Prosecution Details

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).

On 4 August 2021 a worker (victim) suffered serious head injuries including a scalp degloving, multiple skull fractures, facial deformity, and the loss of an eye when a lug plate weighing approximately 500kg fell on his head.

The incident occurred during the victim’s employment as a boilermaker with G & G Mining Fabrication Pty Ltd (G & G Mining) at a workshop located in Hazelmere (Workshop), where G & G carried on part of its business manufacturing mining and earthmoving equipment, including heavy excavator buckets and mobile water tanks.

Background

The victim commenced his employment with G & G Mining in the Workshop as a qualified boilermaker in approximately November 2020.

There were several overhead bridge cranes in the Workshop including two 32 tonne dual hoist cranes and one 10 tonne single hoist crane. The victim was verified as competent by G & G Mining to operate the 32 tonne and 10 tonne cranes at the Workshop on 8 January and 30 January respectively.

The cranes moved along a pair of tracks that ran the length of the Workshop. They all ran along the same set of tracks and the order of the cranes in relation to each other could not be changed.

Lead up to the incident

The task of fabricating the hook-up assembly for a Hitachi EX2600 excavator was allocated to the victim after a ‘toolbox talk meeting’ conducted by the workshop superintendent at about 6:00am and attended by all the workers on shift that day. The workshop superintendent completed a Toolbox Talk Details Page, which noted the importance of safety. It also included a note concerning the workload and stated “don’t slow down/ we have to normal work. We have to finish this job on time. If unsafe - ask”. 

After the toolbox talk meeting, the victim went to the workshop superintendent’s  office and collected drawings for the task. He completed a ‘Take 5’, which is a basic risk assessment form that included a checklist of items to consider before starting a job. Completion of Take 5s had become a standard procedure at the Workshop in the months prior to the incident.  The victim did not consider there to be anything unusual about the job.

The purpose of the hook-up assembly was to connect the arm of the excavator to the bucket. It is comprised of 4 steel plates referred to as the ‘hook-ups’ (or lug plates) welded to a V-plate (also referred to as a shell extension).

The components used to construct the bucket needed to be robust. The excavator bucket itself weighs approximately 22 tonnes, and the hook-up is required to withstand the weight of the bucket, its load as well as the stress of digging. Each of the lug plates weighed approximately 550kg.

Fabrication of excavator buckets was a task that was commonly completed at the Workshop. However, at the time of the incident, the G & G Mining did not have a formalised procedure setting out the work steps for the task.

The general practice was for the superintendent or supervisor to provide drawings to the tradesmen to communicate important practical and/or technical information about a task. The G & G Mining implemented an informal system whereby new or inexperienced personnel were paired up with experienced personnel for learning purposes. The method usually used to fabricate a hook-up assembly at the Workshop was to weld the V-plate to a temporary set of stands and then use a crane to lift the lug plate into the required position (as marked up on the V-plate).

The use of a crane to restrain a lug plate during welding was an accepted and consistently used practice. The crane would provide a primary restraint for supporting the lug plate during the fabrication process. The victim had fabricated several excavator buckets prior to the incident using this method.  Turnbuckles were consistently used as part of the alignment process to straighten the lug plate to a 90-degree angle before it was fully welded. The turnbuckles provide a secondary restraint against uncontrolled movement of the lug plate during fabrication.  Small welds known as tack or stitch welds would then be made to hold the lug plate in position against the V-plate. 

The workshop superintendent visited the victim’s work area at least once prior to the incident.  The crane was in place when the workshop superintendent attended the victim’s work area. After the marking up was signed off, a colleague (worker 1) of the victim came to assist him. Together they manoeuvred the lug plate onto the V-plate using the 10 tonne crane, which was attached to the lug plate using chains.

The victim lowered the lug plate until it rested on the V-plate and then a hammer was used to align it. At this time the lug plate was supported by the crane. He ran a come-a-long through the eye of the lug plate to pull it down onto the V-plate. Once the lug plate was in place, the worker 1 made two temporary stitch welds to hold the lug plate in place. The crane was still attached while these welds were made.

The stitch welds were not intended to secure the lug plate in place by themselves. The stitch welds were intended to allow for some movement so that the lug plate could be straightened into a square position.

They welded turnbuckles to the lug plate and V-plate. Once the turnbuckles were welded in place, the victim removed the crane and gave it to another worker (worker 2). Initially the crane had remained attached to the lug plate and provided the primary restraint or safeguard for supporting the lug plate during fabrication. However, after being requested on numerous occasions by the worker 2 who was working in an adjacent work area, the victim removed the crane and released it to the worker 2.  The victim considered the lug plate to be secured by the turnbuckles. 

The victim and worker 1 unsuccessfully tried to straighten the lug plate into a square position using the turnbuckles. They then attached a second come-a-long to achieve alignment of the lug plate perpendicular to the V-plate. After attaching the second come-a-long, the victim told worker 1 to cut the turnbuckles from the lug plate with an angle grinder. 

As worker 1 did this, the victim placed his head near the base of the lug plate to assess whether it was perpendicular. At this point, the tack welds failed, and the lug plate fell in the direction of the second come-a-long and on the victim’s head.

At the time of the incident, G&G Mining had a documented safe work procedure (SWP) in place for the turning and lifting of buckets and tanks. This SWP was concerned primarily with the use of cranes and hazards arising from suspended loads.

The SWP expressly prohibited workers from welding with chains attaching the crane to the lug plates. However, the SWP was not utilised or provided to workers, and the usual practice was for workers (including the victim) to leave the chains attaching the crane to the lug plates in place while welding.

Within a week of the incident, G&G Mining issued a Safe Work Method Statement (SWMS) for assembling lug plates to shell extensions and rib boxes. The SWMS expressly required that an overhead crane remain connected to the lug plate until there is an adequate weld in place.

The offender plead guilty and was convicted. Sentenced on 19 August 2025 where the Magistrate issued a fine of $500,000 and ordered costs $6526.70