Prosecution Details

[1] Being an employer at a workplace, failed to provide measures to prevent, as far as was practicable, the use of plant, namely a docking saw, in a manner that could render that plant a hazard to a person at the workplace.

[2] Being an employer at a workplace where there was powered mobile plant, namely a Kobelco LK 300 Wheeled Loader, and there was a risk that that plant could overturn, failed, as far as was practicable, to limit the risk by the provision of an appropriate combination of operator protective devices, namely, a roll-over protective structure and a seat belt.

The defendant operated a workplace in Boddington, where timber cutting operations were carried out.

Located at the premises was a docking saw, in which a number of persons at the workplace were required to operate. The defendant failed to have guards fitted to both the front and the rear of the saw blade. The front of the blade could have been fitted with a slide and swing guard when cutting was not occurring. However, during cutting the guard would have to be swung away after being slide away from the saw blade. The rear of the blade could have been fitted with a shroud or surround guard fitted to the moving cradle.

Also on the premises was a front-end loader which when the workplace was inspected by a WorkSafe inspector, was being operated near an embankment. In the area in which the front-end loader was being operated the ground conditions were steep. The loader did not have a seat belt or roll over protective structure fitted to it. While the loader was fitted with an overhead steel structure above the operator's seat covered with canvass, that structure appeared to be for the purposes of weather protection rather than for roll over protection because the steel structure lacked necessary front support posts to make it a roll over protective structure.

The defendant pleaded guilty.