A not-for-profit business has been fined $30,000 after an incident that left an employee with hip and foot fractures.

In 2020, the not-for-profit business which stores and distributes food to other charities had a warehouse where paid employees and unpaid volunteers worked.

On 13 March 2020, a paid worker was operating a forklift to move goods between the warehouse building and vehicles in the loading zone. 

Contrary to the defendant’s work instruction, a volunteer entered the loading zone to take a break. The worker drove the forklift into the loading zone and didn’t see the other man who was standing near a truck and a stack of pallets. 

Unfortunately, the forklift ran into the volunteer who suffered fractures to his right pelvis and foot that required hospital treatment.

The court heard the organisation failed to adequately ensure workers complied with its policies and procedures for eliminating or minimising the potential for contact between pedestrians and moving pallets. 

Workers had not been sufficiently trained in, and there was no system to enforce its work instruction prohibiting pedestrians from being in a loading zone at the front of the warehouse. 

Like similar zones of activity at the facility, the loading zone was delineated by painted markings on the ground. The defendant’s work instruction prohibited pedestrian workers from entering or remaining in the loading zone.

In sentencing, Acting Magistrate Michael Bice noted there was a high onus on duty-holders under the Act for good reason, given the potential for injury and death when duties are not complied with. 

Even though the defendant was a non-profit charitable organisation that functions for community benefit, the judge recognised its non-compliance with work health and safety obligations justified a need to convey a deterrent message.

Acting Magistrate Bice noted the organisation had relevant procedures in place, including an induction process, but agreed with the prosecution’s submission that the incident was indicative of an erosion in the defendant’s enforcement of those procedures. He remarked that there was an element of complacency which ultimately led to the materialisation of the risk.

The judge took into account an early guilty plea, that the defendant is a charitable organisation assisting vulnerable members of the community, and that it is a good corporate citizen. He was also impressed by the significant post-incident steps taken by the organisation (more than $1.1 million) to prevent such incidents occurring in future and the defendant provided care for the injured volunteer.

The organisation was fined $30,000, plus costs of almost $1,600. No conviction was recorded.