WorkCover Authority of NSW v Baiada Poultry Pty Ltd [2015] NSWDC 86

District Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: WorkCover Authority of NSW v Baiada Poultry Pty Ltd [2015] NSWDC 86 Hearing dates: 30 April 2015 Decision date: 30 April 2015 Jurisdiction: Criminal Before: Curtis J Decision: The defendant is convicted and fined Catchwords: OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY – contract worker's arm caught machinery – failure to ensure health and safety of workers – obvious risks – failures of imagination at a junior level to ensure safety Legislation Cited: Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000 Category: Sentence Parties: WorkCover Authority of New South Wales (Prosecutor) Baiada Poultry Pty Ltd (Defendant) Representation: Counsel: M P Cahill appeared for the Prosecutor C Magee appeared for the Defendant

Solicitors: DLA Piper (Prosecutor) Hicksons Lawyers (Defendant) 2013/89949 File Number(s): 2013/89949 Publication restriction: None

Ruling

Introduction 1. On 25 March 2011 Mr Sean Sheridan, a cleaner in the service of Ecowize Specialist Hygiene Services Pty Limited, suffered serious injuries when his right arm was caught in the rotating paddle blade of a spin chiller in the defendant's chicken processing plant at Tamworth. 2. The chiller consisted of a large semi-circular trough several metres long through which slaughtered chickens were passed by rotating paddles in order to cool them for hygienic reasons. At the end of the trough the last paddle lifted the chickens from the trough and placed them on a conveyer line. 3. After production had finished for the day Mr Sheridan hosed the internal components of the machine with the paddles activated and rotating. For some reason that he cannot explain his right arm, hand or clothing became entangled in one of the rotating paddles and he was drawn into the machine suffering a dislocation of his right shoulder and a fracture of his right humerus, lacerations and nerve damage to his right upper arm. He has substantially recovered. 4. The defendant pleads guilty to the charge that contrary to s 8(2) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000 it failed to ensure that Mr Sheridan was not exposed to the risk to his health and safety arising from the conduct of the defendant's undertaking at the defendant's place of work.