Rap over the knuckles for refusal to answer inspector’s questions

In a lesson not to ignore a health and safety inspector, a director in Queensland was personally fined $2,500 last month. The fine was the result of the director refusing to answer the questions in a section 155 notice, instead emailing the inspector back to say “Criminal proceedings for what crime??” and “Was anyone harmed or property damaged in the incident?”.

The prosecution arose out of a workplace incident in which a shade sail installed by a worker at the worksite struck and damaged an underground electrical pillar. The inspector requested a meeting with the director of the company, but this request was refused.

The inspector then exercised statutory powers by issuing a section 155 notice, which compelled the director to answer questions unless there was a reasonable excuse not to do so. The maximum penalty for refusing to answer questions without a reasonable excuse is $10,000. The director refused to answer and did not offer up any excuse other than the emails.

In pleading guilty to the offence, the Court noted that the director stated that he was motivated not to respond to avoid his worker having any adverse impact from the incident. However, the Court noted that this reason was not sufficient to meet the test of a reasonable excuse and the director should have responded to the notice.

The director was fined $2,500 and ordered to pay costs.

In addition to the penalty for failing to answer the section 155 notice, the regulator still retains powers to continue to investigate the substantive incident and, at its discretion, commence enforcement action against the company in accordance with its prosecution guidelines.

New reforms seek to facilitate employee choice of superannuation fund
If the employee does not make a choice of superannuation fund for superannuation guarantee contributions, the employer must make a request to the Australian Tax Office to determine if the employee has a stapled fund ...