By Sarah Fountain, Partner

In July 2026, WorkSafe Victoria accepted an enforceable undertaking (EU) from Godfrey Hirst Australia Pty Ltd (Godfrey Hirst), a company that manufactures carpet and other floor coverings, following an incident in which a truck driver was struck by a forklift.

Godfrey Hirst operates a facility at Breakwater, Victoria.  Each morning, Godfrey Hirst’s employees operate forklifts to load a B-double trailer with pallets of carpet tiles.

On 9 July 2024, a truck driver who worked for a third party was at Godfrey Hirst’s facility waiting for his truck to be loaded.  As he was standing in the loading area, he was struck in the back by a forklift operated by one of Godfrey Hirst’s employees (incident).

WorkSafe issued two charges against Godfrey Hirst for breaches of section 21(1), 21(2)(a) and 23 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 (Vic) (Act).  Under those sections of the Act:

• an employer must, so far as is reasonably practicable, provide and maintain for employees a working environment that is safe and without risks to health (s 21(1));
• an employer contravenes s 21(1) if the employer fails to provide or maintain plant or systems of work that are, so far as is reasonably practicable, safe and without risks to health (s 21(2)(a));
• an employer must ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that persons other than employees are not exposed to risks to their health or safety arising from the conduct of the undertaking of the employer (s 23(1)). An offence of this subsection is an indictable offence (s 23(2)).

The charges related to Godfrey Hirst’s failure to implement a traffic management plan at the workplace.  WorkSafe alleged that Godfrey Hirst failed to have a traffic management plan in place to protect people in the loading area.

WorkSafe Victoria has recently accepted an enforceable undertaking (EU) from Godfrey Hirst.  The EU has a total estimated cost of approximately $150,000 and requires Godfrey Hirst to do the following within a 14 month period:

• Implement additional safety features at its facility, including:
  • smart boom gates using facial recognition to allow only staff who have completed necessary induction and training to access the highest-risk area of the workplace;
  • Artificial Intelligence (AI) cameras around the workplace to continuously monitor traffic zones and on forklifts to enhance safety features such as pedestrian detection and speed reduction;
• Create and deliver an industry training seminar on learnings from the incident; and
• Make a donation of $10,000 to the Barwon Health Foundation to support services and care provided in Geelong and surrounding areas.

Conclusion and Key Takeaways

Despite the potential serious consequences of the risk in this case, WorkSafe was willing to accept an EU from Godfrey Hirst.  This is consistent with our observations of an increasing willingness by WorkSafe Victoria (and some other regulators) to accept EUs in some cases.

WorkSafe Victoria issued an updated ‘Enforceable undertakings policy’ in May 2026, which is very useful for considering whether an EU may be an appropriate option in matters involved alleged breaches of the Act.  The policy sets out the process of applying for an EU, WorkSafe’s eligibility assessment of the EU, and the evaluation criteria used by WorkSafe in considering proposed EUs.

This case highlights the importance of considering whether an EU may be acceptable to a regulator, which will be far preferable to many insureds than the risk of a criminal conviction.