Case 1: A labourer was operating a shear cutter at the factory to turn a sheet of metal stock material into various smaller sizes. The cutter was equipped with a home-made clamp-down device that had been fabricated to hold material in place prior to cycling the shear cutter. The task required continuous movement and re-positioning of the decreasing metal sheet as small pieces were cut off. The metal sheet would become jammed in the cutter as it was fed under the clamp-down device. While trying to unjam the metal sheet on this occasion, the worker inadvertently activated the foot control pedal which cycles the shear press, and came in contact with the shear blade. The injury required surgery. A Ministry of Labour Training and Skills Development investigation into the incident determined that although there was a manufacturer's guard on the shear cutter, the attachment of the home-made clamp-down device on the cutter had pushed the guard out of position, resulting in a gap of approximately four inches between the bottom of the guard and the top of the shear bed. This allowed access to the shear cutter's moving blade. The employer was charged and was fined $40,000 for failing to ensure the measures and procedures prescribed by section 24 of the regulation were complied with, contrary to section 25(1)(c) of the act. This was an offence contrary to section 66(1) of the act.

Case 2: A worker was training another worker on how to operate a forming machine known as the Former #5. The Former #5 is a four-piston hydraulic table press with four dies. This equipment is used to form products known as 'rounds' which are used in the electrical energy sector. The Former #5 is normally operated by a single worker who stands at the control panel located on the east side of the equipment. That side of the equipment is equipped with a light curtain to protect the operator. When a light curtain is interrupted, the machine stops and cannot be activated until the worker leaves the hazardous envelope and the light curtain is restored. While the trainee was operating the controls at the east side, the trainer noticed an issue with the product being formed and proceeded to the west side of the machine to inspect the product while it remained in the Former. The four dies were extended and secure against the product. The trainer then accidentally dropped a glove into the area. When the trainer reached out to retrieve the glove, the dies were inadvertently released by the trainee, and the trainer was caught in a pinch point between the moving south die and its housing, causing injury. The trainer was transported to the hospital for medical attention. The Ministry of Labour, Training and Skills Development conducted an investigation and concluded the west side of the Former #5, where workers had access, was not equipped with a guard or device to prevent a worker from being caught or pinched between moving parts. The company was charged and fined $ 90,000 for failing to ensure the west side of the equipment was equipped with a guard or a device of some kind to prevent access to the pinch point created when the dies were in movement. As such, the company failed to comply with section 25 of the Industrial Establishments Regulation (Regulation 851) and thereby did violate section 25(1)(c) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

Questions:

1. Working together identify the common themes or comparisons among the cases.

2. Why do you believe these common themes exist?

3. Going forward, how do you think these problems should be addressed?