BALLANTYNE’S DISLIKED AUTOMATIC FIRE ALARM

Grey River Argus, 17 April 1948, Page 5

BALLANTYNE’S DISLIKED AUTOMATIC FIRE ALARM

Managing Director Examined at Inquiry

P.A. CHRISTCHURCH, April 16. Mr T. P. Cleary, of Wellington, chief counsel for J. J. Ballantyne and Coy., opened his submissions tOK day to tne Royal commission. “We share the view expressed by counsel for the Crown, that this fire will have heen doubly tragic if tne lessons learned from it cannot boemployed to advantage in the future,” he said. He pointed to the danger of judging the position on the day of the tire in the light of the fuller knowledge which had become available as a result of the inquiry. ‘‘Seldom can occurrences of a few minutes have given rise to such a detailed investigation as we have had here,” he said. “It becomes so easy and tempting for those outside the commission to be wise after the event.”

Much higher standards of care or duties should be attributed to Ballantyne and Company than those recognised by the commercial community, said Mr Cleary. The responsibility or making regulations for the protection of life in fires was vested in certain authorities. None cf the existing provisions had been disregarded by Ballantynes.

Start of Fire

The evidence before the inquiry did not justify the view that the fire had manifested itself before 3.4(1 p.m. Not a great deal of weight could be attached to estimates of times by witnesses unless they could be related to specific events. He also submitted that the smoke was not seen before 3.40 p.m.. in the carpel and lino department. Prompt steps were then taken through the telephone operator to obtain the fire brigade and the first senior member of the firm to arrive at the fire was informed of this.

Safguards for Staff

There was no staff drill for the evacuation of premises, but in what establishment in the country was there such drill? asked Mr Cleary. Ballantynes should not be subjected to adverse criticism because they had not maintained staff fire drill and evacuation, as in th P E.P.S. Whether proper steps had been taken to safeguard the staff depended on the knowledge of the extent of the denger, said Mr Cleary. No warning for evacuation had been given by the fire brigade. This did not absolve the management, but the fact that there was no warning showed lack of appreciation of the danger and the commission should be slow to attribute to Ballantynes less appreciation of the danger than the fire brigade. No member of the staff died through ignorance of the presence of fire, said Mr Cleary, and they had this knowledge when egress was still possible. Real efforts were made to secure the gaiety of the staff by one or other of the two managing directors in the light of the knowledge that they possessed, said Mr Cleary. The history and expansion of the company was explained by Ronald Haynes Ballantyne, joint managing director of the firm. When asked by Mr Cleary about building permits, he said that the firm had nevei' concerned itself with permits or alterations, which were dealt with by the builder or the architect. Before tne fire it had not occurred to him that the openings made in the buildings when the firm expanded were a fire risk. That matter had not been discussed bv the board of directors. Explaining the lire precautions, Ballantyne said that the buildings were never unattended. Two nightwatchmen were employed, and one was on duty all night. In addition, there was a chief custodian, whose duty it was to take over from the nightwatchmen in the morning, and to hand over to them in the evening. The custodian,- night and morning, made an inspection of the buildings. Smoking was prohibited throughout the buildings, except in the cafeteria, and the use of wax matches and of cigarette lighters that were released by springs, was not allowed. He said that an automatic fire alarm system was disconnected in 1925, because there were numerous false alarms, and because the firm disliked the method of testing by an onen flame. A fire brigade officer checked fire extinguishers in the buildings at six-monthly intervals. When asked by the City Council or fire brigade to instal the hand hose in the tearooms, 'the firm had done so. Apart from that request, no suggestion or request for the installation of fire-fighting equipment had been made.

He did not know of any inspection of fire escapes by the fire brigade or other authority. To Mr B. A. Barrel’ (for the three unions) Ballantyne said that, he did not recollect a visit in March or April, 1945, by Mr F. Gilmour, advisory engineer to the Council of Underwriters, who pointed out that the buildings were a bad fire risk, and recommended ' the installation of a sprinkler system. Questioned by Mr Barrer on the installation of the main cable, he said that, as far as he knew, the firm was not advised by the underwriters against putting the cable in the cellar.

Witness told Mr J. D. Hutchison (for the Fire Board) that before the war the staff of the firm had lectures by fire brigade officers, and assistance in deciding the site for fire extinguishers. There had been more assistance from the brigade before the war than since. Mr W. R. Lascelles (for the City Council) Has your board ever considered systematic evacuation? —No, only during the war. You will appreciate that, as employers. responsibility fell on your shoulders? —Yes. Mr Ballantyne agreed that the buildings presented a somewhat special problem for fire prevention, but he added that such a fire had never been contemplated. There was a plan for first-aid fire-fighting, but it was not comprehensive. The person nearest the appliance was expected to use it. To Mr R. Twyneham (for fire insurance underwriters) Ballantyne said that the buildings were insured with a great many companies. The Commission adjourned until Monday.