By Gaby Grammeno Contributor

The worker was a machine operator engaged as a contractor by a specialist steel processing and fabrication business in a Sydney suburb. His work involved cutting steel plates into various shapes and sizes and loading them onto a trolley using a gantry crane to lift the plate.

In August 2021, he was asked by another worker to help with a task that involved lifting a 3.5 metre F-shaped steel frame weighing around 630 kg with the aid of a magnetic lifting device and the crane. He attached the lifter to the frame and the crane chains, and began the lift.

He soon noticed that one side of the steel frame was tacked or welded to the floor, and lowered the frame to the ground. Other workers unlocked the lifter’s lever, moved it closer to the centre and locked it again, after which the worker again began to lift.

The magnetic lifter detached from the steel frame and it fell forwards onto the worker, pinning him to the ground and crushing his chest and the left side of his pelvis, breaking his ribs and causing a collapsed lung.

Following the incident, SafeWork NSW issued three improvement notices requiring the employer to:

  • develop, implement and maintain, in consultation with workers, a safe work procedure for lifting frames using a magnetic lifter attached to a gantry crane
  • have a dogman/rigger conduct annual inspections of all lifting equipment used, and
  • provide information, training and instruction to workers in safe use of the lifting system.

The regulator charged the employer with an offence under s 32 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 – failing to meet its WHS duties and exposing a worker to a risk of death or serious injury.

 

In court

The employer’s evidence included an account of the safety systems it had in place before the incident, including a Safe Work Method Statement (SWMS), independent inspections of lifting equipment, the employment of trained and tested workers, safety guidance notes on equipment at the site, an induction manual and a verification of competency process.

The company’s induction and training, weekly toolbox talks and pre-start text messages to workers were also detailed, as well as the expenditure of almost $200,000 on its various safety measures over the previous 18 months.

However, SafeWork NSW submitted evidence that the employer’s system of work did not provide for the use of exclusion zones or similar steps to isolate workers from falling loads if the magnetic lifting device failed.

The magnetic lifter involved in the incident had a rated capacity of 1000kg, but its labelling was illegible and it showed signs of damage including a bent lever arm and a missing activation button.

There was no adequate system or guidance regarding the process of selecting appropriate lifting equipment, and an inspection of lifting equipment the previous year did not include the magnetic lifters.

There were no formal or documented supervision arrangements at the site, and the SWMS did not refer to lifting loads using the magnetic lifting device.

The worker was not given adequate training in the operation of the crane or the use of the magnetic attachments, and he had no external qualifications or experience in operating cranes or lifting equipment.

The employer had not complied with the relevant parts of the WHS Regulation (clauses 39 and 203) or followed the recommendations set out in the available guidance material, including the NSW Code of Practice: Managing the Risks of Plant in the Workplace, and the relevant Australian Standard – AS 2550.1-2011: Cranes, hoists and winches - Safe use - Part 1.

The employer accepted that it failed to ensure the worker’s safety, offered an unqualified apology for its breach of the Act and pleaded guilty.

The company's director unreservedly acknowledged that the risk would have been eliminated or minimised if they’d taken the relevant safety precautions before the incident.

After the accident, the employer complied comprehensively with SafeWork’s Improvement Notices, spending nearly $150,000 on equipment maintenance and improvements, lifting gear related expenses, repairs and maintenance, staff training and other compliance costs.

The director said he personally ensured that support was provided to the injured man and his family. The company also arranged in-person counselling for all workers.

District Court Judge Andrew Scotting considered the seriousness of the offence – the risks were obvious and well-known, the control measures that should have been in place were simple, inexpensive and the employer knew about them, and the injuries were serious.

An aggravating factor was that the harm and loss caused were substantial.

By way of mitigation, the company had no previous convictions, good prospects of rehabilitation, had demonstrated remorse, was a good corporate citizen providing educational programs and opportunities for trainees in metal fabrication, and had pleaded guilty.

The company was convicted and fined $270,000 plus the prosecutor’s costs.

 

What it means for employers

Equipment used to lift or suspend loads must be specifically designed for the purpose and used with suitable attachments, by trained workers with specified safe systems and adequate supervision.

 

Read the decision

SafeWork NSW v Bhullar Steel Australia Pty Ltd [2025] NSWDC 72 (20 March 2025)