Slaughterhouse pays $55K over injury

Last updated 16:37 23/01/2014

Relevant offers

Better Business

Kiwi fashion designer Andrea Moore's new clothing line to be sold in Farmers YHA New Zealand hostels roll out $2.7m solar network South Canterbury couple get $27,000 compensation for unjustifiable dismissal Would your mum approve of your after-work behaviour? Susan Hornsby-Geluk: Workplace drug testing is not black and white The meaning of Starbucks' new employee dress code Better business performance means measuring what really matters Kiwis thought to be less likely to help themselves at self-service checkouts Tauranga buildings take on two different ways of working Business owners to be offered Air NZ Airpoints for property lease transactions

Normally it is animals that face the chop in slaughterhouses, but one worker found his finger on the chopping block.

A man was collecting blood from slaughtered animals at meat processor Riverlands Eltham in Taranaki when his finger became caught in a conveyor belt.

He lost the end of his right index finger, and Riverlands has been ordered to pay him $12,500 in reparations.

The company was convicted in the New Plymouth District Court last December 5 on a charge of failing to take all practicable steps to ensure the safety of the employee while at work.

As well as the reparations, it was fined $42,500.

In convicting the company, Judge Max Courtney said that notwithstanding the victim's action in putting his hand on the conveyor, the company did not take all practicable steps to protect him by ensuring the machine was guarded, that it had a start warning system and that it had an emergency stop button in an accessible position.

Worksafe New Zealand chief inspector Keith Stewart said the worker had been unnecessarily injured because Riverlands lacked sufficient safety protocols.

"It is notable that on the day of the accident the company installed a guard on the machine," he said. "It was too little too late for the worker.

"Relying on the old adage 'it has not happened before' as a justification for not taking foreseeable safety steps is proven by this case to be bad safety and business judgment."

Ad Feedback

- Fairfax Media

Special offers

Featured Promotions

Sponsored Content