Disciplinary decisions – April 2025

Francis Cortez

The Board decided that the Respondent committed a disciplinary offence under section 143(b)(ii) of the Act. He negligently created a risk of serious harm to a person, or a risk of significant property damage.

These are the key points that led to this finding.

• While wearing an asbestos suit, the Respondent asked another worker to do the testing instead of removing the suit to do proper testing himself.
• The disconnected neutral conductor created significant safety risks including potential fatal electric shock.
• The issue remained undetected from October 2022 until August 2023.
• The Respondent accepted responsibility as the person in charge of the work.

The Board ordered:

• a fine of $3,000 (reduced from $6,000 starting point due to cooperation, early guilty plea, remorse and first offence),
• costs of $250, and
• a record of the disciplinary finding on the Public Register for 3 years. 

Case 2

The Board decided that the Respondent failed to comply with s143(f) of the Act.

These are the key points that led to this finding. 

• The Respondent failed to provide an electrical safety certificate (ESC) for the installation and connection of the switchboard
• The Respondent also failed to provide a certificate of compliance (COC) following the completion of the work, being the removal of the switchboard, within the required 20 working days.
• The Respondent explained that the work was not completed due to a commercial dispute but accepts that the electrical safety certificate and certificate of compliance should have been completed and provided.

The Board ordered:

• costs of $250
• a record of the disciplinary finding will be the public Register for 3 years.

Iasinito Kama

The Board decided that the Respondent committed a disciplinary offence under section 143(b)(ii) of the Act. He negligently created a risk of serious harm to a person, or a risk of significant property damage. 

These are the key points that led to this finding.

• The Respondent failed to conduct the required testing.
• The disconnected neutral conductor created significant safety risks including potential fatal electric shock.
• The issue remained undetected from October 2022 until August 2023.
• The Respondent accepted responsibility for the offending. 

The Board ordered:

• a fine of $3,000 (reduced from $6,000 starting point due to cooperation, early guilty plea, remorse and first offence),
• costs of $250, and
• a record of the disciplinary finding on the Public Register for 3 years. 

Edmar Dutra

The Board decided that the Respondent committed a disciplinary offence under section 143(a)(i) of the Act. They carried out prescribed electrical work (PEW) in a negligent or incompetent manner. 

The Respondent carried out their own prescribed electrical work, and then inspected it themselves. This is prohibited under regulation 71(2) of the Electricity (Safety) Regulations 2010. 

The Board ordered:

• the Respondent could only be registered to work as anelectrician for 9 months,
• costs of $250, and
• a record of the disciplinary finding on the Public Register for 3 years. 

Case 5

The Board decided that the Respondent committed disciplinary offences under sections 143(b)(ii) and 143 (f) of the Act.

The Respondent:

• negligently created a risk of serious harm through having carried out prescribed electrical work
• failed to provide a return by not issuing an Electrical Safety Certificate within the required timeframe
• provided a false or misleading return by backdating a Certificate of Compliance. 

These are the key points that led to this finding.

• The Respondent failed to earth installed luminaires prior to energizing them.
• The lack of earthing created a significant risk of electric shock.
• A builder received an electric shock requiring medical attention and resulting in electrical concussion.
• The Respondent failed to issue an Electrical Safety Certificate within the required timeframe.
• The Respondent backdated a Certificate of Compliance. 

The Board ordered:

• a fine of $3,500,
• costs of $250, and
• a record of the disciplinary finding on the Public Register for 3 years.

Xin De Li

The Board decided that the Respondent committed disciplinary offences under sections 143(a)(i) and 143(f) of the Act.

The Respondent: 

• negligently carried out prescribed electrical work by failing to adequately inspect a builder’s temporary supply and connecting it when aspects were electrically unsafe
• provided a false or misleading Record of Inspection certifying that the installation complied with standards when it did not. 

The Board ordered:

• a fine of $1,500, 
• costs of $250, and
• a record of the disciplinary finding on the Public Register for 3 years. 

Jareth Paulsen

The Board decided that the Respondent committed disciplinary offences under sections 143(a)(i) and 143(f) of the Act.

The Respondent:

• negligently carried out prescribed electrical work by failing to provide required RCD protection for socket outlets and under tile heating systems at multiple properties
• provided false or misleading returns by certifying installations as compliant when they did not meet mandatory requirements.

The Board ordered:

• a fine of $2,500,
• costs of $1,125, and
• a record of the disciplinary finding on the Public Register for 3 years.