Inspector Maddaford v Mulgoa Quarries and CSR Limited

Inspector Maddaford v Mulgoa Quarries and CSR Limited - [2003] NSWIRComm 480 - NSWIRComm 2003 case summary — Zoe

[37]

19 Drivers, including Besant, devised and adopted a practice whereby they alighted from their vehicle, walked along the 210 millimetre wide steel beam that ran parallel and adjacent to the concrete walkway, stepped down from the steel beam onto the square steel supporting post and then either stepped down from the square steel supporting post to the concrete walkway before stepping up and onto the aluminum platform attached to the weighbridge computer or stepped directly from the square steel supporting post to the aluminum platform attached to the weighbridge computer. Whilst stepping from the steel beam onto the square steel support and the aluminium platform they could hold onto the surround of the weighbridge computer. The same or similar path was taken when returning from the weighbridge computer to the vehicle. The practice provided the most direct means of access to the weighbridge computer from the cabin of a vehicle parked on the weighbridge and was the procedure implemented by Besant as at the date of the incident. 20 As at the date of the incident Howard Hill was employed by the defendant as the Transport Manager. Three years prior to the date of the incident Hill was otherwise employed. In the course of that other employment Hill was responsible for the provision of driver training. At that time Hill provided driver training to persons including drivers then in the employ of the defendant. The content of that training, however, did not specifically address work activities associated with weighbridges. Besant himself had provided instruction in the operation of the weighbridge computer, in so far as causing the production of a computer generated delivery docket was concerned, to less experienced drivers. However, no instruction was provided to new drivers regarding appropriate means of gaining access to and egress from the weighbridge computer. Instead, less experienced drivers followed the method they observed implemented by the more experienced drivers such as Besant.

[46]

31 The defendant's failure was the failure to implement adequate measures to ensure employees did not use the steel beam and square steel supporting post fixed to the steel beam and concrete walkway as a means of access to and egress from the weighbridge computer. 7 The agreed statement of facts in relation to the second defendant was similar in terms to that relating to the first defendant. Relevant substantive differences were as follows: 20 There was available alternate means by which drivers could reach the weighbridge computer from their vehicles stationed upon the weighbridge. Those means involved drivers alighting their vehicles, walking upon the flat surface of the weighbridge to either set of stairs located at each end of the weighbridge, descending those stairs to the concrete walkway situated below the weighbridge and walking along the walkway to the weighbridge computer. When a vehicle such as that driven by Besant on the date of the incident was parked centrally on the weighbridge there existed a clearance of approximately 540 millimetres between a vehicle and the steel beam in which a driver could manouvre (sic) along the flat surface of the weighbridge. So far as Besant was concerned, his ability to manouvere (sic) between a parked vehicle and the steel beam was further restricted as a result of his relatively large size (approximately 139 kilograms in weight). … 23. Subsequent to the incident the defendant undertook a comprehensive investigation culminating in a written report and recommendations and caused the following remedial measures to be implemented: (a) signage prohibiting drivers walking along steel beams and requiring drivers walk along the flat surface of the weighbridge were affixed to both the weighbridge and weighbridge computer; (b) an interim procedure was devised whereby an employee of the defendant, delegated the task of weighbridge operator, manned the weighbridge and operated the weighbridge computer alleviating the need for drivers to alight from their vehicles whilst on the weighbridge for that purpose. Consultation with Mulgoa Quarries Pty Limited with regard to the interim procedure was undertaken before being approved and reduced to writing; (c) the aluminium platform attached to the weighbridge computer was removed; and (d) platforms incorporating guardrailing were fitted to both sides of the weighbridge at Horsley Park.

[48]

9 The second defendant tendered two affidavits, the first from Andrew Gauci, the second defendant's operations manager at its Horsley Park plant and the second from Debbie Schroeder, the second defendant's national workers compensation manager. Neither deponent was required for cross-examination. Mr Gauci's affidavit went to the following matters: 1. His personal experience, training and responsibilities, which included the following: a. Taking overall responsibility for the site's compliance with legislative & CSR's requirements. b. Knowing the safety requirements for the site & ensuring they are met as well as actively ensuring that the site strives to eliminate any injuries or environmental incidents. c. Achieve operating costs targets each year as well as the working capital targets. d. Track the key quality drivers and ensure the product is within the agreed tolerances & meets the legislative/targeted performance standards. e. Participate in new product & customer development. 2. The nature of the second defendant's operations, which was the manufacture of clay bricks and pavers. 3. Expenditure on safety. Dedicated safety expenditure at Horsley Park for 2002-2003 was $160,000.00. This included an amount of $140,000.00 from the plant budget, and a safety allocation from PGH capital expenditure of $20,000.00. The plant OHS committee determines how these funds are directed. Other safety expenditure is likely to be in the vicinity of $150,000.00 . This amount varies from year to year. 4. Occupational health and safety policy at the Horsley Park plant including the conduct of safety audits. 5. Circumstances surrounding the death of Mr Besant. In this respect Mr Gauci deposed: Trucks of varying lengths use the weighbridge at Horsley Park. As such they come to a stop at different points along the weighbridge. To remove the risk of slipping by truck drivers when they dismounted from their truck non slip tape was applied to a section of the steel beam to accommodate all of the trucks. CSR were aware prior to the accident that some drivers had traversed the beam to gain access to the weighbridge computer. The company required persons to use the stairs. Truck drivers who were observed to traverse the beam were told not to do so by management. The location of the weighbridge computer in relation to the office meant that the drivers were obscured from the vision of CSR employees when they dismounted from their truck. Observations of truck drivers only occurred when employees of CSR were going to or from the employee carpark Whilst CSR had determined that truck drivers were required to use the stairs the risk which was identified was very low in relation to injury. The height of the weighbridge is similar if not less than the height of many retaining walls. The height is also lees than that encountered by truck drivers dismounting from their trucks. 6. Remedial action taken by the second defendant. The weighbridge was initially taken out of service then redesigned. 7. CSR deeply regrets the incident that occurred. 8. CSR has in accordance with its usual policy endeavoured to co-operate with the WorkCover Authority throughout the investigation of the incident and subsequently.

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Source

Judgment (78 paragraphs)

Parties

Cases Cited (7)

Cited By (2)