15.01.2015 Views

Prosecutions 2005 (PDF 3269kb) - WorkSafe Victoria

Prosecutions 2005 (PDF 3269kb) - WorkSafe Victoria

Prosecutions 2005 (PDF 3269kb) - WorkSafe Victoria

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

HEALTH AND SAFETY PROSECUTIONS<br />

SANIKLEEN PTY LTD<br />

Date of offence: 12 May 2004<br />

Date of prosecution:<br />

Magistrate:<br />

Plea:<br />

15 September <strong>2005</strong> at Seymour Magistrates’ Court<br />

His Honour Magistrate Hassard<br />

Guilty<br />

On or about 10 May 2004, Ralph’s Meat Company Pty Ltd entered into a cleaning contract with<br />

Sanikleen Pty Ltd, food industry cleaning specialists, for the provision of a total hygiene service<br />

and the cleaning of the kill floor, the boning room, the offal room and entrances. Sanikleen Pty Ltd<br />

provided Ralph’s Meats Company Pty Ltd with a copy of their cleaning procedure.<br />

Sanikleen Pty Ltd employed a project manager and supervisor of the cleaning staff and was<br />

responsible for providing induction to new employees.<br />

On 12 May 2004, a 19 year old casual employee of Sanikleen Pty Ltd, on his first day at work, was<br />

cleaning the underside frames of a conveyor belt whilst it was in motion. The employee became<br />

entangled in the unguarded conveyor belt and sustained a de-gloving injury to his right arm.<br />

An investigation by <strong>WorkSafe</strong> investigators following the incident found: there were no operating<br />

controls or emergency stop controls in the vicinity of the conveyor belt; there was no guarding<br />

to prevent bodily contact with the dangerous parts of the conveyor belt; there were inadequate<br />

cleaning procedures – in particular, the procedure required the conveyor belt to be running while<br />

the employees cleaned the area immediately around it; there was no isolation lock out procedure<br />

in place when undertaking cleaning of plant; there was inadequate information, instruction,<br />

supervision and training provided to the cleaners; and there was no hazard identification risk<br />

assessment undertaken prior to the incident.<br />

Breach: Sections 21(1) & (2)(a) and sections 21(1) & (2)(e) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 1985.<br />

Result: Convicted and fined an aggregate sum of $40,000.<br />

PROSECUTIONS <strong>2005</strong><br />

69

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!