|Defendant||Adam Thomas Kleeman|
|Trading Name||Thommo's Roofing|
|Section||19(1)(a) and 19(6)|
|Offence Date||Friday, 17 April 1998|
|Description of Breach(es)||
Being an employer, failed to provide and maintain, so far as was practicable, a working environment in which his employees were not exposed to hazards in that he failed to provide and maintain a system of work such that, so far as was practicable, his employees were not exposed to hazards.
The defendant was a roofing contractor. On 17 April 1998, employees of the defendant were working on the roof of a warehouse building in Malaga as shown in the photograph. The work involved cladding the roof with insulation and metal sheeting.
The roof was approximately 8 metres high and the employees were working near an unguarded edge and were not wearing fall arrest equipment.
The defendant was originally fined $25,000 by His Worship Mr Burton SM. The defendant subsequently made a successful application under section 136A of the Justices Act 1902 and the matter was adjourned for a re-hearing. This re-hearing was conducted by His Worship Mr Calder SM and the defendant was convicted of the charge and fined $3000. His Worship found that he was not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that anchor bolts were not in place on the roof at the time of the incident. This matter had been the subject of a strong challenge by the complainant during cross-examination. His Worship also found that all workers had access to harnesses on the day, but that no worker was wearing them. His Worship referred to the photographs and found that at least two of the workers had been working within 2-3 metres of the edge of the roof, thus exposing them to a fall hazard of approximately 8 metres.
The fine ultimately imposed took into account a number of factors including the safety plan arrangements put in place since the commencement of this action and the defendant's ability to pay.
The defendant had initially made no plea. After the first conviction the defendant pleaded not guilty and sought the re-hearing. The penalty was imposed under section 19(6).
|Conviction Date||01 Dec 1999|
|Court||Perth Court of Petty Sessions|