PROTECTION FOR WORKERS

Manawatu Times, Volume XLIX, Issue 3308, 30 March 1926, Page 9

PROTECTION FOR WORKERS

MACHINE THAT WASN’T INSPECTED. CAUSE OF SERIOUS ACCIDENT. [Per Press Association.] NELSON, Last Night A case of interest to contractors and others was heard before Mr. T. E. Maunsell, SiM., to-day, When the Inspector of Machinery proceeded against W. H. Williamson, contractor, for using machinery for Which a certificate had not been issued. The case arose out of an accident to an employee at the new hospital, whereby the victim lost two or three fingers, and in consequence of a subsequent inspection of the plant made by the Inspector, it was found rio license had been issued for that particular machine.

Defendant pleaded guilty and explained that through an oversight, no license had been obtained. Since the accident, the plant had been dismantled. There had been no intention to evade the Ac.t

The inspector said there was not a guard over the machine. If the De. partment had been notified when it was erected, the use of the machine would have been prohibited until it was made safe. If the machinery had been inspected, the accident would probably not have happened, or it would not have been such a serious

The Magistrate was afraid ho would have to look upon the offence as a serious one. He thought it should be generally known by contractors and others who use machinery, that it had to be inspected by the Department. The object was to see It was safe for workmen. The maximum penalty was £IOO.

The inspector had stated the accident would not have happened if the law had been complied with. He must also take into account that the penalty must bo a substantial one, as warning to other tradesmen. A fine of £lO would be Imposed, with costs £2 3s.