Browsing: WHS decisions (VIC) | Page 11

One of the growing number of employers charged with COVID-related workplace health and safety breaches has been sentenced in Victoria. In Queensland, a PCBU has been fined after its failure to act on safety complaints led to a worker suffering serious wrist injuries.

A worker diagnosed with a psychologically driven pain syndrome, after falling at work a decade ago, has been awarded about $650,000 in damages, with a judge finding her employer negligently failed to tackle the risk of slipping on tiles.

An employer that failed to implement straightforward safety measures, like instructing personnel to turn off a gas main, has been convicted and fined $600,000 over the death of an apprentice in a confined space.

An employer has overturned a hefty damages bill, with a superior court finding an injured employee failed to prove his musculoskeletal disorder (MSD) was caused by the company's OHS breaches.

• Adverse action Bill exceeds $2m after worker "destroyed"; and
  
• Employer fined over two amputation incidents in two months.

• Proposed WHS changes expand diesel-emission duties in NSW;
  
• Injury benefits increased for NSW volunteers and fatality victims; and
  
• Employer convicted over absence of deadly-dust controls.

A company that was recently charged with reckless endangerment, relating to incidents involving the alleged poor condition of its heavy vehicles, has been fined heavily over an earlier fatality and other safety breaches.

• Business fined for breaches that injured child, alert issued; and
  
• WHS achievements and new white card rules highlighted in NT.

Lack of action by an employer to introduce changes to work methods following a vehicle rollaway incident resulted in catastrophic injuries to one of its workers, who has been awarded nearly $1.6 million in damages.

A company that was convicted and fined over an apprentice's severe electric-shock injuries has been blocked from recovering, from its insurer, any damages and compensation paid to the worker, with an appeals court finding its director was "indifferent to whether any action was taken to prevent" the electrical risk.