SSE Roofing NSW - Workplace safety lessons from fall case

As the year winds down and businesses prepare for a well-earned end of year break, the Industrial Court of New South Wales has recently delivered a timely reminder that safety obligations… do not take holidays.

In SafeWork NSW v SSE Roofing Pty Ltd; SafeWork NSW v Semaan [NSWIC 22], while Justice Paingakulam convicted both the company and its sole director following a lapse in workplace safety, the company’s response to safety after the incident was a mitigating factor in reducing the penalties that were imposed.

What happened?

SSE Roofing had been providing roofing installation services to Metal Roofing Australia Pty Ltd who had been engaged by the principal contractor F&F Smart Homes Pty Ltd for a two-storey residence and granny flat in Box Hill.

Communications between parties occurred via WhatsApp, and leading up to the incident, F&F’s director had sent messages to the group stating, “capping is still not done”, “Folks this is urgent. My gyproc (sic) delayed 4 weeks” and “I need this done asap”. (These messages will become important later).

On 3 August 2022, one of the workers employed by SSE Roofing, Mr Yoganathan visited the Box Hill site and found scaffolding incomplete, with missing planks on multiple decks. Mr Yoganathan reported this to SSE Roofing, who, then advised that the builder would fix it by the next day. Later that day, the builder informed SSE Roofing that the scaffolding was safe and this was relayed to Mr Yoganathan.

The next day, Mr Yoganathan returned to the site and found that the scaffolding remained incomplete, just as it had been the day before. He notified SSE Roofing of the issue. Despite this, ongoing pressure from the builder to finish the job, combined with the arrival of another SSE Roofing employee, Mr Faizpurkar, led both men to continue with the work. They accessed the roof using the incomplete scaffolding, which exposed them to a risk of falling approximately 6.2 metres. At the time, neither worker was wearing a harness.

Shortly after the two workers had accessed the roof, a SafeWork NSW inspector observed them and noted further hazards, being: gaps in fencing and no locks, which allowed unauthorised access to the site.

Why was SSE Roofing prosecuted?

Primary Duty

SSE Roofing was prosecuted because it failed to comply with its primary duty under section 19(1) of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (NSW) (WHS Act). SSE Roofing ultimately exposed workers to a foreseeable and preventable risk (a fall of approximately 6.2 metres) by allowing work to proceed on incomplete scaffolding and without harnesses.

Officer Duty

The sole director, Simon Semaan was prosecuted because he breached his officer duty under section 27(1) of the WHS Act by failing to exercise due diligence. He did not verify that safety systems were applied, did not ensure proper supervision during his absence, and permitted work to continue without confirming that the scaffolding was compliant.

Safety Systems

Although SSE Roofing had documented safety systems on paper, they were not effectively implemented. It was found that the Safe Work Method Statement was proforma and lacked site-specific (as it originated from a previous site), no site-specific induction occurred, and the pre-start checklist, although circulated, was not completed on the day.

Harnesses were generally available but were not issued on the day of the incident. It was also found that safety documentation was only in English, and no steps were taken to ensure workers with limited English literacy understood the requirements.

Supervision

SSE Roofing also failed to provide adequate supervision and oversight. With the General Manager overseas and the Operations Manager sick, there was no competent person to monitor compliance. SSE Roofing relied on misleading assurances from the builder that the scaffolding was safe and allowed commercial pressure to dictate decisions.

Fines imposed and mitigating factors

SSE Roofing and Mr Semaan plead guilty to offences under the WHS Act. The maximum penalty for these offences was fines of 17,315 penalty units ($1,860,843) and 3,465 penalty units ($372,383) respectively.

However, SSE Roofing and Mr Semaan were fined $35,000 and $15,000 respectively with both parties paying $15,000 each for the prosecutor’s costs with the Court considering several mitigating factors that reduced the penalty:

1. No prior convictions: neither SSE Roofing nor Mr Semaan had any previous convictions under WHS laws.

2. Good character and long compliance history: SSE Roofing had operated since 2015 without prior breaches and both parties demonstrated good character and strong prospects for rehabilitation.

3. Unlikely to reoffend: the Court accepted they were unlikely to reoffend, supported by Mr Semaan’s evidence of restructuring his work responsibilities to manage risks better.

4. Remorse and acceptance of responsibility: SSE Roofing and Mr Semaan acknowledged their failures and expressed genuine remorse and significant operational changes were made to prevent recurrence.

5. Early guilty plea: both defendants entered early guilty pleas resulting in a 25% reduction.

6. Cooperation with SafeWork NSW: the efforts made by Mr Semaan and others within SSE Roofing to cooperate with the SafeWork NSW investigation went beyond basic compliance and they took proactive steps and embraced the opportunity presented by the investigation, including by engaging the services of specialist consultants. Justice Paingakulam was satisfied that assistance to authorities was considered a mitigating factor (though modestly).

Key takeaways

If an incident occurs, act quickly and decisively:

• cooperate fully with regulators

• implement robust corrective measures

• document changes and training

• demonstrate a genuine commitment to preventing recurrence.

These steps can mitigate penalties, protect reputation, and strengthen safety culture.

To avoid an incident occurring, your organisation should ensure:

1. Safety documents and systems must be put into practice – having a Safe Work Method Statement, pre-start checklists and policies on paper is meaningless unless they are appropriately applied on site.

2. Plan for supervision gaps – planned annual leave, illnesses and other absences will not put a pause on your WHS obligations.

3. Language accessibility does matter – safety documents should be understood by all workers and if literacy or language barriers exist in your workplace, provide translations.

4. Manage commercial pressures – client demands can place you between a rock and a hard place, but what is important is that they do not override your safety obligations.

If your organisation needs guidance on compliance with obligations under the WHS Act, our team is here to help. Contact us for tailored advice or to arrange a workplace training session.

Authors: Linda Mackinlay & Jacob Ward