A MANSFIELD plumbing company director has been fined $20,000 after transporting his apprentice in his ute’s toolbox over a 15-kilometre journey.

WorkSafe said the incident occurred in February, 2022, when the employer had driven the apprentice to a property in Bridge Creek to complete a hot water service job.

After finishing the work, the employer and another tradesperson at the residence planned to head to Mansfield for dinner, but as the vehicle only had two seats, they were one space short.

The employer decided to transport the apprentice in the ute’s metal toolbox, which had been cleared of tools but still contained some objects.

During the 20-25 minute journey, the apprentice filmed and shared parts of the ride, commenting that it was "cramped and dark" and recalling feeling upset by the experience.

Upon arrival in Mansfield, a witness observed the apprentice being let out of the toolbox.

The apprentice later informed his mother, who then contacted an apprenticeship support officer, who in turn reported the matter, leading to a WorkSafe investigation.

The investigation found that the apprentice, who had a suffered serious head injury in a 2021 car accident, was at increased risk of further harm had there been any sudden stop or collision during the journey.

An expert mechanical engineer involved in the case noted that even at low speeds, tools or objects in the toolbox could have caused serious injury or death to the apprentice.

The apprentice submitted a victim impact statement, describing the profound psychological toll the incident had on his life.

"I have flashbacks, trouble sleeping, and feel unsafe,” he stated.

“It has shattered my trust in others and made it difficult to connect with people.

“The emotional toll of reliving this trauma has left me exhausted, and I struggle to cope with daily responsibilities."

The WorkSafe prosecutor emphasised the seriousness of the offence, noting that the employer had disregarded basic safety protocols by placing the apprentice in the toolbox.

They argued that the decision to transport the apprentice in such a manner was not just a lapse in judgment but a significant failure to ensure safety.

"The fact that no incident occurred doesn’t excuse the offence," said the prosecution.

They submitted that a conviction should be imposed due to the employer's disregard for the apprentice’s safety.

The defence argued that the employer had shown remorse and cooperated fully with authorities throughout the investigation.

"It was a stupid and irresponsible decision, and he accepts the potential consequences," the defence said, noting the employer’s good character, lack of prior offences, and cooperation with the investigation.

The defence submitted that a fine without conviction was appropriate, citing similar cases for the court's consideration.

Defence also noted that a conviction would impact the accused’s business dealings, particularly licensing with the Victorian Building Authority, emphasising that the employer’s livelihood could be severely affected.

The magistrate acknowledged the employer’s standing in the community but expressed dismay at the treatment of the apprentice, particularly given his prior head injury.

"You wouldn’t put a dog in the toolbox, let alone an apprentice with a serious injury," the magistrate said, adding that apprentices are often vulnerable and beholden to their employers.

"This was an outrageous treatment of a vulnerable person.

“The employer had 20 minutes to reflect on his decision, but no one thought better of it during the journey.

“I’m appalled by it."

The magistrate imposed a $20,000 fine without conviction, plus $4249 in costs.

"But for the plea of guilty, I would have imposed a conviction and a $30,000 fine," the magistrate concluded.