Parents sue over death of son at Ballarat Goldfields

The Courier
13/03/2009

THE parents of the teenager killed at Ballarat Goldfields in December are
suing their son's former employer. Noel and Karen Tuddenham are named
as plaintiffs in court documents lodged with the County Court.

Buninyong-based engineering company Midwest Civil is named as the
defendant.

Mr and Mrs Tuddenham are seeking compensation over the death of their
son Damien Patrick Tuddenham, who was 17 when he was killed on
December 11, last year after being struck by a truck at the Woolshed
Gully gold mine.

The documents, prepared for the Tuddenhams by solicitor Justin Burke
state that a claim for compensation was made on February 9 and that the
claim was acknowledged on February 13 by the Victorian WorkCover
Authority.

The claim seeks compensation pursuant to provisions of the Accident
Compensation Act, and payment for funeral and medical expenses,
interest and costs.

It also states that "at all times the plaintiffs were partly dependent on
the earnings of the deceased".

A date for a hearing in the County Court has not been set.

Damien Tuddenham was working on the surface of the mine near a tailings
storage facility when the accident happened.

He was to have turned 18 this year and planned to buy a Holden ute.
A Holden ute conveyed him from his funeral service in December.

Damien Tuddenham's death was one of 21 workplace deaths in Victoria
last year. Of the deaths, 11 occurred in regional areas.

Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004

If you believe that a prosecution is appropriate in your workcover
claim and it has not been bought against your employer by worksafe,
YOU can request that, it be handed to the Department of Public
Prosecutions for their consideration.

Section 131. Procedure if prosecution is not brought

(1) If—

(a) a person considers that the occurrence of an act, matter or thing constitutes
an offence against this Act; and

(b) no prosecution has been brought in respect of the occurrence of the act,
matter or thing within 6 months of that occurrence— the person may request in
writing that the Authority bring a prosecution.

(2) Within 3 months after the Authority receives a request it must—

(a) investigate the matter; and

(b) following the investigation, advise (in writing) the person whether a prosecution
has been or will be brought or give reasons why a prosecution will not be brought.

(3) If the Authority advises the person that a prosecution will not be brought,
the Authority must refer the matter to the Director of Public Prosecutions if the
person requests (in writing) that the Authority do so.

(4) The Director of Public Prosecutions must consider the matter and advise
(in writing) the Authority whether or not the Director considers that a
prosecution should be brought.

(5) The Authority must ensure a copy of the advice is sent to the person who
made the request and, if the Authority declines to follow advice from the
Director of Public Prosecutions to bring proceedings, the Authority must give
the person written reasons for its decision.


Part 11—Legal Proceedings
123
(6) The Authority must include in its annual report, and publish on its website,
a statement setting out—

(a) the number of requests received by the Authority under sub-section (1); and

(b) the number of cases in which the Authority has advised under sub-section
(2)(b) that a prosecution has been or will be brought, or will not brought; and

(c) the number of cases in which the Director of Public Prosecutions has advised
under sub-section (4) that a prosecution should be brought or should not be
brought.

132. Limitation period for prosecutions
Proceedings for an indictable offence against this Act may be brought—

(a) within 2 years after the offence is committed or the Authority becomes aware
the offence was committed; or

(b) at any time with the written authorisation of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Grants Galore and Murray Goulburn still can't get it right!

In July 2006, Worksafe established the $10 million dollar, Return to work

fund.

Through the RTW Fund, funding was allocated to eligible employers and

worksafe victoria have allocated it towards 13 projects in which, they

must establish innovative projects for earlier RTW's

The Murray Goulburn initiative was an 18 month project that was

supposed to provide more support and enable a earlier return to work.

This program was also targeted at training programs for their Health

and Safety Representatives.

Now, I find this extremely interesting, as I happen to know one of their

former Health and Safety Representatives, who was bullied in the

workplace to such an extent he was so stressed, that he took time off.

During his time off he received no support from Murray Goulburn

regarding his workplace injury, actually they denied his workcover claim

outright and he was also sacked while on workcover, even though he had

been told he was well enough to return to work, so where was his support?

He got none, instead for his years of loyal service, he lost his job and was

refused a RTW (even though the ACA protects him from this), he lost a

promotion he deserved and worked hard for and then, they refused to

allow him to make a claim for workcover payments, so don't try and

tell me that this company is providing their injured employees support

of any kind because I know first hand, that they don't.

Then to my total amazement, Worksafe Victoria gave Murray Goulburn

a grant to improve their RTW's but worksafe did not enforce the breaches

committed by this company regarding the ACA and this employees right

to be RTW ?

It makes no sense at all! Either you enforce the legislation or you dont,

and for Worksafe Victoria it seems that they dont?

Recently, the following story turned up in "The Star Newspaper "and from

it, it seems that Murray Goulburn were not compliant in providing a safe

workplace again and apparently this accident happened due to a hose

maintenance issue and has put hundreds of people at risk!

Going by the story posted above Murray Goulburn has not improved

their workplace safety at all!

When will worksafe Victoria make this employer compliant or will they

just give them another grant from the 10 million dollar RTW Fund and

allow them to continue to beat up their injured workers, once again!!!!

Ref: The Star Newspaper. March 3rd 2009

Worksafe are training their Staff to be Cut-lunch Commandos!

Conference for

"Workcover Victoria, teambuilding with Corporate Commandos"

at Flowerdale Retreat Estate.

Can someone please tell me whats wrong with this picture?

Why is Worksafe Victoria training their staff with Commandos?

Are Injured Workers the ememy?

Does this mean that injured workers are at war with

Worksafe Victoria, once they have a workplace injury?

WTF !

And I ask, how much does this little exercise cost Mr Tweedly and Mr Holding?

You are ripping off injured workers, but can manage to send your staff to

a training camp ran by of all things, commandos?

What do you honestly think your staff are getting out of these camps?

Further lessons on how to treat injured workers like crap!

This money would have been better spent on funding the 5000 injured

workers who have missed out on their common law right to compensation!

Not wasted on a idiotic exercises like War Games!

WAKE UP!!!!!!