Court Summary - at a glance
Date of offence:
12/06/2017
Plea:
Guilty
Decision:
Convicted
Final decision date:
Fine imposed:
$250,000 on both charges
Safety lessons learned:
In relation to the risk of workers being struck by a forlift in a poultry shed:
- develop, implement and monitor or ensure the development, implementation, and monitoring of, an adequate safe system of work that adequately separated workers from moving plant;
- ensure the provision of suitable PPE for workers, namely that which addressed the risk of working in the low light environment of poultry sheds; and
- consult, co-operate with, and co-ordinate activities with other PCBUs who had a duty in respect of the matter, namely Alderson and the Sullivans, with respect to ensuring workers' safe entry to and exit from the poltry shed
In relation to the health risks arising from working in poultry sheds:
- monitor conditions within poultry sheds for the purpose of preventing illness of workers; and
- provide information, training, instruction, and supervision to its workers
Defendant name:
Tegel Foods Limited
Industry:
Agriculture
Date of offence:
12/06/2017
Facts in brief:
"Tegel is New Zealand’s largest producer of poultry products. It contracts farmers to grow chickens for meat production (broilers). Tegel engaged the Sullivans to grow broilers on their Christchurch farm (the site). Tegel entered into a contract with Alderson to catch and remove the broilers once they had matured.
The victim was working a shift in her husband’s chicken catching team at the site. She was not trained before she went to work, but was expected to learn on the job from her husband and her fellow chicken catchers.
Several times during the shift, the victim walked out of the shed to take a break from the heat, get some fresh air or use the toilet. She was wearing overalls with a single reflective strip. She was also wearing headgear. The victim told her husband that she needed a drink. She went to leave the shed. The forklift driver was carrying a fully loaded module out of the shed when the forklift he was operating struck and ran over the victim. She had been on the right side of the forklift where she was not visible to the forklift driver. She died at the scene from crush injuries."
The victim was working a shift in her husband’s chicken catching team at the site. She was not trained before she went to work, but was expected to learn on the job from her husband and her fellow chicken catchers.
Several times during the shift, the victim walked out of the shed to take a break from the heat, get some fresh air or use the toilet. She was wearing overalls with a single reflective strip. She was also wearing headgear. The victim told her husband that she needed a drink. She went to leave the shed. The forklift driver was carrying a fully loaded module out of the shed when the forklift he was operating struck and ran over the victim. She had been on the right side of the forklift where she was not visible to the forklift driver. She died at the scene from crush injuries."
Related prosecutions:
Offence section:
"Sections 48(1) and 2(c), and 36(1)(a) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015; and
Sections 49(1) and 2(c), and 36(1)(a) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015."
Sections 49(1) and 2(c), and 36(1)(a) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015."
Date(s) charged:
8-Jun-18
Court:
Christchurch - District Court
Plea:
Guilty
Final decision date:
Decision:
Convicted
Fine imposed:
$250,000 on both charges
Maximum fine available:
"$1.5 million on the s48 charge
$500,000 on the s49 charge"
$500,000 on the s49 charge"
Reparation:
$45,500 (35% of total $130,000) in emotional harm
$18,700.75 (35% of total $53,430.72) in consequential loss
$12,000 in costs
$18,700.75 (35% of total $53,430.72) in consequential loss
$12,000 in costs
Related Documents:
Last updated