skip navigation
Back

Prosecution Details

Defendant Cornelius Van Luxemborg
Regulation 6.20(2)(b) & 6.20(2)(c)
Offence Date Between 1 and 31 July 2014 inclusive
Description of Breach(es)

Charge 1: On 1 July 2014 the Accused, being a high risk work assessor, issued a notice of satisfactory assessment in respect of a person's performance of high risk work of a particular class without having assessed that person's competency in accordance with the approved assessment instrument for work of that class: contrary to regulation 6.20(2)(b) and 1.15(2)(a) of the Occupational Safety and Health Regulations 1996 ("the Regulations").

Charge 2: On 3 July 2014 the Accused, being a high risk work assessor, issued a notice of satisfactory assessment in respect of a person's performance of high risk work of a particular class without having assessed that person's competency in accordance with the approved assessment instrument for work of that class: contrary to regulation 6.20(2)(b) and 1.15(2)(a) of the Regulations.

Charge 3: On 4 July 2014 the Accused, being a high risk work assessor, issued a notice of satisfactory assessment in respect of a person's performance of high risk work of a particular class without having assessed that person's competency in accordance with the approved assessment instrument for work of that class: contrary to regulation 6.20(2)(b) and 1.15(2)(a) of the Regulations.

Charge 4: On 19 July 2014 the Accused, being a high risk work assessor, issued a notice of satisfactory assessment in respect of a person's performance of high risk work of a particular class without having assessed that person's competency in accordance with the approved assessment instrument for work of that class: contrary to regulation 6.20(2)(b) and 1.15(2)(a) of the Regulations.

Charge 5: On 25 July 2014 the Accused, being a high risk work assessor, issued a notice of satisfactory assessment in respect of a person's performance of high risk work of a particular class without having assessed that person's competency in accordance with the approved assessment instrument for work of that class: contrary to regulation 6.20(2)(b) and 1.15(2)(a) of the Regulations.

Charge 6: On 31 July 2014 the Accused, being a high risk work assessor, issued a notice of satisfactory assessment in respect of a person's performance of high risk work of a particular class without, having regard to the results of the assessment, being satisfied that the person is competent to do work of that class: contrary to regulation 6.20(2)(c) and 1.15(2)(a) of the Regulations.

 

Background Details

Cornelius Van Luxemborg (also known as Kees Van Luxemborg) was granted a certificate of registration as a WorkSafe Assessor on 19 January 2000. This certificate of registration entitled Mr Van Luxemborg to conduct assessments of persons wanting to obtain high risk work licences.

Mr Van Luxemborg was employed as a high risk work licence assessor by a registered training organisation.

In February 2014 WorkSafe conducted an audit of all registered assessors affiliated with the registered training organization.

The audit revealed that Mr Van Luxemborg was not assessing candidates in line with the assessment instrument or complying with the relevant legislative provisions. Consequently an administrative warning was issued to him by WorkSafe. He was also advised that a further audit would be conducted within 6 months.

On 8 September 2014, WorkSafe reviewed the assessments conducted by Mr Van Luxemborg in July 2014. Mr Van Luxemborg had conducted 103 assessments during that month, including 17 assessments on one day. This number of assessments being conducted in one month raised concerns with WorkSafe as to the quality of training that was being provided.

Further investigation was undertaken and copies of the relevant documents were obtained from the registered training organization. The documents indicated that in the month of July 2014 alone, Mr Van Luxemborg had:

a. issued 18 notices of satisfactory assessment to high risk work licence candidates when the candidates answered one or more critical questions incorrectly (this should have resulted in assessments of not yet competent with the unsuccessful candidates to be reassessed at a later date);
b. issued 13 notices of satisfactory assessment to candidates that he had not himself trained or assessed;
c. not supervised the knowledge and calculations, or performance portions of the examination for 21 candidates that he signed off on as competent;
d. used an incorrect or out dated assessment instrument for 18 candidates; and
e. conducted the performance portion of the examination prior to the knowledge and calculations portions of the examination for 47 candidates (this should not be done as clarification is to be sought from any incorrect answers from the knowledge assessment during the performance assessment).

The six charges brought by WorkSafe against Mr Van Luxemborg in this prosecution are simply representative of his non-compliance of his duties as a registered high risk work assessor during July 2014.

On 15 January 2016 WorkSafe wrote to Mr Van Luxemborg, setting out its concerns as to his suitability to remain registered as an assessor in respect of high risk work, and particularizing in full detail allegations of that he had breached his assessor's duties under regulation 6.20(2) of the Occupational Safety and Health Regulations 1996. The letter informed Mr Van Luxemborg that the WorkSafe Commissioner proposed to hold a hearing into the basis of those allegations to determine whether he should suspend or cancel Mr Van Luxemborg's registration as an assessor.

Mr Van Luxemborg was provided with an opportunity to respond to the allegations, including by attending a hearing before the Commissioner to be heard on the allegations.

Mr Luxemborg elected not to challenge the allegations.

On 11 March 2016 the WorkSafe Commissioner wrote to Mr Van Luxemborg to inform him that his assessor registration was to be cancelled effective from 16 March 2016 on the basis that he was satisfied that Mr Van Luxemborg had, on numerous occasions, breached his duties as an assessor pursuant to regulation 6.20 of the Occupational Safety and Health Regulations 1996.

 




Outcome Summary

The accused entered an endorsed plea of guilty to 6 charges and was convicted. The Magistrate fined the Accussed a global fine of $1800.00 and ordered costs of $488.50.

Conviction Date 24 Jun 2016
Court Magistrates Court of Western Australia - Fremantle
Fine $1800.00
Costs $488.50
Charge Number FR6515-6520/2016