By Gaby Grammeno Contributor

A court has found that simple measures could have prevented a man’s hand being crushed at work, but the employers’ WHS program was blind to the specific risk.

The injured worker was an electrical engineer at a durum mill producing semolina and flour in regional New South Wales. He was employed by a Brisbane shell company set up solely to provide workers to the business operating the mill.

In September 2021, all the milling machines at the site lost power due to an unplanned outage.

The worker, who needed to restart the machines, was able to restart the eight of them, but had trouble with a different model – a digital fine mill roller with a second set of double rollers.

Some managers were absent due to COVID restrictions, so the worker phoned the Technical Miller, who gave him verbal instructions on how to restart the fine mill roller.

The Technical Miller told him over the phone to ‘go under the mill’, or words to that effect, intending to direct him to the ground floor beneath the first-floor fine mill roller.

The high noise background level in the mill may have impaired the worker’s ability to hear clearly over the phone. As it happened, he misinterpreted the instruction and instead put his hands directly under the roller and opened a cover.

Ordinarily, the cover was secured by metal cleats that could only be removed using a special tool, but on this occasion it was not secured and he was able to remove it using his hands.

His right hand the became trapped and was crushed between the rollers. He called for help and another worker activated the emergency stop, but he had to wait another 60 to 90 minutes until emergency services arrived and were able to release his hand.

As a result, he lost all the fingers of his hand, excluding the thumb.

Both companies were charged with exposing the worker to a risk of serious injury, and both pleaded guilty to the offences.

 

In court

Both businesses had a duty to ensure that the milling machines did not present risks to the anyone’s health and safety, so far as reasonably practicable.

In the District Court of NSW, SafeWork NSW submitted that the safety system at the mill fell short in several ways:

  • the cleats on the guards were not secured and there was no interlock or other electronic limiting device to prevent contact with the rollers if the guarding was removed or open
  • the emergency stop for the fine mill roller was located two metres away, out of reach of the operator
  • the risks specific to the fine mill roller had not been adequately assessed, and the documentation on safe procedures did not specifically address them
  • the worker had not been given sufficient training in its operation and he was unaware of the location of the second set of rollers where his hand was caught.

After the incident, a consultant was engaged to review the WHS system, limiting switches were installed on all the machines to prevent access to moving parts during operation, and an accessible emergency stop control was installed. Induction processes and safety procedures were also revised.

Judge Wendy Strathdee formed the view that the risk presented by the two sets of moving double rollers was foreseeable, and could have been anticipated by both employers. The company providing workers should have verified that the mill operator had adequate safety systems in place.

The guarding of the fine mill roller was not satisfactory – the guard to protect workers from the nip point had been removed, the reason for this was unexplained, and the emergency stop button was not within reach.

Judge Strathdee accepted that the relevant safety measures could have removed the risk, and that those measures would not have been burdensome for the employer.

The offence – and the employer’s culpability – will be more serious where there is the potential for severe injuries, regardless of how likely they are to happen. In this case, the injury, emotional harm, loss or damage caused by the offence was substantial, and the harm was more deleterious than would ordinarily have been expected.

In sentencing, Judge Strathdee considered that the employment arrangements meant both businesses were ‘effectively the same entity’. The company providing the labour was simply the conduit through which staff were engaged. It was convicted but discharged on condition that it enter into a conditional release order (the equivalent of a good behaviour bond) under s.10 of the Crimes Sentencing Procedure Act 1999.

The small family business operating the mill was a good corporate citizen with no prior convictions, was unlikely to reoffend, had demonstrated remorse, accepted responsibility and entered a guilty plea. It was convicted and fined $56,250 after a 25% reduction for the early guilty plea, and a further 25% reduction in view of its limited capacity to pay.

 

What it means for employers

Policies and procedures to manage work health and safety risks are of limited value if they fail to address some of the specific risks that could arise from the work. The courts regularly deal with cases where the employers have made an effort to manage WHS risks and genuinely care about the wellbeing of their workers, but their safety systems turned out to have gaps in them, gaps that resulted in life-changing harm to a staff member, as well as heavy costs and productivity losses for the employer.

If you’re not certain your WHS policies and procedures are fit for purpose, get advice from the Business NSW Work Advice Line on 13 29 59.

 

Read the judgment

SafeWork NSW v Duralina Pty Ltd; SafeWork NSW v Mill HR Pty Ltd [2025] NSWDC 253