Tay Shi'an | The Electric Paper

ONE worker killed, eight others injured. All because of a construction site accident that could have been prevented by some reasonable, practicable steps and checks.

District Judge Roy Grenville Neighbour highlighted this as he threw out Mirador Building Contractor's appeal against its $100,000 fine for failing to ensure the safety of its workers.

In his written judgment, he noted the company had clearly fallen short of its duty.

And while the loss of life is always tragic, it is even more so when it could have been prevented.

The fatal accident happened on 22 Mar 2006 at a construction site at Alps Avenue in Changi.

Two groups of workers were dismantling part of the external scaffolding on a yet-to-be-completed building.

At about 6.10pm, a section of the scaffolding structure collapsed.

Five workers on the scaffold plunged about 12m to the ground and Indian national Pachamuthu Balraj, 19, was killed on the spot.

Four other workers working below the collapsed section were also hurt.

All eight injured workers are Indian nationals.

Investigations revealed that four scaffolding tie-backs which secure the scaffolding to the building had been removed prematurely, making it unstable.

When the workers climbed onto the scaffold, their weight triggered its collapse.

It was found that Mirador's scaffolding supervisor did not inspect the scaffold before allowing the workers ascend it.

The company pleaded guilty in court for failing to ensure the safety and health of its employees and was fined $100,000.

Mirador felt it was 'manifestly excessive' and appealed.

'MYSTERIOUSLY REMOVED'

It argued that the tie-backs had been 'mysteriously removed' by an employee of another company tasked to do painting work, over whom it had no supervisory role.

A company called Scarfcoat had overall supervision and control of the scaffolding work.

Scarfcoat contracted out the dismantling of the scaffold to Sin Long Scaffolding & Engineering Enterprise, which contracted out the work to Mirador.

Scarfcoat was separately fined $100,000.

Mirador argued that it was only a 'supplier of manpower', and its 'moral guilt' is low. It claimed its responsibility was in the 'fourth tier', after Scarfcoat, Sin Long and the scaffolding supervisor.

It also said it had been punished by the Ministry of Manpower, which revoked its license as an approved scaffold contractor for 15 months after the accident.

It said it is a first offender, and had spent a lot of money to review work procedures.

It appealed for a 'substantial discount' for the fine, as it said the case was an 'exceptional' one that warrants a 'minimum fine'.

But the judge noted that the company could have prevented the tragedy by taking a number of reasonable, practicable steps, like conducting a thorough and careful inspection to ensure the scaffolding was stable before dismantling work started.

Judge Neighbour also pointed out that Mirador had failed to ensure its employees' safety in another instance.

Each worker must wear a safety harness while dismantling a scaffolding structure, and to attach it via a series of safety lines to anchored points at the top of the building.

This is to prevent him from falling if he loses his balance, or if the structure collapses.

But that day, the dead man and other workers were told to secure the hooks on their safety harnesses to the scaffold frames instead of the secured lifelines as their hooks were too big for the lines.

The judge said: 'This clearly afforded no protection to (the workers) in the event the scaffolding collapsed. Yet, nothing was done to rectify the problem.'

If Mirador had addressed this, the workers would have survived death or escaped injury when the structure collapsed, he added.

The judge said that Mirador 'cannot sidestep or avoid its responsibility or duty' even though Scarfcoat is the main contractor of the worksite.

He noted that no matter what punishment is meted out, it cannot soothe pain and anguish caused to the families of the dead and injured workers.

Hence, the court takes a serious view on the loss of life and injuries suffered in such circumstances.

Mirador could have been fined up to $500,000 for the offence.