copyright  |  disclaimer  |  privacy policy  |  print ready

« back

Dismissal of an employee who ignored safety requirements

Excerpts from this article first published in ‘Human Resources’ Magazine, Issue 74, 22 February 2005

In a decision handed down on 28 January 2005, the NSW Industrial Relations Commission determined that a company was justified in dismissing an electrical technician who worked on a boiler without obtaining a safety permit (Ingersoll v Delta EMD Australia Pty Limited).

The technician carried out maintenance and repair of a range of electrical equipment in the plant. The technician replaced a faulty gauge on the boiler without having completed a Permit to Work. He asserted that he did not believe he needed a Permit to Work to replace a faulty gauge on the boiler but he had sought to confirm this belief with his supervisor before undertaking the work. When his attempts to contact the controller were unsuccessful, including attempts by phone and radio, the technician wrote his name and location on the whiteboard, installed the new gauge by hand, and then removed his details from the whiteboard. This resulted in the controller being unaware of the work that the technician had carried out.

The Commission determined that if the technician had any doubt about whether a Permit to Work was required, he should have clarified this with his supervisor. Further, the Commission said the technician ignored a warning sign which specified: “PRIOR TO ENTERING BOILER COMPOUND CELL HOUSE OPERATORS ARE TO BE NOTIFIED.”

In an important reminder to employers and employees about the importance of warning signs, the Commission stated:  “Those signs have a purpose and form part of the overall safety set up of the work area. To ignore the signs is an unsafe act and cannot and should not be condoned by the [company].”

In determining that dismissal was justified, the Commission considered the technician made a deliberate decision not to obtain a Permit to Work. The Permit to Work was required as part of the employer’s system to comply with occupational health and safety obligations. It was relevant that the technician had received training on safety requirements, had been previously disciplined for performing work without a Permit to Work, and had been told that if he was unsure about whether to obtain a Permit to Work, he should speak with his supervisor. Further, there was an obvious potential for an accident to occur when an employee did not comply with the laid down safety practices when dealing with a dangerous product.

HR tips

• Develop safety procedures, publicise the procedures, train employees in the procedures, and require compliance with the procedures.
• In instances of apparent non-compliance with safety procedures, carry out a careful investigation to determine if safety procedures were breached, before determining if disciplinary action towards the offender is warranted.

Lucinda Smithers

Senior Associate

Australian Business Lawyers