Prosecution summaries
Defendant:
Bristile Ltd
Trading Name:
Not applicable
Description of Breach(es)
Regulation: 4.37(1)(b)
Breach(es):
Being an employer at a workplace, failed to provide measures to prevent, as far as was practicable, the use of plant, namely a tile setting machine, in a manner that could render that plant a hazard to a person at the workplace; contrary to regulation 4.37(1)(b) of the Occupational Safety and Health Regulations 1996, made under the Occupational Safety and Health Act 1984.
Background Details:
The defendant operated a tile manufacturing business from premises at Harper Street in Caversham.
On 1 February 2001 an employee was working as a leading hand, Grade 1 machine operator at the defendant’s premises. The employee was operating a dry tile setting machine. This machine places dry tiles into cassettes that are located on a conveyor. The machine was new having been installed approximately 6 weeks before the accident. When commissioned the machine had no guarding to prevent access to the machine. The machine is such that it is operated remotely. Periodically tiles would have to be straightened or broken tiles removed and this required access to the machine.
On 1 February 2001 the employee entered the operating area of the machine to remove two broken tiles. He entered through a small gate upon which a hand written sign had been placed. The sign read “Turn Automatic Off Before Entering”. The employee went through the gate without shutting down the machine. He believed that there was a break in the cycle of the machine and he could get in and out of the area before the machine commenced operating again. The employee became caught in the moving parts of the machine and suffered a fractured ankle and back injuries.
The defendant had identified the need to guard the machine following a near miss incident some weeks earlier. The defendant had a program to install interlocking electrical gates that would shut down the machine upon opening the gates but had delayed installation of theses gates awaiting parts. The defendant installed a barrier gate with an interlocking device the next day.
The defendant pleaded not guilty and the charge was dismissed.
Charge Details:
Fine(s): nil
Costs: $2750 to defendant