Blog Post #640 – Young Worker Hurt by Printing Press

Blog Post #640 – Young Worker Hurt by Printing Press

Excerpt from the OH&S Canada magazine

A United States-based company was fined $60,000 on June 8, 2012, after a young worker was injured by a printing press in Stevensville, Ontario.

American Color Graphics Inc., conducting business as Vertis Communications, was fined after pleading guilty to failing to ensure that an in-running nip hazard on a printing press was equipped with a guard or other device to prevent access to a pinch point, says a statement from Ontario’s Ministry of Labour.

On August 24, 2010, workers shut down a printing press after it jammed and activated a device to prevent the machine from restarting as they tried to identify the problem. A summer student discovered a jam in the rear of the printing press and started to remove it, while the rest of the crew found a jam at the front of the machine, the statement says. Not realizing the student was on the side, the crew restarted the machine, drawing the worker’s hand in between two rollers at the rear of the printing press.

A ministry investigation found the guard of the rear of the press was not adequate to prevent injury.

 

My opinion

The law(s) in contravention:

American Color Graphics was found guilty of a contravention of section 25 of the Ontario ‘Industrial’ regulation 851/90 which states,

“An in-running nip hazard or any part of a machine, device or thing that may endanger the safety of any worker shall be equipped with and guarded by a guard or other device that prevents access to the pinch point.”

American Color Graphics was also found guilty of violating section 25, subsection 1 (c) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, (OHSA) which states,

“An employer shall ensure that,

(c) The measures and procedures prescribed are carried out in the workplace.”

Machine Guarding is a very real hazard and has its own section in all of the sector regulations because it is so important. The law is explicit and the manufacture of the machine MUST ensure that the machine guarding meets the standards.

The previous statement shows that the manufacturer, in this case, must be the employer or that changes to the equipment came from the employer and thus voided the manufacturer’s liabilities and obligations.

On a personal note, one of my customers bought a very large machine that had optional guarding. The manufacturer relayed the message that they would come up to the worksite and attach two guard plates for $500.00 each. (This was after my customer spent $112,500 on the machine) I gave the manufacturer an alternative; I said that they can come up to the site and put two plates on for nothing and help us in filing a report to the Ministry of Labour letting them know that they were designing and building products that failed to meet sections 24 and 25 of the OHSA. The design engineer for the manufacturer would also be charged under section 31, sub-section 2, of the OHSA which covers architects and engineers. It is safe to say the manufacturer came up the next day and attached machine plates at no cost.

The more one knows about the green book the better informed one will be to make the right compliance decision.

Remember – In Ontario, “ALL Accidents are Preventable”

HRS Group Inc. has a great team that can help you with all your health and safety needs including ‘Due Diligence’, ‘Machine Guarding’ and ‘Standard Operating Procedures’. Contact Deborah toll free at 1-877-907-7744 or locally at 705-749-1259.

We can also be reached at info@hrsgroup.com

‘Work’ and ‘Play’ safe.

Daniel L. Beal
CHSEP – Advanced Level
VP & Senior Trainer
HRS Group Inc.

Dan
Share

1 Comments

  1. Grant Coombes

    This is a really good site!