News

Recycling company fined after 15-year-old’s toes crushed in baling machine

RECYCLA-Plas has been fined $50,000 over an incident which resulted in the amputation of two of a 15-year-old employee’s toes.

The recycling company was found guilty of failing to provide a safe workplace, and by that failure, causing serious harm to a worker.

The incident occurred in September 2006, when an employee was using a baling machine which uses a slow-moving hydraulic ram to compress plastic product.

The machine had three doors – an input door, a side door and an output door.  When the input door was open the hydraulic ram could not operate, but the ram could still operate to eject bales when the output door was open.

The side door could be opened to allow the compressed bales to be strapped, and the hydraulic ram could move in either direction when this door was open.

Once a bale was strapped, the side door could not be fully closed until the bale was ejected through the output door.

The employees had been instructed to close the side door as far as possible after strapping the bale, and once the bale was ejected, to close the door fully before retracting the ram.

The employee who was injured was standing by the side door while the ram was retracted. The side door had not been closed.

As the ram retracted past the side door, the man’s right foot was crushed between the edge of the baler box and the ram.

Two of the man’s middle toes were crushed and had to be surgically amputated.

According to WorkSafe WA, anyone in control of a workplace with machinery with hazardous moving parts need to ensure adequate machine guards are in place. 

Add a comment

Add a comment Comments

  • To start off with, the legal requirement is contained in Regulation 4.37 1(f) which requires all dangerous parts of machinery to be guarded or fenced SO FAR AS PRACTICABLE. So WorkSafe WA have made the determination that it was practicable. Rather than just accepting these media releases, the media should be asking questions, such as: 1. Before the incident, had WorkSafe ever visited the premises, and told them that they needed to fit the additional interlock switch ? 2. If NO, why did WorkSafe feel it was necessary to prosecute? 3. Was the machine designed and manufactured without the 3rd switch ? 4. Why wasn't action taken against the machine manufacturer? 5. How was the company (a small business) meant to find out that the additional switch was needed - was there ANY information available on WorkSafe's website prior to the incident ? 6. If NO - how are small businesses meant to obtain this information. I'm told by WorkSafe Inspectors that they need to demonstrate their ability to achieve successful prosecutions to obtain a promotion - is this true ?

    Perth OSH Professional | 7 June 2010 at 8:36

  • Thank you very much.

    Your comment has been submitted.

    Required

    Please enter your name.

    Required, but never displayed.

    Please enter a valid email address.

    Optional, and linked if provided.

    Required and you can write upto 600 words for your comment.

    Please enter your comment and limit it to 600 words.

    Required

    Please enter the code shown on the right.
    Check this box to receive the latest updates in our email newsletter.
    to get Safe To Work
    delivered to your inbox
    International bills to pay? Sign up now!