Prosecution Details

Charge 1: On 7 July 2006 the Accused was a person, who, at a construction site where tilt-up work was proposed to be done, was a person having control of that workplace did not ensure that each person involved in the work had completed an approved course for persons involved in tilt-up work concerning the aspect of the tilt-up work in which that person was involved: contrary to regulation 3.88J(1)(b) and 1.16 of the Occupational Safety and Health Regulations 1996.

Charge 2: On 14 July 2006 the Accused was a person, who, at a construction site where tilt-up work was proposed to be done, was a person having control of that workplace did not ensure that each person involved in the work had completed an approved course for persons involved in tilt-up work concerning the aspect of the tilt-up work in which that person was involved: contrary to regulation 3.88J(1)(b) and 1.16 of the Occupational Safety and Health Regulations 1996.

The Accused is a company which operates as a builder and was the main contractor at a construction site at Altair Apartments, 132 Terrace Road, East Perth ("the workplace"). Maluka Pty Ltd ("Maluka") provided site management services at the workplace to the Accused. The Accused retained the power to direct and control matters despite Maluka's site management.

The people performing work at the workplace included labour hire workers supplied to the Accused by Personnel Contracting Pty Ltd t/as Construct Contracting Solutions. The work performed by the labour hire workers at the workplace included the erection of tilt-up concrete panels.

On 7 July 2006 (charge 1) WorkSafe Inspectors attended the workplace in response to being notified that a tilt-up panel had collapsed. Inspectors issued prohbition notices to the Accused which were received by Maluka's secretary and employee. Upon attending the workplace it was identified that two of the labour hire workers had not completed an approved tilt-up safety course concerning the aspect of the tilt-up work in which they were involved.

As the main contractor and the person engaging Construct to provide the labour hire workers the Accused was a person in control of the workplace and ought not to have allowed people to perform tilt-up work until they had completed an approved tilt-up course concerning the aspect of the tilt-up work in which they were involved.

On 10 July 2006 WorkSafe Inspectors re-inspected the workplace and found that one of the labour hire workers was still performing tilt-up work. He had not yet completed an approved tilt-up safety course concerning the aspect of the tilt-up work in which that person was involved. He was ordered to cease the tilt-up work he was performing.

WorkSafe Inspectors re-inspected the workplace again on 14 July 2006 (charge 2). A worker was identified as a person that had not completed an approved tilt-up safety course concerning the aspect of the tilt-up work in which they were involved.

As the main contractor and builder the Accused was a person in control of the workplace and ought not to have allowed people to perform tilt-up work until they had completed an approved tilt-up course concerning the aspect of the tilt-up work in which that person was involved.

Plead Guilty