WA laboratory fined $30k over lead poisoning of four workers

A WA court has heard that one of four workers who received lead poisoning while working at a Kalgoorlie assay laboratory had lead in his blood more than three times the recommended level and was so unwell he had to be flown to Perth for treatment.  

In the first prosecution of its kind in Western Australia, Perth-based company Jinning Proprietary Limited was today fined a total of $30,000 in the Kalgoorlie Magistrates Court after pleading guilty to four charges.  

Each charge related to failures to provide biological monitoring of employees at Jinning’s West Kalgoorlie laboratory over a 20-month period between August 2020 and March last year.

The prosecution was also awarded court costs of $5,647.41.  

The court heard that one of the workers had lead levels of 97.5 micrograms per decilitre, and it was his results that sparked a WorkSafe investigation.  

Subsequent testing found the other three workers had lead readings of 91.2, 88.8, and 41.8 respectively.  

WA regulations require regular blood testing and, by law, companies are required to remove any male employee from a lead-risk job with levels above 30 micrograms per decilitre. 

That level is 10 micrograms per decilitre for females, as lead can affect an unborn fetus. 

The court heard Jinning’s managing director Tyler Huang, who appeared in court via audiolink, had 17 years working in the field and was well aware of his legislative requirements.  

‘Obvious risk of harm’

During the sentencing hearing, Magistrate Janie Gibbs said she took the company’s early guilty pleas and prior clean record into consideration.  

She noted the company had “spent significant money improving safety and has now complied” with its legislative requirements, but called it “negligence of a higher level”.  

“There was an obvious risk of harm and that was realised with [employee’s name withheld] because he required hospitalisation and treatment,” she said.  

“It was reasonably foreseeable they might suffer lead poisoning. 

“Almost 20 months is a significant period of time … he [Mr Huang] simply ignored those requirements. 

“The length of time is relevant in determining the seriousness of the offence.”

‘Dereliction of duty’

Defence lawyer Nick van Hattem said his client admitted it was “negligent” but denied it was a “deliberate action”.

He said his client had not been able to “properly staff” the Kalgoorlie laboratory and “it was on the ‘to do’ list”.  

“This is a case of a company that was in its set-up phase, overshadowed by the COVID-19 pandemic, and difficulties to source things in Kalgoorlie and around the state,” Mr van Hattem said. 

“We would say it was negligent, a dereliction of duty, but not a deliberate action.”

Prosecutor Tanya Hollaway said that WorkSafe considered the offence at the “higher end of seriousness” but the magistrate remarked in her sentencing that it was a “moderate range of seriousness”. 

Ms Hollaway told the court there was a “lack of care” and “deliberate action by the accused”.  

“Jinning knew it was required to provide biological monitoring,” she said. 

“The director made inquiries with the company’s provider in Perth and when he was told they don’t have a Kalgoorlie service … that was the end of the matter.”

First prosecution by WorkSafe

WorkSafe’s Deputy Commissioner Sally North said she hoped the successful prosecution served as a warning to other companies working in the field.

“I do think it’s enough to send a message to industry about conducting health surveillance,” she said. 

“It is the first time that WorkSafe in WA has taken prosecution action against an employer over providing health surveillance for a worker in a lead-risk job.”

Jinning could have been fined up to $200,000 if the maximum penalty of a $50,000 fine had been imposed for each of the four charges.  

Ms North would not be drawn on whether the company should have received a tougher penalty.

“At the end of the day, the court takes all the factors into account on each case and does that in setting the penalty,” she said.

“But I think it does send a message to industry that health monitoring or health surveillance is something that they need to have regard to.”