Tag: safety

Posted on

Transport safety failures

Transport safety failures resulted in a company being fined £380,000 after a bus caused life-changing injuries to one of its employees when they were between a reversing bus and a stationary vehicle.

The employee of Stagecoach Devon Limited was working at the company’s Torquay depot on the morning of 3 October 2019.  Due to space limitations, buses often had to reverse to be able to leave the depot in readiness for the day’s work.  The sole banksman, who would direct vehicles, was occupied at the top of the depot where most buses were parked.

As a result, it became custom and practice for the bus drivers at the front of the depot to reverse without a banksman, or to assist each other when reversing, despite not being trained as banksmen.

The injured employee, who was caught between a reversing bus and a stationary vehicle, suffered compound multiple fractures of his arm requiring six titanium plates and 65 metal staples between his wrist and elbow.

An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) found that Stagecoach failed to put a suitable and sufficient risk assessment in place.

This should have identified the risks inherent in the bus parking layout and action could have been taken to remove the need to reverse or mitigate the risks from reversing. For example, changing the parking layout, providing a sufficient number of trained banksmen for peak times, and improved segregation of vehicles and pedestrians.

At Plymouth Magistrates Court Stagecoach Devon Limited of Stockport, pleaded guilty to breaching Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974.  The company was fined £380,000 and ordered to pay costs of £18,000.

transport safety failures

“Those in control of work have a responsibility to devise safe methods of working and to provide the necessary information, instruction and training to their workers in the safe system of work.

“If a suitable safe system of work had been in place prior to the incident, the life changing injuries sustained by the employee could have been prevented.”

HSE Inspector James Collins

Employers who operate depots must ensure that a suitable and sufficient risk assessment is undertaken covering the transport risks to ensure transport safety failures do not occur.  When considering the risks from vehicle manoeuvring, employers must ensure that vehicles have large enough windscreens (with wipers where necessary) and external mirrors to provide an all-round field of vision.  It is often worthwhile adding extra mirrors to reduce blind spots for drivers. Side mirrors can allow drivers of larger vehicles to see cyclists and pedestrians alongside their vehicles and can be effective in improving visibility around the vehicle from the driving position. These mirrors are fitted to larger road-going vehicles as standard.

Drivers should not place items in the windscreen area or in the way of mirrors or monitors, where they might impede visibility from the driving position. The area of the windscreen that is kept clear by the wipers should not be obscured, and nor should the side windows. Windows and mirrors will also normally need to be kept clean and in good repair. Dirt or cracks can make windows or mirrors less effective.

Some types of vehicles (such as straddle carriers, large shovel loaders and some large quarry vehicles) often have poor visibility from the cab. Visibility can be poor to the side or front of a vehicle as well as behind and loads on vehicles can severely limit the visibility from the driving position.

Lift trucks and compact dumper vehicles in particular can have difficulty with forward visibility when they are transporting bulky loads. Employers should recognise these risks in their risk assessment and think about ways to minimise them.

Closed-circuit television (CCTV) may help drivers to see clearly behind or around the vehicle. CCTV can cover most blind spots and the cost of fitting CCTV systems has fallen since the technology was first developed. Companies who have fitted CCTV have found that it can reduce the number of reversing accidents, so the systems usually pay for themselves in a few years.

Colour systems can provide a clearer image where there is little contrast (for example, outside on an overcast day). However, black-and-white systems normally provide a better image in lower light or darkness, and usually come with infra-red, which can be more effective than standard cameras at night.

Monitors should have adjustable contrast, brightness and resolution controls to make them useful in the different light conditions in which they will be used. Drivers may need to use a hood to shield any monitor from glare.

If possible, fit the camera for a CCTV system high up in the middle of the vehicle’s rear (one camera), or in the upper corners (two cameras). This will provide a greater field of vision and a better angle for the driver to judge distance and provide. It also keeps the camera clear of dust and spray, and out of the reach of thieves or vandals.

However, CCTV systems do have some limitations which employers should consider:

  • If the vehicle leaves a darker area to a more strongly lit area (for example, driving out of a building) the system may need time to adjust to the brightness.
  • A dirty lens will make a camera much less effective.
  • Drivers may find it difficult to judge heights and distances.

Drivers should not be complacent about safety even with CCTV systems installed as this can result in transport safety failures. They should be trained in proper use of the equipment and employers have a duty to provide such training and instruction.

Reversing alarms may be drowned out by other noise or may be so common on a busy site that pedestrians do not take any notice. It can also be hard to know exactly where an alarm is coming from, and people who are less able to hear are also at greater risk. Alarms can also disturb nearby residents.  However, reversing alarms may be appropriate (based on the risk assessment) but might be most effectively used with other measures, such as warning lights.

Additional advice on transport safety can be found in the HSE Guide to workplace transport safety (HSG 136, 2014) which is available free on the website.

If you require health and safety advice or support for your business, please contact one of the Ashbrooke team.

Posted on

Construction site safety

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has successfully undertaken a prosecution following the death of a seven-year-old child over construction site safety.  The civil engineering firm involved has been fined £600K for safety breaches after the child became trapped and suffocated.

The seven-year-old went missing from home on the morning of 26 July 2015 and was found the next morning by workers at the construction site at Bank End Road, Worsborough, in South Yorkshire.

An investigation by the HSE found that the child had become trapped in a drainage pipe, which had been fixed into the ground in preparation for the installation of fencing posts. Tragically, he had suffocated before being found the next morning when work restarted on site.

Howard Civil Engineering Ltd of Leeds pleaded guilty to breaching regulation 13(4)(b) of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015 and to breaching Section 3 (1) of the Health & Safety at Work etc Act 1974. The company was fined £600K and ordered to pay £42,952.88 in costs at Sheffield Crown Court.

The construction site was a new-build housing development next to an existing housing estate and adjacent to busy pedestrian footpaths and roads. The HSE investigation found that there was insufficient fencing in place to prevent unauthorised persons from accessing the construction site due to a combination of poor planning, management and monitoring of the site and its perimeter.

construction site safety
HSE photograph

“Conley should never have been able to be on that site. He should have been kept out.  The construction industry should be aware of the dangers of construction sites to members of the public and any other unauthorised persons.

“The dangers to children gaining access to construction sites and treating them like a playground is an ongoing problem which must be addressed at all types of sites no matter what their complexity or size.

“The industry must do all it can to ensure children can’t access construction sites and be exposed to the inherent risks they present to prevent further tragedies like this from occurring.”

HSE inspector Paul Yeadon

Construction site safety is vital as such sites are dangerous work environments but are also interesting places for children.  All construction sites require measures to manage access across defined boundaries; and steps to exclude unauthorised people.

While the numbers of children being killed or injured on construction sites has reduced, there is no room for complacency. Each year, two or three children die after gaining access to building sites, and many more are injured.  Also, members of the public are seriously injured by materials or tools falling outside the site boundary, falling into trenches or being struck by moving plant and vehicles.

Some children are drawn to construction sites as exciting places to play. Those managing construction sites must do everything they can to keep children out of the site and away from danger.  The following specific steps are particularly relevant to child safety:

  • Secure sites adequately when finishing work for the day.
  • Barrier off or cover over excavations and pits.
  • Isolate and immobilise vehicles and plant and if possible, lock them in a compound.
  • Store building materials (such as pipes, manhole rings, and cement bags) so that they cannot topple or roll over.
  • Remove access ladders from excavations and scaffolds.
  • Lock away hazardous substances.

If you require health and safety advice or support for your business, please contact one of the Ashbrooke team.

Posted on

Cleveland Potash fined £3.6m following accidents

Cleveland Potash fined £3.6m following accidents which left two electricians injured.

The owners of Boulby Mine in Saltburn-by-the-Sea were fined £3.6 million and ordered to pay costs of £185,000 after an investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE).

Cleveland Potash Limited (CPL) own the mine, which extracts organic fertiliser known as Polyhalite. Teesside Crown Court heard that on the 3 August 2016 a contract electrician received serious burns from an 11,000-volt electrical system. He unknowingly had placed a vacuum cleaner nozzle into a live electrical chamber. He had to be air lifted to Newcastle hospital specialist burns unit, where he was placed in an induced coma for 10 days.

On the 12 February 2019, another electrical contractor made contact with a live conductor on a 415-volt electrical system during electrical testing works and received serious burns. He was hospitalised for six days.

The HSE found deficiencies from the owner of the mine in risk assessment, planning of works, and shortfalls in providing warnings about which parts of the electrical systems the two electricians were working on remained live.

Cleveland Potash fined

Cleveland Potash Limited (CPL) of Boulby Mine, Loftus, Saltburn-by-the-Sea, Cleveland pleaded guilty to breaching Section 2 (1) and two counts of Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974.

“These serious electrical incidents were easily preventable. CPL should have had a heightened awareness of electrical risks following the first incident in 2016, however failures to apply learnings and to adequately control risks resulted in the 2019 incident”.

“Employers should make sure they properly assess and apply effective control measures to minimise risks when working on electrical systems. Both these incidents were preventable if long established electrical safety practices been applied.”

HSE specialist regulatory principal inspector Paul Bradley

Employers are required by law to protect your employees, and others, from harm.  Under the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999, the minimum an employer must do is:

  • identify what could cause injury or illness in your business (hazards)
  • decide how likely it is that someone could be harmed and how seriously (the risk)
  • take action to eliminate the hazard, or if this isn’t possible, control the risk

Assessing risk is just one part of the overall process used to control risks in the workplace.  For most small, low-risk businesses the steps that employers need to take are straightforward.  Risk management is a step-by-step process for controlling health and safety risks caused by hazards in the workplace.  An employer can undertake the risk assessment themselves or appoint a competent person to help.  The five steps of a risk assessment are:

  • Identify hazards
  • Assess the risks
  • Control the risks
  • Record your findings
  • Review the controls

Identify hazards

Look around your workplace and think about what may cause harm (these are called hazards). Think about:

  • how people work and how plant and equipment are used
  • what chemicals and substances are used
  • what safe or unsafe work practices exist
  • the general state of your premises

Look back at previous accident and ill health records as these can help you identify less obvious hazards. Take account of non-routine operations, such as maintenance, cleaning or changes in production cycles.  Think about hazards to health, such as manual handling, use of chemicals and causes of work-related stress.  For each hazard, think about how employees, contractors, visitors or members of the public might be harmed.

Some workers have particular requirements, for example young workers, migrant workers, new or expectant mothers and people with disabilities.  Ensure that you involve your employees as they will usually have good ideas.

Assess the risks

Once you have identified the hazards, decide how likely it is that someone could be harmed and how serious it could be – this is assessing the level of risk. In assessing the level of risk, decide:

  • Who might be harmed and how
  • What you’re already doing to control the risks
  • What further action you need to take to control the risks
  • Who needs to carry out the action
  • When the action is needed by

Control the risks

Look at what you are already doing, and the controls you already have in place to ensure the safety of workers and others. Consider:

  • Can I get rid of the hazard altogether?
  • If not, how can I control the risks so that harm is unlikely?

If you need further controls, consider:

  • redesigning the job
  • replacing the materials, machinery or process
  • organising your work to reduce exposure to the materials, machinery or process
  • identifying and implementing practical measures needed to work safely
  • providing personal protective equipment and making sure workers wear it

Put the controls you have identified in place. It is important to remember that you are not expected to eliminate all risks but you need to do everything ‘reasonably practicable’ to protect people from harm. This means balancing the level of risk against the measures needed to control the real risk in terms of money, time or trouble.

Record your findings

If you employ 5 or more people, you must record your significant findings, including:

  • the hazards (things that may cause harm)
  • who might be harmed and how
  • what you are doing to control the risks

The HSE has a number of example risk assessments on its website as a guide for employers.  Employers should not rely purely on paperwork, as the main priority should be to control the risks in practice.

Review the controls

You must review the controls you have put in place to make sure they are working. You should also review them if:

  • they may no longer be effective
  • there are changes in the workplace that could lead to new risks such as changes to:
  • staff
  • a process
  • the substances or equipment used

Also consider a review if your workers have spotted any problems or there have been any accidents or near misses.  You should then update your risk assessment record with any changes you make.

If you require health and safety advice or support for your business, please contact one of the Ashbrooke team.

Posted on

Dyson fined after worker injured

Technology firm Dyson fined after worker injured by a machine sustained head and chest injuries when he was struck by a 1.5 tonne milling machine.

The worker, at Dyson’s Wiltshire factory, was hit while moving the machine, which fell on top of him.  He only escaped being crushed under the weight of the machine because it landed on two toolboxes and the handle of another machine. The incident happened on August 27, 2019. 

An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) found Dyson Technology Limited failed to provide suitable and sufficient information, instruction, and training to those undertaking the task. They also failed to adequately assess the task and devise a safe system of work to ensure the machine was moved safely.

Dyson fined
Milling machine accident (coutesy of HSE)

The investigation found that two employees were moving a large CNC milling machine within the engineering department of Dyson’s site at Tetbury Hill, Malmesbury. The employees lifted the machine using a five-tonne jack and were in the process of replacing two fixed roller skates with several wooden blocks when it fell.

One of the employees was struck by the machine and sustained a wound to his head and injuries to his chest.

At Swindon Magistrates’ Court Dyson Technology Limited of Tetbury Hill, Malmesbury, Wiltshire pleaded guilty to breaching Section 2(1) of the Health & Safety at Work etc Act 1974. The company was fined £1.2m and ordered to pay costs of £11,511.

“This incident could have been fatal. Those in control of work have a duty to assess the risks, devise safe methods of working and to provide the necessary information, instruction, and training to their workforce.

“Had a suitable safe system of work been in place this incident and the related injuries could have been prevented.”

HSE inspector James Hole

The Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 (MHSWR) require employers to put in place arrangements to control health and safety risks. As a minimum, employers must have the processes and procedures required to meet the legal requirements, including:

  • a written health and safety policy (if they employ five or more people)
  • assessments of the risks to employees, contractors, customers, partners, and any other people who could be affected by work activities – and record the significant findings in writing (if they employ five or more people). Any risk assessment must be ‘suitable and sufficient’
  • arrangements for the effective planning, organisation, control, monitoring and review of the preventive and protective measures that come from risk assessment
  • access to competent health and safety advice either internally or externally e.g. a consultant
  • providing employees with information about the risks in their workplace and how they are protected
  • instruction and training for employees in how to deal with the risks
  • ensuring there is adequate and appropriate supervision in place 
  • consulting with employees about their risks at work and current preventive and protective measures

If you require health and safety advice or support for your business, please contact one of the Ashbrook team.

Posted on

Worker injured by lathe

A worker injured by lathe suffered lacerations to his forearm and injuries to his neck and face.  Kent Auto Developments Limited, a classic Mini car part manufacturing and engineering firm based in Romney Marsh, was fined following an investigation and prosecution.

On 10 August 2020, the worker was completing the process of polishing brake drums rotating on a manual metalworking lathe. The worker was applying emery cloth by hand, a practice condoned by the company, when he was drawn into the machine which resulted in lacerations to his forearm and injuries to his neck and face. Similar occurrences in Great Britain have resulted in other serious injuries to workers such as severed limbs.

The incident was not reported to Health and Safety Executive (HSE), as is required under The Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 2013 (RIDDOR), until three months after the incident.

An investigation by the HSE found that the business had failed to implement a safe system of work in that employees had routinely polished brake drums with an emery cloth by hand on the lathe. This task is known to be dangerous due to the potential risk of entanglement of the cloth in the rotating parts of the lathe, which can result in serious personal injury. If the requirement to use emery cloth on a lathe is unavoidable, then tool posts and holding devices should be used.

At Folkestone Magistrates’ Court, Kent Auto Developments Ltd pleaded guilty to breaching Section 2(1) of The Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and Regulation 4(2) of The Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 2013 and was fined £12,000 and ordered to pay £6,349.34 in costs.

“We still see incidents like this, where unsafe work practices with machinery lead to injury, despite the existence of specific guidance published by HSE.

“Workers coming into contact with machinery is the fourth biggest cause of workplace fatalities in Great Britain, with 14 people killed in the year 2020/21. Over 50,000 non-fatal injuries were reported by employers in the same year.

“Employers should ensure that measures are taken to prevent workers from sustaining injury, where it is evident that persons are at risk of becoming entangled in machinery. It’s important that, when people do get hurt, the relevant authorities are notified so that action can be taken to prevent recurrence.”

HSE inspector Sam Brown

Work related deaths and certain injuries are required to be reported to the Health and Safety Executive under RIDDOR.  All deaths to workers and non-workers, with the exception of suicides, must be reported if they arise from a work-related accident, including an act of physical violence to a worker.

Specified injuries to workers

The list of ‘specified injuries’ in RIDDOR 2013 replaces the previous list of ‘major injuries’ in RIDDOR 1995. Specified injuries are (regulation 4):

  • fractures, other than to fingers, thumbs and toes
  • amputations
  • any injury likely to lead to permanent loss of sight or reduction in sight
  • any crush injury to the head or torso causing damage to the brain or internal organs
  • serious burns (including scalding) which (i) covers more than 10% of the body, or (ii) causes significant damage to the eyes, respiratory system or other vital organs
  • any scalping requiring hospital treatment
  • any loss of consciousness caused by head injury or asphyxia
  • any other injury arising from working in an enclosed space which (i) leads to hypothermia or heat-induced illness, or (ii) requires resuscitation or admittance to hospital for more than 24 hours
worker injured by lathe
Specified work-related accidents must be reported

Over-seven-day incapacitation of a worker

Accidents must be reported where they result in an employee or self-employed person being away from work, or unable to perform their normal work duties, for more than seven consecutive days as the result of their injury. This seven-day period does not include the day of the accident but does include weekends and rest days. The report must be made within 15 days of the accident.

Over-three-day incapacitation

Accidents must be recorded, but not reported where they result in a worker being incapacitated for more than three consecutive days. If you are an employer, who must keep an accident book under the Social Security (Claims and Payments) Regulations 1979, that record will be sufficient.

Non-fatal accidents to non-workers (e.g. members of the public)

Accidents to members of the public or others who are not at work must be reported if they result in an injury and the person is taken directly from the scene of the accident to hospital for treatment to that injury. Examinations and diagnostic tests do not constitute ‘treatment’ in such circumstances.  There is no need to report incidents where people are taken to hospital purely as a precaution when no injury is apparent.

Occupational diseases

Employers and self-employed people must report diagnoses of certain occupational diseases, where these are likely to have been caused or made worse by their work: These diseases include:

  • carpal tunnel syndrome;
  • severe cramp of the hand or forearm;
  • occupational dermatitis;
  • hand-arm vibration syndrome;
  • occupational asthma;
  • tendonitis or tenosynovitis of the hand or forearm;
  • any occupational cancer;
  • any disease attributed to an occupational exposure to a biological agent.

Dangerous occurrences

Dangerous occurrences are certain, specified near-miss events. Not all such events require reporting. There are 27 categories of dangerous occurrences that are relevant to most workplaces, for example:

  • the collapse, overturning or failure of load-bearing parts of lifts and lifting equipment;
  • plant or equipment coming into contact with overhead power lines;
  • the accidental release of any substance which could cause injury to any person.

Gas incidents

Distributors, fillers, importers & suppliers of flammable gas must report incidents where someone has died, lost consciousness, or been taken to hospital for treatment to an injury arising in connection with that gas. Such incidents should be reported using the Report of a Flammable Gas Incident – online form.

Registered gas engineers (under the Gas Safe Register,) must provide details of any gas appliances or fittings that they consider to be dangerous, to such an extent that people could die, lose consciousness or require hospital treatment. The danger could be due to the design, construction, installation, modification or servicing of that appliance or fitting, which could cause:

  • an accidental leakage of gas;
  • incomplete combustion of gas or;
  • inadequate removal of products of the combustion of gas.

If you require health and safety advice or support for your business, please contact one of the Ashbrooke team.

Posted on

HSE inspectors refused entry

HSE inspectors refused entry to a construction site resulting in a prosecution of the man who was in control of the premises.  The inspectors were denied entry to the construction site in Scotland to deal with unsafe work activities.

In 2021 multiple concerns about unsafe work at a construction site in Irvine had been sent to the Health and Safety Executive (HSE).  On 16 March 2021, two HSE inspectors attended the construction site and observed unsafe work at height taking place on a steel structure.

The inspectors tried to gain entry to the site, but the gates were locked.  They spoke to the person in control of the site, Baldev Singh Basra, but he refused to unlock the gates and let them in.  Despite explaining the powers to enter a premise given to HSE inspectors as part of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, Mr Singh Basra still refused entry to the site.

After officers from Police Scotland attended and gained entry to the site, the HSE inspectors were able to take enforcement action to stop the unsafe work. Two workers were then found to be on the roof of the structure with no safe means of getting down.  The Scottish Fire and Rescue Service attended the site and rescued the workers from the structure.

At Kilmarnock Sheriff Court, Baldev Singh Basra of Irvine pleaded guilty to an offence under Section 33(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 for contravening a requirement of an inspector – namely refusing entry to a premise where unsafe work was taking place. He was fined £1,500.

inspectors refused entry
HSE inspectors have extensive powers to inspect sites for safety offences

Following the sentencing, HSE Principal Inspector Graeme McMinn said: “Inspectors appointed by an enforcing authority have the right to enter any premises which they think it necessary to enter for the purposes of enforcing health and safety at work and any relevant statutory provisions.

“They may only enter at a ‘reasonable time’, unless they think there is a situation which may be dangerous. In this case, the priority of the inspectors was to deal with the unsafe work activity, and they could not allow the person in control of the site to refuse them entry to stop the unsafe work.”

Inspectors appointed by an enforcing authority under section 19 of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 (HSWA), such as the HSE, have extensive powers to carry into effect any of the relevant statutory provisions.  The powers set out in sections 20(2) and 25 HSWA include powers to:

  • Enter any premises which inspectors think it necessary to enter for the purposes of enforcing HSWA and the relevant statutory provisions. They may only enter at a ‘reasonable time’, unless they think there is a situation which may be dangerous.  If they have reasonable cause to apprehend serious obstruction, they may take a police officer;
  • Order areas to be left undisturbed, take measurements, photographs and recordings, take samples and take possession of, and carry out tests on, articles and substances that appear to have caused (or be likely to cause) danger;
  • Require the production of, inspect and take copies of relevant documents;
  • Require anyone they think might give them relevant information to answer questions and sign a declaration of the truth of the answers;
  • Require facilities and assistance to be provided; and
  • Seize and make harmless (by destruction if necessary) any article or substance which they have reasonable cause to believe is a cause of imminent danger of serious personal injury.
HSE education video – When an inspector calls

Inspectors are also given any other power which is necessary for the purpose of carrying into effect the relevant statutory provisions.  It is an offence to obstruct an inspector in the execution of their duties. 

If you require health and safety advice or support for your business, please contact one of the Ashbrooke team.

Posted on

Fatal incident investigation

A fatal incident investigation has been launched by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) into the death of a 27-year-old worker at a steelworks in Scunthorpe.  The incident happened on Saturday 16 July at a business premises on Brigg Road, Scunthorpe.

Emergency services responded to reports of a fall from height and the worker was pronounced dead at the scene.

After initial enquiries were made by the HSE and Humberside Police, it was established that the HSE will lead the investigation into the circumstances of the incident.

Fatal incident

“Our thoughts are with the family of the person who died.  We are determined to understand the full facts of what happened on Saturday. Doing so may take time, but we will remain in close contact with the family.”

Jane Fox, HSE principal inspector
fatal incident

The HSE has a protocol in place with police regarding the investigation of workplace fatalities such as this fatal incident – Work-related Deaths: A Protocol for Liaison.  The document sets out how workplace related deaths are investigated and importantly by which organisation. 

The Protocol is a high-level document which is supported by, and should be read in conjunction with, the Work-related Deaths Protocol Practical Guide which sets out a straightforward step-by-step approach to the joint investigation of work-related deaths. The purpose of the protocol and supporting guide is to ensure effective joint investigation of work-related deaths in England and Wales. Since its introduction in 1998, the protocol has become a tried and tested approach to effective liaison between the signatory organisations when investigating a work-related death. By

signing the protocol, signatories confirm their commitment to the joint investigation approach, appreciating that the public want to be confident that those investigating work-related deaths are doing all that they can to co-ordinate activities, and to cooperate with each other in the best interests of public safety and of those affected by work-related deaths. If you require advice on health and safety in your workplace, please contact one of the Ashbrooke team.

Posted on

Explosion leads to prosecutions

A warehouse explosion leads to prosecutions of a retail company and an electrical contracting company after an electrician suffered serious burns to 15 per cent of his body.

On 22 September 2018, an electrician was using a metal spanner to repair an electrical fault at B&M Retail Ltd warehouse, in Speke. The spanner he was using came into contact with a live busbar (metallic strip) linked to the power distribution causing an electrical explosion.

Explosion

The 35-year-old electrician sustained serious injuries which included burns to his arms, hands, thighs, legs, and face in the explosion. He was placed in an induced coma for two weeks and had to undergo several skin grafts.  As a result of the incident the electrician was unable to work for five months.

“I am very conscious of the scars and always think people are staring at me or talking about me behind my back.  To me, my arms look like Freddy Kruger’s from Nightmare on Elm Street.  I now can’t play with my little boys as much as I used to and I’m worried about hurting myself, and they are worried about hurting me. I have paranoia of being touched. I do worry about the future as I know the pain will never go away and might get worse, leaving me unable to work and support my family.”

explosion
Work projects must be adequately planned in advance (stock image)

HSE investigation into the explosion

An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) found that the victim, who was employed by Daker Ltd, had been attempting to connect a generator to B&M’s Low Voltage supply in order to allow B&M to operate some of its core site functions whilst high voltage maintenance was being undertaken. This work was complex involving several contractors and required co-ordination of different working parties with specific time limited requirements. There was insufficient planning between parties beforehand including who was in charge of each site, coordination of work and exchange of relevant documentation prior to the explosion which could have been avoided.

B&M failed to appoint a suitably competent person to plan and carry out the work to connect temporary generators to their distribution board at the premises

Electrical contractors Daker Ltd.’s work methods fell well below the required standards. Electrical work commenced without proper planning. The power supply to the circuit was not stopped prior to the incident and live working was allowed to take place, this meant that the power supply could be switched on or off at any point, putting workers at risk of electric shock.

Following the explosion, B&M Retail Ltd of Speke, Liverpool pleaded guilty to breaching Section 2 (1) and Section 3 (1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. At Liverpool Crown Court, the company was fined £1,000,000 and ordered to pay costs of ££4,978.

Daker Ltd of Bolton pleaded guilty to breaching Section 2 (1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and was fined £100.

“This incident has had life-changing consequences on the victim and his family.  It could have been avoided if the companies involved had taken the time to appropriately plan and coordinate tasks to ensure the circuit was dead, eliminating the risk of electrocution to workers.  Working with electricity is a high-risk activity and safety must be a priority.”

Roger Clarke, HSE Inspector

Use of contractors

The explosion in this case was the result of poor planning and coordination between the various parties involved in the project. Anyone engaging contractors has health and safety responsibilities, both for the contractors and anyone else that could be affected by their activities. Contractors themselves also have legal health and safety responsibilities. When contractors are appointed, it is important to ensure that everyone understands the part they need to play in ensuring health and safety (client, principal contractor, sub-contractors, etc).

Use of contractors in itself does not result in poor health and safety standards, but poor management can lead to injuries, ill health, additional costs and delays. Working closely with the contractor will reduce the risks to your own employees and the contractors themselves.

Remember that contractors may be at particular risk – they may be strangers to your workplace and therefore unfamiliar with your organisation’s procedures, rules, hazards and risks. Even regular contractors may need reminding. The level of control needed will, of course, be proportionate to the complexity of the task.  Where a task is complex then more control will be required, and planning plays a key role in this.   On sites with major accident hazards, consider turnarounds and span of control – given the potentially very high numbers of contractors on-site (compared with the numbers in routine operations).

Some projects may fall within the scope of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015 which detail the responsibilities of clients, principal contractors and others.

If you require advice on health and safety in your workplace, please contact one of the Ashbrooke team.

Posted on

Failure to manage asbestos risk leads to prosecution

Two engineering companies and their director have been sentenced for failing to manage asbestos risk to employees within the workplace.

A large quantity of asbestos containing materials, including asbestos insulating board, were identified during a HSE inspection at factory premises in Kidderminster owned by Kespar Engineering Limited in February 2019. The premises were occupied by SDF Automotive Limited (who went into administration in November 2019).  Employees of both companies worked in the premises and the sole director for both companies was Peter Gerard Parkes.

An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) identified the failure of all defendants to manage the risks from asbestos within the premises. This included the failure to ensure the suitable and sufficient assessment of the risks to the health of employees working there was carried out. The defendants were aware that asbestos was present within the premises and had previously prepared asbestos management plans however these were not reviewed or updated. The location and condition of the asbestos on site was not actively monitored and the risk of any exposure to asbestos containing materials was not adequately considered or controlled by the defendants.

Kespar Engineering Ltd of Kidderminster, pleaded guilty to breaching Regulations 4 (10), 6 (1) and 11 (1) of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012. The company was fined £51,000 and ordered to pay costs of £30,000.

SDF Automotive Limited (in administration) formerly of Kidderminster, pleaded guilty to breaching Regulations 4 (10), 6 (1) and 11 (1) of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012. The company was conditionally discharged for two years.

Peter Gerard Parkes of Bridgnorth, pleaded guilty to several counts under Section 37 of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. These related to his individual failing as a Director of Kespar Engineering Ltd, SDF Automotive Ltd, and Smethwick Drop Forge Ltd in respect of the offences committed by the Companies under his control. Mr Parkes was given a 12-month suspended prison sentence, fined £9,000 and ordered to pay costs of £14,000.  The case was heard at Kidderminster Magistrates’ Court.

asbestos risk
Asbestos risks must be managed and controlled (stock image)

Speaking after the hearing, HSE inspector Sarah Reilly, said:

“It is important that all dutyholders including company directors recognise the importance of actively managing asbestos containing materials in non-domestic premises and ensure that the potential risk to health posed by the materials is controlled.  Health and safety law places duties on organisations and employers – directors can be personally liable and held to account when these duties are breached.”

Asbestos still kills around 5,000 workers each year, this is more than the number of people killed on the road – around 20 trades people die each week as a result of past exposure.  However, asbestos is not just a problem of the past. It can be present today in any building built or refurbished before the year 2000.

When materials that contain asbestos are disturbed or damaged, fibres are released into the air. When these fibres are inhaled, they can cause serious diseases. These diseases will not affect people immediately; they often take a long time to develop, but once diagnosed, it is often too late to do anything. This is why it is important that employers and anyone in control of a building have duties to protect employees and others from asbestos risks.

Before undertaking any work in a building that may contain asbestos (e.g. built or refurbished before the year 2000), you need to do the following:

Identify whether asbestos is present and determine its type and condition

  • People responsible for maintenance of non-domestic premises, have a ‘duty to manage’ the asbestos in them, and should provide contractors and others with information on where any asbestos is in the building and what condition it is in.
  • If no information is available or it is limited and its is suspect asbestos may be present then you should have the area surveyed and representative samples of the material you are going to work on analysed.
  • Alternatively, you can assume that any material you need to disturb does contain asbestos and take the appropriate precautions for the highest risk situation.

Carry out an asbestos risk assessment

  • Decide if it is possible to carry out the building or maintenance work avoiding the risk of asbestos exposure all together.
  • If that’s not possible, identify who might be at risk and the level of possible asbestos exposure from any work.
  • On this basis, decide what work methods are necessary to provide effective control of the risks.

Decide if the work needs to be carried out by a licensed contractor

  • Most asbestos removal work will require a contractor holding a licence from HSE.
  • All work with sprayed asbestos coatings and asbestos lagging and most work with asbestos insulation and asbestos insulating board (AIB) requires a licence.
  • Identify if your work needs a licensed contractor.
  • Find a licensed contractor or find out how to apply for a licence.

If the work is not licensable, decide if the work needs to be notified

  • If it does not need a licence, you can do maintenance work on or around ACMs with the appropriate controls in place.
  • Some non-licensed work also has additional requirements, i.e. notification of work, medical surveillance and record keeping – this work is known as notifiable non-licensed work (NNLW).

Ensure those carrying out the work are suitably trained.

  • Any worker who is liable to disturb asbestos during their day-to-day work needs to receive appropriate training to enable them to protect themselves and others.

If you require advice on health and safety in your workplace, please contact one of the Ashbrooke team.

Posted on

Prosecution after worker loses part of hand

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has undertaken a prosecution after a worker loses part of hand.  Laxtons Limited, a West Yorkshire manufacturing company, has been fined for safety breaches after a worker lost part of their hand in a textile machine.

On 24 March 2021, an employee of Laxtons was running a number of textile machines.  When he opened a guard to check on a build-up of fibres, he reached in to remove material, losing part of his hand.

HSE investigation

An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) found that one of the machines had a defective interlock device. This allowed the machine to continue running when the guard, which was located over a pair of in-running rollers and gears, was opened.

Laxtons Ltd of Shipley, West Yorkshire pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 11 (1) of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998. The company was fined £15,750 and ordered to pay £759 in costs at Leeds Magistrates’ Court.

worker loses part of hand
Work equipment must be safe to use (stock image)

HSE inspector Julian Franklin said:

“Machine guarding should be in line with the appropriate standard, and regularly checked.  This incident could so easily have been avoided by simply training staff in the safe and correct way of operating machinery, and regularly checking that safety devices are functioning.”

Work equipment

The Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998, often abbreviated to PUWER, place duties on people and companies who own, operate or have control over work equipment. PUWER also places responsibilities on businesses and organisations whose employees use work equipment, whether owned by them or not.  PUWER requires that equipment provided for use at work is:

  • suitable for the intended use
  • safe for use, maintained in a safe condition and inspected to ensure it is correctly installed and does not subsequently deteriorate
  • used only by people who have received adequate information, instruction and training
  • accompanied by suitable health and safety measures, such as protective devices and controls. These will normally include guarding, emergency stop devices, adequate means of isolation from sources of energy, clearly visible markings and warning devices
  • used in accordance with specific requirements, for mobile work equipment and power presses

Some work equipment is subject to other health and safety legislation in addition to PUWER. For example, lifting equipment must also meet the requirements of the Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations 1998 (LOLER), pressure equipment must meet the Pressure Systems Safety Regulations 2000 and personal protective equipment must meet the Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations 1992 (PPE).

If your business or organisation uses work equipment or is involved in providing work equipment for others to use (e.g. for hire), you must manage the risks from that equipment. This means you must:

  • ensure the equipment is constructed or adapted to be suitable for the purpose it is used or provided for
  • take account of the working conditions and health and safety risks in the workplace when selecting work equipment
  • ensure work equipment is only used for suitable purposes
  • ensure work equipment is maintained in an efficient state, in efficient working order and in good repair
  • where a machine has a maintenance log, keep this up to date
  • where the safety of work equipment depends on the manner of installation, it must be inspected after installation and before being put into use
  • where work equipment is exposed to deteriorating conditions liable to result in dangerous situations, it must be inspected to ensure faults are detected in good time so the risk to health and safety is managed
  • ensure that all people using, supervising or managing the use of work equipment are provided with adequate, clear health and safety information. This will include, where necessary, written instructions on its use and suitable equipment markings and warnings
  • ensure that all people who use, supervise or manage the use of work equipment have received adequate training, which should include the correct use of the equipment, the risks that may arise from its use and the precautions to take
  • where the use of work equipment is likely to involve a specific risk to health and safety (eg woodworking machinery), ensure that the use of the equipment is restricted to those people trained and appointed to use it
  • take effective measures to prevent access to dangerous parts of machinery. This will normally be by fixed guarding but where routine access is needed, interlocked guards (sometimes with guard locking) may be needed to stop the movement of dangerous parts before a person can reach the danger zone. Where this is not possible, such as with the blade of a circular saw, it must be protected as far as possible and a safe system of work used. These protective measures should follow the hierarchy laid down in PUWER regulation 11(2) and the PUWER Approved Code of Practice and guidance or, for woodworking machinery, the Safe use of woodworking machinery: Approved Code of Practice and guidance
  • take measures to prevent or control the risks to people from parts and substances falling or being ejected from work equipment, or the rupture or disintegration of work equipment
  • ensure that the risks from very hot or cold temperatures from the work equipment or the material being processed or used are managed to prevent injury
  • ensure that work equipment is provided with appropriately identified controls for starting, stopping and controlling it, and that these control systems are safe
  • where appropriate, provide suitable means of isolating work equipment from all power sources (including electric, hydraulic, pneumatic and gravitational energy)
  • ensure work equipment is stabilised by clamping or otherwise to avoid injury
  • take appropriate measures to ensure maintenance operations on work equipment can be carried out safely while the equipment is shut down, without exposing people undertaking maintenance operations to risks to their health and safety

When providing new work equipment for use at work, you must ensure it conforms with the essential requirements of any relevant product supply law (for new machinery this means the Supply of Machinery (Safety) Regulations 2008). You must check it:

  • has appropriate conformity marking and is labelled with the manufacturer’s details 
  • comes with a Declaration of Conformity
  • is provided with instructions in English
  • is free from obvious defects – and that it remains so during its working life

If you require advice on health and safety in your workplace, please contact one of the Ashbrooke team.

Privacy Statement (UK) Proudly powered by WordPress