SINGAPORE: Capitaland Retail Management was fined S$24,000 (US$17,716) for breaching workplace safety and health regulations on Tuesday (Aug 22) after a cleaner died in 2020 when he fell through a false ceiling in Tampines Mall.
The 26-year-old foreign worker had been performing cleaning works in the wee hours of Jan 25, 2020 along with his team when he fell through the false ceiling of the fifth floor and landed on the third floor.
He was taken to hospital but died of multiple injuries that same morning.
A representative for Capitaland Retail Management said the company was pleading guilty to one charge under the Workplace Safety and Health (General Provisions) Regulations pertaining to lighting, and another under the Workplace Safety and Health (Work at Heights) Regulations 2013 pertaining to inadequate guardrails.
The court heard that Capitaland Retail Management, which runs Tampines Mall, had hired Cleaning Express to perform cleaning works on aluminium louvres at the fifth level of the mall.
The cleaning was to be carried out in a room on the fifth floor that had a catwalk and a concrete walkway.
A team of workers arrived at about 11pm on Jan 24, 2020 and they had a toolbox meeting before starting work.
After having supper, the team resumed their work, with the deceased sweeping a concrete walkway that was in the room on the fifth floor with a broom and dustpan.
At about 1.10am on Jan 25, 2020, the cleaning team heard a breaking sound. One of the cleaners turned around and saw a hole, but did not see the deceased.
The Manpower Ministry prosecutor said investigations showed that there was an opening in the guardrail along the concrete walkway through which a person could fall.
Although there were lightbulbs in the room, the lighting was below the recommended level and visibility was poor, she added.
She sought a fine of between S$12,000 and S$15,000 for each of the two charges.
MITIGATION
Defence lawyer Paul Sandosham stressed that this case involved the contravention of Workplace Safety and Health regulations, and not the Act itself.
He said there was “no suggestion on any causal links between my client’s offences and the fatality”, adding that “these are regulatory offences”.
He explained that the aluminium louvres of the mall were cleaned once a year. The room that enabled access to them was locked and accessible only by trained personnel.
Mr Sandosham said that all work was to be done on the catwalk, and no work was to be done on the concrete walkway. He said the deceased was last seen in an area that was out of bounds.
“He shouldn’t have been there at all. No one is supposed to go there,” he said, citing a previous report by TODAY that quoted the cleaning company as saying they were investigating why the deceased was working in an area that he was briefed not to enter.
On the lighting, he said the workers were supposed to be provided lights on top of the fluorescent lights in the room, and ambient light from the mall would also come through.
Mr Sandosham said the cleaning team was required only to clean the louvres, and not the concrete walkway.
District Judge Ronald Gwee said some of the arguments were akin to blaming the victim for the position he was in.
Mr Sandosham then said that his client accepted “that there has been a fatality”, but wanted the court to understand the nuances of the situation.
This was not a situation where his client “did nothing”, he said, adding that there were risk assessments and a briefing done.
In response, the prosecutor said that workers should not be working in “drastically poor lighting”.
In sentencing, the judge noted that if the charges had been under the Workplace and Safety Health Act itself, they would have carried “much heavier penalties”.
“But it was clear that in not providing the sufficiently safe rails … this work area had been rendered potentially unsafe,” he said.
Looking at photos of the area before and after remedial action was carried out, the judge said it was clear that the before picture showed “a potentially unsafe and possibly dangerous place for anyone to work in”.
“So while the defence is saying they can’t explain why the employee of the cleaning contractor was in that area, that really begs the question of why that area was not shown to be out of bounds, even though work was not meant to be done there by the cleaning contractor,” said Judge Gwee.
“What I have to bear in mind was whether the breach of regulation rendered that area unsafe. One has to consider the degree of danger that inaction in the part of any occupier may result in,” he said.