By Gaby Grammeno Contributor

When two electric pallet riders collided in a warehouse, a worker lost his lower leg. The horrible injury puts the spotlight on employers’ responsibility to properly manage mobile plant and provide adequate training, especially to labour hire workers.

The injured man was a labour hire worker engaged in quality control duties at a warehouse operated by a business involving the retail sale of household furniture.

The induction training he’d received included a copy of the traffic management plan, but didn’t include any detailed discussion of it.

He’d received some ad-hoc instruction in the basic operation of the pallet riders, but the training, instruction and information in the risks of the work and relevant control measures was not adequate, as it eventuated.

On 9 February 2022, the worker was directed to use a pallet rider to load a shipping container. When he was reversing the pallet rider back into the warehouse that evening, another pallet rider was reversing in the opposite direction.

As they approached each other, both drivers swerved to avoid a collision, but unfortunately, they swerved in the same direction and collided, crushing the worker’s overhanging foot. As a result of the injury his right leg later had to be amputated below the knee.

The regulator’s investigation found that the host employer’s traffic management plan did not provide information or instruction on traffic management in relation to the use of pallet riders, including a right of way for the operation of the mobile plant, directions of travel, or which areas particular mobile plant could be operated in.

Other relevant documents held by the employer were similarly unhelpful, and in any case, the worker had not seen them.

SafeWork NSW charged the company with failing to comply with its health and safety duty in that it had exposed a worker to the risk of death or serious injury.

The maximum penalty for the offence is a fine of $1,860,843.

 

In court

The District Court of New South Wales heard that instead of appropriate training in the use of pallet riders in the warehouse, the workers had merely received informal instruction from other workers, which was not documented or verified by a supervisor.

Nor had the competence of the operators been assessed or verified, and there were no documented procedures for the training or verification by supervisors of workers’ competencies in the operation of the pallet riders.

Ample advisory information on managing the risks of mobile plants was available to the employer in the form of codes of practice and other guidance material from SafeWork Australia.

The available guidance noted that ‘[b]efore a PCBU's workers or other persons use the plant in a workplace, a PCBU must, as far as is reasonably practicable, provide them with information, training, instruction and organise ongoing supervision as necessary to protect them from risks arising from the use of the plant’.

The employer accepted responsibility for its failure to comply with its duty under the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 and pleaded guilty.

After the incident, the company took remedial action – a dedicated WHS staff member was employed to be based at the site, traffic management documentation and procedures were reviewed and updated, WHS information and training were upgraded and the employer leased new electric pallet riders with additional safety features including engineering controls in the form of guarding for the operator.

Judge Andrew Scotting said the warehouse operator was responsible for the system of work and the supply of necessary equipment.

‘The risk of workers being crushed or coming into contact with mobile plant, such as pallet riders, while they were in operation at the workplace was obvious and known to the offender. The need for an appropriate system, training and supervision was also known, but poorly addressed, he said. 

‘By its plea of guilty, the offender admitted that it should have had adequate systems in place, trained the workers on those systems and ensured they were competent to operate the mobile plant used in the warehouse and provided adequate supervision.’

The injury, harm and loss caused by the offence were substantial – the worker will be ‘left with a life-long disability that has significantly curtailed a very active lifestyle’ and also suffer psychological consequences.

The mitigating factors were that the business was a good corporate citizen, had no previous convictions and had taken steps to reduce the likelihood of such incidents in future. The employer had good prospects of rehabilitation, had expressed remorse, cooperated with law enforcement authorities and pleaded guilty.

The employer was convicted and fined $390,000 plus the prosecutor’s costs.

 

What it means for employers

Again and again, incidents involving mobile plant are the focus of cases before the courts. Employers neglecting safety with mobile plant are putting their workers and their businesses at risk of dire consequences. A key component to managing the risks associated with mobile plant is the training of individuals who are operating those vehicles, especially if they are labour hire workers.

 

Read the judgment

SafeWork NSW v Saveba Pty Ltd [2025] NSWDC 31