Safety failings and reckless conduct caused fatality

A case in the ACT highlighted multiple safety failures of inadequate training, time pressures and cost-saving measures that saw a worker sentenced to 12 months’ jail for reckless conduct that killed a co-worker.

In August 2016, a RAR Cranes worker was instructed to use a crane to move a large 10.3 tonne generator that exceeded the crane’s rated capacity of 10 tonne at the University of Canberra Hospital construction site run by Multiplex.

The worker allowed others to pressure him into performing the unsafe lift. The crane overturned, crushing his 62-year-old co-worker, between the boom of the crane and ground killing him instantly.


The offence was reckless conduct – category 1 of the ACT WHS Act due to the serious nature. However, his sentence was wholly suspended upon him entering a good behaviour order.


Early 2018, the worker was charged with manslaughter under the Crimes Act with a maximum penalty of 20 years’ jail. Then in February 2020, the worker reached an agreement with the prosecution and pleaded guilty to a different charge of reckless conduct under the WHS Act, with penalties of up to five years’ jail, $300,000 or both.


Finally, in April 2020, the worker’s submission that the “offence crystallised in a relatively short period (three minutes), when the overloaded crane was at risk of tipping onto the deceased” was accepted by the Justice. The offence was still considered to have had a “high degree of recklessness” and of “substantial objective seriousness”.

Multiple safety failings


In August 2016, Multiplex wanted the generator moved to another area of the construction site for the operation of a tower crane the following day. If the move occurred in a straight line it would have travelled 50 metres, however, it needed to move 600 metres on “uneven terrain and soft ground of uncertain surface stability” to avoid in ground plumbing.


Previously, a RAR employee had moved the generator twice by crane within the site and said, “that he did not believe it was safe to use the crane to move the generator.” RAR recommended using “a 200-tonne slewing crane or a tilt-tray truck to move it”. Multiplex rejected the proposal due to “cost and logistical reasons” and they were not “eager to be part of it.”


Then, RAR and Multiplex walked the travel route and concluded the pick and carry crane was suitable for the job without undertaking the required “risk assessment concerning the means and route by which the generator would be moved”.


Late afternoon of the incident, RAR informed the worker who hadn’t visited the site before that the generator had to be moved that day and to use the “‘superlift’ counterweight and ‘D’ shackles”. The worker did not receive a mandatory safety induction despite asking for one. He also, hadn’t been trained by RAR on how to correctly operate the crane in ‘superlift’ mode, and had not been informed that another RAR worker felt the crane shouldn’t be used for lifting the generator.


The worker told the site supervisor “that RAR had a 200-tonne slewing crane which would be more appropriate for the job (the same suggestion made earlier in the day by another RAR employee), but was told that it was ‘not an option’, the crane had to be used for the job, it was suitable, as it had been used before to move the generator.” The worker felt compelled to proceed because both RAR and Multiplex wanted the job done and he was worried about his job security.”


Normally a risk assessment would be done prior to lifting however, it was missed as the light was fading and there was urgency to move the generator that day. If this had been completed, it would have been clear that at one point, the path, involved an unavoidable side slope of 6.59° and other terrain angles of up to 10.27°. The manufacturer warning stated the crane must not operate on a slope greater than 5°.


Furthermore, the worker and other workers onsite connected the ‘superlift’ counterweight incorrectly to the crane and rigged the generator using the dragging lugs rather than the lifting points. This meant that the crane’s computer would make calculations as though the counterweight was not fitted. The load was not rigged appropriately; the height and length of the boom were greater than was required to lift the load.



During the lift, the worker operated the crane in excess of its rated capacity three times, the crane’s alarms sounded multiple times, where he repeatedly overrode the safety system and safety mechanisms and the boom was extended to the point that the crane was overloaded.

Finally, when the crane was operating at 130.5 per cent of its rated capacity it tipped and killed a tower crane operator.

In court


The primary responsibility for risk assessment and worker safety lied with Multiplex and RAR. However, the worker’s responsibility was not absolved, he didn’t risk assess the lift, performed the lift in poor lighting, operated the crane in excess of its capacity and fitted the crane equipment incorrectly.



The Justice found “as the worker had no reliable means of assessing overload, the duration of his recklessness about general risks was not limited to three minutes. He continued with the task for a significant period [of about 45 minutes].”


At a previous site, the worker had refused to undertake a crane task as a rigger because of safety concerns, which led to a RAR client engaging another company to carry out the lift. He believed his casual employment would be threatened if he refused to carry out the lift. The Justice said “the operator of a crane can, and should, terminate a lifting operation if they believe that it is not safe to proceed” which unfortunately this time, did not happen.

The sentence


The worker agreed to give evidence in the prosecution proceedings against Multiplex, RAR and the other charged individuals. Nearly everyone who was present at the time of the incident has been charged with breaching section 31 of the ACT WHS Act, category 1 – reckless conduct.


Furthermore, Multiplex’s CEO, Multiplex’s site manager and RAR’s managing director were charged with breaching section 32 of the WHS Act, category 2 – failure to comply with health and safety duty.

It was ruled a suitable starting point for the worker’s penalty was 20 months’ imprisonment, before reducing this by 40 per cent to 12 months’ jail, wholly suspended under a 12-month order.

The judgment


Contact Us

Zenergy News

22 Apr, 2024
The annual Zenergy Leaders Forum is one of the premier events on the senior health, safety & sustainability calendar in Australia.  This is a non-ticketed invitation only event hosted by Zenergy. Attendee numbers at the Zenergy forum are 150 and will include executive, people and culture directors, CEO, COO and directors of health & safety and HSE personnel. The topic for this year is “Integrated Psychosocial Risk Management”. All of the event information is below and reach out to your account manager at Zenergy for further details.
22 Apr, 2024
This article has been reproduced with permission from OHS Alert, and the original version appears at www.ohsalert.com.au . A commission has cautioned that society's "significantly raised" bar for what constitutes consent for physical interactions is "even higher" in work-related environments, in upholding the summary dismissal of a worker for inappropriately touching a colleague. In Perth, Fair Work Commission Deputy President Melanie Binet said that regardless of the intention of the worker, who claimed he was simply moving his female colleague "out of the way", his conduct was a valid reason for dismissal. Workers should be "on notice" of the increased scrutiny of behaviours, given the extensive social discourse and media coverage on sexual harassment issues, she said. "This is particularly so in the mining industry in Western Australia where a parliamentary inquiry [see related article ] focused community attention on the odious frequency of sexual harassment and assault of women in the mining industry." The Deputy President added that recent amendments to the Commonwealth Fair Work Act 2009 that specifically identify sexual harassment as a valid reason for dismissal (see related article ) "reflect a societal recognition that sexual harassment has no place in the workplace in the same way as violence or theft don't". The worker was an Alcoa of Australia Ltd advanced mechanical tradesperson when he was sacked for inappropriately touching the colleague in an office at Alcoa's Pinjarra Alumina Refinery in September last year. The worker claimed he turned his back to the colleague to squeeze between her and a desk to go to speak to another person and his hands made contact with her lower torso. Afterwards, the colleague's partner entered the office and found her visibly distressed. He confronted the worker, accusing him of grabbing the colleague's buttocks and squeezing it. The issue was escalated, and the worker was summarily dismissed after an investigation concluded he sexually harassed the colleague by making "unwelcomed and socially inappropriate physical contact". Alcoa found the worker breached codes and policies that he had been trained on, which stated that harassment was not determined by the intent of the person who engaged in the conduct but by the impact on the recipient. The worker admitted touching the colleague but claimed this only occurred because the room was crowded. He said he did not intend to behave in a sexual manner and apologised to the colleague as soon as he found out she was upset. He claimed unfair dismissal and sought reinstatement in the FWC. Deputy President Binet found the worker's accounts of the incident were inconsistent, with the parts of the colleague's body that he touched changing in his various statements. She accepted the colleague's evidence that the worker groped her in an "intimate sexual location" and his conduct caused immediate and ongoing effects to her health and wellbeing. The worker could have waited until there was space for him to pass between the desks, requested the colleague to move from the gap or gently touched her arm to get her attention, the Deputy President said. "There was simply no justification for him to turn his back then have his hands at [the colleague's] buttocks level, touch her buttocks and consciously push her out of his way," she said. "I am not convinced that [his] conduct was intended to be entirely without a sexual nature," she concluded. She stressed that even if she was wrong on this point, this type of unwelcome touching could objectively be seen as being capable of making recipients feel offended, humiliated or intimidated. The Deputy President also slammed the worker's representatives for choosing "to follow a well-worn but discredited path of blaming the victim" by accusing the colleague of inviting the "accidental" contact by standing in the narrow walkway. "Women should be able to attend their workplaces without fear of being touched inappropriately," she said in dismissing the worker's case. "It is a sad inditement of the positive work that has been undertaken by employers, unions and regulatory bodies in the mining industry that young women like [the colleague] are still frightened to report incidents of harassment for fear of being ostracised."
22 Apr, 2024
An Afternoon of Fun and Fierce Competition: Our Team's Lawn Bowls Adventure
16 Apr, 2024
Empowering Women in Safety: Insights from the Zenergy Safety Ladies' Lunch
16 Apr, 2024
By Jason O’Dowd. Recruitment - Health Safety Environment & Quality
16 Apr, 2024
Safety blitz to prevent deaths and injuries from construction falls WorkSafe Victoria recently launched a statewide blitz to tackle fall risks on building sites, such as unsafe or incomplete scaffolds, inappropriate ladder use, steps, stairs and voids or falling from or through roofs. The initiative was launched after nine Victorian workers died in 2023 as a result of falls from height, including four in the construction industry. The number of accepted workers’ compensation claims from construction workers injured in falls from heights also increased to 441 – up from 421 in 2022 and 404 the year before. Construction continues to be the highest-risk industry for falls from heights, making up a third of the 1352 total falls from height claims accepted last year. Of the construction workers injured, 160 fell from ladders, 46 from steps and stairways, 31 from buildings or structures, 27 from scaffolding, and 13 from openings in floors, walls or ceilings. WorkSafe Victoria executive director of health and safety, Narelle Beer, said inspectors would be out in force with an extra emphasis on ensuring employers are doing everything they can to prevent falls. “As a leading cause of injury in the construction industry, falls from height is always a priority for our inspectors – but they will be making this a particular focus as they visit building sites over the coming weeks,” Beer said. “The safest way to prevent falls is to work on the ground. Where that’s not possible, employers should use the highest level of safety protection possible, such as complete scaffolding, guard railing and void covers.” Beer said WorkSafe Victoria can and will take action against employers who fail to ensure the highest level of risk control measures are in place to protect workers from falls. “A fall can happen in just seconds and it can turn your world upside down – so there’s no excuse for taking shortcuts when working at heights,” she said. The statewide blitz will be supported by fall prevention messaging across social media, newsletters and online, reminding employers and workers that fall can be fatal or cause life-changing injuries. Source: Australian Institute of Health & Safety (AIHS)
More Posts
Share by: