The WorkSafe website will be unavailable on Tuesday 16 September from 12pm–5pm due to planned maintenance.
Our other online services, including the online services portal(external link) and Energy Safety portal(external link), will remain available.
To notify us of an injury, illness or incident at work, visit our online services portal(external link). For urgent notifications, please call us on 0800 030 040. For general or non-urgent enquiries, email us at info@worksafe.govt.nz.
Court Summary - at a glance
Date of offence:
1 November 2013
Plea:
Guilty
Decision:
Convicted
Final decision date:
Fine imposed:
$57,000
Safety lessons learned:
- Ensure that an interim control (such as chain and padlock) is used to prevent access through the gate until a permanent solution could be implemented.
- Ensure that the gate is isolated by the installation of an interlocked guard which means the gate can only open once the machine shuts down.
Defendant name:
Juken New Zealand Limited
Industry:
Manufacturing
Date of offence:
1 November 2013
Facts in brief:
The Defendant Company operates a forestry and timber processing facility.
On the day of the accident an employee was working with a wood dryer known as Bab-2 (“the machine”). The machine lies behind a gate that had an ordinary latch. It was not locked, not fixed, and it did not have any type of interlock device which would prevent the synchronised opening of the gate with the machine going. Every now and then the machine would jam and needed to be un-jammed.
On the day of the accident the victim did not follow the safety procedure when the jamming occurred. The victim unlatched the gate and went in behind it to the machine while it was still operating. In the process of unjamming the moving conveyor, the victim’s finger got caught between a chain and sprocket suffering serious harm.
On the day of the accident an employee was working with a wood dryer known as Bab-2 (“the machine”). The machine lies behind a gate that had an ordinary latch. It was not locked, not fixed, and it did not have any type of interlock device which would prevent the synchronised opening of the gate with the machine going. Every now and then the machine would jam and needed to be un-jammed.
On the day of the accident the victim did not follow the safety procedure when the jamming occurred. The victim unlatched the gate and went in behind it to the machine while it was still operating. In the process of unjamming the moving conveyor, the victim’s finger got caught between a chain and sprocket suffering serious harm.
Offence section:
S6 Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992
Date(s) charged:
Court:
Masterton - District Court
Plea:
Guilty
Final decision date:
Decision:
Convicted
Fine imposed:
$57,000
Maximum fine available:
$250,000
Reparation:
$12,000
Last updated