Reached into the milling machine
Apprentice ignored prohibition, boss now has to pay
How far should young employees be protected, and when does this become excessive? In a Tyrolean carpentry workshop, an apprentice illegally started a machine, seriously injured himself, and even admitted his fault. However, this does not protect the boss from a fine.
The protection of apprentices is comprehensive by law – this case raises the question of reasonable and practicable limits.
A young person in their first year of training was working alone in the veneer room of a carpentry workshop, tidying up. When he wanted to remove wood scraps, he turned on the extraction system of a veneer saw – without knowing that this would also activate a rotating cutter. His right hand was caught and two fingers were seriously injured. This was followed by an operation and a long period of sick leave.
Apprentice admitted his fault
The boss argued that the apprentice had violated clear instructions, which were also in writing. "I knew that I was not allowed to operate a machine on my own," the apprentice himself testified. Nevertheless, the managing director was fined €1,660 and appealed to the state administrative court.
There was no device or measure in place to prevent him from operating the machine without authorization.
Die Richterin beim Landesverwaltungsgericht
The court was of the opinion that it was not only the prohibition that was important, but whether it was objectively possible for the apprentice to switch on a dangerous machine. This was precisely the case here. "There was no device or measure in place to prevent him from operating the machine without authorization."
The fact that the veneer saw dated from the 1980s and did not have a CE mark weighed heavily in the investigation.
"Lack of instruction" established in court
In addition, the court found a "lack of instruction." The apprentice himself stated that he had only wanted to switch on the extraction system and had no knowledge of the milling machine running alongside it. The judge commented: "This in particular shows that there was a lack of structured hazard training."
Costs for appeal proceedings added to fine
The ruling makes it clear that even unauthorized misconduct on the part of employees does not exonerate the employer. Effective control and safety systems must be in place for such cases in particular – for example, through lockout switches or separate supervision. But is this practicable in the everyday routine of a carpentry workshop? The fine of €1,660 was upheld, with an additional €332 in costs for the appeal.
This article has been automatically translated,
read the original article here.
Willkommen in unserer Community! Eingehende Beiträge werden geprüft und anschließend veröffentlicht. Bitte achten Sie auf Einhaltung unserer Netiquette und AGB. Für ausführliche Diskussionen steht Ihnen ebenso das krone.at-Forum zur Verfügung. Hier können Sie das Community-Team via unserer Melde- und Abhilfestelle kontaktieren.
User-Beiträge geben nicht notwendigerweise die Meinung des Betreibers/der Redaktion bzw. von Krone Multimedia (KMM) wieder. In diesem Sinne distanziert sich die Redaktion/der Betreiber von den Inhalten in diesem Diskussionsforum. KMM behält sich insbesondere vor, gegen geltendes Recht verstoßende, den guten Sitten oder der Netiquette widersprechende bzw. dem Ansehen von KMM zuwiderlaufende Beiträge zu löschen, diesbezüglichen Schadenersatz gegenüber dem betreffenden User geltend zu machen, die Nutzer-Daten zu Zwecken der Rechtsverfolgung zu verwenden und strafrechtlich relevante Beiträge zur Anzeige zu bringen (siehe auch AGB). Hier können Sie das Community-Team via unserer Melde- und Abhilfestelle kontaktieren.