When a ‘grossly inappropriate’ work method was used close to overhead powerlines, a worker got an electric shock that surged through his body and hit the host employer with a conviction.
The worker was a general labourer employed by a contractor engaged to undertake piling works at a residential construction site in North Wollongong, where 11,000-volt powerlines passed along the site’s street frontage.
The construction company engaged to undertake and manage the project knew the powerlines presented a risk – at the request of the principal contractor, Endeavour Energy had installed 'tiger tails' and red warning flags on the powerlines and provided the principal contractor with a copy of the SafeWork NSW Code of Practice, Work Near Overhead Power Lines.
To isolate the site from the general public, a large timber hoarding surrounded the site. At the time, the site supervisor mistakenly believed the hoarding would prevent the piling rig from making contact with the powerlines.
On 5 December 2022, the task to be undertaken by the piling works contractor involved dragging and manoeuvring 16-metre-long steel reinforcement cages into holes drilled into the ground.
Some of the cages had been damaged and repaired. An excavator with slings was used to bring the cages to the holes, lifting some and dragging damaged cages from the top. One of the cages was lifted into a vertical position then raised a metre off the ground to prevent it dragging. As the process of dropping the cage into the hole began, a labourer was standing about half a metre from the base, guiding it into the hole.
Neither the piling rig operator nor the labourer had a high risk work licence as a dogger, rigger or authorised safety observer. Neither had been trained or instructed in how to do the job – the rig operator had to devise his own method for carrying out the piling works through trial and error, and work out for himself where to attach the sling from the rig to the cage.
The piling contractor’s Safe Work Method Statement (SWMS) ‘Work Activity: Piling’ did not include any reference to overhead powerlines.
A WHS&E Management Plan for the project stated that the construction company would ensure that subcontractors had relevant plant-specific high risk licences and that a risk assessment would be conducted for the activity. However, no risk assessment had been done.
Contact with powerlines
A risk of death or serious injury, a ‘grossly inappropriate’ work method, unqualified workers, damaged equipment and warning signs ignored – what could possibly go wrong?
When the cage was being manoeuvred into the hole, workers heard what sounded like welds breaking and rings sliding down the bars of the cage. The labourer let go of the cage and took a big step back as the cage buckled, flexed over at the top and hit the live powerlines.
Though he was not touching the cage when it hit the powerlines, he felt a surge of electricity go through him. Exit points were found on his boots. He was taken to hospital by ambulance. Fortunately, he was able to be discharged following an examination, and returned to work the next day.
Following SafeWork NSW’s investigation of the incident, the construction company was charged under WHS legislation with exposing the workers to a risk of death or serious injury. The company pleaded guilty, and the hearing to determine the appropriate sentence was held in the Industrial Court of New South Wales.
In court
SafeWork NSW characterised the approach to the lifting and placement of cages as ‘an incident waiting to happen’.
It submitted that there were many things the company could have done to eliminate or minimise the risk, including:
-
arranging for the powerlines to be re-routed underground
-
demarcating an exclusion zone around the powerlines and establishing barriers to keep mobile plant out of that zone
-
warning workers of the location of the powerlines by marking them on site plans and drawings
-
putting up warning signs on the inside of the hoarding
-
checking the piling contractor’s risk assessment and SWMS
-
using an appropriately trained and/or qualified safety observer or spotter to continuously observe and monitor the maintenance of safe working distances from the powerlines
-
using appropriate equipment to lift and place the cages
-
providing material illustrating the correct attachment points for lifting and installing the cages
-
verifying that safety instructions were adequately communicated, and
-
ensuring adequate supervision.
The construction company expressed deep remorse for the incident, and its managers were unreservedly apologetic for putting workers, in particular the man who received the shock, at risk.
By its plea of guilty, the construction company accepted that it could have taken reasonably practical steps to eliminate or minimise the risk.
Justice Jane Paingakulam heard evidence that at the time of the incident, the company had a number of WHS systems in place, including the review and updating of procedures, safety training for workers, regular internal audits, team meetings, inductions and walk-around inspections.
The site supervisor’s previous experience with the piling contractor gave him a sound basis to believe that the contractor would carry out the work competently and safely.
The construction company had also engaged a consultant to arrange with Endeavour Energy for the overhead powerlines to be removed. Though this process began in early 2022, it was not completed until April 2023.
Following the incident, the company committed significant financial expenditure to upgrading its safety systems.
Justice Paingakulam accepted that the company did have some safety systems in place at the time of the incident, and that the site supervisor’s belief that the hoarding was an effective safety barrier was an error of judgement on his part.
She also considered the site supervisor’s moral culpability for the offence was reduced by his belief that the contractor was a reputable business which would carry out the piling work safely.
The construction company was convicted and fined $300,000 after a 25 percent reduction reflecting the guilty plea, plus the prosecutor’s costs.
What it means for employers
The case highlights the pitfalls of failing to provide adequate oversight of contractors’ compliance with relevant safety measures.
