Rhino did not have fall injury prevention system

Rhino (WA) Pty Ltd

Description of Breach(es)

Being the main contractor at a workplace at which there was a risk that a person could fall 3 or more metres from an edge, other than an edge referred to in regulation 3.55(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Regulations 1996 (Regulations), failed to ensure that either: edge protection that complied with regulation 3.55(5) was provided and kept in place; or a fall injury prevention system was provided and in operation, contrary to regulation 3.55(2).
Background Details

The Accused is a corporation that trades as Action Asbestos Removals, an asbestos removal contractor.

The Accused was engaged to remove the asbestos roof of a warehouse located at 10 Ballantyne Road, Kewdale (Workplace).

The Accused employed a number of workers to perform this work. One employee was the on-site supervisor.

On 21 March 2011 a number of workers were working on the sloped roof of the Workplace. Access to the roof was via an elevated work platform (EWP; also known as a scissor lift). An employee (not the site supervisor) who was responsible for safety and health measures was supervising work on the roof.

The removal process involved the manual lifting of asbestos roof sheets. The sheets were then placed on a pallet supported by the tines of a telehandler (an extendable forklift) operated from ground level by the site supervisor and positioned so as to overhang the edge of the roof.

Removal was proceeding in “zones” laterally along the roof. Once all sheets in one zone had been removed, workers would move across to the next zone.

While the workers were removing sheets from a particular zone, the EWP was positioned beside the telehandler with the intent of providing an edge barrier for that zone. Workers had been instructed by the site supervisor and the employee supervising work on the roof to stay within the bounds of the telehandler and the EWP. No other edge protection was provided.

Two employees were performing a task outside the current work zone. In doing so, they went beyond the telehandler and EWP, and within approximately 2 metres of the unprotected edge of the roof, which was 6.1 metres above the ground.

None of the workers were wearing harnesses or other fall injury prevention systems (FIPS). Although the Accused could have provided FIPS if requested by the workers, those FIPS were not on site. Neither the supervisor nor the employee supervising work on the roof required the workers to wear the FIPS.

via Prosecution Details | Prosecutions Database | Department of Commerce.