required to be notified forthwith to WorkSafe under s 23I of the Occupational Safety and Health Act 1984 and regulation 2.4 of the Occupational Safety and Health Regulations 1996.

National Steel did not report the incident involving the victim to WorkSafe. WorkSafe first became aware of it through a proactive visit to National Steel’s workshop conducted by a WorkSafe Inspector on 29 November 2021.

National Steel entered a plea of guilty and was convicted on 4 November 2024 and sentenced on 9 December 20234. The Magistrate issued a fine of $350,000 and ordered costs of $5294.70.