Second-hand shouldn't mean second-rate when it comes to safety

A Victorian timber manufacturing business was fined $15,000 after failing to ensure the second-hand electric table saw it purchased was safe for use, resulting in one of its workers sustaining an amputation injury while operating the saw (WorkSafe Victoria v Russell Henning Timber Pty Ltd [2026]).

Background

Due to an operational fault, the electric table saw used in the business’ warehouse could be activated by pressing a single control. Once activated, the machine would clamp pieces of timber in place, before the saw blade would rise from under the table to slice through the timber. These two actions would occur in quick succession.

On 21 October 2024, a worker’s hand became trapped under the clamp after he accidentally activated the table saw while reaching across the work bench. The worker was unable to move his hand in time and sustained an amputation injury from the saw blade.

Investigation

WorkSafe Victoria investigated the incident and found that the electric table saw was designed to be activated using two-hand operator controls. This safety feature was intended to ensure that the electric table saw could only be activated when both the operator’s hands were clear of the clamp and saw blade. However, due to an operational fault, the table saw could be activated by pressing only one of the controls. WorkSafe also observed that there was nothing to prevent operators accessing the internal moving parts when the table saw was in operation.

Prosecution

The business pleaded guilty to an offence under section 21 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 (Vic) for its failure to provide or maintain plant that is, so far as is reasonably practicable, safe and without risks to health.

The Court found that the business could have eliminated or reduced the risk of amputation injuries by ensuring both operator controls were functional and an interlock device was in place to prevent access to the moving parts while the table saw was in operation.

During sentencing, the Court noted that the operator control was faulty when the business purchased the table saw and that its failing was limited to not undertaking a risk assessment of the new plant when it was commissioned for use. Further, although training had been provided, the business had allowed the use of the unsafe saw for some time without verifying it was safe to use.

The Court fined the business $25,000, which was reduced to $15,000 on account of the early guilty plea. The business was ordered to pay costs. No conviction was recorded.

General protections risk when choosing who will give evidence for the employer
In cases where it is alleged a corporate employer took adverse action against an employee for a prohibited reason under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), the employer faces a reverse onus of proof ...