Prosecution Details

Being a person who at a workplace was the main contractor or the person having control of the workplace, did not ensure that edge protection that complied with regulation 3.55(5) of the Occupational Safety and Health Regulations 1996 made under the Occupational Safety and Health Act 1984 was provided and kept in place whenever there was a risk that a person could fall 2 metres or more from an edge at the workplace; contrary to regulation 3.55(1)(a) of the Regulations

The Accused is a construction company that was in the process of building a set of 21 units between 3-9 Clifton Street in Bunbury ("the workplace"). The Accused was the main contractor and on 28 November 2006 was the person who had control of and oversaw the construction work at the workplace.

On 24 November 2006 WorkSafe inspectors attended the workplace and observed people working on the units where there was no edge protection around stairwells and along the edges of the units' balconies. Both the tops of the stairwells and the balconies were more than 2 metres above the ground. Inspectors issued a prohibition notice to the Accused pursuant to section 49 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act 1984. This notice identified that the Accused was in breach of regulation 3.55(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Regulations 1996. The notice also contained a direction that Briklay was to provide and maintain edge protection in accordance with regulation 3.55(5) to all open edges, stairways and suspended slabs in excess of 2 metres in the workplace. All workers on site were told to cease work until scaffolding could be arranged and the premises were locked up.

On 28 November 2006 a WorkSafe inspector observed 2 persons working on the rear balconies of units at the workplace. The balconies did not have any edge protection provided. One worker was a self-employed subcontractor (tiler), the other was a labour hire worker who was performing clean up work on the neighbouring unit. When interviewed the workers stated that they were not aware a prohibition notice was in effect at the workplace.

Scaffolding had been erected to the front balconies of the units. No scaffolding had been erected on the rear balconies nor around the internal stairwells, from which the top floor and balconies were accessed. The scaffolding at the front of the units did not comply with regulation 3.55(5) in that it did not have a toe board or wire mesh.

The two workers accessed the rear balconies of the units they were witnessed working on via the internal stairs. The top of the stairs were recorded as being 2.6 metres above floor level. The balcony was recorded as being 2.9 metres above the ground. Neither man was using an alternative fall arrest system at the time.

Plead Guilty