Occupational health and safety review 2005

Introduction

This review reports on the work carried out by the Health and Safety Inspectorate in

2005 and provides information on work related accidents and ill health which occurred in

the year.

Prosecutions

2005 saw the highest fine ever imposed by the Royal Court for a health and safety

offence on a local Company, SGB (CI) Limited, who admitted a charge under Article 3(1)

of the Health & Safety at Work (Jersey) Law, 1989. The prosecution of the Company

followed the death of a 23 year old employee on the 20th December 2004, at their

workshop at Rue des Pres Trading Estate, St Saviour, when he was crushed as a result

of the sudden collapse of a vehicle lift. SGB (Channel Islands) Limited were fined

£50,000 with £3,000 costs.

The Royal Court also imposed a fine of £1,000, following the death of a man on the 2nd

July 2004, when he fell from a flat roof of an office building in St Helier. He was

assisting a friend, Dean Philip Ackland, at the time when, it is believed, he walked

backwards off the edge of the roof, falling a distance of over 20’-0”. Mr Ackland admitted

a charge under Article 5(1) of the Health & Safety at Work (Jersey) Law, 1989.

Both these prosecutions resulted from a tragic and unnecessary loss of life which will

leave a lasting impact on the families and friends of the individuals involved.

There were also two other prosecutions in the Royal Court in 2005, both of which

resulted from persons being needlessly exposed to asbestos during construction work.

Julian Smith was fined a total of £6,000 with £2,500 costs, and Francis Dempsey a total

of £10,000 with £2,500 costs, for offences under the Health & Safety at Work (Jersey)

Law, 1989 and Asbestos (Licensing) (Jersey) Regulations, 1997.

The outcome of these prosecutions reinforces the seriousness with which the Royal

Court regards offences under Health and Safety at Work legislation.

In enforcing the Law, the Inspectorate work within their enforcement policy which

identifies that the ultimate purpose of the Health and Safety Inspectorate is to ensure

that persons with duties under the Law manage and control risks effectively. The policy

sets out the response that the Inspectorate will take based on a number of principles

which are taken into account, including taking action which is proportional to the risks to

health and safety, or breach of health and safety law. The enforcement policy can be

accessed at

http://www.gov.je/SocialSecurity/Employment/HSI/Health+and+Safety+Inspectorate/Enforcement+Policy+Statement.htm

Prohibition and Improvement Notices

Inspectors are able to issue legal notices, termed Prohibition Notices, which stop work

where there is a serious risk of injury and Improvement Notices which requires that an

identified breach of health and safety legislation be complied with in a set time period.

In 2005 Inspectors issued 8 Prohibition Notices on issues ranging from the power

washing of pitched roofs in an unsafe manner, the guarding of machinery and the

demolition of redundant refrigeration plant which contained residues of ammonia.

There were also 5 Improvement Notices served during 2005, seeking to improve

arrangements in which employers managed risks to specific health and safety issues

including fork lift truck operation and asbestos.

The work of the Inspectorate

The impact of preparing and supporting prosecutions had a knock on effect on the level

of proactive work that the Inspectorate were able to carry out in 2005, but, nevertheless,

the Inspectorate carried out 833 visits and dealt with over 5158 telephone contacts

during the year, including responding to over 3000 requests for advice. The

Inspectorate is staffed by 3 Inspectors, a Technical and Administrative Officer and part

time administrative support.

The Inspectorate also dealt with 195 complaints in the year. The Inspectorate is not

considered to be an emergency service but will respond in a manner which is

proportionate to the risks involved, with the Inspectorate committed to responding to

95% of complaints within 5 working days. This commitment was met in 2005.

The work of the Inspectorate includes investigating accidents and reports of ill health,

carrying out proactive initiatives and preventative visits, contributing to the Bailiff’s

Entertainment Panel on Public Event Safety and raising awareness and promoting

health and safety.

A fire which engulfed this oxy- acetylene gas cylinder welding set resulted in the evacuation of the neighbouring area because of the threat of an explosion. Advice on the safe use of this type of equipment can be accessed online at http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/indg297.pdf

A supermarket worker suffered a fracture to her leg when an overloaded roll container fell onto her. Advice on the safety of roll containers is available in the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) research report which can be accessed online at http://www.hse.gov.uk/research/rrpdf/rr009.pdf

An employee using a gin wheel was struck by a falling corrugated sheet whilst raising the material which was to be used in the construction of a temporary roof. When using a gin wheel, persons should not stand below the load being lifted and be able to move away from the area should material become dislodged.

.

A farm worker sustained injuries to his hand when his glove was drawn into the machine whilst attempting to clean the machine as it was running. Machinery should always be stopped before such cleaning is carried out.

The overturning of this construction vehicle resulted in a safety campaign, supported by the Inspectorate, by the owners of the equipment, Hewden Hire Express.

Advising on public entertainment, such as the funfair which took place in December 2005, is part of the work carried out by the Inspectorate. The booklet Health and Safety Guidance for Organisers of Public Events can be downloaded from the Inspectorate website www.ess.gov/hsi

Following an accident in which a 14 year old boy suffered a serious neck injury, the Inspectorate issued guidance on the standard of supervision which should be provided for commercial trampoline activities. Advice on the use of trampolines is also available from the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents http://www.rospa.com/playsafety/info/34_trampolines.pdf

Approved Code of Practice on the Management of Exposure to Asbestos in Workplace Buildings and Structures A new Approved Code of Practice made under the Health and Safety at Work

(Jersey) Law 1989, was introduced on the 1st January 2005.

Breathing in asbestos fibres can result in individuals suffering a range of respiratory

diseases including cancer. Asbestos is a material which has been commonly used in

the construction of buildings in Jersey and it was recognised that additional practical

guidance, in the form of an Approved Code of Practice, was required to provide duty

holders with information on the steps that they should take to comply with the legal

requirements set out under the Health and Safety at Work (Jersey) Law, 1989.

The Approved Code of Practice sets out standards not only for the construction industry

that may come into contact with asbestos during maintenance and refurbishment works,

but also those with responsibilities for workplaces. They are required to prepare an

asbestos management plan for the premises which identifies the location of the material

and the way it is managed to reduce the risks of exposure.

The Approved Code of Practice can be accessed online at:-

http://www.gov.je/SocialSecurity/Employment/HSI/Health+and+Safety+Inspectorate/List

+of+Publications/Asbestos+in+Workplace+Buildings.htm

Accident and work related ill health statistics

The new computer system which has been introduced in the Social Security Department

to process claims for benefit, also enables statistics on accidents and work related ill

health to be compiled. This new system provides more flexibility in being able to identify

trends in accidents and work related ill health, which will provide the Inspectorate with

information from which it can carry out further enquiries. The information provided by

the system has already been used by the Inspectorate to review the manner in which

employers were approaching the management of work related health.

The statistics are based on claims which have been paid through the Social Security

Benefit Scheme for 2 days or more off work. 2005 was the first full calendar year that

information on accidents and work related ill health was able to be collated in this

manner, and it is therefore not possible to draw a direct comparison between the

statistics for 2005 and previous years.

In 2005, the total number of work related accidents and ill health recorded through the

Social Security Benefit System was 1226, of which 854 were as a result of accidents and

372 due to ill health. 1059 of the total number of the 1226 were employees, with 256

(24%) of employees working in the construction industry.

The following pie chart shows the main industries in which the 1059 employees were

employed.

Accidents and Ill Health to Employees by Industry

Wholesale/Retail, Repair of Vehicles

and Personal Goods19%

Transport, Storage & Communications

6%

Health and Social Work6%

Hotels & Restaurants

7%

Construction24%

Agriculture & Arboriculture

6%

Public Administration

14%

Figure 1 Classification of accidents and ill health to employees by main industry categories Additional information on accidents and work related ill health On receipt of a claim for benefit, the individual claimant is sent a short questionnaire

seeking additional information. Of the 757 claimants who responded to this request, 434

claims were identified as being due to accidents with 323 due to work related ill health.

Accidents

37% of the 434 accidents on which additional information was provided resulted from

overexertion or strenuous movements, with 25% due to falls, either from a height (14%)

or as a result of slips or trips on the same level (11%). 59% of these accidents resulted

in sprains and strains and 13% resulted in fractures and dislocations

Accident by Cause

Struck by Falling Objects

8%

Falls on Same Level11%

Falls from Heights14%Overexertion or

Strenuous Movements

37%

Caught In or Between Objects

6%

Stepping on, Striking Against or Struck by Objects, Excluding Falling

Objects17%

Figure 2 Major causes of accidents

Accident by Injury

Lacerations and Open Wounds

11%

Fractures and Disclocations

13%

Sprains and Strains

59%

Figure 3 Major categories of injury

Work related ill health

53% of the 323 reports of work related ill health on which additional information was

provided were due to musculoskeletal disorders, a category which includes such issues

as hand arm vibration and work related upper limb disorders. Stress related illness was

identified as the next highest cause of work related ill health with 31%.

Ill Health by Illness

Stress Related31%

Occupational Musculoskeletal

Disorders53%

Figure 4 Main causes of work related ill health

Health and safety - bureaucracy or necessity?

The experiences of the Inspectorate over the year, together with the analysis of work

related accidents and ill health, provide an insight into the effects on individuals that can

result from the poor management of occupational health and safety.

However, “Health and Safety” is a term which, at times, is associated with petty issues,

increasing bureaucracy and burdens on business. The alternative view which is also

expressed is that nobody should ever be exposed to risks from their work, with

prescriptive health and safety legislation in place to cover all areas of employment. As

always, the truth and practical approach is somewhat different from these commonly

held diverse views.

The Red Tape Reform project, aimed at reducing the burden of legislation on business

which was carried out in 2005, did not receive any submissions critical of excess health

and safety legislation. This would appear to reflect the position in Jersey where the

States have, over the years, only supported the introduction of health and safety

legislation which is appropriate for the Island. At present there is one main occupational

health and safety law, the Health and Safety at Work (Jersey) Law, 1989, which contains

the overall general duties placed on all those involved with working activities, with 16

sets of Regulations, which address specific high risk industries such as construction, or

specific known areas of concerns, such as the storage and use of flammable liquids.

Whilst the amount of health and safety legislation that is in force in the Island is

considerably less than in the UK, the main duties under the Health and Safety at Work

(Jersey) Law, 1989, do set out an equivalent standard of health and safety in the

workplace to that in the UK, with the prime responsibility for assessing and controlling

risks placed on those who create them. This responsibility extends to both employers

and employees.

The outcome of work related accidents and illness can have a severe impact on the

individual concerned and their families with recent research carried out by the UK Health

and Safety Executive, (Research report 464 – Identifying and evaluating the social and

psychological impact of workplace accidents and ill-health incidents on employees),

finding that many of those affected will be unable to return to their work, or need a

change of job or role to accommodate their incapacity. There are also likely to be both

immediate and longer term economic consequences. Sadly, these issues are also seen

in Jersey, and it is not difficult to understand the call from those affected for legislation to

require the absence of all risk from the workplace.

In reality, the desire to remove all risk would be impossible to achieve and result in the

business having to close down. Nevertheless, this argument should not be used as an

excuse by those with responsibility in the workplace to justify the need to take no action.

Employers should consider health and safety as an integral part of their business

activity, and actively manage health and safety within the working areas under their

control. This includes the need to evaluate the risks created as part of their activities,

both of their everyday work and future projects.

“Health and safety” should therefore be seen as an important part of everyone’s working

life, with appropriate arrangements in place that are proportionate to ensure that, as far

as possible, no one is exposed to the unnecessary risk of a work related accident or

illness. The statistics and experiences of the Inspectorate demonstrate that everyone

involved with the workplace has much to do to achieve this aim.

Colin Myers MA, Dip Mgmt (Open), CMIOSH Director of Health and Safety