Mr Wayne Chadwick v Woodside Energy Limited - [2011] FWA 2890

[2011] FWA 2890

FAIR WORK AUSTRALIA

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394 - Application for unfair dismissal remedy

Mr Wayne Chadwick
v
Woodside Energy Limited
(U2011/4869)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT MCCARTHY

PERTH, 12 MAY 2011

Termination of employment - Breach of Golden Safety Rules - Performing work subject to a permit whilst permit suspended - Not complying with terms of permit - Objects of relevant Part of Act.

Background

[1] Mr Wayne Hilton Chadwick (the Applicant) was employed by Woodside Energy Ltd (Woodside) in the Engineering Department of the Onshore Gas Karratha Division prior to the termination of his employment.

[2] The Applicant was a Maintenance Technician at the Karratha Gas Plant (KGP) and had been employed there in that or similar capacities for about 15 years. The Applicant's remuneration package was over $220,000p.a. when his employment was terminated. He also had the benefit of Woodside's Employee Share Plan which provided substantial benefit to the Applicant. He had expected that his remuneration would increase to over $230,000 per year and to change to a fly-in fly-out arrangement as a consequence of a planned transfer to the Pluto Onshore Gas Plant.

[3] The Applicant's employment with Woodside was terminated for breaching the Integrated Safe System of Work (ISSoW).

The Integrated Safe System of Work (ISSoW)

[4] The KGP is a hazardous facility. Woodside operates what is described as an Integrated Safe System of Work (ISSoW) at the KPG. The purpose of the ISSoW is to create a safe working environment by providing management control over potentially hazardous activities. The ISSoW incorporates risk assessment, isolation management and permit to work. It provides a methodical approach to identifying hazards, assessing risks, creating and supporting permits to work and associated certificates.

[5] A permit to work system (the Permit System) is one of the safety management controls in a hazardous facility such as KGP. A permit is always supported by a Hazard Identification Risk Assessment (HIRA). The aim of the Permit System is to ensure that:

(i) the risks associated with maintenance activities are assessed and controlled;

(ii) the appropriate people authorise the work to take place;

(iii) competent people put controls in place; and

(iv) competent people execute the work.

[6] Woodside explained the levels of authority that operate in the ISSoW at KGP as:

(i) Performing Authority (e.g. the fitters, electricians and scaffolders);

(ii) Isolating Authority (people who put process or electrical isolations in place);

(iii) Area Authority (the Operations Technician accountable for an area of the facility);

(iv) Issuing Authority's Representative (coordinates the preparation of risk assessments, isolations and permits);

(v) Issuing Authority (reviews and approves conditions for certain activities, issues and surrenders permits, approves isolations to be implemented or removed); and

(vi) Site Controller (reviews and approves conditions for higher risk activities).

[7] Permits are issued and signed off electronically. Permits are, however, printed off and provided to the person who is going to perform the work. The printed permit is provided to the Performing Authority. The Performing Authority provides the printed…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Mr Wayne Chadwick v Woodside Energy Limited and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2011] FWA 2890
Decision Date: 12 MAY 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Mr Wayne Chadwick brought proceedings against Woodside Energy Limited concerning his dismissal from employment. The dispute centred on whether Mr Chadwick's termination was justified due to his alleged breach of the company's Golden Safety Rules. Specifically, the issue was whether performing work subject to a permit while that permit was suspended and not complying with the terms of the permit constituted a breach warranting dismissal. The case was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia.

The court was required to determine if the breach of the Golden Safety Rules was severe enough to warrant termination of employment. The central issue was whether the contravention of safety protocols by performing work while a permit was suspended and not adhering to the permit's terms constituted a breach of the safety rules sufficient to justify dismissal. Additionally, the court had to consider the objects of the relevant part of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) to ascertain the legislative intent behind the enforcement of such safety rules.

The court found that Mr Chadwick's actions constituted a significant breach of the Golden Safety Rules, which aligned with the objectives of the Act to ensure workplace safety. The court held that performing work under a suspended permit and not complying with its terms was a serious breach of safety protocols. Consequently, the court ruled that the dismissal was justified under the circumstances. The court's decision underscored the importance of adhering to safety regulations in the workplace and the potential consequences of breaching such rules.

Orders