Prosecution Details

Charge 1: Between 15 October 2005 and 3 February 2006, LOGAN PTY LTD (ACN 009 231 949) being a person to whom an improvement notice no. 90400308 was issued on 14 September 2005, did not comply with the improvement notice by 14 October 2005, that date being the date by which the improvement notice must be complied with; contrary to section 48(4) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act 1984.

Charge 2:  Between 15 October 2005 and 3 February 2006, LOGAN PTY LTD (ACN 009 231 949) being a person to whom an improvement notice no 90400315 was issued on 14 September 2005, did not comply with the improvement notice by 14 October 2005,that date being the date by which the improvement notice must be complied with; contrary to section 48(4) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act 1984.

Charge 3: Between 14 September 2005 and 3 February 2006, LOGAN PTY LTD (ACN 009 231 949) being an employer to whom an improvement notice was issued under section 48(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act 1984, failed to cause the notice or acopy of it to be displayed in a prominent place at or near the workplace affected by the notice, contrary to sections 48(3), 48(6) and 54 of the Act.

The accused is the owner and operator of a small cafe located at Joondalup (the Workplace). The accused trades under the business name Chopin Patisserie and has a number of employees.

On 14 September 2005 a WorkSafe Inspector conducted an inspection of the Workplace for the purposes of the Occupational Safety and Health Act 1984 (the Act).

Following the inspection the Inspector issued a total of 10 Improvement Notices to the accused. All the notices specified a compliance date of 14 October 2005. WorkSafe received signed compliance slips from the accused in respect of 7 of the 10 notices on 21 October 2005.

The Inspector returned to the Workplace to carry out a further inspection on 18 January 2006. The inspection revealed that although the accused had returned compliance slips for the notices only one of them had in fact been complied with. The Inspector spoke with a director of the company at length regarding the matters the accused had to attend to in order to comply with the notices and the consequences that would follow if the accused failed to comply. The Inspector advised that he would return to the Workplace in approximately 2 weeks time to verify the accused's compliance with the notices and warned the accused that if, at that time, the notices were still not complied with, enforcement proceedings would be taken.

On 3 February 2006 the Inspector returned to the Workplace together with another Inspector to conduct an inspection of Workplace to verify the accused's compliance with the notices. The inspection revealed that a number of notices had not been complied with. The several charges preferred are a selection from approximately 7 failures to comply with notices improvements notices that were identified:

A notice was issued relation to portable fire extinguishers at the Workplace. The notice advised that the Inspector had formed the opinion that the accused was contravening regulation 3.9(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Regulations 1996 on the basis that a 4.5kg Firex portable fire extinguisher present at the Workplace had not been serviced in the last 12 months. The notice directed the accused to provide and to regularly maintain an efficient portable fire extinguishers to control any fire likely to arise from the work being done at the workplace. The inspection on 3 February 2006 revealed that the fire extinguisher had still not been serviced, the most recent service date being May 2004.

A notice was issued in relation to the provision of a protective glove for use with a Brice slicer located at the Workplace. The notice advised that the Inspector had formed the opinion that the accused was likely in contravention of section 19 (1) of the Act on the basis that employees who use, clean and maintain the Brice slicer located in the kitchen did not have readily available to them a protective glove which was necessary to allow them to work so that they were not exposed to hazards such as the risk of a cut from the blade of the slicer while cleaning and maintaining it. The accused was directed to ensure that a protective glove was provided and used when cleaning and maintaining the slicer to reduce the likelihood of injury or harm as a result of employees being exposed to the sharp blade of the slicer.

The inspection on 3 February 2006 revealed that the accused had not obtained a protective (steel mesh) glove for use by employees operating the slicer at the workplace.

The inspection and further inquiries made by the Inspectors also revealed that the accused had not displayed any of the notices in a prominent place anywhere in the Workplace since they were first issued on 14 September 2005.

The accused pleaded guilty.

Convicted