ENFORCEABLE UNDERTAKING

Part 11, Work Health and Safety Act 2011

The commitments in this Undertaking are offered to the Regulator by

MULTIPLEX CONSTRUCTIONS PTY LTD ACN 107 007

527

October 2016

2

This Enforceable Undertaking is given on the day and date that it is accepted and signed by the Regulator. The Undertaking and its enforceable terms will commence to operate as a legally binding commitment on the part of BM from the date it is given.

BM means Multiplex Constructions Pty Ltd ACN 107 007 527

Alleged Contravention means the alleged contravention detailed in term 1.2.

Injured Worker means the worker who sustained the injuries detailed in term 1.5

OIR means Office of Industrial Relations.

OHSMS means an Oceupational Health and Safety Management System.

Regulator means the Deputy Director-General, Office of Industrial Relations, Queensland Treasury, being the person appointed by the Governor in Council as regulator under Schedule 2, Part 1 of the Work Health.and Safety Act 2011.

WHS Act means the Work Health and Safety Act 2011.

Undertaking or Enforceable Undertaking means this written undertaking given under Part 11 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 by BM in connection with a matter relating to a contravention or alleged contravention by BM of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 and includes all of the contents of this document including the general information,. general and enforceable terms.

The OIR respects your privacy and is committed to protecting personal information. The information provided in this document is for the purpose of the Undertaking given to the Regulator under Part 11 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011. This Information will be managed within the requirements of the current state government privacy regime.

The OIR may publish the Undertaking and information contained in it for purposes identified in the Undertaking or for other appropriate purposes in publications such as newspapers and on its website. The OIR may be required to disclose personal information to other agencies such as. the Que~nsland Police Service and WorkCover in accordance with enforcement activities that may be conducted as part of an investigation. Information on our privacy policy is available at www.worksafe.qld.gov.au.

3

1.1 Details of the person proposing the Undertaking

Nominated person:

Street address:

Mailing address:

Telephone:

Email address:

Legal structure:

Type of business:

Commencement date:

Workers: Full time:

Part time:

Casual:

Products and services:

Comments:

David Redding, Regional Director

Multiplex Constructions Pty Ltd, Level 11, 324 Queen Street, Brisbane

Multiplex Constructions Pty Ltd, GPO Box 5213, Brisbane QLD 4001

07 3907 4000

Australian proprietary company limited by shares

Construction

1962

1317

51

57

Construction services

Multiplex Constructions was established in 1962. The business values its long term relationships, and invests heavily in its people and collaborate closely with its clients and sub~contractors. BM aims to leave a lasting social and environmental legacy in the areas in which it operates, and are committed to the safe operation of its sites, and the safety of its workers and subcontractors.

The company's philosophy is based on growing a mature safety culture driven by demonstrated senior management actions. The senior managers have been encouraged to lead by role-modelling an approach where safety is embedded in the business processes and decision-making.

The strategy has four key themes:

1. Being safer by design and planning

2. Focusing priority on critical risks

3. Demonstrating practices not just paperwork 4. Growing ·a mature safety culture in which we hear

about and learn from near misses

Multiplex want its people and its subcontractors to go home safe and healthy, and believe that striving for safety also delivers better long-term performance from the business, and the assets it builds.

4

1.2 Detail the Alleged Contravention

The Complaint and Summons dated 22 October 20.15 alleges that BM had a health and safety duty under section 19(2) of the WHS Act and that it failed to comply with the duty contrary to section 32 of the WHS Act.

The Complaint and Summons provides the following particulars of the Alleged Contravention:

Hazard

Risks:

Falfure:

Control measures that BM could have implemented:

The hazard giving rise to the risk is:

(a) Inadequately supported BONDEK formwork located on level 3, zone 8, grid N16-N17 of the workplace.

Exposure to fall from heights from the third floor of the workplace during the course of pouring a suspended concrete slab to seal a stairwell on level 3, zone 8, grid N16-N17.

(b) The suspended concrete slab:

(i) was in the process of being poured into BOND EK formwork;

(ii) the BOND EK formwork was not supported in the centre by a prop or otherwise adequately supported as required by the manufacturer specifications;

(c) Failure to maintain an exclusion zone on level 2 under the area where the said concrete pour was taking place.

(a) The risk arising out of the hazard of which MULTIPLEX CONSTRUCTIONS PTY LTD ought to have known was of death or serious injury to individuals.

(b) There was a risk that during the course of pouring a suspended concrete slab to seal off a stairwell that the BONDEK formwork supporting the suspended concrete slab could collapse.

That risk materialised when the BONDEK formwork collapsed allowing concrete slurry, steel mesh, Worker 1 and Worker 2 to fall to the floor approximately 4.5 metres below.

MULTIPLEX CONSTRUCTIONS PTY LTD did not

ensure, so far as reasonably practicable, the health and s~fety of

Worker 1, Worker 2 and others, in that It failed to:

(a) Prevent the concrete pour taking place until rendered safe to do so.

(b) Obtain appropriate plans approved by the site engineers to ensure that the suspended slab and its BONDEK formwork was safe before pouring concrete was carried out.

(c) Obtain the Inspection Test Point (ITP) sign off from the BONDEK installers.

(d) Obtain and/.or produce the prestart concrete pour checklist

(e) Ensure that the BONDEK formwork was adequately supported to take the weight of the concrete pour into it.

(a) Ensure that the BONDEK formwork and its span was in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications. In this instance the span was approximately 3.45 metres and the specifications provide for a maximum of 2.5 metres without

5

a temporary supporting prop or brace for a slab thickness of 150mm and a maximum of 2.15 metres for a slab thickness of 240mm.

(b) Ensuring that the work of pouring the concrete slab did not take place until the BONDEK formworl< was approved by the site's consultant engineer or other competent person.

(c) Ensuring the work of pouring the concrete slab did not take place until the site's consultant engineer had carried out a site inspection.

(d) Ensured that an exclusion zone was implemented below the BONDEK formwork during the suspended slab pour.

1.3 Detail the events surrounding the Alleged Contravention

BM engaged contractors to undertake works as part of the lndooroopilly Shopping Centre Redevelopment project for which BM was principal contractor (Project). ·

In relation to the incident, Subcontractor 1 had been engaged by BM to install formwork for an infill concrete slab located in zone 8 of the site. Subcontractor 2 was engaged by BM to complete the concrete pour for the infill slab.

Su~contractor 1 was required to submit to ~M structural drawings for the formwork to be installed. These drawings were required to be signed off by an engineer. The slab design was later changed resulting in changes to the slab void area and an increase in the thickness of the slab .. The change in slab thickness significantly incre_§lsed the volume and weight o~ the concrete required for the pour.

Given the change in the slab design, the initial structural drawings were rejected by consulting · engineers on 4 December 2012 and were required to be resubmitted. No updated structural drawings were resubmitted. The formwork was consequently Installed In accordance with the rejected structural drawings.

The formwork which was installed consisted of eight 1 mm thick Bondek.sheets installed across a 3.5 x 4.3 metre void and supported on a combination of 90 mm angle and 250 mm steel beams. An additional 530 mm universal beam provided further longitudinal support below one of the Bondek sheets. The formwork installed was in breach of the Bondek user guide because the unsupported Bondek sheets exceeded the maximum recommended length for an unsupported span for the thickness of the slab required.

A pre-pour inspection was not undertaken of the infill slab forrnwork and the required BM 'Concrete Pre and Post Pour inspection Checklist' was not completed prior to the concrete pour taking place.

The concrete pour took place on the morning of 28 October 2013. The pour was being undertaken by a number of workers employed by Subcontractor 2. At approximately 9.45am the pour was nearing completion when the centre of the deck began to sag. Shortly afterwards the formwork collapsed falling approximately 4.sm·through to the level below.

At the Ume of the collapse, two workers employed by Subcontractor 2 (Worker 1 and Worker 2) were standing ' on top of the slab and consequently fell, with the concrete, to the floor below. The workers sustained minor injuries as a result of the fall. Three other employees of Subcontractor 2 were assisting with the pgur but did not fall and were not otherwise injured.

6 1.4 Detail the enforcement notices issued that relate to the Alleged

Contravention detailed in term 1.2

· DATE· , ·· ··•'''' • 'NOTICE"''""'' ·, .. ·· NOTICE''··· '' CONTRAVENTION'.OR' '". '·ACTION-TAKEN IN"''"'"'·

:~::s.s.9.~~'j·f~1iJ·,Wt 1.;ty·e·~~;~;:::j:~~:W'.~i'.~~ ·~.NY~-~~~~;~ i:;~~~H·'·~·~~·~~:~~~·1v1:~l~~1· :f ~~~f c°1~~'.~?·~Jt~~~l~·~2l1;,! 28 Oct 2013 Prohibition 1003659 Contravention of Developed and

section 19(3)F of the implemented a revised WHS Act. Systems not version of the Concrete adequately implemented. Pre Failure to sight all & Post Pour Checklist handover and Certificates specifically for future before concrete was Bondek infill slabs on placed on suspended relevant projects. form work.

1.5 Detail the injury sustained or illness suffered by worker/s or other/s as a consequence of the Alleged Contravention detailed in term 1.2

Subcontractor 1 suffered a minor musculoskeletal injury to their back.

Subcontractor 2 suffered a laceration to their left hand requiring 6

stitches.

1.6 Detail the workers' compensation or other insurance benefits paid to the worker/s who sustained injury or suffered illness as detailed in term 1.5 or to the beneficiaries of deceased persons

The person/s detailed is:

an employee/s of the entity r

a self-employed person/s r

other

not applicable r

Although the workers were not employed by BM, BM confirmed that the employees received workers' compensation or other insurance benefits

Subcontractor 28 Oct 13 Back - unspecified-1 Musculoskeletal/connect tissue

unspecified. "

Subcontractor 28 Oct 13 Hand - Left - Laceration not involving 2 amputation

7 1. 7 Detail the support provided or proposed by the person to worker/s, other/s or their

families who sustained injury or suffered illness or to the family/families of the deceased worker/s or other/s

~~R~~~i~lffeJWJ!(i~ui;l~i (fg~~~Et{R~M.gt}~?{i;~~~f~~:~l!t\¥t-l~~·;j1t~~\{@i\!i;~~;11~m·~~:;~~iiifil!!J}~ntl{iJi0.t@i'.fti~~;;i!Ri;N~i~~tr'.~~ii(lf:W$I~t1t~ 29 Oct 13 to Subcontractor 2 - Immediately following the incident, the 5Nov13 worker was provided f irst aid treatment by th e BM qualified

First Aider. Furth er, BM has confirmed that the worker was offered, and accepted, light duties for a week, despite bein~ certified as fit for normal duties.

11Nov13to Subcontractor2- Immediately following· the incident, the worker 1Jun14 was provided first aid treatm ent by the BM qualified First

Aider. BM has confirmed that the worker was offered light duties for several months after being certified as fit for normal duties. Further, a flexible roster for Worker 2 was put in place for approximately 12 months after the injury.

1.8 Detail any current occupational health and safety management system implemented and maintained by the person

BM had a formal documented OHS MS in place at the time of the Alleged Contravention. BM's Safety

Management System is:

o AS/NZS 4801 accredited;

o Federal Safety Commissioner certified to the Australian Building and Construction OHS Accreditation Scheme; and

o Maintained by the Health and Safety Manager across all aspects of BM's business.

1.9 Detail the level of auditing undertaken on the OHSMS referred to in term 1.8, including compliance audits and audit frequency

During the course of the Project, BM was subject to one external Certification Services Audit. This was a re­assessment audit, meaning that both the Safety Management System and Its implementation were audited. One minor Non Conformance Report (NCR) was raised during the audit, which did not relate to site activities, but rather, to the filing of weekly inspection close outs. This NCR was closed out within 1 week, by changing the onsite filing system to ensure close out forms were readily accessible. Six internal audits were conducted quarterly across the life of the project by BM's Health and Safety Manager.

1.1 O Detail the consultation undertaken or proposed to be undertaken, in relation to the Enforceable Undertaking

BM confirms that consultation with its workers regarding the terms of this Undertaking will occur at the worksite. The consultation will occur:

(a) at toolbox meetings; and

(b) at Safety Committee meetings.

Further, the proposed activities of this Undertaking will involve the Principals of the subcontractors in both consultation and training, thereby expanding the consultation beyond the limits of just BM employees, to be inclusive of the subcontractors and their employees.

1.11 Detail the rectifications to the workplace or work practices made as a result of the Alleged Contravention and events detailed in terms 1.2and1.3 and the enforcement notices issued as detailed in term 1.4

The following actions were immediately taken after the incident;

8 1.11.1 The workers involved were assisted to the first aid shed for treatment. All other workers

were removed from the area and the area secured for further investigation. Workplace Health and Safety Queensland (WHSQ) and Multiplex Region~! Management team were immediately notified.

1.11.2 No further concrete pours were conducted on site until the initial investigation was completed. As a result of the initial incident investigation, BM developed

and implemented a revised version of the Concrete Pre & Post Pour Checklist specifically for future Bondek infill slabs on the Project. The standard Concrete Pre and Post Pour checklist was amended to include all the requirements regarding Engineers' inspections, backpropping requirements etc.

The Project team were provided training in the use of this revised form during one of the Project team meetings.

1.11.3 The incident, and subsequent rectification measures and lessons learnt were then shared with other Queensland projects and implemented where appropriate on those projects. Further, the incident and rectification measures were also discussed at a meeting ·with the Safety Managers and Operational Managers of the other Australian Regions. The revised Pre pour checklist was uploaded onto the national register of documents on the BM Intranet system for reference for all regions.

BM acknowledges and commits to the general terms set forth below.

2.1 Acknowledgement that the Regulator alleges a contravention occurred as detailed in tenn 1.2

It is acknowledged that the Regulator has alleged that BM contravened the WHS Act and filed a Complaint and Summons against BM on 22 October 2015.

2.2 Statement of regret that the Alleged Contravention occurred and the reasons the persons considers this Undertaking is a more appropriate response to the Alleged Contravention than a court imposed sanction

BM sincerely regrets the Alleged Contravention and expresses its sympathy to the workers and to their families.

BM is committed to ensuring the ongoing health and safety of its workers, and those of its subcontractors.

This Undertaking provides BM with an ability to implement significant health and safety initiatives in its business, over and above the minimum standards required by legislation, as well as extending those initiatives to its subcontractors and their employees.

2.3 Statement of commitment that the behaviour, activities and other factors which caused or led to the Alleged Contravention has ceased and will not reoccur

I

BM is committed to comply).cig with its obligations under the WHS Act and to ensuring best practice within the cons\ruction industry to ensure the health and safety of all persons involved in it, as far as reasonably practicable.

BM has taken the action set out in 1.1 1 to ensure, as far as reasonably practicable, that the behaviour, activities and other factors which caused or led to the Alleged Contravention have ceased and will not reoccur on similar projects.

The lessons learnt from the incident were shared with all Operation Managers and Safety managers across Australia, and discussed in both Regional Management Meetings and within the Australian Executive Group. Further, the lessons learnt from the incident were incorporated into the revised Concrete Pre and Post Pour checklist, and uploaded to the National register of documents for use on all BM projects.

9

2.4 Acknowledgment of the guidelines published by the Regulator for the acceptance of an enforceable undertaking

The CEO of BM and key members of the Australian Executive Team of BM, the Regional Executive Team for the Queensland business, on behalf of BM, has read and understood:

Guidelines for the acceptance of an enforceable undertaking - Version: 1 Dated: August 2014. Enforceable undertakings - guidelines for proposing a WHS undertaking - Version: 2 Dated: December 2011.

2.5 Acknowledgement that this Undertaking may be published and publicised

2.5.1 BM acknowledges that the Undertaking may be published on the OIR's internet site and referenced in OIR material.

2.5.2 BM acknowledges that the Undertaking may be publicised in newspapers.

2.6 Statement of the person's ability to comply with the terms of the Undertaking and meet the projected costs of the activities

2.6.1 BM has the financial ability to comply with the terms of this Undertaking and has provided evidence by way of a letter from its accountant to support this declaration.

2.6.2 In the event of impending liquidation or sale of the entity, BM will advise OIR of the relevant circumstances and its capacity to comply with the outstanding terms of this Undertaking.

2.7 Statement regarding person's relationship with any corporations, officers, employees, contractors, proposed beneficiarres of donations or scholarship or other recipient of financial benefit contained in this Undertaking

BM has no relationship with the parties who will receive benefits under this Enforceable Undertaking, other than as an employer and member of the industry and community.

Although BM has supported previous programs of Mates in Construction in its workplaces, it has no other relationship/association with Mates in Construction.

2.8 Statement regarding Intellectual Property Licence

BM grants OIR a permanent, irrevocable, royalty-free, world-wide, non-exclusive licence to use, reproduce, publish, distribute, electronically transmit, electronically distribute, adapt and modify any materials developed as a result of this Undertaking.

2.9 Acknowledgement that the person may be required to provide a statutory declaratiQn

OIR has requested a statutory declaration outlining details of any priorWHS convictions or findings of guilt under the WHS Act.

rYES P' NO

The statutory declaration is attached (if applicable)

P°' NO

1 Subject to any local legal constraints such as spent conviction legislation.

2.10 Statement of commitment from the person to participate constructively in all compliance monitoring activities of the Undertaking

2.10.1 It is acknowledged that responsibility for demonstrating compliance with this Undertaking rests with BM.

10

2.10.2 Evidence to demonstrate compliance with the terms will be provided to OIR by the ·due date for each term.

2.10.3 The evidence provided to demonstrate compliance with the Undertaking will be retained by BM until advised by the Regulator, that the Undertaking has been completely discharged.

2.1 0.4 It is acknowledged that any failure to meet the due date for an enforceable term will result in the matter being escalated and may lead to enforcement action.

2.10.5 It is acknowledged that OIR may undertake other compliance monitoring activities to verify the evidence and compliance with an enforceable term, and cooperation will be provided to OIR.

2.10.6 It is acknowledged that OIR may initiate additional compliance monitoring activities, such as inspections, as considered necessary at OIR's expense.

2 .10.7 It is acknowledged that details of all seminars, workshops and training conducted by a non­registered training provider must be notified to OIR, by email, at least one week prior. Notification should include time, date, location and the trainer/facilitator.

BM acknowledges all activities set forth in the enforceable terms below must be auditable and include a date for completion and an estimated cost for each activity.

BM commits to performing the activities below diligently, competently and by the respective completion date.

3.1 A commitment by the person to perform activities that will ensure the ongoing effective management of risks to health and safety in the future conduct of its business or undertaking

BM and its officers are committed to meeting their obligations under the WHS Act and ensuring risks to health and safety are managed through BM's OHSMS which is specifically tailored to its operations. This includes a commitment to maintaining key elements of the system such as:

• Investigation and sharing of lessons learnt from any near miss incidents, including distribution to all Qld staff from Senior Management to Site Supervisors, cadets and graduates.

• Quarterly audits of each project by the Safety manager • Independent third party audits as required • Monthly Inter team audits of each project • Dedicated safety resources for each project • Site Safety Committees established on each project • Review of project and subcontract Safety management plans

Quarterly risk workshops on each project • Task specific risk workshops for high risk activities, involving BM and

subcontractor personnel • Project safety inductions for all new starfers - BM employees and

subcontractor employees • Toolbox meetings and training • Specific safety performance objectives embedded in Roles and Responsibilities for

each employee which are measured in annual performance reviews

First agenda item for all project, regional management meetings

• Multiplex's Site Supervisors training and competency framework that includes modules specific to safety.

Further, BM commit to carry out an audit of all current projects to ensure the procedures as described in the latest pre pour checklists (refer to Clause 1.11 .2 and 1.11 .3) ·are still being properly implemented.

11 3.2 A commitment by the person to disseminate information about the Undertaking

to workers, and other relevant parties

Dissemination of information about the Undertaking will be achieved by doing the following:

(a) BM's HSE Manager and a senior member of the Regional Management team will conduct WHS meetings with each project team to explain the terms of this Undertaking and how the commitments made will improve the safety of all persons performing work in the business. This will be undertaken within 3 months of acceptance of the Undertaking.

(b) The meetings will be mandatory on each current project in BM's Queensland business. BM will provide evidence by way of WHS meeting minutes and attendance lists to OIR.

( c) BM will also share its learnings within } 8 months of the acceptance of the EU through:

(i) Sharing the outcomes of the collaborative pilot program with the members of the Queensland Master Builders Association, and the Australian Contractors Association

(ii) Mal<ing freely available, to any Australian contractor, sub-contractor and/or TAFE course provider, BM's learnings and evaluation of what worked, what didn't, what changed over time & BM's suggested integrated model moving forward.

(iii) Availability of BM's Guidelines on site for managing mental health'.

(iv) Presenting the Enforceable Undertaking outcomes at the QMCA Safety Conference or equivalent.

3.3 Activities to be undertaken to promote the objects of the WHS Act that will deliver benefits for workers/others

BM has provided additional information to the regulator outlining our approach to Psychological wellbeing in our business and why this is a topic of importance ·in our approach to the wellbeing of our staff and the staff of our subcontractor group. -

Set out below is a summary of the rational for our focus on psychological wellbeing:

BM has long been aware that due to the nature of our workforce, for both BM and its subcontractors combined, being predominantly male between the ages of 15 - 44, there is statistically a high risk for depression and suicide. Added into that demographic is the impact of the industry and the nature of the work we do, which increases that risk.

BM deals with mental health daily, whether it is through individual support we offer our own staff or the growing assistance we offer our subcontract population, who are seemingly more unable to handle situations when they occur. We know a focus on our staff's 'psychological wellbeing' not just their physical wellbeing makes better business sense. As we improve our managing and understanding of these issues we ar.e seeing a direct impact on the general performance of our staff and therefore our ­overall business performance. BM has been focused for some years now on prevention, creating an environment that improves our staff's overall wellbeing.

BM intends to more directly Include our Subcontract principals and/or managers into our approach on Psychological wellbeing. We believe this collaborative approach with this group, who we are truly reliant on, will have a positive impact on the health and productivity on our sites and be the catalyst for change in the industry overall.

Specifically BM intends to include this gr,oup with our BM Managers in the following programe - Managing Mental Health (Psyc/10/ogical Safety) in the Workplace program (Pf?gram). The Program aims to develop the skills of BM's managers to understand mental wellbeing and mental health to enable them to: Recognise the preventive benefits of thorough implementation of existing people planning and feedback processes ( eg Performance@BM including ME Time conversations, and integration into all of our Leadership and Management programs etc); Recognise early warning signs; Respond in conversation; Refer to internal and external resources; and Review to keep on the radar.

12 Summary of activities and costs (further detail has been provided to the regulator)

3.3.1 Assessment and Redesign elements of the Program for the inclusion of BM's subcontractors in Queensland. BM's target subcontractor audience is the Principals, Safety Managers, WHSOs and HSR representatives. ·

3.3.2 Conduct a pilot session and remainder of training sessions. he sessions will be mixed with BM personnel &

Subcontractor managers:

3.3.3

•

•

II

•

Pilot session (external cost only)

Remaining 20 sessions Target 200 Subcontractor personnel (20 sessions) Target 100 BM personnel (10 Sessions, but cost does not count towards EU spend) Cost per session (1/2 day) $ 5,000 per session (1/2 day external facilitator, incl travel & accommodation) $1600 per session ( y, day Internal BM owner of the program)

Evaluation and methodology of the Program:

This Program will be treated as all programs are at BM, with a meaningful evaluation of the Program. Below is an overview of our methodology. The specific measures cannot be properly determined until the design is complete, and we have an understanding of what is a valid and reliable measure of the Program pre and post implementation.

11 design factors of measurement, including key measurements and criteria for both BM and subcontractors;

• Capturing the data, - the approach will likely cover both qualitative and quantitative feedback, as this provides us with robustness;

• analysis of results & final report. Internal and external Costs included.

• Additional information regarding methodology has been provided to the EUU.

3.3.4 OHSMS Third Party' audits as per Clause 3.9. (3 Audits at $4,000 per audit)

Total estimated cost of benefits for workers/others

$14,848 2 months foll owing acce ptanc e of EU .

$137,000 10 months following acceptance of EU.

$5000

$100,000

$ 32,000

$38,125

$12,000

$201 ,973

Over the 12 month period following acceptance of EU

At 4 months an initial report produced ,& also detailing the remainder of the evaluation methodology for the period.

13 3.4 Activities to be undertaken to promote the objects of the WHS Act that will

deliver benefits for industry

3.4.1 Sharing of learnings and insights to external bodies, such as the Australian Constructors Association (ACA), and Master Builders Association (MBA). (Note, MBA have indicated they will support BM presenting to their members during a conference or convention suitable to the topic. Detail to be agreed) The ACA safety workgroup of which BM is a part of has a standing agreement to openly share outcomes and learnings from any EU's.

3.4.2 BM to provide Industry Work Experience for students studying Bachelor of Occupational Health and Safety Science at a Queensland University. At least 1 student placed for 12 months from date of Undertaking

Total estimated cost of benefit for industry

$4,000 18 months following acceptance of EU.

$32,000 12 months following acceptance of EU.

$36,000

3.5 Activities to be undertaken to promote the objects of the WHS Act that will deliver benefits for community

3.5.1 Contribution to Mates in Construction $15,000

Mates in Construction propose to utilize the money specifically for the MATES monitor project, which

·seeks to expand the reach of Mates in Construction by providing workers in the industry access to information and support on their smart phones. See attached letter of support from Mates in Construction.

Total estimate cost of benefits for community $15,000

3.6 Agreement to pay OIR's recoverable costs

3 months following acceptance of EU.

BM agrees to pay OIR!s costs associated with the Undertaking, as itemised below, and it is acKri:owledged that payment is due 30 days after receipt of the 01 R invoice:

Administrative costs $3,814 Legah.costs $750.00 . Combliance monitoring costs $3,410 Publication costs $2,000 Total recoverable costs $9,974

3.7 A commitment regarding linking the promotion of benefits by the person to the Undertaking Any promotion of a benefit arising from the Undertaking will clearly link the benefit to the Undertaking and will state that the Undertaking was entered into as a result of the Alleged Contravention.

14 3.8 A commitment to establish an OHSMS

3.8.1 BM confirms that an accredited OHSMS to AS4801 was in place at the time of the alleged contravention.

3.8.2 BM commits that the OHSMS will be maintained in accordance with the AS/NZS 4804:2001 Occupational health and safety management systems-General guidelines on principles, systems and supporting techniques.

3.9 A commitment to ensure the OHS MS is audited by third party auditors

3.9.1 BM acknowledges that the auditors selected to perform OHSMS audits must meet the qualification requirements as set by the Regulator.

3.9.2 BM commits to ensuring the OHSMS will be audited by certified third party auditors. 3.9.3 BM acknowledges that details of the auditors' qualifications will be provided with audit reports

submitted to OIR.

3.9.4 BM acknowledges that costs associated with these audits will be met by BM as part of the Undertaking, included in 3.3.5 above

3.9.5 BM commits to ensuring that an initial third party audit will be undertaken within three months of the acceptance of the Undertaking.

3.9.6 BM commits to ensuring at least two further third party audits will be undertaken at 12 month intervals, commencing 12 months after the initial audit.

3.10 A commitment to provide a copy of each finalised OHSMS audit report to OIR

3.10.1 It is acknowledged that audit reports received from the auditor will be sent to OIR within 30 days of the audit along with written confirmation that the report has not been altered from the copy provided to BM by the auditor.

3.10.2 It is acknowledged that within 30 days of receipt of the auditor's written report, OIR will be advised of the intended actions for addressing each of the report's recommendations.

3.11 A commitment to implement the recommendations from third party audits

BM commits to ensuring the recommendations resulting from the OHSMS audits will be fully implemented within six months of receiving the audit report, unless OIR grants an exemption due to the actions being unreasonable.

3.12 Minimum spend

3.12.1 BM commits to a minimum spend of$ 262,94 7 for this Undertaking.

3.12.2 BM agrees to spend any residual amount arising from an original term not being completed or being less costly than estimated in this Undertaking. Agreement on how to spend this residual will be sought from the Regulator.

3.12.3 BM acknowledges the minimum spend comprises of:

Total value of benefits to workers/others

Total value of benefits to industry

Total value of benefits to community

DIR recoverable costs

Estimated total value of the Undertaking

$ 201,973

$ 36,000

$ 15,000

$ 9,974

$ 262,947

15

This Enforceable Undertaking is given by the BM on the date it is accepted by the Regulator as set forth in section 5 below.

Executed by

Executed by Multiplex Constructions Pty Ltd (ABN 70 107 007 pursuant to power of attorney dated 28 September 2016

---

Signature of Witness

Paul Benedict Caivert

Name (block letters)

Signature of Witness

Paul Benedict Calvert Name (block letters)

Signature of Attorney

Roderick Stuart McDonald Name (block letters)

David Reddin Name (block letters)

Each attorney states that it has not received notice of revocation of the f?OWer of attorney at the date of executing this document.

This Enforceable Undertaking is accepted by the Regulator on the 2 {M day of~ovtf'1-&..2016

(signature)

Appointed by the Governor in Council as regulator under Schedule 2, Part 1 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011, Schedule 2 of the Electri9al Safety Act 2002 and section 32 of the Safety in Recreational Water Activities Act 2011.

Event No.

Entity

ACN

Entity Address

Location of Incident

Date of Incident

Work Health and Safety Act 2011

Part 11 Enforceable Undertakings

REASONS FOR DECISION

190028

Multiplex Constructions Pty Limited (Multiplex), formerly Brookfield Multiplex Constructions Pty Ltd

107 007 527

Level 11, 324 Queen Street, Brisbane QLD 4000

64 Stamford Road, lndooroopilly QLD

28 October 2013

1 History of the Application

1.1 Multiplex was the Principal Contractor for a major refurbishment of the lndooroopilly Shopping Centre (the project). Multiplex had engaged subcontractor 1 to design, fabricate and install structural steel and engaged subcontractor 2 for concrete services for the project.

1.2 On 28 October 2013, a concrete pour was being undertaken at the project by a number of workers employed by Subcontractor 2. At approximately 9.45am the pour was nearing completion when the centre of the deck began to sag. Shortly afterwards the formwork collapsed falling approximately 4.Sm through to the level below.

1.3 At the time of the collapse, two workers employed by Subcontractor 2 (Worker 1 and Worker 2) were standing on top of the slab and consequently fell, with the concrete, to the floor below. Worker 1 sustained a musculoskeletal back injury and worker 2 sustained lacerations to the left hand requiring 6 stitches.

1.4 Following an investigation by Workplace Health and Safety Queensland (WHSQ) inspectors, prosecution action was commenced on 22 October 2015 (by complaint and summons) against Multiplex on the basis that it had a workplace health and safety (WHS) duty under section 19(2) of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (the WHS Act) and failed to comply with the duty contrary to section 32 of the Act.

1.5 On 25 November 2015, Multiplex notified the Enforceable Undertakings Unit (EUU) of their intention to give a WHS undertaking (undertaking) for this matter.

1.6 On 13 June 2016, a final draft of the undertaking (initial) was received from Multiplex.

1. 7 On 30 July 2016, an Evaluation Panel (the Panel) consisting of a senior public servant and two external, independent persons evaluated the final draft undertaking and recommended rejection by the regulator.

1.8 On 18 July 2016, the EUU provided Multiplex with evaluation feedback from the Panel. The Panel were not willing to recommend acceptance at this stage and requested that feedback be considered prior to re-evaluation.

1.9 On 26 September 2016, the EUU received an amended undertaking which was forwarded onto the Panel for re-evaluation. The Panel provided the recommendation for the undertaking to be considered for acceptance by the Regulator.

1.10 On 20 October 2016, the EUU received a final revised and signed version of the undertaking.

2 Legislation and Policy

2.1. It is alleged that MC being a person who had a WHS duty under section 19(2) of the WHS Act failed to comply with the duty contrary to section 32 of the Act.

2.2. An undertaking was given in accordance with section 216 of the WHS Act in which, the regulator may accept a written undertaking given by a person in connection with a matter relating to a contravention or alleged contravention by the person of the WHS Act.

2.3. The Deputy Director-General (DOG), Office of Industrial Relations (formerly OFSWQ) has been appointed as the regulator by the Governor in Council under Schedule 2, Part 1 of the WHS Act.

2.4. OIR provided the relevant publications outlining information regarding the EU Program and the regulator's expectations for giving an undertaking.

2.5. The Guidelines for the acceptance of an enforceable undertaking dated 2015 are publications provided to assist duty holders in preparing an undertaking for consideration pursuant to section 230(3) of the WHS Act.

2.6. In determining whether to accept the undertaking as an EU, the regulator has considered the provisions of section 217 of the WHS Act, in which the regulator must give the person seeking to give an undertaking written notice of the regulator's decision to accept or reject the undertaking and of the reasons for the decision.

3 Material and evidence considered by the regulator

3.1. In making a decision regarding this matter, the regulator has made consideration to the following documents.

3.2. Work Health and Safety Act 2011

3.3. Guidelines for the acceptance of an enforceable undertaking - dated 2015

3.4. EU material published on the WHSQ website - https:l/www.worksafe.qld.gov.au/laws-and­compliance/enforceable-undertakings

3.5. Complaint - General Purposes - Made, and Summons dated 22 October 2015

3.6. OFSWQ Investigation Report Event E190028-dated 25 September 2015

3.7. WHSQ Statement by the Director, Legal and Prosecution Services - E190028 dated 04 February 2016

3.8. Regional Director's Statement of compliance history dated 02 February 2016

3.9. Workers' Compensation report dated 07 April 2016

3.10. Financial Capacity Statement provided by Multiplex dated 03 August 2016

3.11. WHSQ - EU Chronology - Multiplex Constructions Pty Limited

3.12. Evaluation Panel Assessment - Initial and Return Evaluation dated 30 July and 26 September 2016

3.13. Evaluation Panel Feedback dated 18 July 2016

3.14. Signed final version of EU received on 20 October 2016.

4 Findings on material questions of fact

4.1 I regard the Guidelines for the acceptance of an enforceable undertaking dated 2015, publication as containing considerations which are relevant and appropriate to my decision.

4.2 The undertaking given by Multiplex satisfies the formal requirements of the WHS Act and the policy requirements discussed above with respect to the operation of Part 11 of the WHS Act as they have been published.

4.3 I find the factual background to the alleged contravention is set out in section 1 of Multiplex's proposed undertaking.

4.4 I find that the procedural history relating to the proposed undertaking is set out in section 1 above.

4.5 I accept the objective gravity of the matter has been assessed as a 'medium' level, which takes into consideration the nature and circumstance of the incident, the culpability of the company, the presence of any aggravating or mitigating factors relevant to the alleged offence and any prior prosecution action by the State against the company.

4.6 I find the quantum of the undertaking as a proportionate amount relevant to the objective gravity.

4. 7 I find the significance of the commitment in the undertaking is comparable to the capability of the person.

4.8 Multiplex acknowledge the alleged contravention and regret the occurrence and the consequences.

4.9 I find that Multiplex failed in its duty to adequately manage the risk associated with the pouring of a suspended concrete slab. Multiplex did not ensure so far as is reasonably practicable the health and safety of workers as they failed to prevent to concrete pour taking place until it was safe to do so; failed to obtain appropriate plans approved by site engineers to ensure the safety of the pour; failed to obtain the Inspection Test Point sign off; failed to produce the prestart concrete pour checklist; failed to ensure the formwork was adequately supported to take the weight of the concrete poured into it and failed to ensure the formwork and its span was in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications.

4.10 I acknowledge the assurance given by Multiplex that the behaviour that led to the alleged contravention has ceased and the commitment to ensuring the ongoing effective management of risks to health and safety in the future.

4.11 I acknowledge that Multiplex provided financial support to the injured worker for time off and medical expenses.

4.12 I find the undertaking commits the person to a standard that is higher than the recognised compliance for the activity and/or to activities over and beyond recognised compliance levels

4.13 I find the undertaking would constitute tangible benefits for the workers/workplace as Multiplex have proposed to extend their mental health and wellbeing package (which is already provided to their staff), to include subcontractors. Multiplex believe that having a collaborative approach with the subcontractor principals and/or managers will have a positive impact on the health and productivity on their sites and be a catalyst for change within their industry. These activities promote the objects of the WHS Act, would deliver tangible benefits to workers and the workplaces and are likely to achieve measurable health and safety improvements.

4.14 I find the undertaking provides additional tangible benefits across the industry and the community. Multiplex propose to make a donation to Mates in Construction and wil l share their learnings with multiple industry bodies. Multiplex will also be providing industry work experience for 12 months to one student studying a bachelor of Occupational Health and Safety Science at Queensland University.

4.15 I find the undertaking commits the person to a standard that is higher than the recognised compliance for the activity and/or to activities over and beyond recognised compliance levels.

4.16 I acknowledge that all Panel members have recommended acceptance of the undertaking as the preferred enforcement outcome in the circumstances of this case.

5. Decision

5.1 Based on the evidence and findings, I have carefully considered this matter and am of the opinion that the undertaking given by Multiplex is an appropriate enforcement option in regards to this case.

5.2 I have concluded that an EU is the preferred enforcement option to continuing the prosecution due to the opportunity to provide lasting organisational change within Multiplex and the implementation of monitored and targeted health and safety improvements, which would not be achieved by prosecution.

5.3 Under section 216 of the WHS Act, it is my decision to accept this undertaking as an EU and the effect of this decision is that the prosecution proceedings shall be discontinued.

Simon Blackwood Deputy Director-General Office of Industrial Relations

29 /11/ 2016