machine guarding – Page 5 – SafetyAtWorkBlog

The cost of doing nothing

It is always an option to do nothing. The status quo can be very attractive but if one chooses to not control a workplace hazard that one is aware of then the penalty must be accepted and the responsibility accepted.

WorkSafe Victoria has provided details (not yet online) of a case where a director of a food manufacturing company did not act on a workplace hazard and that hazard resulted in

“…the worker’s middle three fingers …removed to the knuckle; and he suffered damaged nerves, constant pain, and restricted movement of his thumb.”

The sole director of the company, Dino Fabbris, was fined $A25,000 for

“…his failure to arrange for the shredder to be guarded – despite working on the factory floor on a daily basis and taking managerial responsibility for the company’s two factories.” Continue reading “The cost of doing nothing”

Tractor death – ROPS but no seatbelt

WorkSafe Victoria reported investigations into a tractor-related death near Yackandandah that occurred on 28 February 2010. The media release (not yet available online) says:

“WorkSafe Victoria is investigating the death of a man who died when a tractor he was driving tipped over in north-east Victoria yesterday. The man, aged in his 20s, had been moving bee hives….. He was the second Victorian to die at work since Friday and the second in two weeks to die in a tractor-related incident.”

WorkSafe advised SafetyAtWorkBlog that the tractor had a roll-over protective structure but no seatbelt.

Kevin Jones

Midland Bricks fined $70k for a ripped-off arm

WorkSafe WA has released a statement detailing the prosecution of Midland Bricks over a worker had his right arm and shoulder torn from his body by a machine in 2006.

Midland Bricks was fined $A70,000 over the incident.

The factors involved in this incident include the following familiar issues:

pinch points
machine guarding
interlocks
emergency stop buttons
supervision
documentation. Continue reading “Midland Bricks fined $70k for a ripped-off arm”

No guard = hand injuries + $50k penalty

Machine guarding is one of the most effective and longstanding control measures for occupational hazards. Sometimes safety people even get excited about them. Equally safety people, regulators and magistrates, get angry when the guards are left off.

One company in South Australia on 1 February 2010 received two penalties for similar hand injuries that occurred only days apart in 2007. Continue reading “No guard = hand injuries + $50k penalty”

Compliance campaigns not toothless

Regularly Australian OHS authorities announce campaigns in certain regions or for certain industries. To some extent these campaigns are about raising awareness of OHS issues but the fieldwork by inspectors does have some real benefit for some employers and workers.

Often these campaigns result in scores of improvement notices being issued. Safety improvements are a major part of this inspectorate activity so, to some extent, the more notices, the better. But notices aren’t advisories, they are directions that require action. Continue reading “Compliance campaigns not toothless”

Australia’s Comcare issues safety alert on quad bikes

On 22 January 2010 Comcare issued a safety alert concerning the use of quad bikes (available on the Comcare website from 25 January 2010):

“Employers who own and operate quad bikes should be aware of the hazards and potential safety risks.

Following some recent accidents while operating quad bikes, a draft Code of Practice is currently being developed by the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries and Distributors [FCAI] relating to the ‘Use of All Terrain Vehicles in the Workplace’.

Heads of Workplace Safety Authorities (HWSA) has also formed a working party comprising of OHS Regulators and industry representatives to look at strategies to improve quad bike safety. Continue reading “Australia’s Comcare issues safety alert on quad bikes”

Finger amputation and arc flash burns

SafeWorkSA has issued media releases on 20 January 2010 concerning two recent decisions from the Industrial Relations Court. The first of these will a situation of bypassing a machine guard that is all too familiar to OHS professionals –

“a pair of vice grips had been attached to the finger guard at the front of the press, restricting its full range of movement and allowing access to the main moving parts during operation”.

The plant was a Hallbank 40 Tonne Front Press and the operator, Karen Carter, was unfamiliar with the machine. Prior to this hearing there was a dispute of facts hearing concerning who set up the press prior to the incident. Continue reading “Finger amputation and arc flash burns”

Category: machine guarding

The cost of doing nothing

Like this:

Tractor death – ROPS but no seatbelt

Like this:

Midland Bricks fined $70k for a ripped-off arm

Like this:

No guard = hand injuries + $50k penalty

Like this:

Compliance campaigns not toothless

Like this:

Australia’s Comcare issues safety alert on quad bikes

Like this:

Finger amputation and arc flash burns

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this: