Worker in NZ looses hand. Court reduces penalty based on ability to pay

In WorkSafe New Zealand v Budget Plastics (New Zealand) Limited, a portion of a worker’s hand was amputated after it was caught in the auger of a plastic extrusion machine he was operating in his employer’s workplace.  The worker faces a financial penalty that was reduced after accounting evidence showed that the company was unable to pay the fine. 

Budget Plastics pleaded guilty to the charge. This was essentially that as a PCBU it failed to ensure, so far as was reasonably practicable, the health and safety of a worker while he was at work, namely operating a plastic extrusion machine. That failure had exposed the employee to a risk of death or serious injury arising from exposure to the machine’s auger. This is an offence pursuant to sections 36(2)(a), 48(1) and 2(c) of the HSWA, punishable by a maximum penalty of a fine not exceeding $1.5M. 

As a result of its investigation, WorkSafe identified that: 

·          The extrusion machine was insufficiently guarded. 

·          The extrusion machine was not fitted with appropriately located emergency stop controls. 

·          Budget Plastics did not have adequate systems in place for identifying hazards in the workplace. 

·          Budget Plastics did not have an adequate safe operating procedure for use of the machine. 

·          Budget Plastics did not have adequate policies for training workers in the safe use of the machine. Hazard identification training was carried out on a verbal and primarily supervised practical basis. 

The sole director of Budget Plastics had little awareness of, or involvement in, health and safety issues until six weeks prior to the incident. He understood that the regulatory requirements in New Zealand and China were similar – which was incorrect. He became aware that changes in health and safety in the workplace needed to be made in early 2016, and was in the process of making those changes at the time of the incident. 

Of note was the fact that Budget Plastics had engaged a health and safety consultant a couple of months prior to the incident to conduct a health and safety assessment of the factory. The consultant noted that there was a good deal that needed to be done to get Budget Plastics operating to a compliance standard. At the time of the incident, Budget Plastics had implemented some of the suggested changes but not all.