|Defendant||Cardoso Pty Ltd|
|Trading Name||Colli & Sons|
|Regulation||4.37(1)(b) ; 4.37(1)(b) ; and 4.37(3)(a) |
|Offence Date||Wednesday, 24 November 1999|
|Description of Breach(es)||
 Being an employer, failed to ensure that measures were provided at a workplace to prevent, as far as practicable, use of plant, namely a log infeed conveyor, in a manner that could render the plant a hazard to any person at the workplace.
 Being an employer, failed to ensure that measures were provided at a workplace to prevent, as far as practicable, use of plant, namely a docking saw, in a manner that could render the plant a hazard to any person at the workplace.
 Being an employer, failed to ensure, when access to plant at a workplace was required for the purpose of maintenance of the plant and it was practicable to do the maintenance when the plant was stopped, that all energy sources to the plant were isolated using isolation devices and were locked out using lockout devices, where it was practicable to do so.
The defendant was a company which carried on the business of timber milling from a site in Mundijong.
On 24 November 1999 an inspection of the site was carried out by WorkSafe Inspectors. At the site were a sawmill and a number of manufacturing sheds.
Part of the sawmill included a log infeed conveyor which was used to carry logs to a saw. The conveyor belt itself on the log infeed conveyor was exposed and unguarded. The unguarded nip points on the conveyor belt posed a hazard to employees of the plant who were able to access those nip points. This item of plant was in relation to charge .
At the saw mill was a docking saw used to cut timber at the site. The docking saw too was exposed and had inadequate guarding to protect against the hazards associated with contact to the saw. This item of plant was in relation to charge .
It was ascertained that in relation to maintenance of the plant, when changing the saw blades, the stop button was pressed and no tags or lock out devices were used. A supervisor for the defendant was interviewed in relation to lock out procedures and indicated that the company had started a danger tag system but agreed that the system at the plant was not as thorough as it should be and that it wasn't being followed up on. The failure to ensure an adequate isolation and lockout system was in relation to charge .
The defendant pleaded guilty.
|Conviction Date||12 Dec 2000|
|Court||Armadale Court of Petty Sessions|
|Charge Number||5619/00 ; 5620/00 ; and 5621/00 |