Prosecution Details
Defendant | Timothy Raymond Stewart and Jodie Marjory Stewart |
Trading Name | T Stewarts Engineering |
Section | 48(4) |
Regulation | 4.37(1)(f) x 2 |
Offence Date | 3/9/2003 [S48(4)], 2/9/2003 [R4.37(1)(f) x 2] |
Description of Breach(es) | Section 48(4) Timothy Raymond Stewart T/A T Stewarts Engineering; being a person to whom improvement notice 74600298 was issued on 26 November 2002, failed to comply with the improvement notice by 5 pm on 30 May 2003 in circumstances where he had applied for a review of the improvement notice pursuant to section 51 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act 1984, and where the improvement notice was affirmed by the Commissioner but the date for compliance with the improvement notice was changed to 5 pm on 30 May 2003; contrary to section 48(4) of the Act. Timothy Raymond Stewart T/A T Stewarts Engineering; being an employer at a workplace, failed to ensure that every dangerous part of a fixed powered plant was as far as practicable, securely fenced or guarded in accordance with regulation 4.29 of the Occupational Safety and Health Regulations 1996 when that plant was not so positioned or constructed so that it was as safe as it would have been if securely fenced or guarded; contrary to regulation 4.37(1)(f) of the Occupational Safety and Health Regulations 1996, made under the Occupational Safety and Health Act 1984. Jodie Marjory Stewart T/A T Stewarts Engineering; being an employer at a workplace, failed to ensure that every dangerous part of a fixed powered plant was as far as practicable, securely fenced or guarded in accordance with regulation 4.29 of the Occupational Safety and Health Regulations 1996 when that plant was not so positioned or constructed so that it was as safe as it would have been if securely fenced or guarded; contrary to regulation 4.37(1)(f) of the Occupational Safety and Health Regulations 1996, made under the Occupational Safety and Health Act 1984. |
Background Details |
Section 48(4) Timothy Raymond Stewart T/A T Stewarts Engineering The defendant conducts a steel manufacturing business at Esperance. At that workplace the defendant has an AMC Brake Press that is operated by employees of the defendant. On 26 November 2002 an inspector from Worksafe conducted an inspection of the workplace in the company of the defendant. During that inspection, the inspector found that the AMC Brake Press was unguarded and formed the opinion that the defendant was contravening section 19(1)(a) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act 1984 on the grounds that the Defendant's AMC Brake Press was not guarded at the front, sides and rear of the item of plant, exposing the Defendant's employees to hazards and risks of injury when employees' hands come into close vicinity of the descending blade during operation of the plant. An Improvement Notice was issued to the Defendant on 26 November 2002, requiring him to provide and install guarding that complies with Australian Standard 1219-1994 clause 6.4 to the front, sides and rear of the exposed descending blade of the AMC Brake Press. The defendant applied for review of the improvement notice pursuant to section 51 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act 1984 and by letter dated 20 March 2003 the defendant was advised that the notice had been affirmed by the Commissioner and that the date for compliance with the notice had been extended to 5 pm on 30 May 2003. The workplace was inspected on 2 September 2003 and it was found that the notice had not been complied with, i.e. the AMC brake press was still unguarded. The AMC brake press was used by employees of the defendant at the workplace in the unguarded state between 31 May 2003 and 2 September 2003. The defendant pleaded guilty. Regulation 4.37(1)(f) x 2 Timothy Raymond Stewart and Jodie Marjory Stewart T/A T Stewarts Engineering Located at the defendants' premises was an air compressor. The air compressor has a pulley and belt drive system. In an unguarded state the pulleys and v-belt are dangerous in that a workers' hands may be pulled in and caught between the pulley and v-belt. Workers may come into close proximity with the unguarded pulleys and v-belt of the air compressor when it is in operation. A number of persons at the workplace were required to operate the air compressor. On 26 November 2002 an improvement notice was issued to the defendants in relation to the unguarded v-belt and pulleys of the air compressor and a compliance slip was provided by the office manager of the defendants on 13 January 2003 indicating that the required guard had been fitted. When an inspector from Worksafe attended the workplace on 2 September 2003 he observed the air compressor without any guard on the V-belt or pulleys. It was practicable for the defendants to have fitted a guard and in fact they had done so but removed the guard when changing the compressor unit and failed to put it back. After the inspection on 2 September 2003 the guard had been replaced that evening. The cost of the guard is minimal and was able to be fabricated by the defendant's business. The guard was easy to fit and does not interfere with the workings of the air compressor. The defendants pleaded guilty. |
Outcome Summary | Guilty |
Conviction Date | 16 Jun 2004 |
Court | Esperance Court of Petty Sessions |
Fine | $750 [S48(4)], $500 x 2 [R4.37(1)(f)] |
Costs | $483 [S48(4)], $483 [R4.37(1)(f)] |
Charge Number | 202/04 & 203/04 [R4.37(1)(f)], 204/04 [S48(4)] |