$2000 fine for breach of Machinery Act

Press, 25 July 1985, Page 7

$2000 fine for breach of Machinery Act

A fine of $2OOO was imposed in the District Court yesterday on Repco Corporation (N.Z.), Ltd, for an offence arising from an accident in which an employee lost three fingers when working with a 60-tonne press. z The company had been found guilty, after a defended hearing earlier this month, of two breaches of the Machinery Act, on July 30 last year. Judge Hattaway had then adjourned the case to yesterday for the fixing of penalties for the offences. He imposed the fine of $2OOO on a charge that the company failed to ensure that an employee, Kelvin Love, aged 21, when working with a 60-tonne C frame punch and forming press was adequately supervised by an experienced person. Half the fine was directed to be paid to Mr Love. The Judge accepted submissions by defence counsel (Mr D. J. R. Holderness) in discharging the company without conviction on the other breach, of failing to fully fence a dangerous part of the machine, the tool and die. The discharge was on payment of $2OO towards the cost of prosecution. Mr B. M. Stanaway prosecuted on behalf of the Labour Department. Evidence or submissions

at the hearing were that the machine’s dangerous parts had been guarded until “tampered with.” The company had a previously unblemished record and had co-operated with the Inspector of Factories in the inquiry into the accident. After hearing submissions by both counsel yesterday, the Judge said Mr Love suffered a very serious injury but to some extent it was his own fault. It was very difficult to accept that a person of his age should not have been aware that the guard was placed on the machine for his protection. However, the company had an obligation to guard and supervise its workers and it had fallen short of the standard required in this instance. If supervision had been rigidly enforced the accident might not have happened. The Judge said he took into account that the company had had reduced staff through illness at the time, and that the failure to fence the machine securely had no relationship to the accident.