An Improvement Notice is not a To-do List
A corrective action can look impressive in a spreadsheet while the machine remains dangerous. Ordering a fence, fitting a panel and booking a contractor demonstrate activity, but none automatically demonstrates that people can no longer reach moving machinery.
An improvement notice requires the recipient to remedy the contravention or matters specified by the required date. The prosecution concerning Urban Mining Industries Pty Ltd’s factory in Dandenong South, VIC, shows why reporting progress and achieving compliance are different things, even where the reported breaches have not resulted in an incident.
Graphic: Safety Jon. General verification examples, not records of Urban Mining’s internal action management.
The workplace behind the prosecution
Urban Mining processed packaged waste food into animal feed using a bread-processing plant. WorkSafe’s account identifies an auger and an ultramill infeed conveyor as danger areas and says inspectors had previously raised the need for adequate guarding.
During a visit on 15 Feb 24 about another matter, inspectors found that people could enter or reach into those areas. The reported defects included low or open fencing, missing fixings, removable panels without interlocking, and fencing damaged by material stored against it.
Cleaning and maintenance brought employees into the danger areas. That context matters because protection has to account for those tasks as well as ordinary production; the assessment cannot finish at what a machine looks like from the walkway.
The case account below is drawn from WorkSafe Victoria’s prosecution register, published on 14 Sep 26. The later discussion is Safety Jon’s practical analysis of the lessons for other workplaces.
The notice, the deadline and the return visits
The improvement notice specified 11 Apr 24 for compliance. On 09 May 24, inspectors observed progress but found the guarding and installed interlocks inadequate; a further visit on 29 May 24 reached the same conclusion.
Inspectors confirmed full compliance on 26 Jun 24 and lifted the notice. That eventual outcome belongs in the account, alongside the earlier failure to meet the notice requirements.
Graphic: Safety Jon, based on WorkSafe VIC’s prosecution summary published 14 Sep 26. The dates identify reported events, not a record of daily plant operation.
What the court outcome actually was
On 09 Sep 26, Dandenong Magistrates’ Court found the company guilty and imposed a $47,000 total fine without conviction. This comprised $30,000 for the workplace-safety and guarding charges under section 21(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 (VIC) and regulation 99(2) of the Occupational Health and Safety Regulations 2017 (VIC), plus $17,000 for failing to comply with the improvement notice under section 111(4).
WorkSafe reports that proceedings continued with court leave after liquidation, without the liquidator’s participation or a plea. The summary records serious offending, acknowledges compliance efforts and no prior criminal history, and reports that the absence of an incident was immaterial to the two risk-based safety charges.
This was a finding of guilt without a recorded conviction, not a guilty plea. The published source is a regulator’s summary rather than the complete court reasons, so it does not support speculation about individual motives or the company’s internal decisions.
What an improvement notice requires in VIC
This article concerns an improvement notice issued by a WorkSafe inspector. An HSR’s provisional improvement notice (PIN) has a separate statutory process, so the review provisions discussed here should not be applied to a PIN.
Under section 111, an inspector may issue an improvement notice on a reasonable belief of a current contravention, or a past contravention likely to continue or recur. The notice identifies the provision, the basis for that belief and a remedy date; compliance is mandatory under section 111(4), and interim conditions can also apply.
A notice does not suspend existing safety duties while the deadline approaches. Under section 117, issuing, varying or cancelling a notice does not prevent offence proceedings about the same matter, so later compliance does not automatically erase earlier liability.
Review rights exist under Part 10. An eligible person generally has 14 days after becoming aware of the decision to seek internal review, subject to any longer period allowed; applying does not itself suspend the decision, which requires a stay under section 128.
These are VIC provisions, not a national deadline guide. Read the actual notice and obtain advice promptly about review, variation or a stay, rather than treating a conversation with an inspector as an extension. Source: OHS Act 2004 (VIC), sections 111, 117 and 128.
Guarding has to work when the job gets awkward
VIC regulation 99 applies to an employer or self-employed person using guarding to control plant risk. Regulation 99(2) requires them to ensure, so far as reasonably practicable, that the guarding prevents access to the danger area; regulation 99(3) specifies the arrangements according to access needs and practicability, including permanently fixed barriers, interlocked barriers, tool-removable barriers and presence-sensing systems. These are conditional requirements, not a free choice between equivalent options.
That makes the task sequence part of the design problem. If workers need access for cleaning, clearing material or maintenance, the assessment must deal with that access and the hazardous energy involved, including any movement that continues after a stop command.
An emergency stop does not replace effective guarding or safe isolation. The required arrangement must suit the plant, with competent assessment of access, stopping behaviour, interlock functions and the means of preventing unexpected movement or restart. Sources: OHS Regulations 2017 (VIC), Part 3.5 and WorkSafe VIC’s plant isolation guidance.
The official video below explains common guarding arrangements using machinery examples. It is general QLD guidance, not footage of Urban Mining or a statement of the particular design required at its workplace. Viewer discretion: the introduction discusses a serious hand injury.
Video: Workplace Health and Safety Queensland, “Machinery guarding”, source page updated 13 Oct 16. General educational examples, not Urban Mining footage; the introduction discusses a serious hand injury. Official source and transcript.
What should have stopped the exposure?
For a workplace responding to a guarding notice, the first management question is what protects people today. A permanent fix being fabricated elsewhere does nothing about access to the machine currently on the floor, so interim arrangements need a competent assessment and must satisfy the notice and continuing duties.
Where exposure cannot be adequately controlled, the affected work should not continue until effective protection is available. The decision belongs with someone who has authority over the work and access to competent advice, rather than being left as an unresolved comment beside the action’s due date.
WorkSafe’s plant guidance also explains the need to consult affected employees and HSRs when identifying hazards and deciding controls. That conversation should cover the awkward parts of the job: the blockage that needs clearing, the panel removed for cleaning and the access required by maintenance.
Define the evidence before approving closure
The acceptance criteria should be agreed before the contractor starts. “Improve guarding” is too loose to tell a verifier which access routes must be prevented or how the finished system will be assessed against the notice.
A useful closure record identifies the machine and task, links the remedy to each relevant notice requirement, and records what was checked by whom. Photographs can document the installed arrangement, but safety functions require an appropriate verification record; a photograph cannot establish what an interlock does when a guard opens.
Where safety controls need functional testing, that work belongs with a competent person using a controlled method. Nobody should demonstrate a guarding failure by reaching towards operating machinery or defeating a protective device to prove a point.
The handover should also address how the arrangement will remain effective. Inspection and maintenance need to detect damage or missing fixings, while changes to access, material handling or cleaning methods should trigger a review of the controls.
The deadline belongs in the management system
An action register is useful when it records the notice requirements, an accountable owner, the compliance date and the evidence needed for closure. It becomes unreliable when “contractor booked” or “90 per cent complete” is accepted as an answer to whether the required protection is operating.
A contractor’s invoice proves that work was purchased; it does not establish that the notice has been complied with. Before authorising closure, the responsible manager needs evidence that the remedy works for the actual task and meets the notice, with unresolved defects still visible and assigned for action. Closing an internal action does not vary or cancel an inspector’s notice, and any notice-specific certification or other requirements still need to be met.
Sources and scope
The case facts are attributed to WorkSafe VIC’s prosecution register, entry “Urban Mining Industries Pty Ltd”, outcome 09 Sep 26, published 14 Sep 26 and checked 17 Sep 26. The legal and technical discussion also draws on the linked VIC Act, Regulations and regulator guidance, with the QLD video identified separately.
This article provides general safety commentary, not legal advice or a machine-specific engineering assessment. A notice response or guarding design needs to address the actual workplace, notice and applicable law.
Comments