Failure to adequately implement existing procedure — $100K fine

Following an incident with a front-end loader, a company has been fined $100,000 for failure to adequately implement existing procedure.

Incident

The incident occurred while work was being conducted at an intersection in Middlemount and involved three workers — a loader operator, and two other workers who were injured.

A Caterpillar 950M front-end loader with a bucket attachment — weighing approximately 1550 kg — was at the workplace. Hired from a third-party company, the loader had been delivered with the bucket attachment already attached in the days before the incident.

A written procedure titled ‘SWMS – traffic management’ had been in place by the company. This procedure discussed various hazards and controls relating to traffic management, with discussion of the imposition of exclusion zones, stating that “workers on foot must maintain an appropriate exclusion zone around work zone and operating plant” and “if workers on foot are required to work within exclusion zone, positive communication and line of sight is to be maintained with worker at all times”.

The front-end loader was being used by the workers to attach a cockerel box to the back of a truck. A chain attached at one end to the cockerel box was used to lift it, with the other end attached to an attachment point on the bucket. Two workers were assisting the loader operator by guiding the cockerel box into the back of the truck.

The loader operator began reversing the loader and lowering the bucket once the cockerel box was in place. The two assisting workers began walking towards the truck as this occurred.

The loader operator stopped operating the loader upon seeing the two workers in front of it. The bucket became dislodged and fell from the loader as the loader stopped, striking both workers.

One was struck to the back and sustained a red mark, while the second was located unconscious on the ground, and sustained a traumatic brain injury.

An assessment was conducted of the second injured worker’s functioning and prognosis following his injury — concluding that he was unable to undertake activities of daily living without assistance and 24/7 supervision, and that his condition was permanent.

Post-incident inspection of the bucket attachment and loader revealed that the pin recesses on the bucket attachment were filled with coal debris — causing a lack of positive engagement from the pins on the loader, deactivating the safety mechanism that held the bucket to the pins. This debris build-up in the pin recesses was such that the pins were ineffective in securing the bucket, which resulted in the bucket attachment dislodging when the loader was reversed.

The company was not charged in relation to any failure to identify or remedy the coal build-up in the pin recesses. However, reasonably practicable measures the company should have implemented to eliminate or minimise the risk include ensuring the implementation of its general documented procedure (‘SWMS – traffic management’); implementation to the extent that it prescribed for exclusion zones to be maintained around operating plant, through the provision to workers of adequate training, supervision and periodic compliance audits.

Sentencing

The company was sentenced in the Townsville Magistrates Court on 10 June 2025 for breaching section 32 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (Qld), having failed to comply with its primary health and safety duty pursuant to section 19(1) of the Act.

The company’s early plea of guilty was taken into account by Magistrate McLennan in sentencing. While noting that she did not consider it was foreseeable that the bucket of the loader would fall off, McLenna did note there was a possibility of an accident of some description occurring when using equipment of this nature.

Making note of the condition of the loader and bucket attachment, McLenna accepted that the company was not entirely to blame, as these were provided by the third-party owner of that plant. McLenna also noted that while the loader operator had conducted pre-start inspection of the loader, the defects with the bucket attachment would not have been apparent to him.

McLenna did maintain, however, that had the exclusion zone been maintained, the incident would not have occurred. A fine of $100,000 was imposed and no conviction was recorded.

Principles adopted by Judge Fantin in Steward v Mac Plant Pty Ltd and Mac Farms Pty Ltd [2018] QDC 20 was given regard by McLenna.

Image credit: iStock.com/Jason Finn. Stock image used is for illustrative purposes only.