Gourin, a frozen vegetable manufacturer, is applying after one of its temporary workers had an accident at work

On January 11, the Rennes Court of Appeal reviewed SAS Ardo Gourin. This frozen vegetable producer based in Gourin in Morbihan is contesting his conviction for “forced injuries”. In January 2019, a temporary worker responsible for cleaning the machines had “two fingers cut off” by one of them.

The facts are dated January 10, 2019. That day, shortly after 9:00 p.m., a temporary worker cut off two of his fingers while cleaning the car.

What exactly happened? Was the car suitable? Who is responsible? Four years later, the frozen vegetable manufacturer and former employee had to explain themselves again.

After the Lorient Criminal Court in 2022, the employer contested the conviction for the forced injuries, and the case is being heard again at the Rennes Court of Appeal this Wednesday, January 11.

“Lack of Compliance”

What happened at the premises of SAS Ardo de Gourin in Morbihan on 10 January 2019? Shortly after 9:00 p.m., while he was cleaning the cars, the former employee explained that he have”held his hand“interfering with”unscreened hatch“. The water pipe slipped from his hand.pressure drop“, so there was”put the front arm on the car. Transplantation of the phalanx (s) was attemptedreported but in vain“.

Bodies loaded to monitor compliance and safety, the 420-employee company concluded the machine was “non-compliant”. According to the Regional Directorate for Business, Competition, Consumerism, Labor and Employment (note: until April 2021 it was called “DIRECCTE”), “protection with a simple lock was not enough Because moving guards had to be associated with a locking process until close”. That was not the case with this cleaning machine.

Trial in July 2022 correction Therefore it was Lorient recognized society is to blame for everything crimes reprimanded: “violation of safety regulations” as well as “intentional injuries”. The young temporary worker had 35 days of ITT (total interruption of work)..

Fined €10,000 at the time (plus €7,500 and €1,500 for corresponding fines) the agri-food company is now asking for its release. According to his lawyer, Maitre Nolwenn Quiguer, he says: “Criminal responsibility of the company was not gained!”

“My customer cannot be blamed for equipment incompatibility, as these regulations only apply to machine manufacturers” avocado develops. Regarding risk determination by the employer, “We can’t blame the company for not doing that, sincewe discover it every day” Master Quiguer argues.

During the review of the unified risk assessment document (note: DUER, drawn up in a meeting with various interlocutors, including the inspector and the occupational doctor), the lawyer also addresses the “gaps” noted by the labor inspectorate: “EHe could have done very well in the dating phase, but he didn’t say anything!”

“Some risks can be avoided!” Maître Sophie Ouvrans, the lawyer for the young injured temporary worker, who the worker received two hours of training, responded.insufficient“.

According to him, an “accompanimentcomrade in the field“Deepening this education did not further avoid this risk: “We don’t see a young man who will stay for a week or two as a permanent employee… This is pragmatism!”he said.

In his turn, the General Advocate drew the attention of the young temporary worker “never been attracted to the dangers of these famous traps“, though “the head of the cleaning service (…) had already connected the danger for a long time”. He therefore asked for confirmation of the judgment of the Criminal Court of Lorient.

Team safety is at the heart of our concerns“, – claimed one of the company’s officials.”After the accident, the company began an extensive process to improve safety“, he assured the court.

The judges who deliberated their verdicts will give their verdicts in a month.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *