SEQUEL TO FIRE IN PREMISES USED FOR SPRAY PAINTING

Wanganui Chronicle, 21 January 1947, Page 2

SEQUEL TO FIRE IN PREMISES USED FOR SPRAY PAINTING

FIRM FINED FOR BREACH OF REGULATIONS "As this breach of the regulations resulted in injury, I must impose as substantial a penalty of the Act permits,” commented Mr. J. H. Salmon, S.M., in the Magistrate s Court, Wanganui, yesterday, after D. W. Virtue and Co., Ltd., had pleaded guilty to a charge of using a booth in a factory for spray painting, the plan and specification of this booth not having been approved in writing by the secretary of the Department of Labour. The charge was laid under the Spray Painting Regulations, 1940, ano was a sequel to a fire which occurred at the defendant company's premises in St. Hill Street in November, when two young men engaged in spray painting received burns which necessitated their removal to hospital. A fine of £5, the maximum provided under the regulations, was imposed, Court costs being 10s. Mr. H. A. Gatward, who prosecuted on behalf of the Department of Labour, said that when the offence was committed the company was engagen in manufacturing furniture and small novelty woodwork line in St. Hill Street and occupied a registered factory. In the front portion, where manufacturing was carried out, there was a small spray booth. Late tn July, the firm applied for approval or a room booth in the building for spraying motor vehicles. On August 5, Mr. Gatward added, he visited the premises and obtained sufficient data regarding this application to send on to the secretary of the Department of Labour, who was the only officer who could give approval. “I saw a spray booth and condemned it and later wrote to the company and pointed out how it must comply with the regulations,” Mr. Gatward said.

Subsequently, the firm wrote to the department stating that it proposed carrying out the necessary alterations, but nothing further was heard from the firm till November 14 when an explosion occurred and two workmen were badly burnt. An investigation showed that after one booth had been condemned spray painting was transferred to another portion ot the premises which was even more dangerous than the first. The department viewed the case seriously because the defendant company was in full facts regarding the regulations. Mr. D. G. Young submitted that certain structual alterations were being put into effect and in the meantime spray-painting operations ceased. An order was placed with a plumber for certain materials with which to comply with the regulations, but these were not available. In the meantime work was piling up and employees were idle. While the main building was being altered it was decided to carry on with certain spray painting.