Detailed safety systems useless without enforcement: Court
The NSW Industrial Court has handed down an $85,000 fine to a company that
it described as "conscientious" with regards to safety, pointing out that
efforts put into safety manuals and training become useless when a system
isn't enforced.
The case involved an employee of manufacturing company Hunter Douglas Ltd,
who suffered severe injuries to the fingers on both his hands when they
were caught in an unguarded slitting machine.
The machine was surrounded by a painted yellow line, which was protected
by a laser beam curtain that would stop the machine when someone moved too
close.
However, on the day of the incident, a fellow worker stopped the machine -
which was malfunctioning at the time - and stepped inside the perimeter.
Because he was standing in the gap between the machine and the laser
curtain, he was able to re-start the machine and operate it while holding a
rag against the metal to stop it from jumping.
His colleague then took over the task of holding down the metal, and did
so without wearing a glove. After a relatively short time, his hand was
caught in the cutting head for about five seconds, causing the amputation
of one finger and a thumb.
In an Industrial Court hearing before Justice Wayne Haylen, Hunter Douglas
said it had an extensive safety system in place that included formal safety
training and induction, a buddy system that paired new employees with
experienced workers and on-the-job training.
But there was no documented risk assessment for the slitting machine and
no safe work procedure for less common tasks associated with it.
After the incident, the company conducted a risk assessment and installed
additional laser beams, guarding and an interlocking gate. It also
introduced a revised safe operating procedure.
Justice Haylen accepted that the company had a "significant safety system"
and a good overall safety record.
Regardless, he found the employer's breach was a serious one with a high
degree of foreseeability.
Justice Haylen said the incident showed that "all the effort put into
producing manuals, having external assistance and training employees about
safety requirements would be of little use, unless that system is
effectively enforced".
He fined the company $85,000.
Open a printer friendly version of this article
