ProManSys - Progressive Management Systems

ProManSys - Progressive Management Systems updated their website address.

If you need compliant guarding.. get advice before you jump in

2017
Help Centre
1300 365 255
Boland v C J & Sons Amusements Pty Ltd and Jenny-Lee Sullivan
13/07/2017 C J & Sons Amusements Pty Ltd and Jenny-Lee Sullivan (ACN 157 759 290): were convicted after the first and second defendant pleads guilty to breaches: s19(2), 27, 32 and 42(1) Work Health and Safety Act 2012 (SA). The charge relates to an incident on 14 September 2014 when a child was flung from an amusement ride, owned and operated by C J & Sons Amusements Pty Ltd.
The first defendant failed to:
Provide and maintain, so far as was reasonably practicable, plant in safe condition, in that it failed to ensure that Ms Leong's restraint harness eliminated or minimised the risk of death or serious injury resulting from being ejected from the device during its operation.
Ensure, so far as was reasonably practicable, the provision of and maintenance of safe systems of work to eliminate or minimise the risk to Ms Leong of death or serious injury from being ejected from the device while it was in operation.
Register the devices design in accordance with the Work Health and Safety Regulations 2012.
The second defendant failed to:
exercise due diligence to ensure that the first defendant complied with its health and safety duty.
exercise due diligence to ensure that the first defendant complied with its duty under section 42(1) of the Act.
Given the inability to pay, Magistrate Ardlie proceeded under the provisions of s13 of the Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988 which in part state:
"The court must not make an order requiring a defendant to pay a pecuniary sum (other than a Victim of Crime levy) if the court is satisified that the means of the defendant, so far as they are known to the court, are such that - the defendant would be unable to comply with the order".
The penalties imposed if the defendants were in a position to pay are as follows:
Count 1 (first defendant) $120,000 (the maximum sitting as an Industrial Magistrate is $300,000) reduced by 30% resulting in a fine of $84,000.
Count 2 (first defendant) $15,000 reduced by 30% resulting in a fine of $10,500.
Count 6 (second defendant) $85,000 reduced by 40% resulting in a fine of $3,500.
Count 7 (second defendant) $5,000 reduced by 30% resulting in a fine of $3,500.
Compensation of the maximum amount of $20,000 would have been awarded.
Charges were withdrawn against the third defendant, Clinton Watkins.

https://www.worksafe.qld.gov.au/news/newsletter/esafe-newsletters/esafe-editions/esafe/october-2016/legal-lessons/octopus-ride-operator-fined-after-passenger-injured?utm_source=enews&utm_medium=email&utm_content=octopus+ride+operator+fined+title+link&utm_campaign=esafeoct16

Metal fabrication company fined after student partially blinded

http://www.industrysearch.com.au/metal-fabrication-company-fined-after-student-partially-blinded/f/18937?utm_medium=Editorial%20Articles&utm_source=IS%20NewsWire&utm_campaign=NewsWire

industrysearch.com.au A Hunter Valley metal fabrication business has been fined $240,000 on appeal after a 15 year old work experience student suffered partial blindness from welding without eye protection.

When you think of the word “pinch”, would you automatically think of it as something that could cause a disabling injury to your hands, toes, or body? At work, pinch points are those situations where machines, hand tools and conditions put your hands, feet and sometimes your entire body in danger. An injury can come from something as small as a pair of pliers or as large as a conveyor. Most tools and or equipment have pinch points.

Did you know hand injuries alone account for more than one third of the millions of disabling on the job accidents occurring each year? Most of these hand injuries are caused by pinch points – 80% of them in fact.

Try this exercise:
Step 1 - Tuck your thumbs into the palms of your hands.
Step 2 – Now tie your shoes.
It is not so easy – is it?
Need assistance in checking your machinery meets the legal requirements??

Lots of new jobs done
Railway bogies change over process
Timber pack auto saw
Food processing
CE approvals
CodeMark approval upgrades
ProManSys updates and enhancements
Next up
Amusement ride safety control system validation
Ship loader safety control system validation
X Ray food processing safety control system validation

Need assistance on making sure your guarding is safe and compliant - give me a call !!!

A major pet food manufacturer has been fined $15,000 after a worker was injured in a guarding related incident—the latest in a series of guarding failures.

A conviction was recorded over the incident, in which a worker's right arm was caught in the paddle blades of a dry chemical mixer that had a lid but no interlocking mechanism.

In this case, heard in the Beenleigh Magistrates Court late last year, the magistrate noted it was the third prosecution over guarding incidents for the pet food company. The company has since transferred to new owners and new equipment had been installed.

Elsewhere, a company was fined $35,000 after a 19 year old worker was able to lift a guard cover of a sheet metal mesa machine's roller. His hand was dragged into the roller with the sheet metal and severely lacerated.

An investigation found the guarding of the machine around the set of rollers was inadequate as it could be opened without a special tool. The worker was inexperienced and had no formal training, but had received hands-on training and been shown practical demonstrations. He was supervised immediately before the incident, but the supervisor had left him alone.

The defendant spent approximately $16,000 to install interlock devices on the guarding and three emergency stops, immediately following the incident, and pledged another $90,000 to further upgrade the machine.

In a third case, a company was fined $2000 for having a brake press that was inadequately guarded. A worker's thumbs were crushed when he operated the machine with a foot pedal while his thumbs were under the guard, holding the metal being pressed.

Installing interlocked guards will prevent access to moving machinery parts during operation. The interlock prevents the machine from operating unless the guard is in the correct position so that no part of the worker can come into contact with dangerous moving parts. The guard's required safety integrity level depends on the seriousness of potential injuries if the guard fails.

As well as having effective guarding in place, safe work processes should be developed, and appropriate training provided for staff to perform their job safely.

Is your guarding like this? Assistance needed in a risk assessment and correct guarding configuration call ProManSys on 0418 195348 to discuss

ProManSys - Progressive Management Systems's cover photo

New updated web site now mobile friendly and new pages
promansys.com.au

Machine Guarding AS4024 Risk Assessments and Guarding Recommendations

Updated pages
http://www.promansys.com.au/product-certification.html

promansys.com.au Assistance in gaining Product Certification for your product or machinery /plant can be arranged.

http://www.safetowork.com.au/news/sa-company-fined-after-employee-s-arm-crushed-in-m?cid=003D000001Lrmx9IAB&utm_source=Cirrus+Media+Newsletters&utm_campaign=20867f1006-Industrial+and+Safety+Bulletin+-+20140422152652&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_fe913f1856-20867f1006-58954169

Happy 2014 let's make it a Great Year!!

New ProManSys stocktake scanning system uploading released - reduces site time from days to a matter minutes to get a stock quantity and valuation!!

RF tech upgrade successful - they were the 2nd installation so long ago!!

new scaning system going into phase 2