Skip to content

LinkedIn
YouTube
RSS

Hillman v Vlahos [2011] SAIRC 84
20/12/11 GEORGE VLAHOS: was convicted and fined $16,000 plus costs after pleading guilty to two breaches of of s61(3). On 8 July 2008, while operating a mobile lunch van, a 47-year-old employee sustained a broken nose and was rendered unconscious when the rear door of the van fell as she opened it.

As a responsible officer, Mr Vlahos failed to take adequate steps to ensure the body corporate met its obligations under section 22(2) and regulations 6.6.2(1).

Farrell v Lobethal Abattoirs Pty Ltd [2011] SAIRC 83
12/12/11   LOBETHAL ABATTOIRS PTY LTD (ACN 105 579 566): was convicted and fined $45,500 plus costs after pleading guilty to a breach of s19(1). On 20 January 2009, a 16-year-old employee sustained a crush injury to his left index finger when his hand was caught in the unguarded clamp of a hide pulling machine.

The company failed to:

  • develop and implement a procedure for guiding hides into the machine that did not require employees to use their hands to place the hides into the clamp;
  • to guard the machine so as to restrict access to the clamp; and
  • instruct the employee on a safe procedure for operating the machine that did not require him to use his hands to guide skins into the clamp.

Farrell v San Remo Macaroni Company Pty Ltd [2011] SAIRC 81
8/12/11 SAN REMO MACARONI COMPANY PTY LTD (ACN 000 228 713): was convicted and fined $30,000 plus costs after pleading guilty to a breach of s19(1). On 1 May 2009, a 61-year-old employee sustained lacerations to her arm and a broken wrist when a machine began to operate after she inserted her hand into the 'doser' for cleaning.

The company failed to:

  • equip the machine with a guard which was sufficiently secured so as to reduce the risk of the employee coming into contact with the auger while the machine was in operation;
  • ensure the employee's cleaning of the machine was supervised sufficiently to ensure the employee isolated and locked out the machine prior to commencement, using safety tags at the main switch, and to ensure the employee never placed her hands inside the machine's doser while cleaning.

Hillman v Sibelco Australia Ltd [2011] SAIRC 80
8/12/11 SIBELCO AUSTRALIA PTY LTD (ACN 000 971 844): was convicted and fined $93,750 plus costs plus compensation after pleading guilty to a breach of s19(1). On 4 September 2009, a 41-year-old employee was fatally injured when he fell approximately three metres to the ground through a hole in an elevated platform.

The company failed to:

  • ensure the hole in the elevated platform was covered or guarded so as to eliminate the risk of an employee falling through it; and
  • ensure systems provided by the employer (written Job Safety Analyses and Working At Heights permits) were maintained at the premises to ensure employees were required to consider the use of fall protection equipment when working at heights.

Hillman v Metropolitan Plumbing Pty Ltd [2011] SAIRC 77
30/11/11 METROPOLITAN PLUMBING PTY LTD (ACN 071 977 994): was convicted and fined a notional penalty of $55 000 (with no order to pay) plus costs after pleading guilty to a breach of s19(1). On 28 November 2007, an employee sustained concussion, a fractured right wrist, a fractured cheek bone and a dislocated knee after he fell approximately three metres from a roof head first onto a concrete path while cleaning roof gutters.

The company failed to:

  • ensure that any hazard identification and risk assessment was undertaken for the task of cleaning roof gutters generally which identified falling from the roof as a reasonably foreseeable risk, and
  • develop and implement appropriate safe work methods for cleaning roof gutters which included conducting a site specific hazard identification and risk assessment, and cleaning the roof gutters from a ladder.

Farrell v Toyoda Gosei Australia Pty Ltd [2011] SAIRC 78
29/11/11 TOYODA GOSEI AUSTRALIA PTY LTD (ACN 075 422 445): was convicted and fined $36 000 plus costs after pleading guilty to a breach of s19(1). On 1 May 2009, a 44-year-old employee suffered serious finger injuries when his right hand was drawn into the unguarded opening of a screw auger on an extruder machine.

The company failed to ensure the extruder machine was fitted with a guard that prevented or minimised the risk of the employee's hands, fingers or clothing coming into contact with moving parts where rubber was fed into the machine.

Hillman v Rivapak Pty Ltd [2011] SAIRC 71
10/11/11 RIVAPAK PTY LTD (ACN 088 814 902): was convicted and fined $14 000 plus costs after pleading guilty to a breach of s19(1). On 3 February 2009, a 29-year-old employee sustained a severely lacerated finger when it became trapped in an unguarded pinch point in an onion bagging machine's bag intake pulley system.

The company failed to sufficiently guard that part of the machine where the packed onion bags enter the pulley system.

Farrell v DID Piling Pty Ltd [2011] SAIRC 70
31/10/11 DID PILING PTY LTD (ACN 107 389 373): was convicted and fined $26 250 plus costs after pleading guilty to a breach of s19(1). On 11 March 2009, a 34-year-old employee suffered giddiness, burning eyes, tingling skin and blackout while spraying a rust inhibitor on the inside of a barge hull.

The company failed to:

  • ensure the employee was properly trained for work in a confined space, and
  • ensure the information provided in the Material Safety Data Sheet relating to the rust inhibitor was drawn to the attention of the employee.

Hillman v Cargotec Australia Pty Ltd [2011] SAIRC 55
11/10/11 CARGOTEC AUSTRALIA PTY LTD (ACN 097 663 431): was convicted and fined $72,000 plus costs after pleading guilty of a breach of s19(1). On 25 May 2009, a 29-year-old employee suffered a serious head injury when the divided rim of a large truck wheel exploded in front of him.

The company failed to:

  • provide all reasonably necessary information, instruction, training and supervision for the identification of divided rims, highlighting the associated hazards and stipulating a safe system of work when moving such wheels, and
  • provide an appropriate safe operating procedure for removing such wheels by requiring full deflation of all tyres fitted to divided rims so as to reduce the risk of the rim exploding.

Farrell v Goodchild Nominees Pty Ltd [2011] SAIRC 69
6/10/11 GOODCHILD NOMINEES PTY LTD (ACN 007 816 659): was convicted and fined $136 000 (reduced to nil due to inability to pay) plus costs plus $20 000 compensation after pleading guilty to a breach of s19(1). The magistrate also ordered the company to publish details of the offence, its consequences and the penalty imposed in both "The Advertiser" and a local newspaper circulating in the South East.  On 23 January 2009, a 38-year-old employee sustained fatal injuries when a silage bale fell onto him from his truck.

The company failed to:

  • provide a written safe work procedure for the loading, transporting and unloading of silage bales that addressed the risks and outlined measures that could be taken to minimise the risks,
  • instruct the employee to not apply, tighten, loosen, release or adjust the load restraints unless under direct supervision, given his level of experience in loading, transporting and unloading silage, and
  • ensure the employee was adequately trained.

Hillman v Robert Venning Pty Ltd & Richard Venning Pty Ltd [2011] SAIRC 67
22/9/11 ROBERT VENNING PTY LTD (ACN 104 464 173) and RICHARD VENNING PTY LTD (ACN 104 464 155): were both convicted and fined a total of $56 250 plus costs (to be shared equally) after pleading guilty to a breach of s19(1) and two breaches of reg 6.6.2. On 9 October 2009 a 17 year-old employee sustained an injury to his hand when his glove became caught in the rotating cutter of a milling machine and his fingers were drawn in.

The companies failed to:

  • reduce the risk of an employee's hands coming into contact with the rotating cutter,
  • conduct an adequate hazard identification and risk assessment process in relation to the task of operating the milling machine,
  • adequately inform and instruct the employee not to place any body part near the rotating cutter, and
  • notify SafeWork SA either by telephone or facsimile, of the employee's two separate work-related injuries on 12 June 2009 and 9 October 2009 as soon as practicable after the occurrence of each injury.

Count 1 s19(1):  $33 750
Count 2 reg 6.6.2: $11 250
Count 3 reg 6.6.2: $11 250

Hillman v D'Arenberg Pty Ltd [2011] SAIRC 66
22/9/11 D'ARENBERG PTY LTD (ACN 007 683 981): was convicted and fined $90 000 plus costs after pleading guilty to a breach of s19(1). On 29 January 2009, a 29-year-old employee sustained a fractured skull and wrist, trauma to the optical nerve and facial fractures after he fell approximately 4 metres through the shed roof he was working on when an unsecured sheet of iron gave way.

The company failed to:

  • conduct a hazard identification which involved conducting an adequate visual inspection of the roof which identified the presence of a number of shorter sheets of roofing iron in addition to a larger number of long sheets,
  • identify the risk of the employee falling from or through the roof,
  • implement a system of work utilizing fall restraints, including harnesses and a static line, or harnesses and a sheet metal roof anchor; and edge protection, namely mobile scaffolding, and
  • implement and maintain a system of work which involved identifying all points in the roof where sheets of roofing iron overlapped; and indentifying and removing all nails at those points one by one, and immediately replacing each nail with a tek screw, prior to proceeding to remove and replace the rest of the nails.

Hillman v Monroe Australia Pty Ltd [2011] SAIRC 58
22/8/11 MONROE AUSTRALIA PTY LTD (ACN 007 525 386): was convicted and fined $33 750 plus costs after pleading guilty to a breach of s19(1). On 13 November 2008, a 57-year-old employee suffered concussion and deep tissue damage to his neck and back when the ladder he was standing on broke while he was unslinging a load of steel tubing that had been placed in a stillage located on a rack.

The company failed to:

  • ensure a designated area was marked and used for loading and unloading tubing from stillages at ground level, and
  • prevent employees from using ladders to reach stillages and/or sling tubes instead of moving the stillages to ground level.

Markos v Santos Limited [2011] SAIRC 57
22/8/11 SANTOS LIMITED (ACN 007 550 923): was convicted and fined $84 000 plus costs after pleading guilty to a breach of s19(1). On 1 January 2004, thirteen employees were exposed to risks of injury and to health when an inlet manifold and flange weld failed, allowing the release of mercury and flammable gases, which ignited.

The company failed to:

  • undertake an adequate hazard identification and risk assessment identifying and assessing the danger of the plant failing as a result of liquid metal embrittlement,
  • adequately develop and implement a system to inspect the plant to precisely quantify the amount of mercury in the plant, and effect its removal,
  • provide and maintain a safe working environment in that it operated the plant while it was in an unsafe condition, and
  • failed to ensure that the employees were not required or permitted to work or be present in the vicinity of the unsafe plant.

Farrell v Port Lincoln Tuna Processors Pty Ltd [2011] SAIRC 54
5/8/11 PORT LINCOLN TUNA PROCESSORS (2) (ACN 007 745 333): was convicted and fined a total of $57 800 plus costs after pleading guilty to two charges of s19(1) relating to two separate incidents.

On 23 January 2009, an employee suffered deep lacerations to his right index finger when his hand was trapped in a casing machine while attempting to clear a blockage of cardboard.

The company failed to ensure the output end of the machine was guarded to minimise the risk of the employee's hands and fingers coming into contact with moving parts.

Fine: $25, 500

On 11 February 2009, a 21-year-old employee also suffered a finger injury in the same unguarded opening of the machine.

The company failed to:

  • ensure the output end of the machine was guarded to minimise the risk of the employee's hands and fingers coming into contact with moving parts, and
  • ensure the machine was fitted with an emergency stop button accessible from where the employee was working.

Fine: $32, 300

Symons v Howard & Sons Pyrotechnics (Displays) Pty Ltd [2011] SAIRC 53
28/7/11 HOWARD & SONS PYROTECHNICS (DISPLAYS) PTY LTD (ACN 001 297 481): was convicted and fined $63,750 plus $20 000 compensation after pleading guilty to a breach of s22(2)(b). On 12 October 2008, a 59-year-old volunteer performer suffered serious burns when fireworks from his costume ignited a ground flare after he inadvertently wandered into the fireworks area.

The company failed to erect a physical barrier between the fireworks area and the area in which the person was performing to reduce the risk of him entering the fireworks area.

Ireland v Kyren Pty Ltd [2011] SAIRC 52
28/7/11 KYREN PTY LTD (ACN 008 263 527): was convicted and fined $41,250 after pleading guilty to a breach of s22(2)(b). On 12 August 2008, two people not employed by the company were exposed to risk when a tower crane used to lift a dog box containing building materials on a building site failed and the dog box fell approximately 30 metres to a laneway below.

The company failed to:

  • ensure that a public exclusion zone had been established in the laneway to prevent access to the area where the dog box fell, and
  • ensure that the dog box was lifted solely over an established public exclusion zone.

Hillman v Prodigy Design Plastics Pty Ltd [2011] SAIRC 51
21/7/11 PRODIGY DESIGN PLASTICS PTY LTD (ACN 094 768 626): was convicted and fined $16,000 plus costs after pleading guilty to a breach of s19(1). On 13 December 2008, a 62-year-old employee suffered lacerating injuries to two fingers while using an unguarded circular table saw.

The company failed to:

  • sufficiently guard the saw to prevent or hinder the employee from making contact with its dangerous moving parts, and
  • demonstrate to the employee the proper use of the saw with a suitable guard fitted.

Markos v TPA Shows Pty Ltd [2011] SAIRC 45
5/7/11 TPA SHOWS PTY LTD (ACN 005 645 661): was convicted and fined $36 100 plus $2000 compensation plus costs after pleading guilty to a breach of s24A(1)(a). On 1 September 2006, two 16-year-old patrons of the Royal Adelaide Show suffered injury due to the malfunction of an amusement structure known as the "Twin Flip".

The company failed to:

  • investigate the reason for marks on the deck of the Twinflip that indicated that a car or cars had previously come into contact with the deck while it was in operation,
  • ensure that the cars of the Twin Flip could not come into contact with the deck when it was in operation, and
  • ensure the Twin Flip complied in all respects with prescribed requirements applicable to it.

Hillman v Living Colour Nursery Pty Ltd [2011] SAIRC 43
30/6/11 LIVING COLOUR NURSERY PTY LTD (ACN 109 721 495) was convicted and fined $30,000 plus costs after pleading guilty to a breach of s19(1). On 19 May 2009, a 27-year-old employee sustained three broken fingers, four dislocated fingers and a partial de-gloving to his hand when he attempted to break up clumps of peat moss in a soil mixing machine.

The defendant failed to:

  • develop and enforce an adequate safe operating procedure requiring the employee to turn the machine off before accessing the inside of the mixing bowl, and to use a scaffold to reach the top of the mixing bowl, and
  • provide and maintain plant in a safe condition in that the moving blades inside the mixing bowl were not guarded.

Ireland v Bianco Reinforcing Pty Ltd [2011] SAIRC 44
30/6/11 BIANCO REINFORCING PTY LTD (ACN 087 147 251): was convicted and fined $18,750 plus costs after pleading guilty to a breach of s19(1). On 25 October 2008, a 51-year-old employee sustained soft tissue and nail damage to his thumb while using a cropping machine to cut tie wire.

The company failed to:

  • ensure that the cropper being operated by the employee was adequately guarded to prevent contact with the cutting blade and clamp of the cropper whilst in operation, and
  • develop and implement a safe work procedure to cut tie wires requiring the use of hand nips rather than the cropper.

Symons v OneSteel Manufacturing Pty Limited [2011] SAIRC 39
10/6/11 ONESTEEL MANUFACTURING PTY LIMITED (ACN 004 651 325): was convicted and fined $48 000 plus costs after pleading guilty of a breach of s19(1). On 8 July 2008, a 19-year-old employee sustained arc flash burns while removing a blanking plate on a live switchboard.

The company failed to:

  • instruct the employee not to remove the blanking plate,
  • provide and maintain an adequate safe operating procedure for the task that ensured only one busbar cover panel was open at any time, and
  • ensure that employees were wearing adequate personal protective equipment when working on the task of thermal imaging electrical panels on switchboards.

Ireland v Regency (Showerscreens & Wardrobes) Pty Ltd [2011] SAIRC 36
1/6/11 REGENCY (SHOWERSCREENS & WARDROBES) PTY LTD (ACN 085 807 790): was convicted and fined $22,950 plus costs after pleading guilty to a breach of s19(1). On 20 November 2007, a 42-year-old employee sustained a chest injury while securing an industrial waste bin to a forklift when a delivery truck reversed into the bin, which forced the employee against the frame of the forklift.

The company failed to develop and implement a safe system to control the movement of delivery vehicles that required drivers to obtain clearance before driving delivery vehicles into or within the workshop, required trucks to stay within a clearly marked areas, provided signage alerting drivers and factory employees to the risks arising from delivery vehicles, and provided a physical barrier which prevented drivers from driving vehicles into or within the workshop without obtaining clearance.

Hillman v Uniken Pty Ltd [2011] SAIRC 34
27/5/11 UNIKEN PTY LTD (ACN 064 983 884): was convicted and fined $30 600 plus costs after pleading guilty to a breach of s19(1). On 17 April 2008, a 21 year-old employee sustained a deep laceration to his left thigh when the hand held circular saw he was using kicked back and dropped onto his leg.

The company failed to ensure the employee was:

  • required to inspect the saw blades to ensure they were in good condition before using the saw and to inspect timber for nails prior to being cut,
  • instructed by a person with sufficient knowledge of the saw,
  • trained to ensure the guard of the saw was in place while operating it,
  • instructed in how to adjust the blade depth to the appropriate setting for the job at hand, and
  • provided with the operator's manual.

Hillman v Mihalopoulos [2011] SAIRC 33
26/5/11 Constantinos MIHALOPOULOS: was convicted and fined $20 000 (reduced to nil due to the defendant's inability to pay) after pleading guilty to four breaches of s61(3). On 8 July 2008, a 47-year-old employee sustained a broken nose and was rendered unconscious when the rear door of the mobile lunch van she operated, broke free and struck her head.

As a responsible officer, Mr Mihalopoulos failed to take adequate steps to ensure the body corporate met its obligations under sections 19(1) and 22(2), and regulations 1.3.2 and 6.6.2(1).

Hillman v KJ Renfrey Nominees Pty Ltd [2011] SAIRC 32
20/5/11 KJ RENFREY NOMINEES PTY LTD (ACN 007 603 956): was convicted and fined $40 000 plus costs after pleading guilty to a breach of s19(1) and was ordered to provide a copy of the penalty decision to all of its current employees. On 21 July 2008, two employees aged 18 and 23 suffered exposure to a product containing hydrofluoric acid while cleaning a truck.

The company failed to:

  • develop and implement a safe working procedure for use of the hydrofluoric acid,
  • provide to the employees reasonably necessary information, instruction and training as to safe personal protective equipment for this work, and
  • inform its first aid officer of the need for and type of first aid treatment upon contamination.

Hillman v Intercast and Forge Pty Ltd [2011] SAIRC 31
19/5/11 INTERCAST AND FORGE PTY LTD (ACN 090 515 334): was convicted and fined $22 500 plus costs after pleading guilty to a breach of s19(1). On 12 June 2008, a 50-year-old employee was injured after his hand entered the opening of a cement mixing machine and was struck by the agitator.

The company:

  • failed to replace and/or refit the guard when it was removed during maintenance,
  • returned the paddle mixer to production without a guard,
  • failed to adequately guard the trapping point, and
  • failed to provide and maintain adequate safe operating procedures for the operation of the paddle mixer.

Paparella v Farquhars KI Pty Ltd [2011] SAIRC 30
17/5/11 FARQUHARS KI PTY LTD (ACN 007 780 805): was convicted and fined $14 000 plus costs after pleading guilty to a breach of s19(1). On 22 October 2007, a 17-year-old employee sustained injuries to three fingers of his left hand while using a panel saw to trim the edges of a piece of board.
  
The company failed to:

  • undertake an adequate hazard identification and risk assessment for the saw and written risk assessment of the employee's use of the saw,
  • provide an adequate written safe operating procedure for use of the saw, and
  • provide written guidelines as to what size panels could be safely cut or trimmed.

Hillman v Maritime Construction Pty Ltd
11/5/11 MARITIME CONSTRUCTIONS PTY LTD (ACN 073 923 725): was convicted and fined $30 000 plus costs after pleading guilty to a breach of s19(1). On 21 October 2008, a 49-year-old employee sustained a fractured vertebra, two broken ribs, a broken wrist and severe bruising after he slipped and fell 5 metres while attempting to climb over a crane outrigger during construction works at the Rapid Bay jetty.

The company failed to provide adequate edge protection while the employee was required to work in a place from which he could fall.

Hillman v Barossa Enterprises Incorporated [2011] SAIRC 26
10/5/11 BAROSSA ENTERPRISES INCORPORATED: was convicted and ordered to perform a range of substantial educative activities within the disability services sector and to pay costs after pleading guilty to a breach of s19(1). On 17 August 2009, a 50-year-old employee sustained a finger joint amputation while attempting to clear a blockage of sawdust and wood shavings from a trenching machine.

Barossa Enterprises failed to:

  • install a guard over the machine's internal moving blades, and
  • ensure that an isolation device was provided on the machine within the operator's reach.

Perry v Diverse Barrel Solutions Pty Ltd [2011] SAIRC 24
29/4/11 DIVERSE BARREL SOLUTIONS PTY LTD (ACN 106 313 080): was convicted and fined $32,000 plus $5,400 compensation plus costs after pleading guilty to a breach of s19(1). On 12 February 2008, a 21-year-old employee sustained serious hand injuries when it came in contact with a large spinning cutter wheel while he was in the process of cleaning out a buildup of sawdust from inside a stave jointer machine.

The company failed to:

  • install an interlocked guard to prevent access to the moving cutter blades,
  • develop and implement a procedure that prohibited access to the sawdust extraction duct adjacent to the blades,
  • to develop and implement a procedure that required the activation of a lock out switch before cleaning, and
  • failed to provide reasonably necessary information and training regarding the operation of the electronic brake and the time needed for the cutters to wind down to a stop.

Hillman v E S Wigg & Son Pty Ltd [2011] SAIRC 18
14/4/11 E S WIGG & SON PTY LTD (ACN 007 869 865): was convicted and fined $22,500 plus costs after pleading guilty to a breach of s19(1). On 3 September 2008, an 40-year-old employee sustained amputation of a fingertip after he was nipped by a chain on an envelope machine while trying to retrieve an enveloped that had fallen off the production line.

The company failed to provide a guard which would minimise or eliminate the risk of the employee coming into contact with the cogs, gears and chains where he had sustained injury.

Symons v Clean Seas Aquaculture Growout Pty Ltd [2011] SAIRC 17
14/4/11 CLEAN SEAS AQUACULTURE GROWOUT PTY LTD (ACN 094 380 499): was convicted and fined $26,250 plus costs after pleading guilty to a breach of s19(1). On 24 November 2007, an employee became unconsciousness while performing a breath-hold dive to retrieve dead fish from a fish cage.

The company failed to:

  • identify shallow water blackout as a hazard specifically associated with breath-hold diving at depths below two metres while removing dead fish from fish cages,
  • conduct a risk assessment specific to breath-hold diving,
  • enforce policies and procedures that prevent divers from diving when they were or may have been impaired by the effects of alcohol or any substance, and
  • provide such supervision as reasonably necessary in that it allowed the employee to board the vessel and perform his duties as coxswain while apparently under the influence of alcohol.

Hillman v Fig Tree Bay Fisheries Pty Ltd and Anor [2011] SAIRC 16
14/4/11 FIG TREE BAY FISHERIES PTY LTD (ACN 103 344 190): was convicted and fined $22,500 plus $20,000 compensation plus costs after pleading guilty to a breach of s19(1).  On 5 January 2007, a 31-year-old employee sustained a fractured hip when his foot was caught in the net and he was drawn toward the spool of a shark fishing vessel.

The company failed to:

  • provide and maintain an adequate safe operating procedure for the task that ensured,
  • ensure the spool had sufficient or adequate emergency stop devices readily accessible to the employee, and
  • adequately supervise the employee while he was performing the task.

2/3/2011 M & I SAMARAS (NO 1) PTY LTD (ACN 007 988 516): was convicted and fined $22 500 plus costs after pleading guilty to a breach of s19(1). On 30 November 2007, an employee sustained crush injuries, punctures and fractures to his legs when a 3600 kg steel beam was knocked over and he was trapped between it and a pile of smaller beams.

The company failed to:

  • ensure that a safe operating procedure was in place for the use of gantry cranes to move loads that required employees to ensure no persons were in the vicinity of the lift and specified the task was to be undertaken only by employees who were certified as competent to undertake dogging work, and
  • employees using gantry cranes to move loads were provided with adequate training, namely a certificate of competency in dogging work.

Hillman v Aluwalk Pty Ltd [2011] SAIRC 7
21/2/11 ALUWALK PTY LTD (ACN 069 461 810): was convicted and fined $3,000 (reduced from $16,000 due to financial incapacity and the serious injury suffered by the company's principal) plus costs after pleading guilty to a breach of s19(1). On 27 June 2007, a 69-year-old managing director sustained a fractured pelvis, fractured ribs and a punctured lung after falling six metres to the floor of a water storage tank while engaged in the task of reroofing the tank.

The company failed to ensure that the safe work procedures it developed to minimise the risk of a fall were maintained.