Court Summary - at a glance

Date of offence:
16 May 2016
 
Plea:
Guilty
 
Decision:
Convicted
 
Final decision date:
 
Fine imposed:
$180,000

Safety lessons learned:
  1. Ensure an effective system is in place to manage and monitor risks presented by machinery;
    • Machine guarding audits should have been carried out in respect of the press to identify the inadequacies in guarding.
  2. isolate moving parts of machinery by adequately guarding;
    • The slot opening in the interlocked guard should not have allowed for an operator to be able to reach through and access moving parts of the machinery.  Either the size of the slot opening should have been reduced, or the safety distance from the slot opening to the moving parts should have been increased.
    • The interlocking mechanism should have been designed so that the guard could not open until the flywheel had stopped rotating and the ram was locked to prevent it from free-falling
  3. adequately maintain machinery;
    • Maintenance work should have been routinely undertaken to minimise jamming.
  4. Implement an effective process for clearing jams of machinery;
    • The process for clearing jams should have been clear. Tools that were fit for purpose should have been used to pull at a jammed clip.

Defendant name:
Marshall Industries Limited
 
Industry:
Manufacturing
 
Date of offence:
16 May 2016
 
Facts in brief:
The Defendant manufactures roofing materials, sheet metal and installing roofing.

The victim was a casual employee of the defendant.

On 16 May 2016 the victim was instructed to make some tray clips using a punch and forming press. Strips of metal are inserted and formed into a tray clip.

A metal strip became jammed in the die of the press. The victim attempted to free the jam with some welding wire. After this did not work he reached up through the outlet chute with his right hand. The victim’s stomach inadvertently made contact with the machine controls and activated it.

The ram of the machine came down and amputated the tips of his right forefinger, index finger, ring finger and thumb.

While unrelated to the incident, there was also an issue with the interlocked guard on the machine; when it was opened, it did not ensure that the press immediately came to a complete stop.
 
Offence section:
Sections 36(1)(a), 48(1) and 2(c) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015
 
Date(s) charged:

Court:
Invercargill - District Court
 
Plea:
Guilty
 
Final decision date:
 
Decision:
Convicted
 
Fine imposed:
$180,000
 
Maximum fine available:
$1,500,000
 
Reparation:
$35,000 for emotional harm ($25,000 had already been paid) and $18,677.70 for consequential loss.
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on LinkedIn
Subscribe