Prosecutions 2005 (PDF 3269kb) - WorkSafe Victoria
Prosecutions 2005 (PDF 3269kb) - WorkSafe Victoria
Prosecutions 2005 (PDF 3269kb) - WorkSafe Victoria
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