We are operating at reduced capacity due to COVID-19 Alert Level Two restrictions. Please only call our 0800 number if someone is at serious risk of harm or has been seriously injured, become seriously ill, or died as a result of work.
For other notifications please complete our online forms at Notify WorkSafe.
Court Summary - at a glance
- To have ensured that an effective means of fall protection was in place before employees commenced work, and that it was used by the employees. This could have been achieved through the use of isolating harm mechanisms, for example:
- A proprietary scaffolding system could have been used to ensure that the work platform was within a metre of the top plate to act as a catch deck with external guardrails extended a metre past the height of the top plate.
- Ensured an edge protection system was in place.
Health and Safety Inspectors conducted a follow up visit at the building site further to a Prohibition Notice (the Notice) which was issued to the principal company.
The Notice was issued because edge protection had not been provided for single level dwellings under construction. The Notice required the principal company to put in place adequate safety systems for working at height and to ensure that the systems were maintained and used.
Upon arrival, the inspectors observed that the main access gate was secured to block access to the site. At the time of the visit, the director/employee was observed conducting work at height, walking along the roof trusses on the top plate of the construction. The director/employee was asked a number of times by Inspectors to come down from the roof to ensure his own safety, but this was ignored.
The inspectors produced their certificates of appointment to the director/employee but this was also ignored resulting in the inspectors having to produce their certificate to another employee of the defendant.
There was no injury or harm to the director/employee.