Employer held responsible for workers transposition

[PeteRig]

Interesting article in this months ElectroLink regarding the prosecution (77k) of an employer for his worker transposing conductors.
WorkSafe prosecuted the employer under the HSWA act, originally WorkSafe were seeking $500k.
The author of the article suggests a reference to ESR 100 is inserted on your COC's and JSA's or SWMS are created possibly for safe working procedures that can be attached to a COC.
I guess the more evidence you have to show you took all practicable steps to provide safe working practices the better.
Also WorkSafe going down this track refer to the employer as the PCBU.
Has this now set a presentence for going forward?

[AlecK]

Not the first time Worksafe have preferred to use HSW law rather than electrical law.
And won't be the last.

Quite simply, it's far easier for them to get a conviction that way; because the burden of proof is reversed.
There's no such principle as innocent until proven guilty.
In stead you're presumed to be guilty; unless / until you can prove that there was nothing else you could have done.
Just that fact that an adverse incident happened means that not enough was done to prevent it from happening.
Hindsight being 20/20; the only area for discussion is whether doing (whatever) was "reasonably practicable.

Also under electrical law the responsibilities generally lie with individual licence holders.
Under HSWA, responsibilities are spread more widely.


Add in the fact that you can't insure against penalties under HSWA, whereas you can for most other law.
so your insurer doesn't have to worry about the level of fine, only about how much it might cost to defend a case.

----------------
On the other hand, everyone involved in this case stuffed up.
First the installer stuffed up. Did the job wrong, and failed to test.
Then the employer stuffed up; by issuing a CoC without independently checking that the work had been done correctly.
The judge was wrong to say that certification has to be by whoever did the work.
But a CoC is a document that identifies an individual as accepting responsibility; and doing that on blind faith alone is just silly.
Then the Inspector stuffed up; failing to test properly (or at all?)
All before the installation was connected to supply.

Then he stuffed up again, as the person connecting (same person, but wearing a different hat);
by issuing an ESC for an installation that clearly was not safe.

So difficult to feel a lot of sympathy.

So far the actual worker seems to have go off without penalty, but that could change.

------------------

I don't see much (if any) benefit in adding even more stuff into a CoC as proposed by Electrolink.

If you've got HSW documentation, such as JSAs or SWMs; they'll be available if & when needed.
Adding more tick-boxes to the CoC won't make them any easier to use
Nor will it make them any more admissible.

And if you didn't do a JSA before starting the work; finding a tick-box on the CoC, after the work is done, is a bit late to be getting a reminder.

---------------------
No-one expects us to be 100 % right in everything we do.
What's required is for us to check, EVERY time, that we have got it right.
And we need to do this in a way that doesn't put anyone at risk - including ourselves.
As long as we do that, we're very unlikely to end up defending our actions
(and all that paperwork can just gather dust)

[Slovett]

Yeah, it’s one of those articles that after reading, that you hope you’ve got all checks in place just in case something like this ever happens.

But, I am wondering why the Judge / WorkSafe didn’t place more emphasis on the inspector not testing? In my view the hazard did not exist until the Inspector, who was also connecting Mains and issued the RoI and ESC, failed to test and livened the installation, creating the Hazard. $15k certainly isn’t just a slap on the wrist, but it is a lot less than what the Electrical company got.

Also, I’m guessing the ‘Electrician’ is an apprentice, which is why the employer issued the CoC??

[MikeNZ]

3 words,
Un-identified aluminium conductors.
The fact that there were two black sheathed conductors should have alerted the Electrician that this was going to be a polarity nightmare.

Also the fact that WorkSafe flexed their muscles in this case is quite worrying and went over and above what the EWRB would have done, had it been left to them.

Anyone that works on Mains, needs to ascertain that the Phase conductor is exactly that and the Neutral is not the Phase conductor.

But to have the company owner pinged for this, is just wrong, especially when the Inspector who connected the installation never picked this fault up ( ie; didn't test it)
got away with murder.

IMHO Worksafe needs to pull it's horns in, most of the staff I've met from Worksafe, OSH over the years, don't really have a clue about most things, although they
seem to think they are experts in everything.