A former supervisor of the company was fined after an incident that injured a worker at the Keysbrook Mineral Sands project
| Date: | Monday, 29 October 2018 |
|---|
A former supervisor for Texcom Pty Ltd has been fined $6000 in Perth Magistrates Court following an incident that injured a worker at the Keysbrook Mineral Sands project in North Dandalup 71km south of Perth.
The incident happened on 6 March 2015 when a worker was struck on the shoulder by the bucket of a mini excavator.
The worker was attempting to unload a plate compactor from a flat-bed truck using the excavator by rigging a sling to the excavator arm.
While the worker was connecting the sling, the excavator bucket unexpectedly dropped and struck the worker on the shoulder.
Despite the worker conducting dogging work at the time of the incident, the worker did not hold a dogging licence (dogging work is effectively the application of slinging techniques for the purposes of lifting heavy loads).
An investigation by the Department of Mines, Industry Regulation and Safety (DMIRS) found although the site had safety policies in place, they were not being adhered to.
Mines Safety Director Andrew Chaplyn said it was critical not only to have policies in place, but to ensure they are followed.
“In this case, the supervisor failed to adequately supervise the worker, which directly contributed to the incident occurring,” Mr Chaplyn said.
“There were a number of measures available and policies in place that should have prevented such an incident occurring.”
Mr Chaplyn said being struck by the bucket of an excavator as a result of it moving unexpectedly could result in serious harm, or even death.
“While it is unfortunate the worker was injured and required surgery as a result of this incident, the consequences could have been far worse,” Mr Chaplyn said.
“It is also a reminder of the importance of supervisors making safety responsibilities their number one priority and what can happen when this doesn’t occur.”
In handing down the sentence, the court acknowledged the supervisor’s good character, blemish-free record and the fact that they had no intention of returning to a supervisory role.
The court also took into account the supervisor’s early guilty plea and granted a spent conviction order.
