A worker’s fall through a school roof demonstrates how an inadequate skylight cover becomes part of the fall risk, not a genuine control.
Inadequately covered skylights and roof penetrations are a common cause of falls from height. For a worker focussed on the task at hand, just having a cover placed over a void can look as though the risk has been managed and the area is safe.
However, these covers often create the risk and are incapable of mitigating the fall hazard. In a recent NSW prosecution, the court observed falls through inadequately protected roof penetrations are “a risk that is frankly notorious in the building industry.”
The case shows how adequate covers, proper documentation and site safety management need to work together to create a safe workplace.
The risk from poor protection is real
A successful prosecution brought by SafeWork NSW in August 2026 provides a clear example of how falls through skylights and other penetrations can occur when the controls in place are not adequate.
At Koonawarra Public School, located in the Illawarra region south of Sydney, a worker fell 2.9 metres after stepping on an unsecured and inadequate penetration cover.
In this case, the court found that a sequence of failures in both risk management and site safety processes contributed to the incident.
On the afternoon of the incident, the worker stood on a piece of plywood boarding that had been used to cover the penetration left by a removed skylight. The worker fell onto the tiled floor of the bathroom below. They sustained significant injuries that will require ongoing treatment and management for the remainder of their life.
The court found the plywood board was wholly inadequate to prevent a fall. In fact, it was smaller than the penetration it was covering. The court noted that, at best, “it might have kept out rain and maintained some privacy for those using the bathroom below.”
The court also found that although a safe work method statement (SWMS) had been created specific to the work site and the work being undertaken, the management of risks associated with the skylight penetrations extended only to noting that workers were to be aware of them. The SWMS made no mention of how the voids themselves were to be managed. The SWMS was also not shown to the worker prior to their commencing work.
Finally, the worker arrived on-site later in the day after completing work at another job. They were not made to complete an induction process and had missed the toolbox talk where the skylight penetrations were discussed. The worker was told only to “be careful of the voids”. They were not told where on site the voids were or that the plywood covers could not take their weight. No barriers, signage or specific direction not to enter the area were provided.
What does this case demonstrate?
Modifying or removing components from a roof can create new fall risks that were not initially present.
The most important step in maintaining a safe roof is ensuring the risks are identified, properly assessed and then mitigated, so far as is reasonably practicable, using higher-order control measures.
A cover only protects people if it is appropriately designed, correctly sized, securely fixed in place and capable of supporting loads that could reasonably be imposed on it.
All workers should also be inducted into the site prior to starting work. This induction should inform workers of the specific risks that exist and what control measures have been put in place.
Being told to “be careful” does not cut it.
