Work practice fines ‘pathetic’

Press, 28 December 1988, Page 2

Work practice fines ‘pathetic’

p A Wellington Taking legal action against construction firms for sloppy or potentially dangerous work practices on high-rise building sites is often not worth while for the Labour Department, a spokesman says.

The construction advisory inspector, Mr John Neish, said yesterday fines were often “pathetic” and did little to change the habits of offending companies looking to cut corners and save costs.

He cited a Wellington case of a firm that failed to provide guard rails and had workers risking a high fall. The department took legal action and the fine was a mere $3OO plus court costs.

“Some firms are not going to spend $5OO on guard rails if they know it will only cost them $3OO if they get taken to court. When the mighty dollar talks, there are a lot of chances taken at times.”

Mr Neish said penalties were also often inconsistent. In a similar case in Auckland, a judge imposed a fine of $l5OO plus costs. The maximum penalty for offences under the Construction Act was

$5OOO, but usually fines were under $lOOO. There have been about 39 complaints to the end of November involving possible hazards to the public compared with 43 for the whole of last year. In 1986, there were 28. Mr Neish said where possible problems were rectified out of court, but in serious cases, cases involving injury or where a company persisted in flouting regulations, the matter was taken to court.

This year three Wellington complaints resulted in court action while another, involving bales of unsecured insulation material blowing from a lifting cage, would probably be decided in court in February. Complaints made this year include a window, a 44-gallon drum, a nail, an aluminium window moulding and a ladder among objects which fell from building sites on to public accessways.

Mr Neish said the last member of the public injured was more than 12 months ago when a person was hit on the head by a piece of steel. Passers-by had been “very lucky” to escape injury. He believed the number of reported problems had declined slightly since a safety campaign in October and a similar campaign was planned for early in the new year. A site safety campaign was also planned that would focus on the importance of construction workers wearing hard hats, adequate protective footwear and ear muffs.

Only a small percentage of workers were complying on some sites. Subcontractors and smaller construction firms were often the worst offenders. Mr Neish said to help curb the problem some big firms were now insisting that others working on site took adequate precautions.