Prosecution Details

[1] That on the 27th day of November 2003 at Maylands City of Bayswater being the holder of a class 2 demolition licence did class 2 demolition work and the work was not done in accordance with conditions 1 and 2 of the licence; contrary to regulation 3.117(2) of the Occupational Safety and Health Regulations 1996 made under the Occupational Safety and Health Act 1984.

[2] That on the 27th day of November 2003 at Maylands City of Bayswater, being a licensed person, failed to ensure that class 2 demolition work that was to be done in accordance with Australian Standard 2601-2001 was done in accordance with Australian Standard 2601-2001; namely it failed to ensure security fencing was provided around the perimeter of the demolition site as required by clause 1.5.1.4 of Australian Standard 2601-2001; contrary to regulation 3.124(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Regulations 1996 made under the Occupational Safety and Health Act 1984.

[1] The Defendant holds a licence to do class 2 demolition work. That licence has a number of conditions endorsed on it, and in particular:

- All persons directly engaged to carry out demolition work are to be trained in safe methods of demolition work by a training organisation registered under the Australian National Training Authority (ANTA) framework.

- All demolition work is to be directly supervised by a competent person. Direct supervision means oversighting the work while it is being carried out having regard to ensuring by way of direction, demonstration, monitoring and checking that the work is being performed in a safe manner in accordance with agreed procedures and that there is a capacity to respond immediately to emergency situations.

On 27 November 2003 the defendant was involved in the demolition of a change room and office building owned by it that was located on a reserve at Maylands.

When WorkSafe Inspectors attended to the demolition site on 27 November 2003 they found demolition work being performed by a number of contractors who had been engaged by the defendant to perform the demolition work. None of those contractors had received any training in safe methods of demolition work as required by condition 1) of the defendant's licence.

In the Notification of Demolition Work submitted by the defendant prior to the demolition of the building in question, the defendant had specified the names of 5 competent persons who were to supervise the demolition work. When the Inspectors attended the demolition site, none of those persons was present on the site. It was the practice of the person who was allocated to supervise the demolition on behalf of the defendant (one of the nominated competent persons) to attend the demolition site every day while demolition work was being done, but not to remain at the site the entire time demolition work was being done. This was contrary to condition 2) of the defendant's demolition licence. None of the persons nominated by the defendant as competent persons had received any training in safe methods of demolition work as required by condition 1) of the licence.

[2] When the defendant notified the Commissioner of the proposed demolition work of the building on Gibney Reserve, it specified that the demolition work was to be done in accordance with Australian Standard 2601-2001

When the Inspectors attended the demolition site on 27 November 2003 they observed that the site did not have security fencing around the perimeter as required by clause 1.5.1.4 of Australian Standard 2601-2001.

The defendant pleaded guilty to both charges.