Inspector Petar Ankucic V. Drake

Introduction

In this report an in depth analysis was undertaken to identify the SSHE principles conducted on the findings and relevance from case ‘Inspector Petar Ankucic v Drake Personnel Limited, t/as Drake [1997] NSWIRComm 157’ on the 25th of November 1997.

A brief introduction to the cases established the defendant Drake Personnel Limited liable for the injuries sustained by labourer employee Michael Stephen Douglas whom was carrying our duties at Warman Industrial a specialist designer and manufacturer of slurry pumps. The employee was contracted to perform packing duties and the role of a general store person. Douglas was a holidaying resident from the United Kingdom and was employed by Drake Personnel in various companies performing

forklift duties for a period of six months before commencing work at Warman Industrial where he has sustained the injury. (Wales, 1997)

Approximately two to three weeks prior to the injury, Douglas had been performing various duties at Warman International using a rotating saw on a daily basis. The saw required the operator to remove sawdust from the housing saw cabinet that Douglas witnessed it being performed by other Warman International employees. The removal of sawdust was required to continue the plant operation.

On the 17th of May 1995 at a Warman International factory, While Douglas was operating a rotating saw and was required to remove the built up saw dust in the housing saw cabinet to continue cutting. Douglas switched off the machine by the foot pedal while the blade continued to wind down. Douglas sustained severe lacerations to his hand due to coming in contact with the rotating un-guarded blade. Douglas had sustained this injury resulting in permanent disability to his hand and fingers.

A detailed summary will be addressed regarding the SSHE principles, which have been highlighted throughout the findings of the case.

Experience, Qualifications and required Training for Douglas

Throughout the six months of various employment placements Douglas was appointed with Drake Personnel. Douglas’s duties consisted around his field of expertise in forklift operation. A notable principle that was not addressed was the relevant qualification and experience that Douglas was capable of when commencing at Warman International. Drake Personnel failed to provide Warman International with Douglas’ history of previous experience, attained qualifications and completed training required from him in regards to the docking saw use and its operation. The identification of competency in the ability Douglas has in the required task was not met and matched with the ability did not require nor was the training provided during the induction. (Underhill, Com, & Com, 2008)

The array of duties informed to Drake Personnel included duties of a store person and the use of a docking saw.

The key issue established was the labourer acquired for the position did not meet the experience or qualification needed to perform these duties. A period of approximately two to three weeks had passed while during this period the employer did not engage into the relevant training required to perform the duties instead turned a blind eye to the safety and welfare of its employee. A match between previous experience and required duties was not correctly established which eventually concluded in a severe injury. The employer was aware of duties required to be performed at the workplace but had indicated to its employee that the array of duties would be of similar nature to his expertise of forklift operation, understandable the employee was bound by his position to not refuse work and carry out his required obligation to received a weekly wage although he was incapable of the required skills needed. (Saluzinsky,

2006)
The employer had disobeyed the required duty of care towards its employee through, if the relevant precautions were established before duties had commenced the employer would have addressed the required training or experience needed. Simply the employer would terminate its employees to perform duties until it would be satisfied with the relevant training needed.

Training required for Douglas to perform the task

Due to Warman International not having the appropriate information on the qualification and experience held by Douglas, no formal training was conducted to educate Douglas in the training and use of the docking saw. A fellow employee performing duties at Warman International briefly demonstrated the operation of the saw to Douglas. The term brief does not specify to what degree of demonstration was provided and what aspects of the saw operation were included. The required period manual removal of sawdust build up in the housing saw cabinet was a task seen performed by other employees as a period procedure. Douglas followed the practise of other employees to achieve the task required. Although Douglas saw the task, this was not a satisfactory competence in performing the task. (Johnstone, 2005)

A Warman International employee who briefly demonstrated how to use the rotating saw had directed Douglas to “be careful” as precaution, it is unknown as to what training the informing employee has received and how much direct contact he had with the rotating saw.

Another aspect of formal training that was not provided was the identification of surrounding dangers involved with the operation of the saw or the manual removal of the sawdust from the housing saw cabinet. Due to the saw recently being installed in the factory premises no identification was address regarding the use of the saw. The saw was factory fitted with sawdust extractor vents to eliminate the periodic manual removal although this system was not installed at the Warman workplace.

Drake Personnel has failed to enforce a cease work action to not operating woodworking machinery at the Warman workplace until formal training or instruction was provided to Douglas. The training would ensure a detailed understanding of the machinery and its operation, the correct use of the machinery and the required actions to be performed as use of the machinery on a daily basis. (Wales,

1997)

Providing a Safe System of Work

The safety issues presented in the case demonstrated that the Drake Personnel did not provide safe system of work for its employees, especially around the use of woodworking machinery and equipment. A development of safety control strategies addressed by a consultant employed after the incident had occurred at the workplace. The concern was that no risk strategies were implemented prior the incident but a process of future elimination strategies that eventually rolled out throughout 1997. Prior the incident a safety induction was the only means of informing staff of the general safety precautions to the general aspects of warehouse operations and was demonstrated in a video presentation. (Saluzinsky, 2006)

Warman International and Drake Personnel failed to address the risks involved with the operation of the rotating saw without implementing an interim procedure to address the saw before a complete installation had been conducted. Regardless of the lack of training and instruction provided to Douglas there was no written procedure to self educate on the process, dangers and use of the rotating saw.

Risk management controls in regards to the rotating saw were not addressed prior the incident involving Douglas. No measures where in place to address the dangers or risks involved. The operation of the rotating saw in regards to correct isolation methods before manual removing sawdust, ensuring guarding is adequate to the task required and any PPE equipment were key components left unaddressed. (Solutions, 2014)

Drake Personnel failed to provide the safety and duty of care to all employees in regards to a system of work for the hire of its employees at the Warman International workplace

Ensure a safe working environment for Douglas

A crucial SSHE principle in which Drake Personnel has failed to provide Douglas was a safe working environment in which to perform his required general duties. The rotating saw involved in the incident was used to cut various pieces of wood to construct wooden crates and was not correctly installed and assessed for it current purpose. (PPT Exploration and Production Public Company Limited, 18) A large amount of installation defects were address by the work cover authority inspector including the disconnection of the sawdust extraction vents that would virtually eliminate the process of manual retrieval. The interlock systems, which granted operator access to the cabinet was not correctly, secure and allow the periodic manual removal to occur. The guard that prevents access to the rotating blade was not correctly engineered and installed for its intended use. Due to the malfunction, this enabled the operator to come into contact with the spinning-rotating blade.

The workplace had failed to warn all employees of the dangers associated with the rotating saw. Placard signage of danger and hazard warning to advise all employees were not installed or visible while operating the machinery.

For the employer it is crucial to understand and establish the risks of the workplace where they send their hire staff and ensure that the correct training is provided in regards to tasks they are performing at the specific workplace. A safe working environment is ensuring that all labour staff is aware of the dangers involved with the tasks they are required to perform and ensure they will be safe throughout the process of working. (Johnstone, 2005)

What has the Case Established?

The proceedings from the ‘Inspector Petar Ankucic v Drake Personnel Limited, t/as Drake [1997] NSWIRComm 157’ on the 25 November 1997 addressed the responsibilities that employers which provide labour hire staff are obligated to ensure under the OH&S act. The establishment of responsibly for the interest in the health, safety and welfare for all employees was addressed and ensured other companies of this nature understand the implications and severity of what consequences await them if they don’t conformed to the requirements of the OH&S act.

The case broke ground for establishing a strong health and safety culture in casual and labour staff organisations. It provided a backbone for future organisations to understand the benefit of having safe systems of work in place and ensuring the correct precautions are taken before a labourer commences work. The Drake Personnel incident is widely used in current case studies examples in regards to labour hire companies. (Underhill, Com, & Com, 2008)

Conclusion

In conclusion, Drake Personnel was found liable for the breaches that were addressed in the report above, the disregard for the safety of their employees proved to be the pinnacle of judgment established by the courts ruling. The case highlighted a range of contributing factors that lead to the permanent disability of Michael Stephen Douglas that could have been avoided if those factors had been taken into account.
Drake Personnel and Warman International acted after the incident had occurred involving Douglas ensuring correct communication between both parties was established to determine the correct labourer for the duties required. (Wales, 1997)

Training in regards to the operation of the rotating saw was developed, safe operating procedures were created for the rotating saw and the dust extraction vents already factory fitted on the machinery was installed to eliminate the manual removal. The modification of the saw was engineered to ensure no contact was permitted while the machine was in wind down operation and safety hazard warning placards were visibly installed for the operator to be aware of dangers associated with the machinery.

A greater regard for the safety of employees was established and Drake Personnel was made example of to ensure following labour hire organisations are aware of the consequences.