|Offence(s) Charged:||Count 01: Failing to provide adequate information, instruction, training and supervision contrary to sections 48 and 49 of the Safety Health and Welfare at Work Act 1989.|
Count 02: Failing to prepare a risk assessment contrary to section 48 of the Safety Health and Welfare at Work Act 1989.
Count 03: Failing to decide on protective measures contrary to section 48 of the Safety Health and Welfare at Work Act 1989.
Count 04: Breach of duty resulting in the death of an employee contrary to sections 48 and 49 of the Safety Health and Welfare at Work Act 1989.
Count 05: Breach of duty resulting in the death of an employee contrary to sections 48 and 49 of the Safety Health and Welfare at Work Act 1989.
|Offence(s) Taken into Consideration:||Remaining counts taken into consideration (no plea entered).|
|Ancillary/Consequential Orders Made:|
|Date Of Offence:||22/08/2005|
|Comments on Offence dates:|
|Location Of Offence: || Factory premises.|
|Brief Description Of Offence(s):||The accused company is involved in the production of pre-cast concrete. The deceased and his brother, both foreign nationals, sought employment at the factory. Both were instructed to return the next day wherein they were given training and instruction on the use of a particular machine. The training and instruction was given by a foreign national from another country who did not have fluent English. Neither the deceased nor his brother had fluent English. As a result of the language difficulties neither the deceased nor his brother fully understood the training or operation of the machine. The machine they were instructed to operate was involved in the production of pre-cast concrete slabs. Both men operated the machine on the Friday without incident but at 1.20 p.m. on the Monday the deceased placed his head inside the machine and two concrete moulds inverted and fell on his head causing him fatal injuries. A safety pin should have been inserted to stop the concrete moulds from rotating. It had not been inserted. Insertion of a safety pin and the carrying of a single mould was the best system to operate in using the machine. It appeared that the necessity to use the safety pin had not been communicated to the deceased or others operating the machine due to the language barrier. Evidence was given that since the incident the accused company had engaged an outside body to direct it in health and safety. It had engaged translators to ensure that all manuals were translated into the native language of all its employees. |
|Sentencing Comments:||This horrendous accident had resulted in death. There had been a complete failure of training of the employee. This failure led to his death. The court was impressed with the steps taken by the accused company since the incident. Consultants were employed on an on-going basis. All health and safety literature was translated into the language of the employee. This was to the accused’s company’s credit. The court noted that the company had no previous convictions, its treatment of the family after the incident and the assistance given to the deceased’s brother. This was a well run company and this death had a profound effect on the running of the company. The court was impressed by the significant steps taken in the aftermath of the incident. |