Group NewsletterIssue 1 Volume 6

October 2014

1

Group Info Page 3

Exhibitions Information Page 4

Other Events Page 5

SGUK News Page 8

HSE Mythbusters Page 10

HSE Information Page 13

Other stories/information Page 31

Useful websites Page 45

Contents

2

Thanks to Eric Letherman regarding a case in Whitefield which went to appeal.

As it is a long document, please find attached the link http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2014/1522.html&query=Polyflor&method=boolean

If any members have ideas for suitable topics for the 2015 programme please contact Mike Nixon on mike.nixon@mohsg.org.uk or Cathy Nixon on cathy.nixon@mohsg.org.uk. These can then be discussed by the Committee.

The next meeting of the Group will take place on Wednesday 26 November at the usual venue of St Antony’s Centre commencing with light refreshments from 1.45 p.m. The speaker will be Grant Cropper from Red 247 who will be talking on Crisis Management and how help is available.

As the Group is affiliated to both Safety Groups UK and RoSPA, members can have access to the members area of the RoSPA website. User name and password are available from either Mike or Cathy.

Group info

3

Thanks again go to Tim Else from Western Business Exhibitions for giving Safety Groups UK a stand at Health and Safety North at Bolton Arena on 8 and 9 October. 104 people visited the stand and left their details for passing on to other local Safety Groups.Visitors came from as far as Portsmouth and Edinburgh.

Next years events for the Regional Shows are shown below. These shows are supported by Safety Groups UK

The Health and Safety Event at the NEC will take place between 24 and 26 March

Health and Safety Scotland takes place at the SECC in Glasgow on 22 and 23 April

Health and Safety North returns to Bolton Arena on 7 and 8 October

We look forward to seeing you at as many of these events as is possible..

Exhibition Information

4

Safety Groups UK will have a stand at the IIRSM/HSW Conference, information is shown below

Fit for the recovery? Taking a longer term view of health and safety risk management Date: 13 November 2014Venue: Thinktank, Millennium Point, Curzon St, Birmingham, West Midlands B4 7XGPrice: £315 + VAT (£378.00)

For further info please visit http://www.iirsm.org/events/Annual-Conference-2014

Health and Wellbeing at Work will take place at the NEC on3 and 4 March 2015. To register http://www.healthatwork2015.co.uk/

IOSH Manchester and North West Districts Branch, Merseyside and North Wales will be holding a tripartite event at Select Halton Stadium, Widnes on 3 June 2015. The subject will be ‘Sustainable Behavioural Cultures’. More info to follow later.

The 58th Annual NWRA Conference is scheduled to take place at Barton Grange Hotel and Conference Centre, nr. Preston on Wednesday 9 September 2015. The theme has yet to be decided but will be announced as soon as possible so please put the date in your diary.

Other Events

5

ROSPA Health and Safety Legal SeminarNobody is immune

Date and location

Wednesday, November 26, 2014thestudio, 51 Lever Street, Manchester M1 1FN

Event overview

Having an excellent health and safety record should be celebrated, but it won’t put you beyond the life-changing reach of workplace accidents. In 2012/13 the HSE prosecuted 973 breaches of which 87% led to convictions. Should the worst happen, do you know exactly how to respond?Don’t leave it to chance, make sure you book to attend the ROSPA Health and Safety Legal Seminar. Learn about the ever-changing health and safety legal Landscape, an update on corporate manslaughter, contingency planning and your legal responsibility towards workplace ill-health.HSE Head of Operations North West, Steve Smith, will be talking about how to manage health and safety at work through a better understanding of legal expectations...Other speakers include:Martin Lamb, Health and Safety Manager, British SugarSally Roff, Partner, DAC Beachcroft ClaimsChris Green, Partner, Weightmans LLPKevin Bridges, Partner, Pinsent Masons LLPThe seminar will be kicked off by a real life case study into a worker fatality and a live debate where you can have you say on the future of Fee for Intervention.

More information and booking

For further Information and online booking visit the ROSPA Health and Safety Legal Seminar web page, Alternatively, please contact the ROSPA Events team 0121 248 2089 or at events@rospa.com.

Other Events Continued

6

North Manchester Health and Safety Advisory Group

The next meeting of the Group will take place at OLC , Old Police Station, Castle Street, Bolton BL2 1AEon Thursday December 11 commencing at 9.30

This will be a ‘special’ featuring Health and Safety with a Festive Theme and Christmas Cheer.

Topics covered will include:

Christmas Fire Safety (at Work and Home) Christmas Shut Down Safety PrecautionsHealth and Safety for Santa and His Little Helpers

Please note there is no charge for attendance, however as it is likely to be a popular event it is recommended to book early via contact.nmhsag@gmail.com. We look forward to welcoming as many of you as possible

N.B. Parking is available on Castle Street but there are strict restrictions on side roads to the west of the venue, so please be prepared to park further away to the east or use public transport.

2015 dates

19 February16 April25 June (expected to be from 9.00 - 3.30)20 August15 October17 December

The majority of the dates are our usual morning event, other than the June date.

Other Events Continued

7

Discounts available through SGUK

Please remember if you work for a small company, or Consultant, who perhaps do not receive a discount at Arco to request a Safety Groups UK card which gives 15% off in Arco shops only (not online). You must produce a card to obtain the discount. (only available to members).

Members 15% Exclusive discount

Safety Groups UK has negotiated corporate benefits for Group members. ACT is working with Safety Groups UK to provide an exclusive discount to all Safety Groups UK members.

ACT offer an exclusive 15% discount off the list price of any product or service to all Safety Groups UK members.

ACT is established as a high quality single point solutions provider of auditing, consultancy and training services. We have evolved into an integrated provider of all learning solutions including conventional, e-learning and blended learning options.

Obtaining the 15% discount

Call ACT on 01384 447915

E-mail – actsales@actassociates.co.uk

Quote ACTSG12

For more info on our products and services go to www.actassociates.co.uk

SGUK Info

8

Open Meeting

There will be an Open Meeting on December 10 at Bangor University where all Groups are invited to attend. The day will begin at 10 a.m. with refreshments and registration, the HR@W initiative will be reviewed and next stages indicated. A buffet lunch will be provided. There will be additional speakers during the afternoon, Dr. Katharine Fuller, HSE and Roger Bibbings , ROSPA. An agenda will be circulated shortly.

House of Lords Alan Butler Awards

The Annual House of Lords Event will take place on Monday 26 January 2015. The day commences with an optional tour of both Houses (limited availability) followed by a short meeting and presentation from Jane Willis, Director, Cross Cutting Intervention, HSE at which the Bronze and Silver Awards are presented. Luncheon is available at a cost of £95 per person. The Gold Awards and the Maurice Adamson Award will be presented after the luncheon. For further details contact Mike Nixon treasurer.sguk@ntlworld.com or Laura Mann lmann@rospa.com . If you wish to attend please book your place by January 9 2015.

SGUK Info continues

9

Hot drinks not to be taken through the gate when boarding aircraft

Issue

Tannoy system announced that hot drinks could not be taken through the gate when boarding aircraft due to H&S regulations.

Panel decision

Occupational health and safety law does not prohibit passengers from carrying hot drinks past the boarding gate. The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) enforced legislation also does not prohibit this practice. There may be a number of sensible reasons why either an airport operator or aircraft operator decide not to allow passengers to carry hot liquids past the boarding gate. It would have been helpful had the announcement explained this rather than simply using ‘health and safety’ as the catch all reason.

TV satellite engineers will not install equipment after 5pm

Issue

TV satellite engineers will not install TV equipment after 5pm because it unsafe to do so and contravenes Health and Safety regulations.

Panel decision

There is no workplace Health and Safety legislation that prohibits the installation of TV equipment after 5pm. The customer service advisor was wrong to claim that this is a contravention of Health and Safety regulations. The company have confirmed that this is not company policy and will brief staff to ensure they understand what engineers can and can’t do.

HSE Mythbusters

10

Passenger refused entry on bus with their dog

Issue

A driver on a rail replacement bus service tried to refuse the enquirer entry on the bus with their dog on health and safety grounds as there was another passenger waiting to board with a dog.

Panel decision

The bus driver was incorrect in citing health and safety as the reason for refusing access to the bus to a passenger with a dog. It is unclear what his real concerns were given that he eventually agreed to the passenger and his dog travelling. The driver should have made the real reason clear or have been more accommodating initially. Simply using health and safety as an easy get out is unhelpful.

School fête organisers told they cannot use shredded paper for lucky dips as this contravenes health and safety laws

Issue

The enquirer has heard from two different people organising school fêtes that they are looking for polystyrene packing pieces for their school lucky dips as apparently they are not allowed to use shredded paper or tissue paper as this contravenes health and safety laws.

Panel decision

There are no health and safety laws which prevent the use of shredded paper or tissue paper in lucky dips. It is hard to imagine what "risk" people might believe is associated with using shredded paper but it seems a rather extreme example of risk aversion.

Continues

11

Parents were banned from saying goodbye to their children in the playground

Issue

A newspaper reported that during ongoing construction work at a school, parents were banned from saying goodbye to their primary school children in the playground for 'health and safety reasons'.

Panel decision

Ongoing construction work appears to have limited access at the school. In these circumstances the school appears to have acted sensibly and proportionately in making alternative arrangements for older children to be guided to their classes whilst still allowing younger children to be accompanied by their parents/guardians.

Continues

12

Injury and ill-health statistics highlight workplace dangers

 Figures published today show that while Britain continues to be one of the safest places to work in Europe, too many workers are still being injured or made ill by work. 

Join HSE for live Twitter-chat on injury and ill health statistics 2013/14

 ‘The Health and Safety Executive will host a live Twitter-chat on Friday 31st October to answer questions on the release of today’s injury and ill-health statistics.

HSE Info

13

A Macclesfield manufacturer has been fined for safety failings after a worker’s hand became entangled around a factory drill.Stormguard Ltd, which produces a range of drainage products, was prosecuted by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) after an investigation found it had ignored warnings by its own health and safety officer about how the machine was being used.

Macclesfield Magistrates’ Court heard the 36-year-old worker from Macclesfield, who has asked not to be named, had only been working at the Chester Road factory for a couple of weeks when the incident happened on 16 October 2012.

He was using the drill to produce metal sills, used to deflect rainwater from the bottom of doors, when the glove on his right hand became caught, pulling his hand around the rotating drill bit.

The third finger on his right hand was dislocated and fractured, and his little finger was also fractured.

Macclesfield firm in court over worker’s drill injury

14

The HSE investigation found that the guard on the drill was inadequate and that it had become common practice for workers to wear gloves while using the drill, despite the risk of gloves becoming entangled being well known in the manufacturing industry.The court was told that Stormguard’s own health and safety officer had identified inadequate guarding on the drill in a written report over a year before the incident. He also raised the issue of workers wearing gloves while using drills. However, no action was taken to tackle these issues.

Stormguard Ltd, of Chestergate in Macclesfield, was fined £2,000 and ordered to pay £4,377 in prosecution costs after pleading guilty to a breach of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974.

Speaking after the hearing, HSE Inspector Deborah Walker said:

“There was simply no need for this incident to have happened, especially as Stormguard’s own health and safety officer had raised the issue with the company.

“The employee was lucky to escape with relatively minor injuries, but they could easily have been much worse. Workers at the factory were regularly using the drill without an adequate guard and while wearing gloves so there was a high risk that someone would be injured.

“There’s absolutely no point in manufacturers hiring health and safety officers if they’re not going to listen to their advice. Risk assessments should be acted on – not put on a shelf to gather dust.”More information on health and safety in the manufacturing industry is available at www.hse.gov.uk/manufacturing.

Story continues

15

Two partners in a home improvement company have been fined after building work at a house exposed a woman and her foster children to the risk of carbon monoxide poisoning.The company, run by Janusz Wojcik and Phillip Thomas, was contracted to carry out loft conversion work at a property in Bettws, near Newport, on behalf of Newport City Council in November 2010.As part of the improvement work the company had to replace a flue from the gas fire, which they left in an ‘immediately dangerous’ condition with the potentially lethal fumes escaping into the loft space.

In a prosecution brought by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), Cardiff Crown Court heard today (25 September) that the householder had agreed to modifications to her home with a grant from the council to accommodate foster children. The householder, who lives at her home with four adolescents, had concerns about the quality of the work carried out by the company, and found that there were faults with the plumbing system. Gas Safe Register, who sent an officer to investigate, found that the flue from the gas fire had been removed from just below the level of the loft, allowing poisonous carbon monoxide gas into the loft space. It was classified as ‘immediately dangerous’. 

HSE’s investigation identified that the partnership did not obtain advice from a Gas Safe registered engineer before the chimney and flue were removed. The gas fire was still connected and used during the winter resulting in potentially deadly carbon monoxide gas building-up in the loft space.  Janusz Wojcik, and Phillip Thomas, partners of P Thomas and J Building and Home Improvement Specialists of Lochaber Street, Cardiff, each pleaded guilty to a breach of the Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations. Both defendants were fined £1,500 each. 

HSE Inspector Dean Baker, speaking after the hearing, said: “Janusz Wojcik and Phillip Thomas failed in their duty to ensure the gas fire was made safe before they removed the chimney and flue. “The shoddy and careless work by the contractors could have cost a family with young children their lives. Anyone carrying out work on or near a flue should get the advice of a Gas Safe Registered engineer before starting work to ensure it is made safe. It is never acceptable to assume that a gas appliance will not be used after a flue has been removed”. 

The householder, who does not want to be named, said: “The council approached me with a view to having a loft conversion to help with fostering. The contractors they chose for the job were not competent and put me and my foster children at risk. “My son started complaining of headaches and feeling sick and I put it down to him playing computer games, not carbon monoxide. When the Gas Safe Register Inspector found that the flue had been removed I realised just how lucky we were.” Further information about gas safety can be found on the HSE website at http://www.hse.gov.uk/gas/index.htm

Home improvement company fined for potentially lethal work

16

A Wirral builder was caught on camera risking the lives of his workers on a house roof, a court has heard. 

Ronald Steven King, known as Steve, and two other men were seen on the roof of a detached house in Kingsley, Cheshire, without any measures in place to prevent them being injured in a fall. 

An inspector from the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), who visited the site following a complaint by a member of the public, also found the workers had to jump over a one-metre gap from a scaffolding tower to reach the roof. 

Mr King was prosecuted by HSE following the inspection of the work on the four-bedroomed house on Brookside on 29 April 2013. Chester Magistrates’ Court heard that the 61-year-old had been hired to re-roof the property, including replacing slates and fitting insulation, and had begun work on the project two weeks earlier. 

A scaffolding tower had been erected in a neighbouring garden but there was a large gap from the scaffolding to the house roof. There were also no scaffolding boards or other protection around the edge of the roof to prevent workers falling up to four and a half metres. 

Mr King, of Airlie Road in Hoylake, was fined £3,000 and ordered to pay £2,457 in prosecution costs on 25 September 2014 after pleading guilty to a breach of the Work at Height Regulations 2005 by failing to put measures in place to prevent falls. 

Speaking after the hearing, HSE Inspector Kevin Jones said: “Mr King is an experienced roofer and had taken on a major project to re-roof a detached house but he failed to make sure basic safety measures were in place. 

“He not only put his own life at risk but also the lives of two of the workers he employed by asking them to jump from the scaffolding to the roof, and by not providing protection around the edge of the roof. 

“The risks from working at height are well known in the construction industry but Mr King ignored the dangers. If we hadn’t been alerted to the work by a member of the public, then I dread to think what might have happened.” 

Information on working safely at height is available at www.hse.gov.uk/work-at-height. 

Wirral builder photographed risking lives

17

Two Bolton landlords have been fined after a four-month-old baby and both his parents were taken to hospital with carbon monoxide poisoning.

Mr and Mrs Mehboob and Suraiya Bobat were prosecuted by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) after an investigation found four gas appliances at a property on Bowness Road were unsafe, and that they had failed to arrange an annual gas safety check as the law requires.

Trafford Magistrates’ Court heard a couple, who have asked not to be identified, began renting the two-bedroom terraced house in February 2013 – three months before their baby was due.

Towards the end of the month, the expectant mum began to suffer headaches, palpitations and had difficulty breathing. She was taken into hospital for several days, with doctors assuming her symptoms were linked to her pregnancy.

Her husband also started to suffer from severe headaches and was given codeine by his GP.

Later in the year, on 21 August, the couple were both at home in the afternoon looking after their four-month-old son. He had been crying all day and they were concerned that he was unwell.

The baby’s father also started to suffer with a really bad headache shortly before his wife began to feel dizzy and collapsed on the kitchen floor. Her husband called for an ambulance and all three members of the family were treated in hospital overnight for high levels of carbon monoxide poisoning.

The HSE investigation found a gas-powered water heater in the kitchen should only have been used for a maximum of five minutes at a time as it did not have a flue. However, it was connected to the washing machine as well as the kitchen sink and had begun to emit high levels of carbon monoxide due to its overuse.

Bolton landlords in court after baby boy suffers carbon monoxide poisoning

18

The heater was classified as ‘immediately dangerous’ by a gas engineer, along with a gas heater in the front bedroom. A gas fire in the lounge and gas boiler in the kitchen were also found to be ‘at risk’ of causing carbon monoxide poisoning.The court was told that Mr and Mrs Bobat were asked to provide a copy of the latest Gas Safety Certificate to prove a registered gas fitter had inspected the property in the past year, but they admitted they did not have one.Mehboob Bobat, 47,  and Suraiya Bobat, 46, of St Helens Road in Bolton, were each sentenced to 80 hours of community service with unpaid work  and each ordered to pay prosecution costs of £720 after pleading guilty to two breaches of the Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1998.  They were also ordered to pay a victim surcharge of £60.

Speaking after the hearing, HSE Principal Inspector Mike Sebastian said:

“A young couple and their baby son were needlessly made ill for several months because Mr and Mrs Bobat failed in their legal duties as landlords to arrange an annual gas safety check.

“It’s shocking that all four of the gas appliances in the property had the potential to cause carbon monoxide poisoning. If the baby’s father hadn’t acted quickly to call an ambulance when he wife collapsed then the effects could easily have been fatal.

“Landlords must take their responsibilities seriously and make sure houses they rent out are safe for their tenants. We will continue to take legal action when landlords ignore the law.”

Tenants whose landlords have failed to carry out annual gas safety checks and provide a certificate of proof are being encouraged to contact HSE at www.hse.gov.uk/contact.

Story continues

19

A Derbyshire school has been prosecuted for safety failings after a pupil’s grandmother fell off the side of an unguarded staircase.

Southern Derbyshire Magistrates’ Court today (2 Oct) heard 68-year-old Christine Bywater had been at Repton School watching her grandson play football.

She had gone to the pavilion for refreshments with the rest of her family but on leaving the building by the outside steps, she lost her balance when she moved from a wooden staircase to a stone one.

Mrs Bywater, of Shrewsbury, fell over the parapet on the stone staircase to the ground some two metres below and fractured three bones in her neck. She also broke the index finger on her right hand and lacerated her scalp in the incident on 30 November 2013. She is still recovering.

A Health and Safety Executive (HSE) investigation found there were handrails fitted to the wooden stairs leading from the pavilion to the stone staircase while the stone staircase had a 40 centimetre-high parapet running along the edge of the stairs but no handrail.

Repton School, of Repton, Derby, pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 4(1), contrary to Regulation 12(5), of the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 and was fined £10,000 and ordered to pay £534 in costs.

After the hearing, HSE inspector Edward Walker said:

“This was a foreseeable incident which could easily have been avoided had reasonable measures, such as the fitting of guard rails, been taken.

“Published guidance exists regarding appropriate edge protection and dimensions for handrails which the school could have used to identify the appropriate standard.

“The school has since fitted wooden rails to the previously unguarded edge, but it should have done this before someone suffered a painful injury.”

Derbyshire school fined after grandmother falls from stairs

20

A Darwen-based scrap metal firm has been fined for health and safety failings after workers suffered from lead poisoning.

One 48-year-old man from Darwen, who has asked not to be named, was admitted to hospital after blood tests revealed he had seven times the normal amount of lead in his body, putting him at risk of nerve, brain and kidney damage, and infertility.

Frank Barnes (Darwen) Ltd was prosecuted by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) after an investigation found employees had been regularly exposed to lead fumes and dust for a number of months.

Preston Crown Court heard on 20th October 2014, that the firm had been contracted to dismantle metal structures and machinery by a lead battery manufacturer in 2009.

This involved work at the battery factory in Over Hulton as well as at Frank Barnes’ own site at Albert and Hope Mills on Cross Street in Darwen.

The owners of the battery firm provided an induction on working with lead, and regularly monitored each employee for exposure.On 24 November 2009, the 48-year-old employee was found to have high levels of lead in his blood and was suspended from working with lead at the battery factory, as is required by law.

Frank Barnes was also told the employee should not work with lead materials at the Cross Street site, but this advice was ignored. The warning was repeated in January 2010 when another blood test revealed the lead levels in his blood were still high but, again, this was ignored.

HSE was alerted in early February by the GP of another employee whose blood also had high levels of lead.  A HSE medical inspector made it clear to the firm that any workers with high blood readings should be taken off that type of work until their levels had reduced.

Darwen scrap metal firm fined over lead poisoning

21

Despite this, again no action was taken and employees continued to be exposed to lead fumes and dust, leading to the 48-year-old employee being admitted to hospital later that month.

When HSE visited the site in March 2010 they found two other workers, who should have been suspended from lead work, had been allowed to continue working with lead-containing materials and had not been given suitable protective equipment.Frank Barnes (Darwen) Ltd was fined £30,000 and ordered to pay £29,639.65 in prosecution costs after pleading guilty to a breach of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974.

Speaking after the hearing, HSE Inspector Michael Mullen said: “This is one of the worst cases I have dealt with as an inspector.

Frank Barnes (Darwen) Ltd consistently failed to respond to clear advice concerning employees with high levels of lead in their blood and these employees continued to be exposed to lead fumes.

“Workers were not warned about the risks they faced, nor given suitable protective masks or clothing.

“The scrap metal company had a duty to adequately assess and manage the risk of exposure of its employees to lead. However there was no assessment and no effective controls in place in relation to the work.

“This case should act as a clear warning to others who fail to heed health and safety laws that they could find themselves in court.”

Symptoms of lead poisoning include headaches, tiredness, nausea and stomach pains but prolonged exposure can lead to more serious conditions, including brain damage. Information on how to safely manage the risks from lead is available at www.hse.gov.uk/lead.

Story continues

22

An Ayrshire waste recycling firm has been fined for serious safety failings after an agency worker severed his left arm at the shoulder while clearing a conveyor belt blockage.

Steven Dawson, then aged 28, was working as a line supervisor for Lowmac Alloys Ltd at its premises on the Oldhall West Industrial Estate in Irvine, when the incident happened on 8 February 2011.

Kilmarnock Sheriff Court was told today (6 October) that Mr Dawson was separating plastic and paper by hand on the conveyor belt when he was alerted to a problem with the conveyor belt and noticed a metal container had caught on the edge of the conveyor belt’s pulley.

He opened an unsecured hinged guard to access the blockage, but when he attempted to remove the container his left hand and arm came into contact with the moving belt and the bottom of the pulley – resulting in his arm being severed at the shoulder.On hearing his screams, one of his colleagues pulled the “stop cord” that was fitted along the conveyor to switch off the machinery.

Mr Dawson was taken to hospital but doctors were unable to reattach his arm. Over the following weeks he underwent two operations and has been told he needs further surgery to repair the nerves in his shoulderMr Dawson still suffers from considerable pain and has been unable to return to work.

Lowmac Alloys was prosecuted after a Health and Safety Executive investigation found that more could and should have been done to prevent access to dangerous moving machinery parts.

Recycling firm in court after worker loses arm

23

The HSE investigation concluded that the company: 

failed to provide interlocking guarding to stop dangerous parts moving before a worker entered the danger zones;failed to provide effective supervision in order to prevent its employees from entering danger zones while dangerous parts were moving,failed to provide a safe system of work to clear blockages, ensuring mains isolators were locked off to prevent electrical power being supplied to the machinery while employees were in close proximityfailed to make a suitable and sufficient assessment of the risks to the health and safety of employees when exposed to dangerous parts of conveyor belt machinery. The court was told that the company had been served with a ‘Deferred Prohibition Notice’ in 2003 by HSE in relation to the lack of guarding on another conveyor belt at the Irvine premises.

Lowmac Alloys Ltd, of Green Street Lane, Ayr, was fined £118,000 after pleading guilty to breaching Sections 2(1) and 2(2)(a) and (c) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. 

Following the case, HSE Inspector Mark Carroll, said:

“This incident was entirely preventable. Lowmac Alloys Ltd had identified there was a high risk of crushing and trapping in the machinery, however, the company failed to provide interlocking guarding to the gate over the conveyor which would have cut power to the machinery when it was opened.

“Had this been in place, then employees would not have been exposed to the risk from the dangerous parts of the machine.“As a consequence of this breach, Mr Dawson suffered a horrific, life changing injury.” 

Story continues

24

Burnley College has been fined £20,000 after an employee was severely injured when he fell three metres while changing an air filter on an extraction system.

The sixth form and further education college was prosecuted by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) after an investigation found it had failed to ensure the work was carried out safely, despite specialising in teaching health and safety courses.

Preston Crown Court heard that the 63-year-old engineering technician from Burnley, who has asked not to be named, had needed to put his left foot on a cabinet and his right foot on the top rung of a stepladder to reach the filter.

As he did this, on 28 May 2013, the stepladder toppled from under him and he fell sideways, hitting a bench on his way down. His back was broken in several places and he also sustained a fractured breastbone.

The employee required morphine for 12 days to manage the pain, was off work for five and a half months, and is likely to need to take pain killers every day for the rest of his life. He can now only walk short distances and has had to give up hobbies such as fell walking and DIY, which he carried out for his 85-year-old mother.

The court was told the extraction system had been installed at short notice after the college secured a new contract to train nearly 300 employees from the aerospace industry on working with sheets of carbon fibre.

The unit was needed to remove the carbon fibre dust generated by drilling and other processes but it was installed above a narrow gap between a cabinet and a fixed workbench. This meant the employee was unable to use the college’s mobile elevated work platform to reach the filter, which needed to be changed regularly.

The HSE investigation found his supervisor had witnessed him removing the filter in exactly the same way just over a week earlier, but had failed to take any action to ensure the work was carried out safely in future.

Burnley College in court over employee’s life-long injuries

25

The college had not given the employee any training on working at height, and had failed to produce a single risk assessment on work at height activities since moving to a new building in 2009.

Burnley College, of Princess Way in Burnley, was fined £20,000 and ordered to pay £7,600 in prosecution costs after pleading guilty to a breach of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 on 23 October 2014.

Speaking after the hearing, HSE Inspector Rose Leese-Weller said:

“It’s astonishing that Burnley College failed to ensure basic health and safety systems were in place when it employs lecturers who specialise in this area.

“Anyone with even the slightest knowledge of safety while working at height would have known straddling a cabinet and the top rung of a stepladder was dangerous, but this practice was allowed to continue by the college.

“The extraction system was installed quickly and without thought for the employees who would need to change the filters. The technician therefore had no choice but to reach them in this way.

“If the college had carried out a proper risk assessment in advance then the unit could have been installed in an area where it could be reached by the mobile elevated work platform, without an employee’s life being put in danger.”

More information on working at height is available at www.hse.gov.uk/falls.

Story continues

26

An Oldham manufacturer has been ordered to pay £125,000 in fines and costs after an employee was killed when he was struck by a three-tonne piece of steel being lifted by an overhead crane.Michael Wickstead, 63, from Radcliffe, was working for Refinery Supplies Ltd on the Greengate Industrial Estate in Chadderton when two overhead cranes collided. The impact sent a steel container toppling, striking Mr Wickstead and causing fatal crush injuries.The company was prosecuted by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) after an investigation into the incident, on 11 July 2011, found a safe system of work had not been in place at the factory.Manchester Crown Court heard today (24 October 2014) that Mr Wickstead had been involved in manufacturing a large steel container, used to hold molten lead or zinc, which had been resting on a stand with chains hanging down to it from an overhead crane.A colleague was using another crane on the same overhead rail to move another container when the cranes collided, knocking the one Mr Wickstead was working on off its stand.The court was told Refinery Supplies should have had a clear working system in place to prevent workers from being injured by the cranes. This could have included fitting anti-collision devices to the cranes, or making sure there was a safe method in place to avoid the two cranes coming into contact with each other.Refinery Supplies Ltd, of Greenside Way in Chadderton, was fined £90,000 and ordered to pay £35,000 in prosecution costs after pleading guilty to a breach of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974.

Speaking after the hearing, HSE Inspector Helen Jones said:

“Michael sadly lost his life because the safety standards of his employer fell well below the minimum legal standards.“Refinery Supplies knew there was a risk of cranes colliding at the factory and, in fact, this had happened on several previous occasions without the same catastrophic result. However, the firm failed to take any action to make sure workers weren’t put at risk of being injured.“It’s vital that manufacturers carefully consider the dangers facing their employees and then implement safety improvements. If Refinery Supplies had done this then Michael’s tragic death could have been avoided.”Information on improving safety in the manufacturing sector is available at www.hse.gov.uk/manufacturing.

Oldham factory sentenced over worker’s death

27

The UK division of a pan-European paper company has been fined for safety failings after a worker broke her leg in three places when poorly stacked pallets of paper collapsed.

The long-serving employee, who does not want to be identified, is still suffering pain and complications more than five years after the incident at Colombier (UK) Ltd in Sittingbourne on 27 May 2009.

The firm, part of the Holland-based Colombier Group, was prosecuted by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) for failing to implement effective control measures in the stacking of heavy items.

Maidstone Magistrates Court heard (23 October) that the worker had helped to recover two pallet loads of paper that had collapsed and spilled from a stack at Colombier’s warehouse on the Eurolink Industrial Estate.

As she walked away further pallets slipped from the stack and struck her leg, causing the triple break.

HSE identified that although risks arising from falling stacks were identified by the company as a concern, the risk assessment did not address this particular work activity, so the actual process for controlling this risk was virtually non-existent. The system for stacking pallets in open areas of the warehouse did not follow HSE or industry guidance.

Magistrates were told there were two recorded incidents of stacks falling prior to the leg break incident, and that on a further three occasions the issue had been raised at management level. However, this information did not result in any practical change.The company has since revised its management process.

Colombier (UK) Ltd, of the Eurolink Industrial Estate, Castle Road, Sittingbourne, was fined a total of £30,000 and ordered to pay £4,496 in costs after pleading guilty to two breaches of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999.

Paper firm fined for pallet fall failings

28

After the hearing, HSE inspector Jan Combs commented:

“Risk assessments are not a paperwork exercise, and should be used as a management tool to identify risks and trigger the need for robust systems and procedures to eliminate them from the work process – so far as it is reasonably practicable to do so. If there is a change in process, a revised risk assessment should be implemented to follow suit.

“This case should serve to remind managers of the need to be aware of what is happening in their workplace, and to react immediately if any issues are identified. Concerns about the stacking process were well known at Colombier, and yet there was no management response to protect workers until it was too late, with an experienced employee sustaining a horrific leg injury that was entirely preventable.”

Story continues

29

A North Lanarkshire employer has been fined for safety failings which led to a worker being killed after he was thrown from a forklift truck and crushed. David Westwater, 22, of Denny, had only been working for Basil Pinkney, in his small scaffold refurbishment business in Coatbridge, for two weeks before the incident happened on 28 August 2012. Airdrie Sheriff Court heard today (23 October) that Mr Westwater was driving an unladen forklift truck down a sloping access way to the front gate to see his girlfriend when she arrived to pick him up at the end of his shift. He made a sharp left hand turn, causing the vehicle to tip over. Mr Westwater, who was not wearing a seatbelt, was thrown to the ground and the vehicle’s protective cage fell onto his head trapping him beneath it. Alerted by the screams of his girlfriend, a colleague rushed to use another forklift truck to raise the vehicle to free Mr Westwater. He had suffered multiple head injuries and was pronounced dead at the scene by paramedics. An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) revealed Mr Pinkney had failed to provide a safe system of work at the site, in that he failed to have in place a system to ensure that only suitably trained employees drove forklift trucks. Mr Westwater had not received any formal training on driving forklift trucks. He had been given about 20 minutes’ in-house training but this fell far short of the standard required by HSE. He had not been given adequate training in relation to the requirement to wear a seatbelt or in relation to the hazards involved in carrying out sharp turning manoeuvres. The court was told that during a site visit several years earlier, a HSE inspector had seen a forklift truck driven by a non-qualified driver and Mr Pinkney, who trades as B D Pinkney & Co,  was told to ensure that only those properly trained to drive the vehicle should use it. Despite this, at the time of the incident some employees who were required to drive the forklift trucks, had not undergone any external training. Basil ‘Bill’ Pinkney, 69, t/a B D Pinkney & Co, Unit 4, Northburn Road, Coatbridge, was fined £24,500 after pleading guilty to breaching Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974.  Following the case, HSE Acting Head of Operations Barry Baker, said: “The tragic death of Mr Westwater could easily have been prevented. Basil Pinkney had previously been told to ensure that only employees who had been properly trained should drive his forklift trucks. On the date of the incident there were three trained forklift drivers on site so there was no need for Mr Westwater to even be on a forklift.  “Every year there are serious and sometimes fatal incidents involving forklift trucks. It was entirely foreseeable that there was a risk of death or serious injury in allowing an inexperienced and untrained driver to operate a forklift truck.  “Mr Westwater should not have been allowed to operate any of the forklift trucks on site until he had been properly trained to do so.” For more information about workplace transport safety log onto the HSE website at: http://www.hse.gov.uk/workplacetransport/index.htm

Employer sentenced after worker crushed to death

30

A County Durham firm has been sentenced after a worker suffered serious burns to his face, hand and arm when he was struck by a jet of hot molten plastic.

John Calcutt was helping clear solidified plastic from a large plastic injection moulding machine at Ebac Ltd, in Newton Aycliffe, when the incident happened on 9 September 2013.The 47-year-old, from Spennymoor, was struck across the left side of his face and his left hand and arm by the hot liquid plastic as it was ejected from the machine causing serious burns.He was airlifted to hospital and kept in for three days. He is still receiving treatment and physiotherapy but has returned to work at Ebac Ltd.The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) today (27 Oct) prosecuted Ebac Ltd at Darlington Magistrates’ Court for serious safety failings after an investigation into the incident.The court heard that at the start of the day’s shift a blockage was identified at the machine’s injection unit, where the raw material is fed into the machine, melted and mixed before being pumped into the mould cavity.Mr Calcutt and two colleagues attempted to clear the blockage. Their focus was on clearing the blockage to get the machine working.Mr Calcutt had not received any training in relation to clearing blockages on the machine and none of those involved in the task were wearing any form of eye or face protection.

HSE found that Ebac Ltd had not carried out an assessment of the risks to employees while clearing blockages on the feed / injection system and did not ensure workers were using personal protective equipment as required.Ebac Ltd, of Ketton Way, AycliffeIndustrial Park, Newton Aycliffe, was fined £7,500 and ordered to pay £770.10 in costs and £750 Victim Surcharge after pleading guilty to breaching Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974.

After the hearing, HSE Inspector Victoria Wise, said:

“This incident could have been easily prevented if Ebac Ltd had a safe system of work in place for dealing with blockages.“The potential for ejection of hot molten plastic is highlighted in the industry’s own guidance and this was a foreseeable risk that should have been part of the risk assessment process for clearing blockages.“The company should have also had monitoring in place to ensure that its employees were using the appropriate personal protective equipment that had been provided.“Instead, the firm’s failures mean a worker has suffered serious injuries.”For more health and safety advice for those working in the manufacturing industry visit: http://www.hse.gov.uk/manufacturing/index.htm

County Durham firm fined over worker’s severe burns

31

KEEP GORE FOR COSTUMES AND AVOID FIREWORK INJURIES THIS HALLOWEEN

Halloween is a time for fright and horror but RoSPA is warning families in Northern Ireland to keep the gore for their costumes and avoid firework injuries.   In the four weeks leading up to Halloween last year, six people visited accident and emergency departments in Northern Ireland after suffering firework-related injuries. This was a welcome reduction on the figure from 2012, when 14 people were injured. Of the victims in 2013, two were under 18 years of age - even though it is illegal to sell fireworks to under-18s.   The most common part of the body to be injured was the face, head and neck, while all of the people injured were male.  

Ita McErlean, RoSPA’s home safety manager for Northern Ireland, said:  “Having fireworks at home can be great fun, as long as they are used safely and correctly.  

“Half of the accidents in 2013 happened in a ‘casual incident’ in a public place. We’re urging anyone hosting a fireworks party to make sure they plan ahead so that their event is safe and enjoyable for their guests.  

“It’s also important to remember to apply for a licence before holding a fireworks party and don’t forget to buy fireworks from a reputable shop.  

“To ensure safety, children and young people should watch and enjoy fireworks at a safe distance and follow the safety rules for using sparklers.  

“It is pleasing to see that the number of injuries has gone down but we would like to see them going down even further this year.”  

This story courtesy of RoSPA

32

To avoid frightful injuries on Halloween, RoSPA is reminding families in Northern Ireland to follow these simple steps:

Plan your firework display to make it safe and enjoyable

Keep fireworks in a closed box and use them one at a time

Read and follow the instructions on each firework using a torch if necessary

Light the firework at arm's length with a taper and stand well back

Keep naked flames, including cigarettes, away from fireworks

Never return to a firework once it has been lit

Don't put fireworks in pockets and never throw them

Direct any rocket fireworks well away from spectators

Never use paraffin or petrol on a bonfire

Make sure that the fire is out and surroundings are made safe before leaving. 

For more information about firework safety, including plenty of safety tips for holding a firework display at home, visit www.saferfireworks.com

Story continues

33

Get that rocket out of your pocket and avoid spoiling the party with an accident on Bonfire Night by following the fireworks code, warns the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (RoSPA).   Fireworks are explosives and can cause life-threatening injuries, so as the firework season gets underway, the safety charity is reminding people to make sure that it is just the fireworks that go off with a bang and prevent injuries.   Every year, RoSPA hears about people - including children and young people - being injured by fireworks - about half of these injuries happen at family or private parties and about a quarter in the street or other public place.   Data collected across Britain in previous years shows that, on average, around 1,000 people visit A&E for treatment of a firework-related injury in the four weeks around Bonfire Night, with half of the injuries being suffered by under-18s.  It is important that families have the necessary safety preparations in place if they are thinking of staging a fireworks party at home.  

To avoid injuries on Bonfire Night, RoSPA is reminding families to follow these simple steps: Plan your fireworks display to make it safe and enjoyable Keep fireworks in a closed box and use them one at a time Read and follow the instructions on each firework using a torch if necessaryLight the firework at arm's length with a taper and stand well backKeep naked flames, including cigarettes, away from fireworksNever return to a firework once it has been litDon't put fireworks in pockets and never throw themDirect any rocket fireworks well away from spectatorsNever use paraffin or petrol on a bonfireMake sure that the fire is out and surroundings are made safe before leaving.

Sheila Merrill, RoSPA’s public health adviser, said: “Bonfire Night is a time for celebration so to avoid accidents, families should ensure that fireworks are treated with respect and are handled only by adults. Fireworks are not toys and should only be used in accordance with the firework code. Each year, over half of all fireworks injuries are suffered by children.   “The safest place to enjoy fireworks is at properly-organised displays. If you are organising a fireworks party we urge people to make sure they plan ahead so that their event is safe and enjoyable for their guests.”  

For more information about firework safety, including plenty of safety tips for holding a firework display at home, visit www.saferfireworks.com  

GET THAT ROCKET OUT OF YOUR POCKET AND PREVENT INJURIES ON BONFIRE NIGHT

34

E-cigarette batteries start two fires Yorkshire

Two e-cigarette batteries "exploded" and started fires in two West Yorkshire homes in just 24 hours.West Yorkshire Fire Service has warned it is now being called out to e-cigarette fires more than once a month.In an incident in Bradford, a battery exploded and "shot across the room", coming to rest at the foot of a wardrobe, which caught fire.And a couple in Girlington only realised their bedroom was on fire when the smoke alarm sounded.There have been 13 e-cigarette fires in West Yorkshire in the past 12 months.

'Burning battery‘

While only 0.25% of call-outs are related to e-cigarettes, the fire service has warned of a growing problem. E-cigarette usage in the region has increased more than 300% between 2012 and 2013. Fire Investigator Sean Fearon said: "The fire service is very concerned with the increased number of fires involving e-cigarette batteries whilst on charge."When the batteries fail they can explode. This generally results in burning battery materials being ejected into a room."Although they only burn for a short time, if they land on combustible materials like bedding or newspaper it will cause a fire to develop."Mr Fearon also warned that using an incorrect charger could start a fire, although the Girlington battery exploded despite being plugged into the one supplied with the e-cigarette.

The following stories courtesy of BBC News website

35

A leading paediatrician has warned of the dangers of lithium batteries after two children swallowed them and died. Dr Kate Parkins said, in the last 18 months, another five children in Greater Manchester have also suffered life-changing injuries as a result.She said the button-shaped batteries "look like sweets" to children but can cause severe internal bleeding which medics struggle to treat.Lithium batteries are found in items such as toys, keys and smartphones.

'Impossible to control'

Dr Parkins, a lead consultant for the region's Paediatric Intensive Care Transport Service, is calling for a national campaign to highlight the dangers."They look innocent enough and therefore nobody thinks to put them out of reach from children," she said.One child died in May last year after a battery got lodged in the upper part of the feeding tube, she said."It had been removed and then, about a week later, caused catastrophic bleeding which we couldn't control."The most serious cases are associated with Lithium button batteries larger than 20mm (the size of a 10 pence piece) which can cause severe injury within two hours. And they do not have to be damaged, crushed or chewed to cause serious harm. "It's not what's inside the battery," she explained. "The battery sets up an electrical current which causes a build-up of sodium hydroxide which is caustic soda."That causes a burn through the oesophagus, the feeding tube, and that can then burn through into major blood vessels and that's why the bleeding is then pretty much impossible to control and stop."The consultant at Central Manchester University Hospital Trust also wants to raise medical awareness "because a lot of doctors are unaware that this can cause harm either".

'Button battery' warning over child deaths in Manchester

36

Severe haemorrhaging

Dr Parkins said in the second fatal case, medics did not know if the three-year-old had swallowed a button battery."She suffered catastrophic bleeding which again with all medical intervention we couldn't control."She died because of severe haemorrhaging, severe blood loss."

Children who have survived have been left with "severe life-changing injuries", she said."Two deaths is too many as far as we're concerned. Two or three patients having severe injuries is too many when it's something potentially preventable."Central Manchester University Hospitals said the children treated after swallowing the batteries were aged between 12 months to six years old.One child died in May last year after a battery got lodged in the upper part of the feeding tube, she said.

"It had been removed and then, about a week later, caused catastrophic bleeding which we couldn't control."The most serious cases are associated with Lithium button batteries larger than 20mm (the size of a 10 pence piece) which can cause severe injury within two hours. And they do not have to be damaged, crushed or chewed to cause serious harm. "It's not what's inside the battery," she explained. "The battery sets up an electrical current which causes a build-up of sodium hydroxide which is caustic soda."That causes a burn through the oesophagus, the feeding tube, and that can then burn through into major blood vessels and that's why the bleeding is then pretty much impossible to control and stop."The consultant at Central Manchester University Hospital Trust also wants to raise medical awareness "because a lot of doctors are unaware that this can cause harm either".

Please take care when storing or disposing of this type of battery.

37

Story continues

A company director and a supervisor have been summonsed to court after a boy who became trapped in a lathe at a Greater Manchester factory died.

Apprentice Cameron Minshull, 16, died after the incident at a factory in Huntley Mount Road in Bury in 2013.Director Zaffar Hussain, 59, and supervisor Akbar Hussain, 35, both from Bury, are due before Bury Magistrates' Court on 4 November.

The pair have both been summonsed for manslaughter by gross negligence.

Their firm Huntley Mount Engineering Ltd has also been summonsed to court for corporate manslaughter and for failing to ensure the health, safety and welfare of employees.

Head injury

Cameron, who was also from Bury, in Greater Manchester, had been employed at the company from 3 December 2012.

On 8 January, he suffered a serious head injury and was taken to Wythenshawe Hospital for treatment where he died.

Lime People Training Solutions Ltd, which places apprentices with employers, has been summonsed for failing to ensure the health and safety of a person other than an employee.

A joint Greater Manchester Police and Health and Safety Executive investigation is under way.

Bury's Huntley Mount Engineering accused over apprentice death

38

A horticultural firm, where one man died and three others were seriously injured in a greenhouse explosion, has been ordered to pay an £80,000 fine.

Peter James, 67, was hit on the head by a metal plate while working at Cantelo Nurseries, near Taunton, on 11 May 2010 and died six days later in hospital.

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) found work was not properly planned and employees were not correctly trained. The company pleaded guilty and was also ordered to pay £59,812 in costs.

Taunton Crown Court heard the men were injured in an explosion while emptying a pressurized tank, used to heat greenhouses at the company, which grows organic peppers.

Mr James was hit by a metal hatch cover which flew across the room and three other men standing nearby also suffered severe injuries.

The HSE investigation also found the workers were not properly supervised and at least one of them did not speak English well, making it hard for him to follow instructions.

HSE inspector Christine Haber field, said: "This tragic incident has cost one man his life and changed the lives of many other people forever.

"There were simple, sensible and proportionate steps, such as releasing the pressure in the tanks, that could, and should, have been taken to do the work safely.

"All that was needed was a little thought beforehand to ensure the work was properly planned, carried out by competent people and supervised. Had this been done, this tragedy could have been avoided."

Cantelo Nurseries fined £80,000 for fatal greenhouse blast

39

WISH launches new guidance on waste fires

New guidance that provides advice and standards for the waste and recycling sector on how to reduce fire risk has been issued today.

The Waste Industry Safety & Health (WISH) Forum published the long-awaited guidance after a number of high-profile fires at waste sites, some of which took many months to fully extinguish.Endorsed by the Chief Fire Officers Association, the guidance aims to provide advice and standards for the waste and recycling sector on good and acceptable practice, enabling it to reduce the risk of fire on sites.A cross-industry work group was formed in late 2013 to find solutions after the waste industry recognised that the frequency of fires was too high, that fires may potentially cause harm to people and the environment, and also that they placed a significant burden on the Fire and Rescue Service and other public agencies.The guidance has been devised by leading figures in the waste industry as a tool for the sector to use, and the document draws on the expertise of organisations across the industry and beyond, who participated in the draft guidance consultation.Chair of the cross-industry work group on fire, Geoff Smallwood, said: “Waste management operations pose specific fire risks. To date, there has been no industry-generated guidance that site operators can use to assess whether their sites meet good practice and have in place appropriate controls. The WISH guidance aims to fill this gap and provide waste site operators with the tools and information they need to reduce fire risk.”

“While the release of this guidance is an important milestone in the industry’s fight to reduce fires, we need to recognise that there is still much to be done,” added Chris Jones, chair of the WISH Forum.“We have important tests planned for the coming months to help us to understand the science of waste fires, and there is a need to develop sector-specific guidance to work alongside this umbrella guidance. WISH is looking forward to working with its partners to build on this important start to reducing fires in the industry.”The industry code of practice can be downloaded from the Chartered Institution of Wastes Management website and is split into two parts. Part one defines the scope and the fire risks faced by waste and recycling sites, while part two looks at fire control guidance in four areas: whole site issues; issues in reception; issues during treatment; and storage of waste. Appendices provide recommendations on maximum stack size, accident and emergency plans, and assessing whether you fire control is adequate.www.ciwm.co.uk/wish_web

For additional info please visit http://www.ciwm-journal.co.uk/archives

The following two stories courtesy of SHP

40

Do You Use Lifting Equipment? Avoid a £20,000 Fine!

A North London meat wholesalers was fined over £20,000 last month for operating a fault-ridden 2.5 tonne forklift truck with a forged positive exam report.Now, forging the safety report was obviously extreme behaviour, and we don’t need to even mention to any of our lovely readers what a dumb and dangerous idea that is. But it is worth reminding ourselves how important it is to properly look after all heavy lifting equipment.

Heavy damage, heavy finesJust in August a lorry driver was crushed to death in Stonehaven when a forklift truck dropped its 1.5 tonne load on him. And the company was fined £240,000 for inadequately training the driver. Lifting equipment accidents are serious – and costly!Talking about the North London meat wholesaler, HSE inspector Tahir Mortuza said, “They were required by law to make sure their forklift truck was maintained regularly and properly examined to allow the identification of safety-critical defects. It failed to do this and the vehicle was allowed to deteriorate to the point of being riddled with faults.”So, is any of your equipment riddled with faults? Even a few faults is a few too many.It’s well-worth getting hold of and reading the detailed ‘Safe Use of Lifting Equipment Guide.’ And here is your brief intro to safely using most lifting equipment

Your Intro to LOLER Lifting Equipment

You need to know your (amusingly named) LOLER, which is the Lifting Operations and Lifting Regulations (LOLER) act of 1998.Your main LOLER responsibility is making sure that any on-site lifting equipment exposed to conditions which could deteriorate it (wetness, abrasive, or corrosive environments) is regularly examined by a competent person to make sure it’s fault-free. And make sure any extra tests are carried out as well.

Lifting Equipment info

41

What equipment is LOLER lifting equipment?

Basically any equipment on site which lifts or in any way helps lifting. This includes cranes, construction hoists, workplace lifts (for passengers or goods), dumb waiters, scissors lifts, vehicle tail lifts, vehicle lifts, bath hoists, stair-lifts, industrial lift trucks and telehandlers. Also any slings, hooks, shackles eyebolts and ropes used for work positioning or climbing.

Equipment examination – when, how often, and by whom?

Your ‘competent person’ doing the examinations should be someone with a tonne of experience working with this kind of equipment. And not the same person who does the routine maintenance, because it’s hard to assess your own work accurately.   Someone objective enough to make good decisions, and best of all someone employed by an outside company.When to do it? Examine the equipment before its first use, after every time it’s assembled or moved, many times when it’s being used.

Your Inspection Regime

It’s best and easiest to set up your own thorough inspection regime, which will make it quicker for you to do a top notch job each time.This will give you a detailed checklist to go through, and it should identify the parts of the equipment used for lifting, all the accessories, and a time scale of when the checks have been made and any changes. Review your schedule regularly – a complete and easy safety record for that particular piece of equipment.Take the time to make one, it’s worth the effort! And it’ll keep your workers much safer and your company fine-free.You can go over all this in more detail with this free LOLER guide.

What lifting equipment do you regularly use?

Story continues

42

Drinks company Diageo Scotland Ltd has been fined £18,000 for safety failings after two workers were injured in falls at separate plants in Moray.

Robert Edward, then 51, fell nearly four metres from a portable ladder while clearing a blockage inside a chute in a grain silo at Burghead Maltings in King Street, Burghead, on 1 January 2012.

He was found unconscious on the floor by another worker and taken to hospital with concussion, a cut to his head and a dislocated finger. He had restricted movement in his hand but has returned to work.

Two months later, on 16 March, another worker was injured at Glenlossie Dark Grains Plant in Thomshill, Elgin. Peter Douglas, then 43, was standing on the engine bonnet of a loader shovel to wash the roof when he slipped and fell more than two metres to the ground.

Mr Douglas was taken to hospital suffering from a bleed to the brain and a shattered bone in his left leg. His short term memory has been affected, however he has returned to full-time employment.Elgin Sheriff Court heard on 23 October that an investigation by HSE revealed that Diageo had failed to take sufficient steps to prevent the use of ladders in unsafe circumstances when clearing blockages at Burghead Maltings.

Diageo Scotland Ltd provided platform ladders for access but these were difficult to manoeuvre across the pipes and conveyors covering areas of the silo floor and to get them past the lights and ducting on the ceiling.At the Glenlossie plant, HSE inspectors found that instructions on how to wash the shovel were passed down from one employee to the next during initial training to be a loader shovel operator. There was neither a risk assessment nor any written instructions for the cleaning of the machine as it was assumed by Diageo that this would be done solely from the ground.

Diageo Scotland Ltd, of Lochside Way, Edinburgh Park, Edinburgh, was fined a total of £18,000 after pleading guilty to breaching regulation 6(3) of the Work at Height Regulations 2005 for the Burghead incident, and section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 for the Glenlossie incident.

Following the case, HSE principal inspector Niall Miller, said: “Both of these incidents, which could have proved fatal for the workers involved, could have been avoided had Diageo Scotland Ltd ensured its employees were adequately protected from the risks associated with their jobs.“In both cases Diageo had provided work at height training, which included risk assessment training, and believed their employees should be competent to plan and carry out work at height. However, it is not sufficient for health and safety instructions merely to be given to workers; employers must also ensure those instructions are carried out.”

Drinks firm sentenced after two workers injured

43

Since 1995, the mandatory requirement under the criminal law for construction designers (as employers) to have regard to the consequences of their design decisions on others has been explicit.

The principle behind this is sound: a failure to do so cannot only affect the wellbeing of others (the rationale of the legislation), but can also have a significant financial impact.

Careful pragmatic application of the former can directly benefit the latter, and in good risk management one should not be able to see the join. However, this legal requirement has been fraught with difficulties since it was introduced and it has not realised its potential.

The industry is about to be confronted with the third version of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations (CDM2015) still none the wiser nor, it appears, closer to a resolution.

The nub of the matter is that the legal requirement to eliminate hazard, or mitigate risk, ‘so far as is reasonably practicable’ – the core obligation on designers – is not understood.

How far does a designer go in this regard given the myriad of circumstances which may arise? How much extra cost would be considered reasonable in this endeavour? How do we achieve consistency of approach?

Contractors have worked with this responsibility for many years but they have, in the main, a wealth of advice to illustrate what ‘compliant’ looks like for high-risk and common activities. There is no comparable authoritative advice or example for designers in respect of the specific questions posed above.

This dilemma is a major drag on the design fraternity specifically, and industry generally. Many designers fail to give any serious attention to this matter; many more produce paperwork purporting to satisfy the obligation, but which frequently adds little value. Even those who make serious effort are unable to explain how they determine whether they are compliant.As we approach the third version of CDM, industry deserves an answer.

A construction designer’s dilemma: CDM2015

44

There is a website available which was launched in April on the History of Occupational Safety and Health. Please use the link to view the site http://www.historyofosh.org.uk/

Useful websites

45