Liable for injury because of lack of supervision

Unsafe work practices


In January 2010, a labour-hire company assigned one of its employees to work as a production operator at the factory of a company that manufactured veterinary pharmaceutical products.


The operator was required to empty 25kg bags of dextrose powder into a hopper. The system of work was to use a ‘lifter’ to wheel each bag into the so-called powder room. With the bag on the lifter’s platform, the operator could slit it open and use the lifter to raise the platform so the contents of the bag could empty into the hopper.

With the equipment doing the lifting, the operator did not need to lift the bag until it was almost empty.


In December 2011, the production operator was emptying a bag of dextrose into the hopper. When she was leaning forward from her waist, lifting the bag with her right arm and twisting her spine towards the hopper, she felt a pain in her back. She was on workers compensation until the end of 2012 and did return to work at the veterinary pharmaceutical company.


In September 2013 the operator commenced proceedings in the District Court of NSW against the company. The particulars of the charge included that it had failed to: provide a safe system of work; undertake a risk assessment; eliminate the risks of injury, and provide adequate training and supervision.


In the District Court, Justice Mahoney found the system of work had not been unsafe as it had not required the operator to lift the 25kg bags. The operator had received instruction in the system when she first worked in the powder room, but she was injured because she had not complied with the system.


However, because the company had a duty to maintain and supervise workers, Justice Mahoney found that, but for its breach of duty in failing to supervise, the operator would not have been injured. He awarded her $588,515 in damages.

The company appealed, submitting that the primary judge had erred in his findings of breach of duty of care and that the damages award had been excessive.

Appeal finds primary judge was correct


In the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of NSW, Justice Simpson examined the system of work and the training given. He concluded it was most likely the operator had carried out the task as she had described it in the District Court, which had been contrary to the instructions given.


She had adopted an unsafe work practice, but as her work had not been supervised her practice had continued uncorrected until she was injured. There had been no evidence the company had provided a formalised system of supervision.


The primary judge had been correct about the lack of supervision, and Justice Simpson was satisfied that “even a modicum of supervision would have exposed the incorrect method that the respondent was using”.


He said measures that could have been taken to avoid the harm eventuating “could hardly be described as burdensome”. Merely reasonable attention would have been required to check whether the operator had absorbed the instruction she had been given. Because her incorrect technique could easily have been corrected, there was no question of contributory negligence on her part.


In its allegation that the damages award had been excessive and not supported by the evidence, the company referred to the medical evidence of an expert who had found the operator had a pre-existing disc degeneration. Therefore he had assumed the injury must have been only a temporary aggravation.


The primary judge had preferred the evidence of another medical specialist, who had found her pre-existing disc lesion had been asymptomatic and that the incident in December 2011 had caused her a permanent impairment with severe ongoing pain.


The Court of Appeal, by majority, found there had been no error in the primary judge’s conclusions about the injury or in the assessment of damages. The appeal was dismissed.


The bottom line: Risk assessment is fundamental to workplace health and safety. Employers are expected to be alert to workplace risks and to take steps to eliminate or mitigate the risks.


Jurox Pty Ltd v Fullick [2016] NSWCA 180 (29 July 2016)

Contact Us

Zenergy News

16 May, 2024
Pete Zmuda- West Gate Tunnel Project
15 May, 2024
Zenergy were proud to host 150 clients at the 2024 Zenergy Leaders forum in Sydney CBD last Thursday. Over breakfast on a wet Thursday morning, the attendees made up of industry leaders and executives, discussed how organisations are identifying, preventing and managing psychological risks, and what best practice looks like in a practical sense. The panel were excellent and we would like to thank them for their contribution. Deloitte Australia's chief human resources officer, Tina McCreery told Zenergy Group's leaders forum in Sydney yesterday that her "big four" accounting firm's new interventions target the risks associated with the way its workers work on both organisational and individual levels, but the strategies for the latter have the greatest impact. She said Deloitte started identifying the psychosocial "hotspots" in its business two years ago, "getting underneath" the day-to-day issues impacting on workers' psychosocial wellbeing. The firm is part of an industry that has been under the spotlight for its culture of overwork, including through an independent review that heard many EY Oceania workers were subjected to "insane pressure" and unreasonable project deadlines (see related article ). McCreery told the forum that at the organisational level, Deloitte carried out engagement surveys, trained partners on mental health and engaged the executive board on these issues. However, the protective measures the company implemented on the ground level, to manage the time workers spend on projects for clients, really made a difference, she said. Deloitte introduced a range of interventions, including steps to determine at the start of an engagement what the project will look like in terms of flexibility needs, hours of work and contact hours, she explained. It leveraged technology to solve some of the issues around the risks, including bots that can identify unreasonable hours and alert workers' "coaches" to step in and check in with an overworking individual "and see what is going on". Other initiatives like "coaching conversations" mean workers are regularly asked how their work is impacting on their wellbeing, and any red flags are "routed to people to step in", McCreery said. The "big shift" resulting from the intervention is that workers now feel comfortable raising psychosocial issues and are aware of all the escalation paths, so they are "putting their hands up much more" when they are not coping. Fellow panellist Louisa Hudson, safety, security and wellbeing executive at Telstra, said companies can strike a good balance between individual and organisational level approaches. She used organisational change as an example of a psychosocial hazard. Organisational measures for this hazard include risk assessing and designing the change, taking into account all the factors that are likely to cause workers harm if it is not managed well, she said. This could include the design of the change, the timeframe, and how the company will communicate with workers. "Then you come down to that individual level and say... How will that change be felt at a local level?" Hudson said. Companies need to consider how to ensure they understand what the vulnerabilities on the individual worker level will be to the change, in terms of things like workload, introduction of new processes, and introduction of new technology, she said. They need to consider what to put in place to mitigate those risks. Further, companies need to ensure they are educating and building the capacity of the workforce to understand the basics of psychosocial risk. David Burroughs, Director at Australian Psychological Services, told the forum that 95 per cent of workers' psychosocial issues can be managed by with good leaders if they can identify the risks involved in the matter, whether they involve things like role clarity, reward and recognition, or role conflict. "The space can be overcomplicated," he said. If companies have leaders who understand what good work looks like, how their behaviour influences people's experience of working, and how to have a conversation around the actual work, they can solve most of the issues at that "localised level", Burroughs said.
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
More Posts
Share by: