Dangers from cleaning on high buildings — test case

Press, 25 September 1980, Page 5

Dangers from cleaning on high buildings — test case

A window-cleaner’s action in cleaning third-floor windows in a city building while standing on the narrow outside window sill and holding on to the window frame with his free hand, led to a “test case” prosecution in the District Court yesterday.

During the case the inadequacies in older multistorey buildings, which make no provision for safety attachments for use by commercial window cleaners, were mentioned. The defendant, Edmund Charles Frost, a selfemployed window cleaner, appeared on a charge, under provisions of the Construction Act, that without reasonable cause he did an act likely to endanger himself while window cleaning on the South British Insurance Company’s building in Hereford Street on March 11.

Judge McAloon held the offence proved, but convicted and discharged the defendant. upon payment of costs and solicitors’ fees totalling $35.

The Judge said he regarded the prosecution as a test case; and considered its main purpose was to bring to the notice of building owners the unsafe systems which window cleaners had to use on buildings inadequately provided with safety equipment or attachments. He said he saw the chief reason for the prosecutions as being to point out to owners and occupiers of old buildings the dangers involved, and seeking to have them reduce the hazards by having their buildings conform to New Zealand Standards. specifications, in regard to window-cleaning attachments.

Mr D. J. R. Saunders prosecuted for the Department of Labour and Mr K. R. Ayers represented the defendant, who denied the offence. Graeme Darcy Stewart, a safety officer employed by the Department of Labour, gave evidence of seeing the defendant cleaning outside windows on the third floor of the South British Insurance Company’s building in Hereford Street. The defendant was standing with both feet •on .the exterior concrete window sill, which was 150 mm (6in) wide. His whole body was outside the building except for one hand which he was holding on with, while cleaning windows with his other hand. Mr Stewart said he instructed the defendant to stop cleaning the outside windows in that way because of the hazard involved.

The defendant replied that the windows could not be cleaned in any other way. The building did not have hooks for attaching window cleaning equipment. Mr Stewart sought to ascertain the defendant’s name, and his employer, so that written instructions could be given. He also discussed alternative safety equipment or attachments with the defendant.

The defendant was again seen later cleaning outside windows in similar circumstances. standing on a window sill.

Cross-examined, he said that if anchor plates or similar attachments for window cleaning wer to be installed on buildings, the responsibility for doing so would be that’of the occupiers. He said this was provided in the New Zealand Standards specifications. The defendant said in evidence that he had been window • cleaning for 17 years, and self employed for the last 14 years. He had cleaned the South British Insurance building for eight years.

He detailed his cleaning methods for the South British building, and said methods suggested by the inspector of using anchor pins or jacks were not practicable on this building.

He did not consider the soft stonework would be suitable for the insertion of hooks.

Strapping on to the side of the building would also be cumbersome and restrict the cleaner’s movements. A specially made harness would be necessary.

Ladders would also not be practicable for cleaning the building. Cross-examined, the defenant said he did not consider that, for himself, it was unsafe to stand with both feet outside the building. He said new buildings had fewer problems for window cleaners as most provided safety clips or cranes or other methods of cleaning; outside windows. Mr Ayers submitted that the Labour Department, in bringing this test case, had “put the cart before . the horse.” The proper ’.course, he said, should be to ensure that safety anchors were installed in buildings.

Window cleaners were placed in an invidious position of having to maintain standards which they were not able to do until the owners or occupiers of buildings, who contracted the window cleaners, carried out their “level of responsibilities.”