(The following story by Maggie Tait appeared on the Australian website stuff.co.nz on April 10.)
Former train driver Brownie Bristowe of Upper Hutt lives near the railway – a constant reminder of the two people who died under the wheels of his trains.
The 62-year-old grandfather, diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder, tearfully told MPs today he had to leave the job he loved because he could not handle the idea of another person dying.
Mr Bristowe appeared before the Transport and Industrial Relations Select Committee as part of a Rail Maritime Transport Union submission on the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2).
The bill aims to extend cover to employees who develop a mental injury after being exposed to a sudden traumatic event during the course of their work.
Until 1992 there was stress related cover but it was dropped by a National Government. That meant Mr Bristowe was unable to get compensation.
Mr Bristowe worked in Auckland and Whangarei before moving to Wellington in 1984 and said he “really enjoyed” the work. He started in 1967 and held various roles with NZ Railways before becoming a locomotive engineer.
In 2002, within months of each other, trains Mr Bristowe was driving killed two people near Woburn on the Hutt Valley line.
“My first incident was at Woburn when I came around the corner. . . about 5.30 in the morning and I thought it was a rubbish bag on the track.
“We were doing about 80km/h, as we got closer I realised it was a human being, put the brakes on and someone said to me you have to go back and see what’s run over. I said ‘no not in my job’ – I was too frightened to see what happened.”
He went to the back carriage and saw the body in his headlights.
After three months leave he returned to work determined to put the death behind him.
The it happened again – just 200m from the site of the first death.
“There was this person lying in the middle of the track, there was no way I could stop, I ran him over and dragged him along under the bogies of our train. I sat in the seat for a while. I called for assistance. . . I had a big job to get out and check to see if the person was alive.”
The grisly image of body parts was hard to get out of his head and Mr Bristowe developed a fear he would kill someone he knew or a child.
Living in Trentham just 50m from the rail lines was a constant reminder.
“During my time at home at night listening to those trains go past and the rattle of the train. . . every time I heard that I got really frightened.”
He visualised someone getting mangled on a nearby level crossing.
While still on leave after the second incident Mr Bristowe was driving with his wife and daughter when they came upon a fatal train accident near Trentham.
“I was stuffed, honestly. I was totally stuffed. I didn’t expect to see that.”
Speaking to journalists after the hearing Mr Bristowe said he and his wife could not afford to move house and he had to live with the rattle of trains passing.
He was getting by on his pension and some work, currently in delivery, but struggled to pay the mortgage. Having to quit his career meant he had been unable to improve his circumstances.
The union told the committee the employer was not negligent so there was no ability to sue.
While efforts were made to keep people off tracks there were problems with trespasses and crossings, union general secretary Wayne Butson said.
“We know full well that steel wheels on steel rails just take no prisoners. The employer. . . have no control over the workplace.”
The union asked MPs to make a change to the bill because at the moment the date of injury was recorded from when the person got help not when the accident happened.
This meant if a person had a delayed effect they might be entitled to compensation if they had already left their job.
Business New Zealand’s economist John Pask said the bill showed a shift towards expecting business to bear a greater share of the costs of the general health and wellbeing in the workforce.
It was concerned changes in the bill would lead to higher levies and thought a provision which could allow other illnesses to be added as occupational diseases like eczema should be dropped.
The organisation said it was unreasonable for employers to be expected to bear costs for incidents outside their control to mitigate – like road accidents.