COURT OF INQUIRY.

Grey River Argus, 1 April 1922, Page 6

COURT OF INQUIRY.

RECENT SAWMILL ACCIDENTS. A Court of Inquiry into some of th recent accidents on West Co: st s:iv mills was opened at the. Magistrate' Court yesterday, before Mr \V. Me! drum, S.M. The accidents with whic the Court was concerned were those a Hari Hari, Inchbonnie, and the Stat Mine sawmills. The inquiry was he! under Section 40 of the Machincr Act. Mr W. J. Butler appeared represent ing the Sawmillers’ Association, an Mr P. McKenzie the Department. HARI HARI ACCIDENT. Peter McKenzie, Inspector of Mu chinery, stated that on December St a lad named M. Willis, who was a> sisting to drive a portable engine a the Hari Hari sawmill, was seriousl cut in the leg. Tin* cause of the acci dent w: s that the lad went on top o the boiler when the engine was idi and stopped. He intended t.o put tli belt, which had come off. back on th driving wheel. In turning the whet his foot slipped, and he fell betwee! the boiler and the flywheel. In failin' he grabbed the flywheel, making i turn, and thereby causing it to inflic a severe gash in his leg. The portabl is a 10 horse power engine, carry in; 601 b. pressure, ami requires no certi floated driver to be in charge. To Mr Butler: The boy h: <1 not lef the steam on, nor had anyone else turn ed it on. Witness had interviewed th boy in the Westland Hospital. Th usual method for putting the belt o the flywheel was with tl.e assistanc of a piece of rope, ami there shouh be no occasion to go into a positioi of risk. The boy’s duty was to fir the boiler. Witness had inspected th mill six days before the accident, who: lie was quite satisfied with the plant and issued a certificate to that (‘fleet It was quite possible for the belt t be put on without the boy going oi top of the boiler. To the Bench: Diedrichs, the ownei was driving at the time, but anyon could drive it over IS if certificated The driver was helping to put on th belt at the time, but apparently tool no exception to the boy’s action. To Mr Butler: The flywheel wa about four or five inches from th side of the boiler, and the top of th boiler, being round, practic: lly mad a wedge of the position. To the Bench: The flywheel turnin; was the sole cause of the injury. To Mr. Buller: There was nothin; defective ; bout the engine. No wit Bosses had been called from Hari Hari as he considered it unnecessary. ST AT E M I N E A CCI DEN T. Mr McKenzie stated that on Janu ary 18th a paragraph appeared in th “Argus,’’ detailing the circumstance of the State mine sawmill accident This was the first intimation he had o the accident. The report in the “Ar gus ’ ’ was incorrect, and he would cal witnesses on the point. Charles Kennedy stated he was a mil hand at the State Mine, and was put ting resin on the belt, and while In was going away from the engine, am at the back of the saw, the acciden happened. Witness had w: Iked unde the belt. The belt he was putting tin resin on was that driving the break ing down saw, but the belt whic! struck witness was that driving the to] To Mr McKenzie: He had not jump ed up on the saw framework. It wa not his habit to “jump up.’’ Therwas a passage w: y for workmen be tween the pully and the saw. He di< not know he had gone to a dangerou place. It might be called that, if on was out looking for accidents. Thdiagram (produced) showed where h was struck by the belt. The sawye had gone into the s: me position an he “missed,’’ but witness was not s lucky. To Mr Butler: He could have com back the same way as the sawyer. 1 anything contrary to what he had sab about the accident was said by late witnesses, it would be a lie. Frederick lleslin, p- rt proprietor o the State Sawmill, stated that o January 17th the mill was working a usual. Owing to the belt of the break ing down saw slipping, his partner, th saw ver, put some resin on it. lie wa not, however, satisfied with the result The sawyer went up on to the break ing-down bench. Mr Kennedy, wh was necessarily idle for the time bein<j thought he would be helping by put ting resin on : Iso. He did this anthen stood up on a beam, and his heacame in contact with the top saw be! which knocked him insensible. 1 h only wav he could come in contact witi the belt was by standing up on tie beam. Kennedy could put the resin oi while standing on the ground. So fa as he knew, he had no instruction frou himself or his partner to put the resit on the belt, as this was usually at tended to by himself or the sawyer. To the Bench: Kennedy worked al t’riiately between the mill ami th: bush. At the mill he was tailer-out The diagram (produced) showed flu position Kennedy was in when the ac cident occurred. To Mr McKenzie: Witness held : first-class driving certificate. In the in terests of the workers ami the propri etors it was : dvisable to have the ma chinerv and belting suflieienl ly guard ed. He would say that one oi tlu belts was guarded too much, and tin others fully guarded. Kennedy hat proved he had gone into a dangerou? place. He did not consider the top-sav belt required guarding. To the Bench: Witness was working at the furnt ce when the accident hap peued. At thia point Mr McKenzie endeavoured to ask witness if he hud taken any measures to contradict the report

in the “Argus,’’ hut the cross-exami-nation was disallowed by the Bench. C.corgc Miller, engineer at. the State Coal Mine, stated that he was at the mill the d-y after the accident. The mill had been shifted recently to Dunollie. II was guarded now in a similar manner to what it was previously. He considered the mill sufficiently guarded. In a small mill, too many guards overdid the matter of accident prevention. They were really a source of danger. He had 40 years’ experience with machinery. To the Bemdi: The belt which injured Kennedy was quite safe, and the accident was caused by want of thought. The belt was eight feet off the ground. There was no defec in the machinery. The accident was caused through Ken nedy taking an unusual and dangerous course. Deter McKenzie stated that when he examined the boiler last August the mill was being (‘reefed. Miller had assured him that similar guards were being put up on all the mills. On January 26th, on his return from Murchison, he visited the scene of the accident, and had no further recommendation to make. Mr Kennedy called no witnesses. INCHBONN IE ACCIDENT. Peter McKenzie stated that on February 20th he received a letter about the accident at Inchbonnie. The latter alleged neglect of the machinery by the Inspector. The Bench here reminded McKenzie that the inquiry was for the purpose of getting evidence about the accident. Proceeding, witness said on February ISth he examined the machinery of the mill :.t Inchbonnie. He detailed its arrangements. The man injured had sat on a stage on the locomotive until it arrived at a gate required to be opened. The staging he was sitting on collapsed at this point, ami the man fell under the engine and his leg was b:ally crushed. In his opinion the man jumped off, as apparently they were in the habit of doing, and. stumbling, caught hold of the edge cf the stage, [and his right foot, getting underneath put such a strain on the stage that it [gave way. An examination showed the stage had been partly gone before the accident. Four men were on the stage a few days before, working at a repair job. It was impossible, in his opinion, to see the flaw before the accident. John Thompson, engine driver at Inchbonnie Mill, said he was driving when the accident happened. The injured man, Hill, had to drop the s: ml jon tin* rails for the loco. On this dav he had filled the sand boxes. Going up the hill, more than half the sand was used. Instead of getting off, Hill remained on the stage. Just before getting to the gateway, he saw one of the sand boxes fall to the rail. Witness reversed the engine, ami pulled it up within its own length, lie found Hill on his back with his right leg caught in the cog-wheel under the engine. Witness tried to lift him, but found this impossible, and went away for help. He got men to come from the mill and they jacked up the engine and got Hill free. As far as outward appearances were concerned, he thought the platform was perfectly 1 To Mr McKenzie: He had seen the same system used elsewhere. He had been driving at Inchbonnie since Christmas. No other accident took place since he had charge of the engine. He examined the machinery twice a day. He did not notice any part of the machinery that needed attention. The manager had not :t any time refused to carry out any repairs, lie could only account for the platform giving way with the weight of on? man, when it had carried four men the day previously, that it must have been [strained by the four men jumping up and down on it. The failure to no tire any defect w; s not due to any I carelessness on his part. To the Magistrate: He could not form any opinion as to how the fireman | gut oil the engine. They generally got I off in the widest part of the road. The I engine was going slowly, and the boy could have walked ahead of it. [ At this stage Mr Turley walked to i the lawyers’ table ami stated that he wished to lodge an emphatic protest against the one-sided way in which the inquiry was being conducted. The Magistrate said he could not take an objection, as the inquiry was htdd under the Act. Mr Turley said that he wished to lodge a public protest. The Magistrate: You must not make a noise, or I will have to have you removed. Mr Turley then indignantly left the Court. John .lames Whelan, in answer to Mr .McKenzie, stated he was the engine driver in charge of the Inchbonnie mill engine. He held a first-class certificate. He saw the platform on the locomotive before the accident. He considered it safe to carry one man. The sand boxes were not removed when he assisted to patch up the smoke box. He s: w the platform after the accident. 'l‘hc cleat had carried away. There was no fracture visible when he was patching the smoke box. The loco, driver was a careful and efficient driver. He would not blame him for not noticing the slight fracture in the .8 x 'There was no rotten timber visible when the timber was in position. 'The fracture was not due to dewy. He had seen the new platform; it was safe to carry the load it was intended to carry. He could not say that the failure of the loco- driver to notice the fracture was due to any carelessness on his part. To the Magistrate: Four of them were jumping on the platform the day before the accident. To Mr Butler: The road was net rough where the accident happened.

To Mr McKenzie: The manager of the mill had carried out all the repair? he suggested when the opportunity c>. curred. Before leaving the box. the witness asked the Magistrate who was going to pay him his expenses for attending the Court. The Magistrate: Who asked you to come here? Witness: Mr McKenzie. The Magistrate: Well, 1 suppose the Inspection of Machinery Department will pay your expenses. On Air McKenzie signifying assent, witness left the box. Henry Alfred Youngman stated that the two pieces of white pine, 8 x 5, had been in use for about fifteen months and they were perfectly sound. One of the cleats had given way and let the platform down. There was an old flaw in the timber, which could not be seen until the brei’k took place. Ho should say the platform could carry a dozen men. The four men jumping on the platform probably caused the flaw to give. The strain of the man hanging on to the corner of the platform while being dragged along would probably assist the break, lie made a gen oral inspection of the machinery every Sunday morning. To Mr McKenzie: He had a rough sketch of the area of the fracture. He was willing to produce same. Here the witness produced some strips of brown paper on which he explained the area of. the fracture to the Court. To Mr Butler: It was quite possible that the platform would stand four men standing in a. certain position, and break with one man standing in another position. The reason that the broken platform was removed from the scene of the accident was that when the accident occurred he was busy getting the man to the hospital. He gave orders that the loco, be run in to the mill. When he rang up from Greymouth the following day, he found that this had not been done. There was no steam in the boiler, and a fire had to be started to get up steam. The boards were used to start the fire. He wished to contradict the statement that the safety valves on the boilers were screwed down. Mr McKenzie: That is another matter. The Magistrate: The safety valves have nothing to do with this case. The Court Orderly asked if there was anyone present who ■wished to give evidence on oath before the Court. No one being forthcoming, the Magistrate intimated that the Court’s decision ■would be given later, and the Court, was adjourned. TIMBER WORKERS’ SIDE NO OI’POKRTUNITY TO PRESENT IT. SECRETARY INTERVIEWED. In view of the fact that the Westland Timber Workers’ Union, whose members were interested in the cases investigated, did not take any direct part in yesterday’s inquiry (beyond a protest made against the nature of the enquiry, by the Union Secretary), a representative of the “Argus’’ subsequently interviewed tire Secretary. (Mr F. Turley), and asked him why his Union had not presented its side of the case?. Air Turley, after remarking that the •evening paper had prefaced its reference to the enquiry, with, extraneous matter calculated to reflect on himself, said he would be glad to explain in relation to the enquiry. “This -enquiry,’’ he said, “was with regard to the cause of three accidents which have occurred at various sawmills on the West. Coast during the last few months. The cquiry was brought about, as a matter of actual fact, through my own action, as Secretary of the Westland Timber Workers’ I nion in asking that such enquiry be held, so that my organisation would have a chance of proving that such an enquiry was necessary in the interests ot the workers. To my great surprise (as Secretary of the Union) howon Sundayevcr, I only heard and then unofficially, on Sunday last, that an enquiry would be held. I at once got to work to get hold of the Alagistrate so as to find out what form the enquiry would take; but I was unable to see him until the hour of 10,30 a.m. yesterday, when Air Aleldrum arrived

at the Court, along with the Inspector of Alachincry (Air. P. AlcKenzie) and Air Butler, sawmiller , who, it, appeared were appointed to jointly conduct the enquiry. On interviewing the Alagistrate, I was told by him that 1 owuld be able to have no say, except (if 1 were called) as a witness; and that my Organisation would have no say cither.’’ “I thought it advisable to watch the proceedings, however, and did so up to a certain stage, when I decided to lodge an objection, in open Court, to my Union’s exclusion. Our Union, should in my opinion, have had at least an opportunity to examine and crossquestion the witnesses, even if we were not allowed to call any witnesses ourselves. The most extraordinary thing about the whole enquiry, in our estimation was the fact that the Mr chinery Department called all the witnesses and they were all examined by Mr P. AlcKenzie, who acted so to say. as Counsel for the Department: but the people resopnsible or the enquiry were not allowed to examine any witnesses. To anyone with a scrap of common sense, it must at once be clear that the enquiry did not allow one side of the case to be presented at all, namely, the workers’ side. Now in the interest of Justice, I consider,

t ) that the people responsible for the enquiry being held, should be able to engage Counsel and examine witnesses and generally that all parties c» neerned are treated in the same way, and not have any difference in the facilities allowed them , for stating their side of the whole case. Surely, when our Union was prevented from examining withnesses, it would have been foolish for us to have recognised or participated in the enquiry.. I have just given you the barest facts, but they are I think, more than sufficient