Prosecution Details

Being the main contractor at a workplace, failed to ensure that edge protection that complied with regulation 3.55(5) of the Occupational Safety and Health Regulations 1996 made under the Occupational Safety and Health Act 1984 was provided and kept in place where there was a risk that a person could fall 2 or more metres from a suspended slab at the workplace; contrary to regulation 3.55(1)(a) of the Regulations

The accused together operate a building business. Between 13 April 2004 and 29 April 2004 the accused were together the main contractor of a workplace located in Bunbury.

Between those dates at that workplace a building was under construction. The building was incomplete but there was a suspended slab in place that was more than 2 metres above ground level. There was never any perimeter fencing around the workplace to prevent access to the partially constructed building at the workplace.

On 8 April 2004 a WorkSafe Inspector advised one of the accused (Milan Majkic) of the need for edge protection on the suspended slab and the accused agreed to put adequate edge protection in place. On 13 April 2004 the Inspector returned to the workplace and found the edge protection to still be inadequate and again discussed the issue of the need for adequate edge protection on the suspended slab and advised the accused that he would be issuing an improvement notice requiring them to remedy the breach of regulation 3.55 of the Regulations. When the Inspector returned to the workplace on 14 April 2004 to issue an improvement notice regarding the edge protection he found a person working at the workplace on the suspended slab.

On 14 April 2004 the person, who had a contract with the accused to perform services at the workplace, worked on the suspended slab fixing up the mesh and the steel on the suspended slab for approximately 3 hours.

On that date the edge protection was inadequate in that edge protection was only in place around the entire perimeter of the suspended slab in place in the part of the building that would become the first townhouse. In the part of the building that would become the second townhouse there was no edge protection on the eastern edge of the suspended slab. This exposed persons who gained access to the suspended slab to a risk of falling from more than 2 metres in height from one edge of the suspended slab in the area that would become the second townhouse.

On 28 April 2004 another person engaged by another business to assist it fulfilling a contract with the accused to perform services at the workplace, was up on the suspended slab in order to retrieve pieces of ply that had been used as the formwork of the suspended slab. On 28 April 2004 there was no edge protection around the internal void in the slab where the stairway existed. The external edges had some edge protection in place but not all external edges of the suspended slab were protected. On that day the person worked standing approximately 1 metre from an unprotected edge of the slab in order to throw the ply down to the ground.

Between 13 April 2004 and 29 April 2004 (exclusive) edge protection did not extend around all the edges of the perimeter of the suspended slab and did not protect all internal voids in the suspended slab.

Regulation 3.55 provides that wherever there is a risk that a person could fall more than two metres from the edge of a scaffold, fixed stair, landing or suspended slab edge protection must be provided. Edge protection must include a top rail positioned at not less than 900mm and either a mid rail and toe board or a toe board and mesh panelling.

The accused pleaded guilty.