Category – Plant – Traffic management – Failure to ensure the means of entering and leaving a workplace is safe
Fine – $40,000
Costs $4,037
The offender is a nationwide transport and logistics company with a Melbourne branch located in Laverton North (“the workplace”). On 19 December 2022, a WorkSafe Inspector attended the workplace in response to an anonymous call received by WorkSafe from an employee on 14 December 2022. The call was in relation to an alleged incident which was said to have occurred when a forklift was unloading a trailer in the loading area of the workplace.
No offences arose from that incident, however the Inspector observed poor compliance with an existing traffic management plan (“TMP”) and issued an improvement notice. The notice was extended over a period of time by application to the internal review unit, however during that time the Inspector re-attended the workplace on a number of occasions. The Inspector made observations of ongoing poor compliance with the TMP on 19 December 2022, 17 May 2023, 14 July 2023 and 3 August 2023.
The offender pleaded guilty to a single charge under s 26(1) of the Act for failing to eliminate or reduce the risk of serious injury or death to persons working in the vicinity of forklifts. This single charge alleged 4 contraventions on 19 December 2022, 17 May 2023, 14 July 2023 and 3 August 2023. The offender should have ensured:
- A three metre exclusion zone between pedestrians and powered mobile plant was maintained; and/or
- Designated pedestrian walkways and truck driver safety zones were maintained.
In passing sentence the court noted:
- That the offender had pleaded guilty to a single charge alleging 4 contraventions of the Act, over a 7 month period;
- That the plea was on the basis that the offender had not done enough to manage the risks at the workplace;
- That it formed the view that the likelihood of the risk eventuating was moderate to high;
- That the contraventions occurred a short time after the offender had been in court and pleaded guilty to a related offence, for which it had received a significant fine;
- That the sentence needed to accurately reflect the need for specific and general deterrence for this sort of activity in this kind of working environment;
- That the recording of a conviction would send a message to other companies that these risks cannot be tolerated and that remediation and compliance are of paramount importance;
- That it had taken into account the plea of guilty;
- That it accepted that the offender had spent a considerable amount of money on remedial works and was a good corporate citizen.
The offender pleaded guilty and was with conviction sentenced to pay a fine of $40,000 and to pay costs of $4,037.
Pursuant to section 6AAA of the Sentencing Act 1991, but for the plea of guilty the offender would have been fined $50,000 with conviction.
Source: Worksafe Victoria
