A worker was injured while repairing a steel coil between a turnstile and a down-ender table on a steel packaging line in Stoney Creek. No guard or shield was in place.
There was no guard between the two machines. Nothing stood between the material in that zone and the worker in it.
After the injury, the company complied with a Ministry order to shield or guard the area. Which means it was possible the whole time.
What Happened
On November 8, 2023, a worker at Samuel, Son & Co., Limited, operating as Nelson Steel, at 400 Glover Road in Stoney Creek was repairing a steel coil on the packaging line. The repair put the worker between the turnstile, which rotates coils, and the down-ender table, which lowers them into position.
No guard or shield was in place between the two machines. The worker was injured.
Samuel, Son & Co., Limited, operating as Nelson Steel, pleaded guilty in the Ontario Court of Justice in Hamilton and was fined $125,000 plus a 25% victim fine surcharge under Section 25(1)(c) of the OHSA and Section 26 of R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 851.
What the Law Says
Section 26 of R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 851: a machine shall be shielded or guarded so that the product, material being processed or waste stock will not endanger the safety of any worker. That is the section that fits a steel coil that can endanger the worker repairing it.
Basically, what this means is simple: if a worker can enter the hazard zone between two connected machines, and material in that zone can move and injure them, a guard is required. The guard is the control. Care and attention are not.
Three Things This Case Teaches Ontario Industrial Employers
- The transfer zone between two connected machines is a hazard zone that requires guarding. When workers need to enter that zone for repairs or maintenance, either a physical guard must prevent access during live operations, or a lockout procedure must be in place.
- A guard is a control. Telling workers to be careful is not. Where material can move and reach a worker in the zone, a shield or guard is what the regulation asks for, and it works whether or not everyone is paying attention that day.
- Post-incident compliance with a Ministry guarding order proves the guard was achievable. Courts note this. An employer that installs a guard after an injury cannot credibly claim the guard was not reasonably practicable before the injury.
If your production floor has machine transfer zones where workers perform repairs without formal lockout, this case is directly relevant. The full analysis is in the WorkSafe Sounds article linked above.