Disciplinary hearings – June 2023

Joseph Coleman, E 265293, EW 116580, Electrician

Mr Coleman defended charges that he had failed to adequately carry out the application of 2 joints to an underground mains cable, failed to bury an underground cable at the correct depth and install underground marker tape, failed to ensure that any openings for cable entry into the distribution switchboard greater than 5mm were sealed to prevent possible drafting effect which would spread fire. In essence, with regard to the main cable, the allegation was that the sealing of joints had failed and would not have prevented water ingress.

The Board decided that the Investigator had proved the charges and that Mr Coleman had carried out the prescribed electrical work in a negligent manner. Negligence, it is the departure by an electrical worker from an accepted standard of conduct. It is judged against those of the same class of licence as the person whose conduct is being inquired into. The Board also found that Mr Coleman had provided a false or misleading Certificate of Compliance. Mr Coleman was fined $2,000 and ordered to pay costs of $2,800. As with all disciplinary matters, a record of the disciplinary offending will be recorded on the Public Register for a period of 3 years.

As noted, Mr Coleman denied the allegations and he presented evidence in support of his defence. When the Board hears competing evidence, it has to make a decision as to what evidence it will accept or reject. Various factors can come into play, but ultimately, in this matter, it came down to the Board preferring the evidence of the witnesses for the Investigator over Mr Coleman’s evidence and the evidence of a witness that he called. of the Respondent and Mr Johnston. The Board found that the evidence of what was found on the cables being exposed by another electrical worker at a later time was credible. Also, there was no evidence of other electrical workers carrying out prescribed electrical work on the main cable in the intervening period or of any tampering once the cable was exposed.

As part of his defence, Mr Coleman submitted that the complaint was vexatious and that the Board should dismiss the complaint on that basis. Vexatious complaints are those which are improperly motivated, such as where they lack merit or are instituted primarily to distress, annoy or embarrass rather than to obtain the remedy sought. There may, in any complaint made, be elements of it which are vexatious. The Board noted that, of itself, that is not enough to make a complaint vexatious. The Board noted that a complaint needs to have been made predominately for that purpose and to lack value or merit, which was not the case with the complaint about Mr Coleman.

A full copy of the Board's decision can be found through the link below: 

Coleman [2022] EWRB CE22426 – Final Decision

Case 2

The Electrical Worker negligently created a risk of serious harm or significant property damage, carried out prescribed electrical work in a negligent manner, and failed to provide certification for the prescribed electrical work on completion. He was ordered to undertake a course of training to address competency deficiencies and was ordered to pay costs of $250. The matter was heard on the basis of an agreed statement of facts in which the Electrical Worker accepted the charges laid against him.

The finding of negligently created a risk of serious harm or significant property damage the connection of a newly installed hot water cylinder via an old existing isolator. Serious harm is defined in the Electricity Act. It means death, or an injury that consists of or includes loss of consciousness, or a notifiable injury or illness as defined in section 23 of the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015. Significant property damage is not defined in the Act, but the definition for notification of accidents also refers to property damage and is instructive. That definition is “damage to any place or part of a place that renders that place or that part of that place unusable for any purpose for which it was used or designed to be used before that accident”.

Negligently creating a risk of serious harm or significant property damage is one of the most serious allegations that can come before the Board. It usually involves work that is electrically unsafe or deemed to be unsafe, as per the definitions of those terms in the Electricity (Safety) Regulations. The Board takes those matters very seriously as they involve putting the safety or persons and property at risk.

Case 3

This was another case where the finding was that the Electrical Worker negligently created a risk of serious harm or significant property damage. He was ordered to undertake a course of training and is ordered to pay costs of $250. The matter was heard on the basis of an agreed statement of facts in which the Electrical Worker accepted the charges laid against him.

The findings related to the disconnection of an earth conductor from a socket outlet which remained connected to power and incorrectly using red sleeving over a green/yellow protective earth conductor. Both were serious non-compliance issues. Earthing is fundamental to safety, and sleeving an earth conductor creates a risk that another electrical worker may unwittingly cut into the conductor where it is not sleeved, believing it to be an earth conductor. The Electrical Worker was ordered to complete and pass the Stage 3 Practical assessment to address the competency issues noted.

Case 4

The Electrical Worker failed to provide returns for prescribed electrical work within prescribed time frames. He was censured and ordered to pay costs of $500.

Electrical certification is important and it cannot be withhold for contractual or commercial reasons. Under regulation 74E(2) of the Safety Regulations, an electrical worker must, within 20 days after completing the work, provide a copy of the certificate of compliance for prescribed electrical work to the person who contracted for the work or, if that person is not readily available, to the occupier or owner of the place or thing in which the installation or part installation is located. Regulation 74G(1)(a) of the Safety Regulations contains the same provision for Electrical Safety Certificates.