A recent case heard before the South Australian Employment Tribunal saw joint employers fined $105,000 for breaching their obligations under section 32 and 19 (1) of the Work Health and Safety Act 2012, following the fatality of a young apprentice employee who was killed on site by a falling timber wall frame.

The defendants, deemed as persons conducting a business under the legislation, had a duty to ensure, so far as reasonably practicable, the health and safety of their employees.

The Tribunal found the defendants' workplace systems had failed to minimise the risk of the timber wall frame falling. While the Tribunal acknowledged the defendants had a general Safe Work WHS method statement in place, it did not deal specifically with the hazard of temporarily propped timber wall frames, and the statement was not shown to the apprentice.

The defendants had also failed to undertake any hazard or risk assessments of the relevant task. Their explanation was that their own formal apprentice training did not cover the issue, nor did the Building Code of Australia provide them with any details on the method of support required for timber wall frames. While the Judge accepted this, it was noted the defendants had ample opportunity to learn and understand their safety obligations as employers.

The Tribunal also considered the circumstances of the offending, taking into account the youth and apprentice status of the 17-year-old worker, highlighting his inexperience and trust that his employers were taking all foreseeable reasonable safety precautions.

When imposing the fine on the defendants, the Judge took into consideration the corrective action taken in response to the incident, including a review, updating their safety plan and implementing it, a Safe Work induction for all employees, a risk assessment and job safety analysis conducted for each new work site, joining the relevant industry associations and engaging SafeWork SA to review and improve their systems.

The Tribunal accepted the fatality was not the result of consciously bypassing a compliant system of work and taking short cuts, but the defendants' complacency and failure to properly consider the safety aspects of their work, and their employees who were performing that work. The defendants’ remorse and contrition, and early guilty plea, also saw the Judge reduce the fine significantly.