Record $975 000 Fine Over Teen’s Death

On 15 Jun 23, a 16-year-old worker at RPC Surface Treatment Pty Ltd in Welshpool, WA, was crushed to death when a 425 kg steel beam fell from a monorail. Two years later, on 27 Oct 25, the Perth Magistrates Court handed down a record $975,000 penalty, the highest fine ever imposed under Western Australia’s work health and safety laws.

This was not a freak accident. It was a foreseeable, preventable system failure.

The Incident

The company utilised a monorail system to transport large steel beams within its facility. On the day of the incident, one beam, roughly half a tonne, was suspended by two S-hooks connected to chain slings. The beam fell when one hook straightened under load. The teenager, working beneath the suspended beam, had no chance.

Investigators found that the hooks had no known working load limit, no manufacturer rating, and were selected by trial and error. The business had no reliable method for weighing loads, no documented lifting procedure, and no exclusion zones in place.

WorkSafe WA had previously issued a Prohibition Notice in March 2021 for the same risk, involving working under suspended loads. The system had been flagged, documented, and warned about, then ignored.

The Penalty

RPC Surface Treatment Pty Ltd pleaded guilty to two counts of failing to ensure the health and safety of workers. The company was fined $975 000 and ordered to pay costs.

WorkSafe WA Commissioner Darren Kavanagh called the incident “an absolute tragedy that should never have happened,” noting that the young worker was exposed to a known, controlled hazard that had been explicitly prohibited.

This fine marks the first time a penalty of this scale has been applied in WA under the Work Health and Safety Act 2020. It sets a new benchmark for serious breaches involving young workers and suspended load risks.

The Real Lessons

This case cuts straight to the heart of what safe systems of work really mean.

Too often, we hear that incidents are isolated events or the result of human error. In reality, systems, not individuals, determine outcomes. Here, the system made an unsafe lifting routine, normalised risk, and failed to enforce known controls.

Let’s break down the key failures and learnings.

1. Unrated Lifting Gear Is Not Just a Risk, It’s a Breach

Every component in a lifting system must have a known Working Load Limit (WLL) and be suitable for its intended purpose. Using unrated S-hooks is like gambling with physics. Once a component’s strength is unknown, the entire system’s reliability is destroyed.

If you can’t trace it, tag it, and verify it, you can’t trust it.

2. Prohibition Notices Are Not Optional

WorkSafe’s 2021 Prohibition Notice was a clear warning. Continuing to use suspended loads after a prohibition shows a disregard for the regulatory system and the lives it protects.

For businesses, this reinforces a blunt truth: ignoring a regulator’s direction doesn’t just risk prosecution, it escalates liability exponentially.

3. Young Workers Equal High Duty of Care

It is an expectation of both the Regulator and the law that employers owe a higher duty of care to young and inexperienced workers. These workers rely on supervision, training, and structure, not intuition, to stay safe.

Putting a 16-year-old under a suspended load was not just negligent; it was systemic abuse of trust.

4. Safety Systems Must Match the Load

Engineering controls are non-negotiable. Suspended load operations require rated lifting gear, isolation of personnel, exclusion zones, and competent supervision. Administrative controls, such as signs and toolbox talks, only work when the engineering foundation is sound.

A safe system is not paper, it’s practice.

The Broader Message

This case is not about a single company or state. It’s a national signal.

Across Australia, regulators are tightening enforcement on mechanical handling and load restraint. WorkSafe Victoria’s recent focus on mobile plant, SafeWork NSW’s construction blitzes, and Comcare’s increased attention to safe systems of work all point to the same expectation: if you move loads, you must control the energy involved.

What You Should Do in Your Business

1. Audit all lifting gear. Confirm rating tags, test certificates, and load charts exist and are legible. Remove anything unrated from service immediately.

2. Ban S-hooks and non-rated connectors. Use only load-rated shackles, hooks, and slings with WLL markings.

3. Develop a Lifting and Suspended Loads Procedure. Document how you identify the load weight, choose the lifting method, and control the drop zone.

4. Train and assess competency. Ensure all workers involved in lifting tasks are trained to recognise safe and unsafe setups.

5. Establish clear no-go zones. Nobody should ever work under a suspended load without a valid engineering reason and proper isolation controls in place.

6. Supervise young workers. Never assume they understand risk just because they look confident. Confidence is not competence.

A Reflection on Culture

When you strip away the procedures, what remains is culture. Culture decides whether workers speak up, supervisors intervene, and managers listen.

In this case, the system allowed unsafe practice to become normal. That normalisation is the real killer. It erodes critical thinking and renders warnings ineffective, turning them into white noise.

Every time someone says “we’ve always done it this way,” it’s worth asking if the method would survive a regulator’s inspection or a coroner’s inquest. If not, change it now, before a magistrate does it for you.

Why This Case Matters for the Rest of Us

This record fine will not bring the teenager back, but it sends a message louder than any campaign poster: a safe system is not negotiable, especially when young lives are involved.

For those of us in transport, logistics, and manufacturing, this is the line in the sand. It’s a reminder that the moment we trade certainty for convenience, we risk everything we claim to protect.

The objective measure of a safety system is not the number of incidents you avoid, but how your controls hold up when pressure hits. RPC’s system collapsed under the first test.

Final Thought

The WHS Act makes it clear: you must eliminate risks so far as is reasonably practicable. That means engineering out the hazard before relying on people to be careful.

A $975 000 fine won’t rebuild a life, but it should rebuild how we approach control systems. If a 16-year-old can die beneath a beam that was already prohibited, then none of us can afford to say “that could never happen here.”

Every lift needs a limit. Every system needs a stop. And every leader needs the courage to enforce both.