Disciplinary hearings - December 2022

The Board had a busy disciplinary schedule over September and October 2022.

You will note that in one of the following cases, the Board ordered that the electrical worker's licence be suspended pending the outcome of the investigation and the subsequent hearing. Generally, the Board will order an interim suspension where it considers there is an unacceptable risk that the electrical worker may carry out or cause further unsafe electrical work, and there is a need to protect the safety of the public. The decision is made on the papers, but an electrical worker can require an urgent hearing into the interim suspension if he or she disagrees with it. Furthermore, if the Board imposes an interim suspension, it must ensure the investigation and subsequent hearing is completed without undue delay.

All disciplinary offending is recorded on the Public Register for a period of three years. This ensures that consumers can be informed about the persons they are hiring. Over and above this, the Board can order general publication. Often this is done in the Electron, but it can be published in any way the Board sees fit. Generally, the Board will undertake further publication where it considers there is a need to inform other electrical workers and/or the public of the offending.

You will note that most of the matters that came before the Board are heard on the basis of an Agreed Statement of Facts. Normally in a hearing, witnesses are called and evidence is heard before the Board makes a decision. However, if the electrical worker and the Investigator who is prosecuting the matter agree on the facts and the electrical worker accepts that a disciplinary offence has been committed, then the hearing proceeds on that basis. This means that witnesses are not inconvenienced, and time and money are saved during the hearing process.  As the process involves an electrical worker accepting responsibility and it is a more efficient method of dealing with a matter, the Board will take these factors into account when deciding the appropriate penalty and costs.

Phillip Horncastle, Inspector, I 260931, EW115166

Mr Horncastle carried out prescribed electrical work in a negligent manner and provided a false or misleading certification. He was fined $1,500 and ordered to pay costs of $250. The matter was dealt with by way of an agreed statement of facts. The fine was higher than usual as Mr Horncastle had previously been disciplined by the Board. There were also mitigating factors that the Board took into consideration in determining the appropriate penalty.

The complaint and the findings included a failure to install pole fillers which allowed direct and indirect access to live parts without the use of a tool and the installation of an electric hob with an open cooking surface did not have a switch adjacent within view and within two metres.

The Board often deals with matters involving switches associated with cooking appliances. At times, however, the aesthetics of a kitchen are given precedence over electrical safety and compliance requirements.  This should not occur, as it is important that those using ovens and hobs are easily able to identify and use the means of isolation if an emergency arises.

Navneel Ronil Prasad, Electrician, E263559, EW133868

Mr Prasad carried out prescribed electrical work in a negligent manner and provided a false or misleading return. He was fined $500 and ordered to pay costs of $225. The matter was dealt with by way of an agreed statement of facts.

The disciplinary offending involved a failure to bury a mains cable at the minimum depth and to install warning marker tape. Those requirements ensure cables are not damaged and that they will continue to perform as expected.

In this case, as in others that have come before the Board, it was noted that there was a future intention to cover the cable with concrete. However, that did not occur for quite some time. Electrical workers cannot rely on future events when certifying prescribed electrical work. The work must be compliant at the time it is certified and connected, not at a future time or event.

Connie King, Electrician, E264923, EW126540

Ms King carried out prescribed electrical work in a manner that was contrary to an enactment in relation to unsupported cables in a ceiling space and in a negligent manner with respect to a failure to provide mechanical protection for cable joints and a failure to provide RCD protection for new socket outlets. Ms King also failed to provide an Electrical Safety Certificate. She was fined $2,000 and ordered to pay costs of $2,075.

The matter was heard at a defended hearing. Ms King, despite prior engagement in the hearing process and the Board’s cooperation in meeting her requirements for the hearing, did not appear. The Board received evidence from witnesses called by the Investigator before making  a decision. No discounts to the penalty or costs orders were made as there were no mitigating factors the Board could take into account.

Other matters

Case one

An Electrician negligently created a risk of serious harm to persons or significant property damage when he caused a transposition whilst carrying out a meter change. He also provided a false or misleading return. His practising licence was suspended until such time as he completed Board ordered remedial training. The training order was aimed at the inspection and testing requirements set out in  AS/NZS 3000, 3017, and 3019. He was ordered to pay $250 in costs. The matter was dealt with by way of an Agreed Statement of Facts. When imposing the penalty, the Board took into account the fact that the electrical worker's licence had been suspended throughout the duration of the investigation.

One of the contributing factors to the transposition was a failure to carry out adequate polarity testing. In the decision, the Board noted that testing requirements are fundamental and that the Board would expect any competent electrical worker to know, understand and apply them.

Case two

In this matter, the electrical worker, an Electrician, carried out prescribed electrical work in a negligent manner due to the manner in which he installed conductors which were not protected against a risk of damage, the use of an incorrect external fitting and his failure to adequately supervise a trainee. The electrical worker also permitted an unauthorised person to carry out prescribed electrical work without supervision and provided a false or misleading return. He was fined $1,000 and ordered to pay costs of $225. The matter was dealt with on the basis of an Agreed Statement of Facts.

The finding that the electrical worker permitted an unauthorised person to carry out prescribed electrical work came about because the person who was doing the work had been a trainee, but his trainee limited certificate had expired. That means the exemptions that apply to a trainee no longer applied.

Case three

Another case that came before the Board also involved an Electrician who employed, directed, or permitted an unauthorised person to do prescribed electrical work and who provided a false or misleading return. He was censured and ordered to pay costs of $225. The matter was dealt with on the basis of an Agreed Statement of Facts.

The previous two cases are a reminder to all electrical workers to check that those under their employ or supervision are actually licensed ensure that checks are made when first working with trainees and other electrical workers and that periodic checks are made thereafter. This can easily be checked on the EWRB Public Register. In both matters, the electrical worker adopted new business systems and processes to prevent a future occurrence.

Case four

In this case, the electrical worker was found to have carried out prescribed electrical work in a manner that was contrary to an enactment as well as in a negligent manner and to have provided a false or misleading return. He was fined $1,250 and ordered to pay costs of $225. The matter was dealt with by way of an Agreed Statement of Facts.

There were multiple compliance and safety failings in the matter. Most seriously, and in respect of the negligence finding, the electrical worker used conductors with green and black coloured insulation as active conductors on a two-way lighting circuit and had used unreliable electrical connections.

The use of conductors with colour coding that indicates it is an earth conductor as anything other than an earth conductor is prohibited. It creates a very real safety issue in that persons can unwittingly cut into the conductor, believing it is safe to do so.

Case five

An Inspector carried out prescribed electrical work in a negligent manner and provided a false or misleading return. He was censured and ordered to pay costs of $250. The matter was dealt with by way of an Agreed Statement of Facts. The case involved the testing and certification of a connectable installation that did not have overcurrent protection.

A mitigating factor in the case was that the electrical worker was, at the time, distracted by personal events. He had recognised it as a factor and taken steps to address it.

The Board has published a number of articles in the Electron about distraction and the problems it can cause. When working with electricity, distractions can be fatal. All electrical workers should have an awareness of the potential impact distractions can have and have mechanisms to deal with them. 

Case six

An Electrical Appliance Serviceperson carried out prescribed electrical work in a negligent manner. He was censured and ordered to pay costs of $250. The case was dealt with on the basis of an Agreed Statement of Facts. The case involved a failure to ensure an appliance was left in a safe manner in that cables and fittings used for a replacement oven were underrated. There was a risk of overheating and fire.

There were mitigating circumstances surrounding the events. The electrical worker did not want to leave the homeowner without an oven. As an Electrical Appliance Serviceperson, the electrical worker was not able to install new conductors and fittings. He should have obtained the services of an electrical worker who could, and there was a stated intention to have an electrician deal with the issues as regards the underrated cables and fittings. The electrical worker should not, however, have connected the oven until such time as an Electrician had installed the new conductor and fittings.

The case is another reminder that prescribed electrical work must  be safe at the time it is connected. Future intentions or intended actions are irrelevant. Incidents or harm can occur at any time.

Case seven

In the last matter dealt with, an Electrician carried out prescribed electrical work in a manner that was contrary to an enactment and provided a false or misleading return. He was fined $350 and ordered to pay costs of $250. The matter was dealt with on the basis of an Agreed Statement of Facts.

This was another matter where cables were not buried at the correct depth, and marker tape was not installed. There were also instances of exposed sections of underground wiring. As with the previous matter, the ground was going to be covered over but it had not been when the work was certified.