The Context
In April 2022, a worker at ME Jukes & Son in Gisborne was killed after becoming trapped in a waste shredder. In 2025, Judge Warren Cathcart found the company guilty of a charge under the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015. The specific fine is pending, but the conviction is final. This is not just a tragic accident; it is a legal finding of systemic failure. WorkSafe is securing convictions, not just issuing warnings. The regulator’s message is clear: inadequate safety systems are now a direct path to a criminal record.
The Risk
For directors, the risk is not the company’s fine. It is the personal liability that follows a guilty verdict. Section 44 of the HSWA 2015 imposes a positive duty on officers to exercise due diligence. This means you must proactively understand the specific, lethal hazards in your operations—like industrial shredders—and ensure they are controlled. A conviction like this creates potential exposure for directors under Section 44. It is evidence a court may use to argue you failed to acquire and maintain knowledge of critical risks, or failed to ensure the company had appropriate resources and processes. The Companies Act 1993 also suggests liability for reckless trading if safety failures threaten the company’s solvency. Your reputation and personal assets are on the line.
The Control
Stop treating health and safety as a compliance checklist managed by middle management. It is a core governance function. The board must demand evidence—not assurances—that high-consequence risks are identified, understood, and controlled with engineering-level precision. Require direct, unfiltered briefings from frontline supervisors on the reality of machine guarding, lockout procedures, and confined space work. Your governance minutes must show active, informed challenge on these topics.
The Challenge
These are the critical questions you should be raising at the board table:
|
|
Can you show me the last three board papers where we discussed specific engineering controls for our highest-risk plant, and what we authorised to eliminate the risk of entrapment? |
|
|
What evidence do we have, beyond audit reports, that our lockout/tagout procedures are being followed correctly by the night shift or contractors? |
|
|
If WorkSafe walked in tomorrow, what single piece of plant or process would most likely form the basis of a Section 44 case against each of us personally? |