OSHA debuts with 11 charges against NH and others

The accident which occurred at the Richmond Street Customs and Excise building site left over 20 persons injured and one amputee.

The charges were laid earlier this month at the Industrial Court after a report on the accident was prepared following lengthy investigation by Industrial Safety Officer and Inspector, Jeffrey Millington, who is attached to the Labour Ministry.

Millington was led in court by attorney Douglas Mendes SC.

Within a week of last year’s accident the State-owned Urban Development Company of Trinidad and Tobago (Udecott) began investigations through a US-based scaffolding firm despite NH International executive chairman Emile Elias’s assurances that all safety standards were met.

The firm’s report indicated that the NH site was found to be in breach of Sections 6 (1) and (2), 7 (1) and 13 (1) of the amended Occupational Safety and Health Act (2004).

These sections include references to the fact that, “It shall be the duty of every employer to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the safety, health and welfare at work of all his employees.” The report highlighted that the scaffolding may have been improperly built and may have been overloaded, eventually leading to the collapse.

The two other companies charged in connection with the accident are Safeway Access and Support Systems Limited (SASSL) who erected the scaffold and Turner Alpha Limited.

January 13 marked the deadline date for charges to be laid as Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Geoffrey Henderson told Newsday that the new OSHA Act allows only a six-month period within which such charges can be laid following a breach.

Henderson explained, “These charges were laid in the industrial court. My office provided advice on the framing of the charges to the Ministry of Labour.”

NH faces four of these charges while SASSL, will face six and project supervisors Turner Alpha Limited, will face a single charge. If the charges are upheld in court the firms face as much as $1.1M in fines as each carries a fine of $100,000.

Speaking to Newsday yesterday Labour Minister Danny Montano indicated that the delay in preparation of the final report was due to delays in accessing information from various sources, including a Works and Transport Ministry report which was completed only in November. The Act allows for a two-year period within which prosecution can take place.

On February 6 the companies are to re-appear in the Industrial Court.

BREACHED:

Occupational Safety and Health Act (2004) (as amended)

Section 6: (1) It shall be the duty of every employer to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the safety, health and welfare at work of all his employees.

(2) Without prejudice to the generality of an employer’s duty under subsection (1), the matters to which that duty extends include in particular —

(a) the provision and maintenance of plant and systems of work that are, so far as is reasonably practicable, safe and without risks to health;

(b) arrangements for ensuring, so far as is reasonably practicable, safety and absence of risks to health in connection with the use, handling, storage and transport of equipment, machinery, articles and substances;

(c) the provision of adequate and suitable protective clothing or devices of an approved standard to employees who in the course of employment are likely to be exposed to the risk of head, eye, ear, hand or foot injury, injury from air contaminant or any other bodily injury and the provision of adequate instructions in the use of such protective clothing or devices;

(d) the provisions of such information, instruction, training and supervision as is necessary to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the safety and health at work of his employees;

(e) so far as is reasonably practicable as regards any place of work under the employer’s control, the maintenance of it in a condition that is safe and without risks to health and the provision and maintenance of means of access to and egress from it that are safe and without such risks;

(f) the provision and maintenance of a working environment for his employees that is, so far as is reasonably practicable, safe, without risks to health, and adequate as regards amenities and arrangements for their welfare at work.

and

(g) compliance with sections 7, 12, 37, 46, 75 and 76, Parts III and IX and such other duties as may be imposed on him by regulations made under this Act.

Section 7 (1): It shall be the duty of every employer to conduct his undertaking in such a way as to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that persons not in his employment, who may be affected thereby are not thereby exposed to risks to their safety or health.

Section 13 (1)

13. (1) A person who designs, manufactures, imports or supplies any technology, machinery, plant, equipment or material for use in any industrial establishment shall—

(a) ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that the technology, machinery, plant, equipment or material is safe and without risks to health when properly used;

(b) take such steps as are necessary to ensure that there will be available in connection with the use of technology, machinery, plant, equipment or material, adequate information about the use for which it was designed and tested and about any conditions necessary to ensure that it will be safe and without risks to health or the environment when properly used.