$60K fine follows fingers amputation in meat product plant

A meat manufacturing and distribution company has been fined $60,000 after a worker had fingers amputated by the moving blade in a meat slicer.

The incident

The incident occurred on 13 December 2022, when a worker in company conducting a business in the manufacture and distribution of meat products was operating plant for this purpose including a ‘Biltong Slicer’.

This slicer operated by having meat product fed into it via conveyor belt and then sliced into smaller pieces by a spinning blade. There were two guards — one that extended over the conveyor belt at the front of the plant and another which was over the left side near the blade.

There was an interlock function on the slicer, where it would stop after the guarding on either the front or side was opened. However, the spinning blade of the slicer would take 6–10 seconds to slow down to stop moving when this occurred.

Once the worker had finished the task of operating the slicer to cut some dried meat, she went to clean the slicer by opening the front guard and placing her hand in to wipe. The blade was still moving and the worker’s hand contacted the blade, causing a laceration and fracture to her thumb, partial amputation of her index finger, and complete amputation of her middle and ring fingers.

The company had not completed a risk assessment for the slicer or implemented a written procedure in relation to its operation. After the incident, such a procedure was implemented. The slicer was also modified to ensure the blade ceased moving before guarding could be opened.

Sentencing

The company was sentenced in the Holland Park Magistrates Court for breaching section 32 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (Qld), having failed to comply with its primary health and safety duty pursuant to section 19(1).

Magistrate Cornack accepted in sentencing that the task of operating the slicer was clearly hazardous by its nature and posed an obvious risk to the health and safety of workers. Cornack accepted that because of the defendant’s failing, the worker had a serious injury that has had a significant and long-lasting impact.

Cornack indicated that a deterrent penalty was required, but that it also had to reflect all other circumstances of the offending. These circumstances included that safety was not completely neglected, as training had been provided to the worker. It was also accepted that the company was of good character and unlikely to reoffend.

A $60,000 fine was imposed. No conviction was recorded.

Image credit: iStock.com/Aree Sarak. Stock image used is for illustrative purposes only.