Disciplinary hearings – August 2023

Significant property damage is not defined in the Act. Section 16(1)(b)(ii) of the Act, which relates to notification of accidents, also refers to serious harm and to property damage.

When dealing with matters, the Board considers significant property damage in section 143(b)(ii) should be interpreted in line with the definition in section 16(1)(b)(ii), and it applies that definition.

Case One

The Electrical Worker carried out prescribed electrical work in a negligent manner and in a manner that was contrary to an enactment. He was fined $750 and ordered to pay costs of $225. The Electrical Worker accepted responsibility, and the matter was dealt with by way of an agreed statement of facts. The fine and costs reflected his cooperation and acceptance. The negligence finding related to a failure to select and install appropriate fittings for the connection of electrical wiring to equipment inside the septic tank in that junction boxes used were not compliant with AS/NZS 3000:2007 as they allowed for water ingress.

The case is a reminder to all electrical workers to check compliance standards prior to undertaking prescribed electrical work to ensure that the compliant equipment is being installed.

Case Two

The Electrical Worker supervised prescribed electrical work in a negligent manner and provided a false Certificate of Compliance. He was fined $500 and ordered to pay costs of $250. The fine and costs were reduced because the Electrical Worker accepted that his supervision fell below an acceptable standard.

The prescribed electrical work was carried out by 2 trainees. A registered and licensed electrician was assigned to carry out the installation with them but called in sick. The disciplined Electrical Worker allowed the trainees to proceed with the installation. He then issued a Certificate of Compliance and Electrical Safety Certificate, certifying the work as having been done lawfully and safely, but he was not present during the installation and did not attend the site or check the work prior to issuing the certification.

Case Three

The Electrical Worker negligently created a risk of serious harm to any person or a risk of significant property damage and provided 2 false or misleading returns. He was ordered complete training (at his cost) and to pay costs of $250. The negligent work related to a switchboard installation, where a fire had resulted. The training ordered was designed to address the Electrical Worker’s deficiencies. Because of an ongoing risk that further non-compliant work might be carried out before the training was complete, the Board also ordered that the Electrical Worker’s licence be restricted such that any general or high-risk prescribed electrical work and all work on switchboards that the Respondent carries out or supervises must be checked by another electrical worker who is authorised to carry out that work prior to it being connected and livened.

This was another case where the Electrical Worker negligently created a risk of serious harm or significant property damage contrary to section 143(b)(ii) of the Act. The Respondent also carried out prescribed electrical work in a negligent manner contrary to section 143(a)(i) of the Act and provided a false or misleading return contrary to section 143(f) of the Act. He was fined $2,500 and ordered to pay costs of $250. The matter was dealt with based on an agreed statement of facts.

The non-compliant work in this matter involved the alteration of an electrical design of the switchboard by both removing and adding conductors and removing the main isolator. That meant that the installation could not be switched off in breach of AS/NZS 3000:2007 2.3.1 and 7.3.4.1. The Electrical worker also altered the design of the automatic mains changeover system, which disabled the safety function designed to prevent a generator system and mains system from simultaneously providing power. That created an electrically unsafe installation in breach of AS/NZS 3000:2007 7.3.3. Lastly, the Electrical Worker carried out a cable extension but used the wrong cable identification, incorrectly applied a compression crimp and the wrong insulation for the application, in breach of AS/NZS 3000:2007.