By Gaby Grammeno Contributor

An employer was fined $300K after a worker was killed by unsafe work systems, highlighting the need to enforce exclusion zones and workers’ visibility around mobile plant operating in dim environments. 

The worker was employed by a poultry collection business engaged in live bird catching at a farm in rural New South Wales.

The system for catching the chickens included both manual and mechanical harvesting. The latter was carried out by a chicken harvester with two gathering arms fitted with conveyer systems to collect the birds off the floor of the dimly-lit barn and transfer them to modules. 

Catching the birds by hand involved workers manually lunging with fingers spread to catch chickens by the legs and placing them into the drawers of a module. A three-wheeled forklift was used to put the modules in a shed and later load them onto a semi-trailer for delivery. 

When the forklift was carrying a module, the operator’s vision was partially blocked by the load.

On the day of the incident in August 2021, as the forklift operator was driving forward to place the module against the wall, he felt a bump at the back of the forklift, which had struck and ran over a worker engaged in manually catching the chickens.

The felled worker was seen to sit up momentarily then collapse. An ambulance was called but by the time paramedics examined him, he was found to have died from blunt force trauma to the head.

The subsequent investigation found numerous shortcomings in the process in place at the farm. Though the workers manually catching the birds were supposed to keep four metres away from the forklift and other mobile equipment, this rule was not enforced.

In addition, the lighting in the barn was dim to minimise the chickens’ alarm, and the deceased worker’s hi-vis shirt was hidden by the grey hoodie he was wearing. 

Under these circumstances, workers were exposed to the risk of death or serious injury.

SafeWork NSW charged both the man’s direct employer and another business responsible for the system of work and the associated mobile plant – the two companies shared a common management structure – with breach of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011. 

The employers pleaded guilty, and in December 2024 the District Court of New South Wales heard the case to decide on the sentence.

 

In court

The company’s Live Bird Catching Manual stated that when a forklift was operating in a shed, ‘a minimum four metre safe working distance from ground personnel applies’, but did not provide further information. This document did not include any requirement to wear high visibility clothing, and it contained images of workers without hi-vis clothing. 

Another document, a ‘task instruction for bird handling’, required workers to wear hi-vis clothes but did not provide information on how workers undertaking hand catching were to be separated from the forklift. 

There was also a Safe Operating Procedure for harvesting live birds, but it didn’t identify the risk of collision between pedestrian workers and mobile plant or specify relevant safety measures.

The need for hi-vis clothing and exclusion zone maintenance were mentioned in an induction video, training and a toolbox talk, but compliance was poor and the rules were not enforced. The employer provided workers with short-sleeved high-vis shirts and a hi-vis jumper, but not hi-vis trousers or jackets

Judge Andrew Scotting concluded that the risk of workers being struck by mobile plant while harvesting chickens was evidently known to the company, as was the need for an exclusion zone between the mobile plant and workers undertaking hand catching.

The exclusion zone rule was poorly communicated, however, and only one of the interviewed workers understood that he needed to keep at least four metres away from the forklift. 

Having workers on foot catching the birds by hand in the vicinity of operating plant in dimly lit conditions was an ‘inherently dangerous and completely unnecessary process’, and the poorly implemented exclusion zone was a low level administrative control, the Jude said. 

He took the view that the business could have provided further PPE to increase the visibility of workers, and having workers hand catching chickens on foot in close proximity to mobile plant should not have been permitted.

After the incident, the systems of work for both hand catching and machine harvesting were revised, with designated forklift operating areas, restricted areas and safe pedestrian zones, as well as headlamps and more hi-vis gear. 

Significant resources were also provided for safety improvements including compliance monitoring and the engagement of professionals to provide leadership, advice and specialised competencies in safety.

In deciding on the appropriate sentence, Judge Scotting noted that the offenders had no previous convictions, had cooperated with SafeWork’s investigation, took steps to respond to the incident and demonstrated that they had good prospects of rehabilitation.

They had also accepted responsibility for their failings and expressed remorse for the incident. Representatives of the employers had offered assistance to the worker’s family for an extended period following the incident, which the Judge accepted as a genuine expression of contrition.

They were good corporate citizens and had supported community groups and initiatives and made donations.

In deciding on the appropriate sentence, Judge Scotting took into account the Victim Impact Statements from the worker’s family, which he viewed as evidence of harm to the community.

The appropriate fine for each business was $400,000 but it was reduced by 25% to reflect the discount for the plea of guilty, which had a utilitarian value in saving court time as well as indicating remorse.

Both employers were convicted and each fined $300,000 plus the prosecutor’s costs.

 

What it means for employers

Deaths and serious injuries resulting from the proximity of pedestrian workers to forklifts and other mobile plant are all too often the focus of WHS prosecutions, highlighting the need for businesses to provide effective training, instruction, supervision and enforcement of safety measures such as exclusion zones to keep workers safe.

 

Read the judgment

SafeWork NSW v Multiquip Poultry Pty Ltd [2025] NSWDC 15