There followed a round table conference with our solicitor and three WorkSafe people with a recorder. If any of you have such an experience be very, very careful what you say. The truth is dangerous when they take facts out of context.
We then heard nothing from WorkSafe for six months, the period in which they must initiate a prosecution. After this period when we thought all was well, we were told they were proceeding with prosecution. Living in the unfortunate area where three separate fatalities had occurred, we anticipated being made an example of.
We were charged with failing to take all practical steps to ensure the safety of our employee whilst at work.
A. We did not have an effective system to identify hazards.
B. We did not enforce the wearing of a helmet.
C. We did not have an effective working alone policy.
Our friend who died was an experienced all round man, 69, having farmed all his life. He was very capable in every farming aspect and careful. What list of hazards could have improved his appreciation of them?
He was a very independent man and refused to wear a helmet, although we insisted.
WorkSafe requires an employer to issue a letter threatening dismissal for not wearing a helmet. We all know the difficulties with helmets. Can WorkSafe not find a more practical compromise than upsetting good staff by threatening dismissal? WorkSafe does not understand the difficulty of replacing quality staff.
We worked mostly independently but I always knew where he was. Our cellphone coverage is intermittent but he had used it on the day.
He had a list of jobs for the day and where he was found was not on the list but was an area he had often worked in previously. We now have personal locator beacons but one of these would not have saved his life. We pleaded guilty to not wearing a helmet - nothing else.
Our experience with WorkSafe has been disappointing with many obvious facts in relation to the cause of the accident which did not assist the prosecution being overlooked including the lack of braking, lack of fuel in the petrol tank, the fact the bike was found in neutral and the serious health conditions found in the pathologist's examination in the coroner's report. The cause of the accident remains unclear.
I encourage all farming employers to examine their procedures carefully. It seems WorkSafe is more interested in what is written down than normal farming situations.
A concern is that the magistrate made such an issue of the spray unit when a fully qualified industry expert clearly tabled that we conformed with normal standards and our 4W quads are fitted with extra hydraulic braking systems.
Nowhere has WorkSafe acknowledged this.
For almost 18 months I have been involved with a group led by two very respected practical farmers to consult with WorkSafe to resolve the carrying of passengers on a 4WD quad.
An extremely important issue - taking a vet out to an injured animal etc. After all this time and considerable meetings, nothing has been done by WorkSafe to resolve this very important practical farming issue.
We have worked hard to get our farm and as safety conscious people we find it disappointing to have an organisation, particularly with the attitude of WorkSafe, dictate how we live our lives.
# John Frizzell, along with his wife Janet, is a director of Kiloran Land Company, which has a farm near Waipawa. The company was last week in the Hastings District Court fined $40,000 following the death of their stock manager Aussie Richmond Tuhou on the farm last December.
The company was also ordered to pay $90,000 in emotional-harm reparation to Mr Tuhou's wife, along with $3037 for lost income. The company had pleaded guilty to one charge of failing to prevent harm following the death of Mr Tuhou.
# All opinions are Mr Frizzell's and not those of Hawke's Bay Today.
