9.05.2018

Early Morning Shop leads to Health and Safety Nightmare

Many of us know that supermarket shopping with children can be a trying experience.  However, a trip to Lower Hutt Pak n’ Save became something of an early-morning nightmare for a father and his 10 year old son late last year.  The two were at the supermarket at opening time, 6am, and were going about their shopping when…

A well-meaning Pak n’ Save forklift operator noticed that a pallet on top of the shelving unit was overhanging the rack and thought it was unsafe.  Despite a store policy prohibiting the operation of forklifts during opening hours, the operator decided to remove the overhanging pallet, which was constituting a potential hazard.  In doing so, the operator put the forks of the forklift into the pallet.  The pallet contained 64 boxes, each containing 12 one-kilogram cartons of washing powder.  When the operator lifted the pallet to realign it, the bottom and side broke, sending boxes of washing powder down into the adjacent aisle.  Unfortunately, the boy was in the adjacent aisle and a number of those heavy boxes landed on him.  He sustained a broken leg as a result of the accident.

The supermarket was prosecuted under section 16 of the Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992 (HASIE).  The charge was that the company, being “a person who controlled a place of work, failed to take all practicable steps to ensure that no hazard that is or arises in the place harms people who are there to undertake activities that include…buying or selling goods from whose sale the person …derives any gain or reward”

It was noted that the store had a policy and practice of fencing off any aisle where a forklift/ reach truck was in operation.  However, there was no policy of fencing off the adjacent aisle.  Since the accident, such a policy has been implemented.

The company pleaded guilty to the charge, and paid voluntary reparations of $2,000 to the boy and his family.  The Court awarded a further $3,000 in reparations.  It then took a nominal starting point of $60,000 for the fine (payable to the Crown), discounted it by $20,000 to take account of mitigating factors (including the fact that the operator was acting to remove a hazard and inadvertently created a new one, procedures and codes of practice were in force, and the company had a good safety record), and discounted a further 25% for the early guilty plea.  The fine eventually reached was a relatively modest $30,000.

In our view

While HASIE is, as its name implies, chiefly focused on health and safety in employment, and many of the duties are imposed on employers to look after the safety of their employees, it is important to remember that it also applies to those in control of a place of work.  This can include the owner, lessee, sub-lessee, occupier, or person in possession of a place of work, or the plant within it.

The person in control of a place of work (whether that person is the employer or not) must take all practicable steps to ensure that no hazard harms people:

  • Who are in the vicinity of the place (including those who are there for recreation or leisure);
  • Who are lawfully at work in the place (including as customers, employees, contractors, sub-contractors or employees of contractors or subcontractors);
  • Who are there with the express or implied consent of the person in control of the workplace, and who have either:

-paid the person to be there; or
-are there to buy goods or inspect goods for sale

There are also duties to warn other people who may be in a workplace of any significant, unexpected, hazard that may arise from work being carried out there.

Health and safety in retail has not had the spotlight on it yet.  However, retail stores/areas are complex multiple hazard workplaces, often with high (and sometimes overstocked) shelves, electrical components, slipping hazards, falling objects and dangers posed by customers to themselves, to staff, and to other customers.  Eliminating and regulating these hazards will always need to be considered in the context of the particular workplace.  There is no “one size fits” all and company policy-makers need to be cognisant of that.

If you have any questions about whether you are a person in control of a place of work, and if so, your obligations to those who may be in the workplace or its vicinity, please give us a call on (09) 375 8699 to talk through your situation or email us at employmentnews@heskethhenry.co.nz.

Do you need expert legal advice?
Contact the expert team at Hesketh Henry.
Kerry_100x100 1
Media contact - Kerry Browne
Please contact Kerry with any media enquiries and with any questions related to marketing or sponsorships on +64 9 375 8747 or via email.

Related Articles / Insights & Opinion

Bereavement Leave Confirmed for Miscarriages and Stillbirths 
New Zealand has become the second country in the world to pass legislation that provides bereavement leave for mothers and their partners after a miscarriage or stillbirth.
26.03.2021 Posted in Business Advice & Employment Law
Court of Appeal Overturns Employment Court’s Decision in Tourism Holdings
Tourism Holdings Limited v A Labour Inspector of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (Tourism Holdings) is the first decision in which the Employment Court considered section 8(2) of the Holidays Act 2003 (Act). The Court of Appeal has recently overturned this decision.
26.03.2021 Posted in Business Advice & Employment Law
Guarantees must be in writing and signed to be enforceable
For a guarantee to be enforceable, the requirements set out in section 27 of the Property Law Act 2007 (Act) must be strictly complied with.  This is what the NZSC held in Brougham v Regan. The key i...
19.03.2021 Posted in Business Advice
UK Supreme Court Delivers Decision on Uber Driver Employment Status
The distinction between employee and independent contractor can be complex, particularly where the nature of the business model blurs the lines of standard employment practices.
16.03.2021 Posted in Business Advice & Employment Law
Holidays Act Overhaul – Taskforce Recommendations
There have been calls for an amendment of the Holidays Act 2003 (Act) for some time.
16.03.2021 Posted in Business Advice & Employment Law
Unwanted Land Covenants and Easements: Seeking a Court Order
The Supreme Court recently considered an application by Synlait Milk to modify a land covenant restricting the burdened land use to farming, grazing and forestry operation to protect the ability of the benefited land owner to develop a quarry.  This article looks at the circumstances in which the courts might give relief to parties in an application to extinguish or modify a covenant or easement.
15.03.2021 Posted in Property Law
New ICC Arbitration Rules 2021 come into force
The revised International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) Arbitration Rules for 2021 (2021 Rules) have now come into force and apply to all ICC arbitrations begun after 1 January 2021.  While the new Rules...
10.03.2021 Posted in Litigation & Dispute Resolution
Send us an enquiry
For expert legal advice, please complete the form below or call us on (09) 375 8700.
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
-->