Appeal results in rewinding recorded conviction for printing company

A printing and logistics business was successful in appealing a Magistrate Court’s decision to record a conviction against it for an incident involving a worker being entangled in an unguarded guillotine machine, while the $30,000 penalty remained in place.

Background

A guillotine operator working for Print Logistics (Aust) Pty Ltd used the guillotine to do an urgent job, even though the size of the cuts made by the machine were too small for the size of the job. In using a work around, the operator asked a colleague to stand at the back of the guillotine to hold down the sheet and prevent it from curling up.

The guillotine did not have the fixed rear guard in place as it had been removed. During the work, the colleague became entangled in the machine, sustaining a degloving injury, damaged tendons and fractures.

Print Logistics had failed to:

have the guillotine’s operating instructions from the manufacturer, which included instructions that a guard at the back-gauge drive unit be used and a requirement that the plant be taken out of operation if those covers were not in place; and
prepare a standard operating procedure, or written policies or procedures, for the guillotine.

First instance

At first instance, in sentencing Print Logistics, the Magistrate’s Court noted that even though it had no prior convictions and had been in operation for many years, there were systemic issues at the workplace that went beyond the incident. The Court noted that it was straight forward to have a guard and keep it in place, and as such, this was an objectively serious offence.

The Magistrate’s Court imposed a penalty of $30,000 and recorded a conviction.

Appeal

On appeal to the Melbourne County Court, the $30,000 fine was retained, however a decision was made not to record a conviction.

In arriving at its decision, the County Court noted it was objectively a serious offence, particularly as the guard had been removed 6 years earlier and the injured person was told to stand in the danger zone to perform the task.

However, in finding that a conviction can potentially result in the loss of government work, the Court exercised its discretion not to record a conviction. In doing so, the County Court noted that Print Logistics had no priors and the managing director was greatly experienced in the industry, with the company existing for 20 years and having taken immediate remediation action after the breach. Importantly, the Court also noted that general deterrence can still occur without necessarily having to impose a conviction.

Breaking down Fair Work Act casual employment and casual conversion rights – Part 1
Under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), the general rule is that an employee is a casual employee of an employer if the employee would be entitled to a casual loading or specific casual rate; and the employment relationship is characterised by an absence of a firm advance commitment to continuing and indefinite work ...