New worker undertakes new task with alarming results

A Victorian steel manufacturer was fined $90,000 for an incident in which a worker’s hand was trapped in rollers of a steel-bending machine (WorkSafe Victoria v Retired AKZ Pty Ltd [formerly AKZ REINFORCING PTY LTD] [2025]).

After being hired in early May 2023 as a machine operator, the injured worker spent 6–8 weeks being trained to use one particular machine.

After working for 2 months, on the day of the incident, the worker was instructed to start a new bend that he had never performed before. His usual supervisor was not at work, and the worker was being instructed by another supervisor who explained that the bends were urgently required because a truck was waiting for them. Feeling pressured and rushed, the worker performed the new bend on several bars until he noticed one of them starting to twist outwards. While wearing safety gloves, he placed the palm of his hand on the bar and pressed it slightly to push the bar back towards the machine. However, part of the bar had wire-like structures sticking out, which penetrated the safety gloves. As the bar moved through the machine, it pulled the worker’s glove and left hand into the rollers of the machine, entrapping his left index finger. As a result, the worker sustained partial de-gloving of his left index finger, which required surgery.

At the time of the incident, the machine was fully exposed when operating. It was therefore possible for workers to make direct contact with the danger nip area, and be put at risk of serious injury by being crushed or entangled in the rollers. While a guard was available for the bending unit of the machine, it was an optional feature that the company had not sought to implement. Additionally, the instructions received by the worker directly conflicted with the warnings in the operating and maintenance manual. The manual required that all personnel, including the operator, must stay at least 2 metres away from the front of the machine while it was operating. However, the worker had been instructed that if the bars rotated outwards during the bend, he should press the bar with the palm of his hand to push it back towards the machine. There was also no task-specific safe operating procedure, instruction or training given to the worker in performing the new bend. Furthermore, the worker was never trained on what to do in the event of an emergency other than to ask for help.

The Court found that the company had breached its duty of care by failing to:

install guarding to cover the danger area;
install an interlock system to ensure the machine only operated when the guarding was in position; and
provide workers with the necessary instruction, information and training on the operation of the machine to enable them to perform their work safely.

How to determine whether an employee has abandoned their employment
The Fair Work Commission recently had to determine whether an employee’s absence from her job in an accounting firm had been an abandonment of employment ...