4/02/2010 - Should a 9 year old be able to operate a loader?

The Government and Industrial Court say- NO!

Some of you may have seen this case.

· Last year someone reported a case of a young boy (now 9) operating a loader at a family owned and run quarry in the Brisbane area. The young boy is the son of the owner.

· An inspector contacted the Site Senior Executive (who we may also refer to as the boss, and dad for this story) and it was agreed the child (the son) would not operate the loader until the inspector visited the site.

· The inspector visited the site to check out the activity, and despite a number of controls being proposed by the SSE to manage the risk, the Inspector issued a notice that prevented the child operating the loader.

· Dad applied to have the notice reviewed by the Chief Mines Inspector.  He upheld the original decision.  There would be no loader operation for the kid.

· Dad then appealed to the Industrial Court.

· The Industrial Court agreed with the Inspector and so the appeal was not allowed.  Still no loader operation for at least a year when the order will be reviewed.

The link to the full decision is below.  This paragraph contains the primary reason for not allowing the appeal.

The novelty of the case posed a problem for the expert witnesses. There were experts who knew much of child psychology and little of machinery. There were experts who knew much of machinery and little of child psychology. Even those who were experts in child psychology and development were unable to point to studies or scholarly literature dealing with nine year olds driving loaders in the environment which the conditions would impose upon Dane. Tractors on uneven agricultural land and motor vehicles on public roads are quite different situations. However, at the end of the day it seemed to me, albeit on a “general experience” basis, that there was consensus that because of factors such as distraction, impulsiveness and rebelliousness there was an element of risk in children attempting the activities which are planned for Dane. Additionally, on the evidence which I have heard, I entertain no confidence about how Dane would react in the “worst case scenarios”, e.g. rollover of the loader, fire in the loader, or calamity in another part of the quarry which were discussed in the course of argument. I accept that the Act differs from the Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995 and recognises that in mines and quarries the reduction of risk to the lowest acceptable level may be the best that may be achieved. That acceptance involves acceptance of the proposition that the Site Senior Executive does not need to set up a system of work which guards workers from random meteors. The risk of being struck by a meteor seems to me to be acceptable. The difficulty here is that the immeasurable risks to Dane are risks which occur in circumstances in which the activity in which he is proposing to engage is unnecessary. In those circumstances, I am not prepared to set aside the Review Decision of the Chief Inspector of Mines.

Here is a link to the full decision.

http://www.qirc.qld.gov.au/published/2010/february/decision_c52009_010210.pdf