Parilla Premium Potatoes has been fined $360,000 after a workplace aircraft incident left an employee with severe, life-changing injuries, in a case that has put the spotlight on safety failures in high-risk farm operations.
The ruling from the South Australian Employment Tribunal stems from an incident in September 2023 involving Krunal Shah, a 40-year-old employee who had been with the company for 12 years. Shah was asked to board a single-engine Cessna aircraft at the company’s worksite so he could inspect a new onion processing line. The aircraft was being operated by the company’s managing director, Mark Pye, who is also a licensed pilot.
According to the tribunal’s findings, the engine of the aircraft had already been started before Shah approached the plane. He then moved toward the aircraft from the wrong side and attempted to walk around the front. In doing so, he misjudged the diameter of the spinning propeller blades and was struck multiple times.
The injuries were catastrophic. Shah suffered traumatic damage to his right arm, including multiple fractures to his forearm and hand, as well as partial finger amputations. After the impact, Pye immediately shut down the engine and administered first aid while another employee called emergency services. Shah was later flown to Adelaide for emergency surgery.
What turned the incident into a major workplace safety case was not only the seriousness of the injury, but the tribunal’s conclusion that the risk should have been clearly controlled. Following an investigation by SafeWork SA, Parilla Premium Potatoes was charged with one offence under the Work Health and Safety Act for breaching its primary duty of care to workers.
The tribunal found that the danger zone around the propeller had not been marked or physically outlined on the ground. It also found that Shah had not been directly told he must never walk in front of the aircraft while the propeller was operating. The only measure in place was a verbal instruction to approach the aircraft from the rear right-hand side.
Deputy President Stephen Lieschke said that level of instruction was foreseeably inadequate if there was any chance the propeller would still be running. His finding underscores a core workplace safety principle: in environments involving fast-moving machinery or aircraft equipment, basic verbal directions are not enough. Employers are expected to put visible, enforceable systems in place to remove or reduce obvious hazards.
That expectation is consistent with guidance from Safe Work Australia, which states that employers must identify hazards, assess risks and introduce practical controls that protect workers from serious harm. In cases involving dangerous moving equipment, those controls can include exclusion zones, clear signage, boarding procedures and operational rules that eliminate unnecessary exposure.
For rural businesses, the case is a sharp reminder that aviation use on private worksites still carries the same level of responsibility as any other industrial activity. Aircraft may be familiar tools in agriculture, but familiarity does not reduce risk. If anything, it can make hazards easier to overlook, especially when processes become informal or routine.
The tribunal noted that Parilla Premium Potatoes later moved quickly to improve its safety procedures. Among the changes introduced were a designated passenger boarding zone within the aircraft hangar and a ban on hot loading, the practice of onboarding passengers while the engine is still running. The company also committed to an independent audit of its current safety system.
The response to Shah after the incident also became an important part of the hearing. The tribunal was told he received significant personal and financial support from the company and the Pye family. That support included practical help during his early recovery, ongoing assistance after his return to employment, further training opportunities and a promotion.
Parilla also paid visa and travel expenses for Shah’s parents and brother to travel from India to support him during his recovery. In another gesture noted by the tribunal, the company supported his brother’s migration ambitions by sponsoring him as an employee. Shah told the tribunal that the support he received was substantial, and the court acknowledged that the business had not treated the matter in the detached way often seen after major safety breaches.
Deputy President Lieschke said the company had provided a high level of meaningful personal and employment support and had not placed self-interest ahead of the injured worker’s losses. That observation, while notable, did not reduce the seriousness of the original breach. The $360,000 fine reflects the tribunal’s view that the failings before the accident were serious enough to warrant a significant penalty.
In an affidavit, general manager Renee Pye said the business took full accountability and responsibility for what was described as a safety crime. In a separate statement, a company spokesperson said employee safety and well-being remained paramount and confirmed that Shah is still employed by the business. The company added that employees can access safety policies and procedures through the Employment Hero app.
Parilla Premium Potatoes is owned by the Pye Group, which employs about 400 people. The scale of the operation means the case is likely to resonate well beyond one worksite. For employers across agriculture, logistics and heavy industry, the ruling shows that visible safety controls, direct warnings and strong procedures are not optional extras. They are part of the legal duty of care.
The broader lesson from the case is clear. Serious workplace incidents are rarely caused by one single moment alone. They are often the result of small gaps in planning, communication and hazard control that build up until something goes wrong. Here, the absence of a marked exclusion zone, the lack of a hard rule against approaching the front of the aircraft, and the decision to have the engine running during boarding created a chain of risk with devastating consequences.
For anyone following workplace law and employer accountability, this case stands as a sobering example of how quickly routine duties can turn into lifelong trauma when systems fail. It also serves as a reminder that genuine support after an injury matters, but it can never replace the responsibility to prevent that injury in the first place.
Make Swikblog your go-to source on Google for reliable updates, smart insights, and daily trends.
