Disciplinary hearings - December 2020

The Board’s July hearings included a case where a Line Mechanic Distribution failed to adequately test the polarity of a mains supply. The supply had been transposed and around eight months after it was livened and a person received an electric shock. The electrical worker responsible for testing and connecting the supply relied on assurances given to him by other electrical workers. Relying on assurances can be a risky practice. Assurances provided through certification, such as that provided in a Certificate of Compliance, can legally be relied on, and are backed up by regulatory requirements with respect to testing, whereas verbal assurances do not. Care has to be taken, and it will always be appropriate for an electrical worker to carry out their own tests to verify what others have told them.

Note that the Board is now publishing all of its disciplinary decisions on its website.

View the disciplinary decisions(external link)

July 2020 Finding Penalty
John Ryan Mr Ryan defended charges in relation to a photovoltaic installation. He was found to have negligently created a risk of serious harm or significant property damage in respect of one of the properties in the charges. The Respondent was also found to have committed other disciplinary offences. The case related to a failure to supervise another person. The Respondent did not take action to check work that had been carried out and to ensure that his own work was carried out in a safe and compliant manner. A person received an electric shock as a result. The offending was serious. The Board adopted a starting point of a fine of $5,000. There were some mitigating factors and, taking this into account, the Board reduced the fine to $4,000. Costs of $1,575 were imposed.
Ryan MacDonald Mr MacDonald, a Line Mechanic Distribution, was found to have negligently created a risk of serious harm when he failed to adequately test a supply prior to connection. An individual received an electric shock as a result. The Board adopted a starting point of a $5,000 fine. Mr MacDonald accepted responsibility, and the matter was dealt with by way of an agreed statement of facts. Taking those factors and other mitigating circumstances into account, the Board reduced the fine to $2,000. The Board also imposed costs of $225.
Practitioner 1 The electrical worker faced 11 disciplinary charges, including multiple charges of negligence and permitting unauthorised persons to carry out prescribed electrical work. The electrical worker had not been licensed for a significant period but had continued to carry out prescribed electrical work and cause it to be carried out. The Board adopted a starting point of a fine of $4,000. The fine was reduced to $2,000 on the basis that the electrical worker accepted responsibility and agreed to the matter being dealt with by way of an agreed statement of facts. He was ordered to pay costs of $450.
Practitioner 2 The electrical worker, an Electrical Service Technician, was found to have carried out prescribed electrical work in a negligent manner and to have carried out work that was outside of the limits of his registration and licence. The Board accepted that the matters complained about were out of the ordinary for the electrical worker, and that there was a low risk of reoffending. On that basis, and taking into account an acceptance of responsibility, the Board imposed a censure and costs of $225.
Practitioner 3 The Board found that the electrical worker had carried out prescribed electrical work in a negligent manner, that he had created a risk of serious harm and that he had carried out work in a manner contrary to an enactment. The matters before the Board involved the installation of a generator. The manner in which it had been installed resulted in a linesman receiving an electric shock. The matters were serious, and the Board decided to suspend the electrical worker’s licence and to require him to undertake training. Costs of $450 were ordered. The matter was dealt with on the basis of an agreed statement of facts. Publication was not ordered to protect other persons involved in the matter. Suppression was not ordered.