Health and safety at work — machinery — training — risk of injury — breach of duty — Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 ss, 36, 39, 48, 49, 151 & 152 — Department of Labour v Hanham & Philip Contractors Ltd 6 NZELR 79 (HC) — Stumpmaster v Worksafe [2018] NZHC 2020 — East by West Company Limited v Maritime New Zealand [2020] NZHC 1912 — Worksafe New Zealand v Tasman Tanning Co Ltd [2017] NZDC 24398 — MBIE v KLS Roofing Ltd [2014] NZDC 9 — WorkSafe New Zealand v Alderson Poultry Transport Ltd [2018] NZDC 25090 — WorkSafe New Zealand v AsureQuality Limited and OneStaff (Queenstown/Invercargill) Limited [2020] NZDC 23107 — Moses v R [2020] NZCA 295 The defendant company faced sentencing on a charge of failing to ensure health and safety in the workplace. The defendant was a stevedoring company that was hired to load a cargo of logs into a vessel's cargo using an excavator. The excavator was meant to be transported by being lifted with chains to another point in the cargo, but at the time of the maneuver the excavator fell from the chains and into the water. The excavator was later salvaged. The Judge examined the defendant's conduct. The defendant failed to provide documentation that would certify the installations of the lifting lugs which were used to connect the excavator to the chains. The staff were insufficiently trained as they had only briefly observed attachments to the excavator, and they were not trained in the requirements of the standard operating procedure (SOP). Therefore there was no compliance. The SOP outlined the steps to be taken by stevedores when lifting heavy machinery, and was developed and checked internally only by the defendants' employees, none of whom were qualified engineers. There was a lack of employee medical examination, as stevedores' hearing and eyesight were meant to be checked every three years. These actions were determined as breaches of the Act. The Judge took into account that there was an inherent risk of injury or death, but it was reduced due to the exclusion zone in the SOP. There had also been a previous charge against the defendant for a similar incident. The Judge determined that the defendant's failures were in the medium band of culpability, with a starting point of $120,000. An aggravating factor was the previous similar offending which resulted in a 10 per cent uplift of the fine. The mitigating factors were the guilty plea that entitled the defendant to a 25 per cent discount. For the defendant's remorse and co-operation there was another 10 per cent discount. The final monetary cost to the defendant was $110,000. Judgment Date: 1 March 2022.