Disciplinary hearings - April 2021
The Board had a busy disciplinary hearing schedule over November and December 2020. If you have not read the above interview with Leyton Lingard-Sharp, then please do as it contains important lessons for all electrical workers.
The Board also dealt with 2 cases where they considered whether carrying out and issuing a warrant of electrical fitness was prescribed electrical work. The Board decided the work came within the statutory definition of maintenance. An article summarising the Board’s reasoning will be in the next Electron.
Several cases in November and December 2020 involved transpositions. Transposed conductors create very real risks of electric shocks and of property damage through the potential for overheating and fire. The Board has noted that when transpositions occur electrical workers often fail to identify them because they do not carry out adequate testing.
Testing is a fundamental aspect in ensuring prescribed electrical work is carried out in an electrically safe and compliant manner. AS/NZS 3000.2007 lists the compulsory electrical tests that are required to be carried out on an installation. These include polarity testing on mains and sub-mains. The Board has developed resources to assist electrical workers with testing, one of which deals specifically with mains polarity verification testing and the use of an independent earth probe.
Testing resources for electrical workers
| November 2020 | Finding | Penalty |
|---|---|---|
| Leyton Lingard-Sharp EW 132753 |
The Board found that Mr Lingard-Sharp had committed a disciplinary offence under section 143(b)(ii) of the Act by failing to ensure testing was carried out prior to livening. The failure to test resulted in a transposition not being identified and a person receiving an electric shock. | Mr Lingard-Sharp accepted his wrongdoing and agreed to participate in an article designed to educate other electrical workers. On that basis, he was censured and ordered to pay costs of $225. |
| Richard McCall EW 044300 |
Mr McCall carried out prescribed electrical work in a negligent manner when he failed to provide earthing to luminaries and installed TPS cables through self-cut openings with sharp edges without bushing. He also provided false or misleading returns. | The matter was dealt with at an agreed statement of fact hearing. The Board adopted a starting point of a fine of $1,500, which was reduced to $500 on the basis of mitigating factors present. Mr McCall was ordered to pay costs of $225. |
| Practitioner 3 | The electrical worker carried out prescribed electrical work in a negligent manner when he installed cabling that was not protected against mechanical damage, environmental and other external influences by enclosure or other means. He also installed TPS wires within a ceiling cavity without sufficient protection against physical contact with live parts. | The matter was dealt with at an agreed statement of fact hearing. The Board adopted a starting point of a fine of $1,500. The fine was reduced to $750 on the basis of mitigating factors present. The electrical worker was ordered to pay costs of $225. |
| Practitioner 4 | The electrical worker carried out prescribed electrical work in a negligent manner when he installed socket outlets and switches in a damp zone without the correct IP ratings and a fitting without an isolation switch. He also provided a false or misleading ESC. | The Board adopted a starting point of a fine of $2,000 but reduced the fine to $1,250 so as to take mitigating factors into account. The electrical worker was and ordered to pay costs of $1,125 toward the investigation and defended hearing. |
| Practitioner 5 | The electrical worker carried out prescribed electrical work in a manner that was contrary to an enactment. The offending related to carrying out and issuing a warrant of electrical fitness. | The matter came before the Board as a test case. The Board decided that it would not take any disciplinary action as a result. |
| December 2020 | Finding | Penalty |
| Ijaz Khan EW 124292 |
Mr Khan committed two offences of providing false or misleading certificates of compliance and one offence of directing or permitting unauthorised persons to carry out prescribed electrical work. | The matter proceeded on the basis of an agreed statement of facts. The matter was serious. A penalty that provided a deterrent was required. Mr Khan was fined $2,500 and ordered to pay costs of $1,125. |
| Louie Darvill EW 127769 |
The electrical worker negligently created a risk of serious harm or significant property damage when he carried out prescribed electrical work causing a phase and neutral transposition. The electrical worker also issued false and misleading returns. | An electric shock resulted from the conduct. The Board considered a significant penalty which deters others was required. A starting point of a fine of $5,000 was adopted. The electrical worker had changed his processes and invested in better testing equipment. He accepted responsibility and has cooperated. The penalty was reduced to a fine of $2,500. The matter was dealt with on the basis of an agreed statement of facts. Costs of $225 were ordered. |
| Practitioner 3 | The electrical worker negligently created a risk of serious harm or significant property damage when he carried out prescribed electrical work causing a phase and neutral transposition. | The offending was serious. The Board considered suspension and a training order. The Board noted training had been undertaken and that the electrical worker’s reintegration into work was being monitored. A fine was considered appropriate. A starting point of $5,000 was adopted. The electrical worker had been demoted and had lost income. There were also other mitigating factors. The fine was reduced to $1,500. The matter was dealt with on the basis of an agreed statement of facts. Costs of $225 were ordered. |
| Practitioner 4 | The electrical worker failed to provide a Certificate of Compliance within 20 days of completion of prescribed electrical work. | The electrical worker was censured and ordered to pay costs of $225. The matter was dealt with by way of an agreed statement of facts. |
| Practitioner 5 | The electrical worker carried out prescribed electrical work in a negligent manner when he failed to identify exposed live terminals and basic insulation. The electrical worker and provided a false or misleading return. | The electrical worker was fined $500 and ordered to pay costs of $225. The matter was dealt with by way of an agreed statement of facts. |